Are body-worn cameras a remedy to police use of force or a really expensive way to record police assaults?
In response to police violence against protestors in the summer of 2020 and the murder of George Floyd, the United States Department of Justice proposed the Portland Police Bureau use body-worn cameras as a remedy to the city’s violation of the settlement agreement in U.S. DOJ v. City of Portland. The federal case came after an investigation revealed Portland police officers have a pattern and practice of using excessive force against people who are, or are perceived to be, in a mental illness crisis.
In December, the Mental Health Alliance held a virtual Town Hall to learn from local and national experts about the benefits and limits of body-worn cameras .
The Alliance is amicus curiae — a friend of the court — in U.S. DOJ v City of Portland, a long-running courtroom drama, along with the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition for Justice and Police Reform. Four organizations — and many individuals — make up the Alliance and represent the interests of people with mental illness in court — Disability Rights Oregon, the Oregon Justice Resource Center, Portland Interfaith Clergy Resistance, and the Mental Health Association of Portland.
What we heard from community members who attended the Town Hall was deep mistrust and suspicion of both the Portland police and city hall leadership. From experts, we heard body-worn cameras could be used to hold officers accountable for their actions, for criminal prosecution, or for training and supervision. We heard cameras might — or might not — deter police use of force. We heard they could be very expensive and/or difficult to manage. Finally, we heard about a myriad of privacy issues that arise in making, storing, and sharing the recordings.
What we did not hear from either community members or experts was how body-worn cameras could stop individual officers from using force against people with real or perceived mental illness. Not from experts, not from lawyers, not from advocates and not from concerned citizens. That’s not what cameras do.
“The Urban League of Portland was initially a proponent of having our police force wear body-worn cameras as a means of transparency and accountability,” said Jennifer Parrish Taylor of the Urban League of Portland. “But due to a range of research studies finding no evidence that body cameras reduce police use of force, we now caution Portland against adopting new body camera programs. It is not the best use of the city’s limited resources,”
“For the ACLU and myself, [the] end goal is justice,” said Kelly Simon, legal director of ACLU Oregon. “What is justice? Is justice capturing the death of Quanice Hayes on camera or is justice that Quanice Hayes is at this Town Hall? … The research has shown us so far that body-worn cameras do not prevent police misconduct. I want us to not forget that.”
“But due to a range of research studies finding no evidence that body cameras reduce police use of force, we now caution Portland against adopting new body camera programs. It is not the best use of the city’s limited resources.”
— Jennifer Parrish Taylor, Urban League of Portland
Alliance members have lived the experience of mental illness, either ourselves or through a close family member, and we are concerned the remedy proposed by the U.S. DOJ — and not something directly related, like internal discipline or charges in criminal court - entirely sidesteps the U.S. DOJ’s primary mission in this settlement agreement. The conversation about body-worn cameras might be worthy, but does not address reducing harmful contact between the police and people with mental illness.
Also incredibly concerning to members of the Alliance is the absence of benefit to the persons identified as harmed by the U.S. DOJ investigation — people who are, or are perceived to be, in a mental illness crisis. This month, a new expansive section of the federal case was affirmed by Portland City Council — including body-worn cameras — but none of it relevant to people with mental illness. It seems the longer the case goes, the less it benefits those who were originally harmed or killed while in a mental illness crisis.
Let’s look at the alarming intersection between mental illness and policing. Since city council originally agreed to the settlement in 2015, by our count, all people shot and wounded, shot and killed, or who died in the custody of the Portland police, were, or were perceived to be, experiencing a mental illness crisis. One. Hundred. Percent. Sadly, that pattern and practice has not decreased despite the thousands of hours spent in court and in Zoom meetings, in police training, marching in the street, in policy conversations, or writing newspaper commentaries until our fingers bleed.
From both common sense and our lived experience, the most effective way to reduce police misuse of force against people in crisis is to limit contact between the two. Reducing contact between police and people in crisis is a complex conversation, worthy of comprehensive planning and policy change, but is not being heard in this Federal court, in our city hall, in Portland Police Bureau training or by those unhappy with police conduct.
Here’s the problem: we’ve asked and expected police to intervene in mental illness crises for decades. Oregon’s mental illness system is drastically overburdened and severely under-funded, so even though there are now some better trained and better equipped people to respond, we still send police as first responders to almost all mental illness crises.
Police are trained to “Ask, Tell, Make,” and escalate commands to force to gain quick compliance. They do not have a viable strategy to retreat or de-escalate. People in crisis are often incapable - because of the symptoms of their illness - to de-escalate their behavior, to comply with commands - and often do the opposite. For a person in a mental illness crisis resistance is often a natural reaction. The result is routine conflict which too often results in lethal force.
And now we’ll have body-worn cameras to record these assaults.
Let’s not be distracted, confused or dismissive of the continued pattern and practice by Portland Police Bureau officers of using force against people with mental illness. This new technology may or may not improve accountability, or prosecutions, or be used in training, but it will not stop police officers from using force against people with mental illness.
Jennifer Parrish Taylor summed up our thoughts about how to remedy police excessive use of force in a broader sense, stating, “Continuing to fund the police department at the rate we have historically is a question of our values and what we would like to invest our resources in so that our city is a more just and liveable place for all where families can not only survive, but thrive.”
Rabbi Ariel Stone leads the Portland Interfaith Clergy Resistance and Amanda Marshall, JD is a member of the board of the Mental Health Association of Portland; both are members of the Mental Health Alliance.
Street Roots is an award-winning weekly publication focusing on economic, environmental and social justice issues. The newspaper is sold in Portland, Oregon, by people experiencing homelessness and/or extreme poverty as means of earning an income with dignity. Street Roots newspaper operates independently of Street Roots advocacy and is a part of the Street Roots organization. Learn more about Street Roots. Support your community newspaper by making a one-time or recurring gift today.
© 2022 Street Roots. All rights reserved. | To request permission to reuse content, email editor@streetroots.org or call 503-228-5657, ext. 404.
