March 29, 2011 | 7:26 PM | By

Lapel cameras are now part of Oakland Police’s uniform

FILED UNDER: Police, =, cameras, Oakland, Oakland Police Department, Viveu

Ali Winston

Oakland Police Captain Ed Tracey holds a Vievu portable camera

At a press conference today, the Oakland Police Department’s command staff announced it would begin equipping officers in West and North Oakland with lapel-mounted video cameras. Last September, we reported OPD’s purchase of 350 portable video cameras from Vievu at a cost of $540,048.

Reporters were shown video from a January 12, 2011 car pursuit. The high-definition footage showed an officer tailing a red car through the Fruitvale with mismatching license plates that turned out to be stolen. After a few minutes of pursuit, the car speeds off with the patrol car in hot pursuit until the stolen car crashes into a parked recreational vehicle.

Captain Ed Tracey, who replaced Ben Fairow as the commander of Area 2 last week, told reporters 40 Vievu units are currently used by officers in West and Central Oakland, and 50 more units will be distributed to patrol officers today. The devices are intended as a transparency tool, to hold officers accountable for their actions during interactions with the public, and to deter false complaints against officers. “It’s also to remind some of our citizens who make frivolous complaints that, hey, you’re being watched,” said Captain Tracey. “It holds accountability at both levels.”

Tracey claimed that patrol officers are receptive to the lapel cameras, referring to one officer who has seen civilian complaints against him drop dramatically since he began wearing the Vievu device. “These officers are selling it to each other,” Tracey said, adding that the aforementioned officer now will not go on patrol without a lapel camera.

The pager-sized video units can either be mounted on the lapel of an officer’s uniform or on the dashboard of a patrol vehicle. Each device has 4 gigabytes of memory and can record up to four hours of video. Officers are required to turn their cameras on when they conduct a traffic or walking stop of a person, or take part in a parole or probation search. Officers must download their video to a computer at OPD headquarters or a substation within a day of the patrol, and cannot edit or manipulate the video. OPD officials say the video will also be used for officer evaluations and will be available to the public via local and state open records laws.

The video recorded by the lapel cameras will be retained for five years.

  • steve rosenberg

    350 cameras at $899.95 each = $314, 982.50

    this begs the question of asking where the remaining $225, 065.50 went?
    also, buying 350 cameras would probably include some kind of discount.

    buy your $899.95 camera here: http://www.vievu.com/products

  • Muttling

    @steve rosenberg
    In a major business or government agency, you don’t just call someone up and buy $314,000 of gear then just give it to your people. There’s costs in competitive bidding, service contracts, training the officers, inventory tracking, and more. You hear regularly about when any of these things goes wrong, but never hear about how it goes right the majority of the time
    .

  • Otter68

    “Tracey claimed that patrol officers are receptive to the lapel cameras, referring to one officer who has seen civilian complaints against him drop dramatically since he began wearing the Vievu device. “These officers are selling it to each other,” Tracey said, adding that the aforementioned officer now will not go on patrol without a lapel camera.”

    I’m sure we’ll see a LOT fewer complaints of abuse. No more his word against mine! I’m sure cops love this! It’s a great idea. Now maybe we’ll see what kind of abuse cops put up with.

  • Btserier95

    there could have been tax depending on where they live

  • Absurd-APP

    I think they should be mandated to have the camera on for the duration of their shift. The ability to simply turn the device off is still an enabler for abusive police officers that will then be able to say, “where is the tape?”

    And at nearly 1550 dollars a piece, for a device that only has a capacity of 4gb? What a rip-off.

  • Mjcoco

    As a government agency, they’re likely sales tax exempt….the additional $225 is probably for items like training, installation, servers, software licensing, support, customization, etc.

  • Jazz Mann

    Every Citizen needs one also when confronted by Police, to prevent their Editing or “missing Two minutes” where they say you fell down the stairs.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NTZPSD3UXV6GEV5YWADOS56IYQ Kar

    I was stopped by a policeman and he patently lied in court that I had avoided a traffic signal. This was in Fraser, Michigan. I contested the traffic ticket. The judge, however, told me before I defended myself that she would put more weight on the policeman’s testimony. I was convicted based on his testimony. A camera would have proved his testimony false. Judges should put equal weight on both police officers and the accused. There have been far too many cases where police officers have fabricated evidence.

  • Kennethbenton

    Fuckin-A its about time! Feel the wrath that is accountability!! I think we need them as well to protect ourselves…

  • Lee

    I know that there have been quite a few instances of citizens recording video of officers during traffic stops and similar encounters, and police have been known to get very hostile when they’re not the ones doing the taping. Strange that when citizens do the recording and have custody of the tape there is cause for so much angst.

    This idea sounds like a great thing, but I suspect it will be primarily used to gain convictions rather than hold officers accountable. Police departments, district attorneys, etc., measure success in gaining convictions, not in serving actual justice.

  • Rachel

    Do the cameras record sound? If so, they are violating CA wiretapping laws – they must have consent of both parties in order to record sound… (Which is why it is illegal to film police arresting someone – if the video is recording sound.) Additionally, any bystander who has a reasonable expectation of that no one is listening in could sue. (See CA Penal Code § 637.2, Flanagan v. Flanagan and California v. Gibbons)

  • 1212knight

    4GB per device per day for 300 officers with a 5 year retention is a lot of storage space…. That’s probably in the total cost provided.

  • Ew_rife

    Yea I guess abussive officers are a REAL problem!!!! Give me a break, stop watching so much TV

  • Anonymous

    Not all cops are bad but all cops have to be good…and that’s the problem.  We have to trust all cops all the time and we can’t.

    This is a great idea.  Cops shouldn’t have anything to hide anyway.  If the camera isn’t on and something happens, the cop should be presumed to have turned off the camera for nefarious reasons.  (Again, we can’t know whether that particular cop is the bad cop or the good cop.)

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like the law needs to be changed then.  And since a cop is a public figure, it’s hard to think of a situation where someone confronted by a cop in uniform wouldn’t think his statements are public.  The only difference between the cop hearing something with his own ears and a recording of it is that the cop’s ears are fallible.  Sound recordings aren’t.