Chairman Goodlatte Floor Statement on House Resolution Supporting the Use of Police Body Cameras

Chairman Goodlatte: I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, and the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for introducing this resolution and commend them for their work on this important issue.

Policing is an inherently dangerous job. Our law enforcement officers deserve our gratitude for the work they do on a daily basis to make sure that our streets are safe, the most helpless in our communities are protected, and those who commit crimes are brought to justice.

I am very concerned that force is used appropriately and that police officers are taking appropriate steps to protect innocent civilians when they make encounters. There is increasing unrest in our urban communities about policing. Protests in Ferguson, Missouri, New York City, and in Baltimore were the outgrowth of the use of force by police officers stopping a suspect.

I am also concerned with the repeated targeting of our police and law enforcement personnel. Last week, a terror suspect believed to be plotting to behead a police officer was killed in a confrontation with Boston police.  Last month, two police officers were killed by criminals hoping to become cop killers. Officers Deen and Tate, responding to a routine traffic stop in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, were gunned down by a group of five men. This comes on the heels of the more widely known murders last year of Officers Ramos and Liu in New York, who were reportedly targeted by a man looking to kill a police officer.

It is clear that we must find a better way for our police and citizens to interact both in everyday situations, and when more difficult circumstances arise. In May, the Judiciary Committee held a very informative and productive hearing on Policing in the 21st Century where we looked at many of these issues, including the use of body worn cameras by police officers.

Body worn cameras present an opportunity to strengthen police and citizen interactions. But there are many issues surrounding the use of body worn cameras that should be addressed by legislators, law enforcement, and the general public before Congress or state legislatures mandate wide-spread use of this technology.

We must be cognizant of the costs and resources associated not just with outfitting officers with body worn cameras but with the regulations, training, and compliance associated with their use.  We should also be aware of the costs and privacy implications associated with storing the footage of body worn cameras.  Police routinely interact with crime victims, including minors, and members of the general public.  Would all of these interactions be recorded and stored by law enforcement agencies? For how long? Who would have access to this information?  For instance, could it be obtained in a civil suit, a divorce or custody case, or as part of a Freedom of Information Act request?

If an officer exercises his or her discretion to turn off a camera, it is possible the courts would impose an adverse inference against the government if a defendant then argued that something improper happened while the camera was not filming.  The courts could also impose an adverse inference if there is a technical or storage glitch that interferes with taping or access to the video. 

Society must also decide if it wants this technology recording us on a constant basis. Last week, the President signed the House-passed USA Freedom Act into law, which ended bulk metadata collection by the NSA. We should exercise caution before mandating use of a technology that has the potential to gather and store information about Americans – many of them innocent civilians – based simply on a person’s interaction with a police officer. 

Body worn police cameras can serve an important purpose in improving interactions between law enforcement and the general public and be a valuable source of evidence of wrongdoing.  But we as lawmakers and as a society must ensure that this technology is used appropriately. We have achieved this before when addressing the use of police dashboard cameras. But we must now do so again in a situation that is potentially much more intrusive.

Several police departments have already begun using body worn cameras and various pilot programs are also underway.  Their successes and pitfalls will be instructive as we explore expanded use of this technology. I once again thank the gentleman from Texas for his work on this resolution and also applaud the work of our law enforcement officers nationwide. 

I reserve the balance of my time.