Unforeseen costs could hinder far-flung use of body cameras

There were three stories in Mon- day’s Vindicator relating to body cameras worn by police that provide varying perspectives for what has been touted as a crucial part of the campaign by local, state and federal governments to improve relations and build trust between law enforcement and the populace — especially members of the minority communities.

President Barack Obama, responding to the tensions around the country in the aftermath of the killings of blacks by police in Ferguson, Mo., New York City and Cleveland and Beavercreek, Ohio, announced a $263 million initiative that not only would provide 50,000 body-worn cameras (at a cost of $75 million) but expand training for law-enforcement agencies, add more resources for police department reforms, encourage successful community-policing philosophies and multiply the number of cities where the U.S. Department of Justice involves itself directly in police-community relations.

But even without the coaxing of the White House, local law-enforcement agencies around the country have been evaluating their own programs to determine if they are adequate in dealing with the issue of race relations.

No mayor or police chief wants to respond to the kind of violent reaction that consumed Ferguson after the killing of Michael Brown six months ago. Thus, many communities are being proactive — by arming their police with body cameras.

One of the stories in Monday’s paper had the city of Canfield’s police department seeking money from the general fund to buy body- cameras for use by patrol officers this summer.

But City Manager Joe Warino raised an issue that has become a topic of discussion nationwide.

“My biggest concern with [body cameras] is, do we have enough space” to store the large amount of audio recordings and video footage generated by the body cams.

Police Chief Chuck Colucci has proposed building an extension onto the police headquarters, but Warino noted that this year’s budget is “a little tighter” than last year’s.

The second story in Monday’s paper had to do with the city of Cleveland going all in with body cameras, with a large enough purchase to enable it to assign a camera to every one of the 1,450 members of the police department, including Chief Calvin Williams.

12-year-old victim

There are guidelines for their use, but Cleveland officials believe the cameras will go a long way toward rebuilding the trust that was shattered with the shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

Finally, there was a story on the business news page that focuses on the long-term cost of the community outreach.

The piece, based on a review by the Associated Press of cities around the country that have armed their police with body cameras, offers this conclusion: Local governments will be saddled with steep costs for managing the volumes of footage they must keep for months or even years.

The storage expenses will run into the millions of dollars in some cities, the wire service reported.

While the federal government requires local communities to match the grants from Washington to purchase the cameras, there has been little discussion about the “unseen” costs of the image-building program.

The Obama administration must find a way to help locals pay for storage of the footage. Otherwise, many cities will follow Baltimore’s lead and put a hold on their programs until they can come up with funding sources for the long term.