The Louisville Metro Police Department policy calling for regular, random audits of officer-worn body cameras is a tough pill to swallow for the head of the local police union.
Sgt. David Mutchler, president of the River City Fraternal Order of Police, said he considers the reviews unnecessary and a burden on supervisors, who as of this week will be required to document the audits in a "review log."
"I don't understand the point," he said.
The point of the audits, according to the police department policy, is to ensure officers are following protocol and to assess overall officer performance.
Police Chief Steve Conrad said department officials depend on the reviews to help gauge officer performance.
Body cameras are viewed by some as a critical tool to help increase transparency by documenting incidents between police and citizens. They also provide visual and audio information that can serve as crucial evidence during investigations.
Police departments across the country are beginning to outfit officers with body cameras as tensions between police and communities weaken in the wake of multiple fatal police shootings and use-of-force incidents against people of color.
In Louisville, the department's nearly $3 million body camera program began rolling out in mid-2015. The cameras came with fanfare and praise for their promise to decrease citizen complaints and increase transparency.
Experts, activists and Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer consider the random reviews a crucial element of transparency.
While Mutchler dismisses the need for the reviews in general, he also takes issue with how they're conducted.
Conrad said the reviews are done by "first line supervisors," which, in most cases, are division-level sergeants, he said.
That irks Mutchler. He said allowing an officer's direct supervisor to conduct the review can "breed mistrust."
"It feels like big brother," he said, likening the practice to George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984."
Another View From a Former FOP Leader
Metro Councilman David James, a former Louisville police officer and one-time president of the local police union, disagrees with Mutchler.
He said it's important for the transparency of the program and the public trust to have supervisors "looking over the shoulders" of officers.
"To make sure they're doing what they supposed to be doing and treating the citizens with respect," he said.
There is debate over whether supervisors should have authority to conduct random reviews of officer-worn body camera footage, according to the Police Executive Research Forum, an independent nonprofit police research and policy organization.
In 2014, the organization published a study with recommendations for implementing body camera programs. The nearly 100-page study was sponsored by the Community Oriented Police Services of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The authors interviewed 40 police executives from across the country and held a one-day conference with more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, representatives from federal criminal justice agencies and other experts to discuss the policy and operational issues surrounding body-worn cameras.
Louisville Metro Police Major Robert Schroeder attended the one-day conference, the study shows.
The authors concluded that random reviews of body-worn camera footage should be conducted by internal audit units, rather than officers' direct chain of command "to avoid undermining the trust between an officer and his or her supervisor."
The study does include instances in which supervisors may need to review body camera footage, however. These include during the investigation of complaints, the evaluation of officers on probation and when specific officers have a pattern of misconduct allegations.
LMPD policy calls on supervisors to review footage during these same instances.
