Call Now  (713) 227-4444 Email Us Hablamos
Español

Neal Davis Blog

  • About
    • Neal Davis
    • Tyler Brock
    • Andrew Jordan
    • Hiring An Attorney
  • Expertise
    • Criminal Defense
    • Sex Crime Defense
    • Child Pornography
    • Child Solicitation
    • Drug Possession
    • White Collar Crimes
    • Shoplifing/Theft
    • DWI
    • Murder Defense
    • Assault & Family Violence
    • Title IX Defense
  • Results
  • Reviews
  • Press
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Criminal Defense Guides
    • Scholarships
Home / Firm News / Neal Davis Law Scholarship Essay Contest Winner:“Are Law Enforcement Body Cameras an Invasion of Privacy?”

Neal Davis Law Scholarship Essay Contest Winner:
“Are Law Enforcement Body Cameras an Invasion of Privacy?”

October 18, 2017

scholarship essay contest winner

Back in May, we announced our Neal Davis Law scholarship essay contest centered around the following question:

“Are law enforcement body cameras an invasion of privacy?”

We were thrilled to receive 250 essays from students all over the country hoping to win the $1,000 scholarship prize. There were so many great submissions, and we thank each and every one the applicants for your entries.

But a winner must be chosen.

So without further ado, we’re proud to announce that Mike Riley is the winner of our scholarship essay contest!

Mike Riley is a captain with the City of Asheville (NC) Fire Department. He recently began his first year of graduate school at the University of Alabama and is returning to school to complete a master’s degree in Family Financial Planning & Counseling. He plans to continue his career as a firefighter and use his degree to help firefighters and other first responders plan for their future and enjoy a secure retirement.

Here’s Mike’s winning essay response to the question of whether or not police body cameras are an invasion of privacy:

“I would argue that in the majority of instances, law enforcement body cameras do not constitute an invasion of privacy. Historically, incidents in which law enforcement officers made contact with members of the public were not recorded. In a court of law, a judge or jury had to rely on the testimony of the officer and compare it to the testimony of a defendant. Today, body cameras worn by officers can provide an impartial, accurate account of events that can be used to corroborate or refute a person’s version of the event. Body camera recordings can support an officer’s testimony or legitimize complaints of officer misconduct.

In our increasingly surveilled society, avoidance of video recording from any source (traffic cameras, security cameras, etc.) is difficult. Recording devices are pervasive, and a prudent member of society should assume that they are being recorded in many facets of their lives. Thus, it is reasonable to also assume that any interaction they have with a law enforcement officer is being recorded.

Since the cameras are body-worn, they only have the potential to record situations in which law enforcement officers are already physically present. If an officer is present, it is reasonable to assume that the expectation of privacy is already diminished. In cases where a call to 911 is made, the officer has been de facto invited into a home by the occupant who called for help. In other situations, the officer’s presence is legitimized by a warrant or probable cause. In a given situation, if the officer’s presence is legal, then the camera simply acts to document the interaction, and does not further diminish privacy. In these situations, a reasonable person should expect the same amount of privacy regardless of whether a body camera is present.

Of course, there are exceptions to this argument. If an officer is in a situation in which they may inadvertently record private subject matter, such as in a public restroom during a meal break, then their camera should not be recording. Likewise, recording the identities of those who wish to remain anonymous – crime victims, informants, eyewitnesses, etc. – should be considered an invasion of privacy and avoided.

Depending on the policy of the law enforcement organization, body cameras could also be considered an invasion of privacy of the officer wearing the camera. If an organization mandates continuous recording during an officer’s shift, that officer may feel like he or she has to censor their casual conversations. This is especially important if the officer is speaking to another officer, a union representative, a friend, or a family member about concerns he or she has about his or her supervisor or the organization. The supervisor or organization could theoretically review the recording and retaliate against that officer. As such, officers should not be required to record during breaks, down time, meals, or other non-public interaction.

If a law enforcement agency intends to use a recording to support an officer’s or citizen’s account of an event, then it is only ethical to record the entire event nonstop to obtain an accurate portrayal. A policy that requires continuous recording during every public contact an officer makes, as well as during all calls for service (emergency and non-emergency) should be mandatory for all organizations using body cameras. Individual officers should not have the authority to determine which parts of an encounter are recorded. This would serve as an important check to protect citizens from officer misconduct. In the same vein, it would also help exonerate officers from any false claims of abuse.

Additionally, because a citizen cannot have the expectation of privacy in the presence of a body camera, it is important for a law enforcement agency to not expect privacy with the recordings they make. Subjects of law enforcement recordings should have the opportunity to view any recordings in which they appear, especially if the recording will be used against them in a court of law.

In conclusion, the benefits of body cameras worn by law enforcement officers outweigh most concerns of perceived invasions of privacy. The cameras themselves do not diminish a subject’s privacy any further than an officer’s presence already does. Body cameras are important tools in obtaining accurate information, although their use requires that stringent, ethical policies are developed and adhered to.”

A big thanks to Mike and everyone who submitted for your wonderful essays!

Did you miss our last scholarship essay contest, or would you like to apply again?

We’re excited to announce our next $1,000 scholarship essay contest (due January 12, 2018) with the following essay prompt:

“Do mandatory minimum sentences make the U.S. safer or more dangerous?”

Access the scholarship contest application to submit your answer, or visit our website to learn more about the application requirements.

If you have any other questions concerning the contest, essay requirements or the selection process, feel free to contact us.

Good luck!

Related Resources

  • Ex-Texas Police Chief Convicted of Bribery, Mail Fraud
    Ex-Texas Police Chief Convicted of Bribery, Mail Fraud
  • Students Answer: What Are the Largest Challenges to the Criminal Justice System?
    Students Answer: What Are the Largest Challenges to the…
  • White-Collar Fraud, Theft Can Bring Years in Prison
    White-Collar Fraud, Theft Can Bring Years in Prison
5-star review image
He focused on listening and helping, not just explaining his fees
Sex Crimes  |  Houston
Client needed representation for a child sex abuse case that was complex and needed an attorney who understood the full extent of the law.
2015-10-29
"Neal represented our son and the case against him was dismissed, while other attorneys we consulted primarily focused ..."
Father of Juvenile Client I.Z., Verified Customer
5-star review image
My drug case was dismissed thanks to their investigation!
Drug Offenses  |  Houston
Client was looking for a drug offense attorney that would investigate the arresting officers and process of the arrest that was in question.
2016-07-01
"When your attorney enters the courtroom, don't you want to stand out from all the rest? I know ..."
J.B., Verified Customer
5-star review image
Muy satisfechos con su trabajo
Online Solicitation  |  Conroe
Dismissal of two online charges
2018-01-05
"Estamos muy satisfechos con su representacion en el caso de nuestro sobrino. Siempre obtuvimos respuestas a todas nuestras ..."
Tia de J.C., Verified Customer

Categories

  • Child Pornography & Online Solicitation
  • Community
  • Criminal Defense
  • Drug Crimes
  • Federal Crimes
  • Firm News
  • Intoxication Offenses
  • Sex Crimes
  • Violent Crimes
  • White Collar Crime

Search

Criminal Defense Court Process

FREE E-BOOK

Learn all about the legal process and your legal rights.

Get Your Free Copy Now

Board Certified, Criminal Law – Texas Board of Legal Specialization (2009-2021), AV Rated by Martindale Hubbell (2015), and listed as a Best Lawyer in America (2015-2022)

He doesn't give up, no matter what you're up against
M.F.
5-star review image
Got my life back
K.W.
5-star review image
Muy satisfechos con su trabajo
Tia de J.C.
5-star review image

Read All Reviews

    Contact Our Law Firm




    We respect your privacy. The use of this form does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

    Address
    Neal Davis Law Firm
    The Heights Boulevard Law Building
    1545 Heights Blvd., Suite 700
    Houston, TX 77008

    Map

    Call 24/7
    (713) 227-4444

    Office Hours
    Monday - Saturday
    8:00 AM to 6:00 PM

    Sunday: Closed


    Experienced Criminal Defense Law Firm in Texas

    While based in Houston, our law firm provides knowledgeable representation and comprehensive legal services for individuals throughout Texas, including:


    Location

    Harris County:

    Houston, Pasadena, Baytown

    Montgomery County:

    Conroe, The WoodlandsWillis, Pinehurst

    Fort Bend County:

    Sugar Land, Richmond, Needville, Cinco Ranch


    Your Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer: Neal Davis


    A principle of the American criminal justice system is that all defendants are "innocent until proven guilty." Houston criminal defense attorney Neal Davis and his skilled legal team represent individuals accused of committing crimes. For over 20 years, Neal Davis has successfully defended clients in Texas and federal courts in all types of criminal matters at all phases, from state misdemeanors to complex federal matters. Often, he has favorably resolved criminal cases quickly and quietly, without the need for trial.


    The Neal Davis Law Firm defends the rights of individuals charged with all types of state crimes, including drug offenses , child sex crimes, online solicitation of a minor , child pornography, DWI and intoxication manslaughter, fraud and theft, assault and family violence, and murder and homicide, as well as all types of federal crimes.


    Board Certified, Criminal Law – Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Serving all of counties and federal courts across Texas, including Harris County (Houston), Montgomery County (Conroe), Galveston County and Fort Bend County (Richmond). Enjuris Texas personal injury guide

    © 2023 Neal Davis Law Firm, PLLC. All rights reserved. Law Firm Online Marketing by SEO Advantage, Inc.


    Legal Information

    The information and materials on this website are provided for general informational purposes only, and are not intended to be legal advice. We attempt to provide quality information, but the law changes frequently, and varies from place to place. The information and materials provided are general in nature, and may not apply to a specific factual or legal circumstance. An attorney and client relationship should not be implied. Nothing on this website is intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney; therefore, if you require legal advice, please consult with a competent attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Every case is different and individual results may vary depending on the facts of a case.