Daubertstandard

Another disadvantage of using body-worn cameras for police officers is their high cost. When introducing new technologies to work, some U.S. law enforcement agencies “have faced serious fiscal challenges of running body camera programs” (Laming, 2019, p. 209). Many regional police stations do not have enough funding and resources to provide BWCs for officers. Moreover, in addition to the high cost of the equipment itself, its maintenance and work with recorded video materials also require investments. Therefore, the potential costs of implementing BWCs in the creation of law enforcement agencies should be calculated in the long term.

Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases have clarified the Daubert Standard. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that an appellate court may still review whether a trial court abused its discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony.

Under the Daubert Standard, the trial court considers the following factors to determine whether the expert’s methodology is valid:

Daubert vs Fryecase summary

In addition to reducing law enforcement violence rates, the use of cameras positively affects other indicators of performance. It increases the transparency and understanding of police activities for the public, which, according to Kim et al. (2020), leads to improved “job performance and community relations” (p. 292). Moreover, building relationships with citizens enhances the reputation and level of public trust in law enforcement agencies. In addition, the presence of control contributes to improving the quality of work performed. Laming (2019) says that the use of technology has increased the motivation and interest of police officers in their work by guaranteeing the safety of employees. Consequently, the use of body-worn cameras has a positive effect on working performance and contributes to an increase in crime detection.

In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that the Daubert Standard may apply to non-scientific testimony, meaning "the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists."  Along with Daubert, these cases are often referred to as the “Daubert Trilogy.” Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was modified based on these cases.

Daubert vsMerrell Dow Pharmaceuticals summary

The Daubert case introduced a more comprehensive approach that requires judges to scrutinize not only the expert's methodology but also the underlying scientific principles. This shift aimed to curtail the admission of pseudoscientific or unreliable expert testimony. Judges are required to assess the methodology and reasoning behind an expert's opinions, rather than simply relying on the expert's credentials or reputation.

The “Daubert Standard” provides a systematic framework for a trial court judge to assess the reliability and relevance of expert witness testimony before it is presented to a jury. Established in the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), this standard transformed the landscape of expert testimony by placing the responsibility on trial judges to act as "gatekeepers" of scientific evidence.

When was the concept of forensic science first noted where

In addition, several technical challenges arise during the use of BWCs. Firstly, it is related to the camera itself, which includes video quality, dead battery, damage to the device, probability of the lens overlap, and other technical features. That imposes additional responsibilities on law enforcement officers, which consist of the need to monitor the correct operation of the equipment. Secondly, there are often issues with the “storage and retention of body camera footage” (Laming, 2019, p. 208). The biggest problem is the preservation and protection of information from cyberattacks, copying, deletion, or editing of materials. Moreover, this creates the need for additional control of corruption in law enforcement agencies.

Daubertruling

DemoEssays. (2024, February 12). Advantages and Disadvantages of Police Body-Worn Cameras. https://demoessays.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-police-body-worn-cameras/

Kim, D.-Y., Phillips, S. W., & Gramaglia, J. A. (2021). The relationship between general policing attitudes and how officers perceive the potential advantages of body cameras. Journal of Crime and Justice, 44(3), 275-296. Web.

Law enforcement agencies are actively using technology to optimize their work. One such technological innovation is body-worn cameras (BWCs). BWCs have some benefits, including reducing violent police behavior toward citizens and guaranteeing additional evidence. However, body-worn cameras have shortcomings that cause concerns among the public and the law enforcement agencies themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of BWCs to determine how beneficial their use is for the police.

Fryestandard

"Advantages and Disadvantages of Police Body-Worn Cameras." DemoEssays, 12 Feb. 2024, demoessays.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-police-body-worn-cameras/.

DemoEssays. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Police Body-Worn Cameras." February 12, 2024. https://demoessays.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-police-body-worn-cameras/.

The Daubert Standard supplanted the Frye Standard, which focused primarily on the general acceptance of scientific evidence within a particular field. See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). While some state courts still adhere to the Frye Standard, the Daubert Standard is used in all federal courts.

While there are many benefits to using BWCs, it also causes some issues. The most significant number of concerns is the issue of confidentiality for both citizens and the police themselves. Laming (2019) states that “body cameras can capture a great deal of activity involving individuals who may be vulnerable or in vulnerable positions” (p. 207). The use of these technologies poses a threat to the safety of citizens and may cause victims and witnesses to refuse to testify to the police. Moreover, most cameras record throughout the entire period of work, which violates the officers’ privacy. Some BWCs give police officers the ability to turn the device off and on when needed. However, according to Laming (2019), in this case, there is a possibility that the officer may forget to turn on the camera. That will make it impossible to obtain the necessary evidence from the scene if necessary.

1. DemoEssays. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Police Body-Worn Cameras." February 12, 2024. https://demoessays.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-police-body-worn-cameras/.

Frye vs Daubertquizlet

Daubert vs Fryevenn diagram

DemoEssays. 2024. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Police Body-Worn Cameras." February 12, 2024. https://demoessays.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-police-body-worn-cameras/.

Another benefit is the ability to use recordings from BWCs as evidence in court. Such evidence can significantly speed up the trial as they are irrefutable factors supporting the case (Laming, 2019). The secure access to camera recordings minimizes the possibility of editing materials, which makes them reliable evidence. In addition, the use of this evidence does not require permission from the people present, which makes the materials more accessible.

One of the main benefits of police wearing body cameras is to control and improve interactions between law enforcement and citizens. According to the National Institute of Justice (2022), “the use of body-worn cameras resulted in a statistically significant reduction in both complaints and use of force” (para. 15). Video recording forces police and citizens to be more restrained when interacting with each other. Moreover, video “footage can be a source of transparency for an officer’s law enforcement actions, which eventually protect his/her career” (Kim et al., 2020, p. 291). Such video evidence is one of the critical factors in understanding situations and decisions taken by police officers in stressful situations. Therefore, they can be used for internal investigations related to complaints of police incompetence or abuse of authority.

To challenge expert testimony as inadmissible under the Daubert Standard, opposing counsel may bring a pretrial motion, including a motion in limine.  Usually, a motion attacking the admissibility of expert testimony will be brought after the close of discovery, with a hearing held prior to trial.

Thus, the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies has a positive impact on their productivity and efficiency. That improves the quality of interaction between police officers and citizens and increases the level of trust in them. Furthermore, video footage can be used as irrefutable evidence, speeding up court proceedings. However, the use of BWCs is subject to privacy concerns and related technical challenges. In addition, introducing these technologies into law enforcement agencies requires considerable financial resources, which agencies often do not have.