Cameras In Police Cars: Right Concept, Wrong Price
By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of L.A.Should we have video cameras in police cars? Sure! It will create a much better evidentiary record in cases where someone claims force was used unjustifiably, or probable cause was lacking, or whatever.
So should the City Council approve a proposal to spend $5 million to put cameras in 300 cars as a pilot project?
Well, let's start by doing the math: how much is that per car? If you divide $5 million by 300 cars, you see we would be paying . . . $16,667 per car.
Is your whole CAR worth $16,667? Mine's borderline.
That's too much, way too much, especially when you consiider that these cameras would be mounted in the cars. They would not follow an officer down an alley during a chase on foot. That's fine for traffic stops, but not much more.
So I've got two alternatives the City should consider:
The first, suggested by Doug McIntyre this morning on KABC 790, is to get private enterprise to pay for the cameras in exchange for the rights to the resulting video. That may sound silly, but, assuming the video footage was still subject to whatever privacy and publicity rights individuals have, why not? The show "Cops" has been around forever, so there's presumably an audience.
The second alternative is from yours truly, namely, shop around for cameras that the police can wear without much trouble, ideally with a night vision adjustment. For about $49, plus another $50 to get a 2 gigabyte chip, you can purchase a "Tony Hawks Helmet Camera." I got one of these for kicks, and wore it while motorcycling. It wasn't a bad picture at all; certainly good enough for evidentiary purposes. And it weighs nothing. Police could wear it on their hats.
The main thing, though, is that we must not rubber-stamp a $5 million purchase order merely because we like the idea of cameras in police cars.
Posted by Walter Moore @ 3/20/2007 08:17:00 AM
10 Comments:
I agree. Good concept but watch the cost. A brief article I read noted:
"The city will spend about $5-million to install the first cameras in 300 cars. Within four years all 1,600 patrol cars citywide are expected to have the equipment."
So, at least according to this article, the 5 mill covers only the first 300 cars, not all 1600. If so, this reminds me of the $7 hammers the feds paid $436 for back in the 80s. Then again, the taxpayers have bottomless pockets.
And once again, I suppose we must also ask the obligatory, "who owns the camera company, and to whom did they contribute?"
This seems to be an extreme excess in expenditures, more than needed to be effective, perhaps 'splurging'. It is beyond the scope to think that this type of added protection would cost so much for the minimal amount of provided service.
Cameras are just about placed on everything from pens, phones, laptops, and outdoor mountings that the cost is basically not a real issue to integrate in many applications. Come on now, in vehicles, that is alomst a primative idea. They have been placed in vehicles for over 15 years now, and we are expected to believe this is such an advanced technology that we have to pay 10,000 times the value for safety.
With this is mind, we can still save the remaining $4 million and really do something about improving safety...(HIRE POLICE)
The idea of hiring an independant agent to work in relation with the L.A.P.D. seems practicle for recording all activities. Keep in mind that you are also placing these additional personal in harms way. I would suggest not to go that route.
Of course we~~~~>(the people) know that over 60% of the $$$$$ is pocket money, just put it in the pockets of real service. 'OFFICERS'
Must I wait until another $25 million is spent to fit all police vehicles before our city crys that they are under funded to provide public safety. Hey I have some investment strategies that should be implemented so we can prove to the country that Los Angeles is truely the capitol of the world.
Why do cities like Palm Springs, the Silicone Valley, and the Bay cities move foward on an advantage as our city just watches and takes a passive role, we need to save our planet and cameras just won't cut it. At this price I am already asking for a refund.
Give Zuma a bonus, pitch in the WM campaign, throw a party in all 15 districts for summer, buy all (1600) cameras for every police car and pick up an extra 500 for future expansion, send council to the NBA Finals, hire the Officers needed and invest the remaining $3.75 million in the California Fuel Cell Partnership. By the year 2020 that investment stands a chance to grow to over $20 million to be allocated for the youth services, gang problems, street and sidewalk repairs, and community projects that get turned down now for the same old reason......'NO MULAH $$$'
FINANCIAL ADVISOR RHR
ROSE HILLS REVIEW,
ANTHONY MANZANO
Men, men, men you are all so wrong. Do you not think the dept. and city investigated this thoroughly for a very long time? You bet your ass they did. A lot of companies gave bids and cost of equipment. If the city decides to go cheap on this the officers in the field will have the same problem they're having with their radios. Sometimes if they are chasing a suspect and its in a bad area no one can hear them.If they need back up and are in a bad area no one can hear them. Its an officer safety issue and because the city went cheap our officers are paying the price. I say you get what you pay for and $5 mil for the top of the line high tech cameras is way better use of money then waiting for some idiot suspect make a bogus lawsuit against an officer who doesn't have a video to show the truth.
Well $16,667 per car (or anything close to this) better be top of the damn universe!
Sounds like another case of "taxpayer, assume the position."
This is so funny I thought you should read to believe. Laura Chick N Shit acting like a premadonna auditing and look what Bitter Bernie has to put in a motion to tell these morons to collect money that is due the city.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT relative to an examination of the City’s processes
to collect debt due to the City.
Recommendations for Council action, pursuant to Motion (Parks - Smith): 1. INSTRUCT the City Administrative Officer (CAO), Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), with the assistance of the Controller, Treasurer, and the Director of Finance to examine the City’s processes to collect all debt due to the City via direct payment, litigation or any other mechanism, as applicable.
07-0467
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT relative to an examination of all of the General Fund
and special fund revenue streams that come to the City and a determination of whether the City is receiving its full share of property tax, sales tax, grants, refunds, court fines, etc.
HELLLOOOO WHO THE HELL IS SUPPOSE TO BE THE WATCH DOG FOR THIS SHIT??
11:31: I wish there were some basis in fact for what you postulate. If anyone out there is aware of any serious written analysis of the costs and benefits of competing systems, let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to follow my nose, which tells me that $16k for a camera in a car stinks of overpayment.
Walter, the council does not give a damm about the money, they gave $10 million in a no bid bond giveaway 1/2 to cardenas friend the other to parks pals.
justified by equal participation, or some bullshit excuse.
i say whatever is best for the p.d.
EMERGENCY: WE NEED TO INCREASE TRASH FEES TO PAY FOR MORE POLICE-
And increase trash fees for more cameras
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home