Nevada's police body cam law needs penalties: Daniel Honchariw

Gov. Brian Sandoval recently signed into law Senate Bill 176, which mandates body-worn cameras for all law-enforcement officers who “routinely interact with the public.”

It’s a great first step. Yet much remains to be done in the coming months, as law-enforcement agencies implement policies and procedures governing the use of these cameras.

This type of transparency provides tangible and well-documented benefits to both police officers and the public. Research suggests that equipping officers with body-worn cameras reduces the number of use-of-force incidents by nearly 50 percent, while also reducing civilian complaints against officers by 90 percent, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

If Nevada is to reap those kinds of benefits, however, it is critical that law enforcement agencies craft strong disciplinary rules to ensure the spirit of SB176 is upheld.

Failing to do so would effectively gut the intent of SB176 and seriously injure the credibility and public trust placed in law enforcement.

Moreover, the only thing worse than having no body-cameras at all is forcing taxpayers to pay for ones that are never turned on, or intentionally disabled when their footage is most needed.

Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union explains this best: “A rule without enforcement is as bad as not having a rule at all. Disciplinary action of some kind at least must be taken against officers who fail to follow recording rules or intentionally interfere with a camera.”

Unfortunately, few police agencies across the country have implemented effective disciplinary codes specific to body-worn cameras, which means there are few guiding examples to follow.

The Denver Police Department, however, is an exception to this rule. According to the police-accountability advocacy group Campaign Zero, of the 17 departmental camera policies the group reviewed, only Denver’s received a passing grade in terms of “accountability.”

Briefly, Denver P.D.’s disciplinary policy on cameras is as follows:

For an officer’s first violation: Written reprimand.

For a second offense in a 12-month period: 1 fined day.

The third violation in a 12-month period “is considered a repeated violation and will generate a formal disciplinary case.”

The policy further states:

“Purposeful, flagrant or repeated violations will result in more severe disciplinary action. At any time during review, if deemed necessary, violations can be removed from the scheduled discipline above and transitioned to a formal investigation governed by the discipline matrix.”

Because there is a dearth of similar guiding examples, Denver P.D.’s camera policy seems like a good one to replicate — or at least a good place to start. Regardless of the particulars, officers who disregard their department’s policies on body-worn cameras must be held accountable.

Otherwise, SB176 will have been nothing more than a major waste of time and money.

Daniel Honchariw is a policy researcher and analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, a free-market think tank.