|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
NEW BEDFORD — In April, a local Facebook page with thousands of followers shared a post accusing a New Bedford police officer of misconduct and unprofessional behavior when she responded to a motorized scooter accident. The post, which has since been deleted, went viral, with commenters attacking the integrity of the officer and demanding action from her superiors.
The social media maelstrom prompted the Police Department to quickly release the recording taken from the officer’s body-worn camera, which memorialized a 40-minute interaction with audio and video. That post also went viral, with commenters lauding both the officer for her professionalism, and the department for releasing the footage.
For police departments and body camera proponents, it was a textbook example of why the devices are needed: they protect officers from baseless claims, and can hold officers accountable if they are engaging in misconduct.
“It’s just an accurate depiction of what transpired,” said Assistant Deputy Chief Derek Belong, the program coordinator. “It allows not only the police to be held accountable, but also people who are trying to make false accusations.”
“For somebody who went online and blasted this police officer, the body cam, I think, showed a completely different side of what he told as a story,” he said. “And the public was really supportive, and I think they actually appreciated seeing that online.”
The program, which has been operating for a little over one year, brought with it a new policy (which has since been updated) and procedures, like the need to audit every officer every quarter. The camera footage has played a role in internal affairs investigations and in the courtroom, with defense attorneys routinely submitting footage that they say benefits their clients.
Here’s what we found.
Searches are now recorded
Since its debut last September, the policy governing body camera usage has gone through some modifications. Most recent is a change adopted in response to the 21st Century Policing report, which was critical of NBPD’s internal affairs and narcotics units: police officers must now turn on their cameras while carrying out a search warrant.
Previously, officers were not required to have their cameras recording while executing a warrant, an activity that can involve the seizure of drugs, money and other evidence. Officers would record footage of the area about to be searched (rooms of a home, for instance), but turn off their cameras for the search itself.
The consulting firm flagged that as a problem.
“The better practice, and the one we recommend, is that officers keep their body-worn cameras activated throughout the search, including during the discovery and inventory of any property and evidence seized during the search,” the report stated. “This provides clear evidence of the seizure for use during any criminal proceedings that follow, and it also protects against allegations that the officers did not properly report the money, drugs, or other property that was seized.”
The narcotics unit has come under intense scrutiny over misconduct and alleged abuse of the confidential informant system. A Boston Globe investigation alleged that decades ago, narcotics officers had a “Green Fund,” in which they funneled money seized from raids into their own pockets.
Learn more
The Light has obtained several NBPD policies through past records requests, including its policy on body-worn cameras. Access them here ↓
Asked why recording searches wasn’t the policy at the outset, Belong said department leadership had reviewed “a ton of policies” from other police departments and found that many were not recording search warrants in their entirety.
“It seemed reasonable,” said Belong. “And then after reading the report, we can understand why, based on transparency, it would make sense to record the entire event.”
Erin Steadman, a public defender with the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), said the New Bedford office’s attorneys ran into this issue, seeking footage of searches but finding none.
“We are seeing, in some of the search warrant execution cases, where all of a sudden the feed goes off, and that’s problematic,” Steadman said.
Steadman said the office doesn’t have enough information yet to say whether detectives are now consistently recording their execution of search warrants, in accordance with the new policy.
The updated body-camera policy also requires officers to record regardless of the number of other officers on scene and recording. It clarifies where officers should place the camera: center of chest and on their outermost garment. It expands when they should activate their camera to all calls for service. It provides more precise guidance on how long footage must be retained.
The new policy says explicitly that officers must mention, in all reports, whether body-worn cameras captured the incident.
Debate persists over when officers view footage
21st Century Policing also recommended that officers should view the footage only after they file their initial reports on incidents — a question The Light previously reported on. But the department has signaled it will not adopt this recommendation as readily — or at all.
Officers may review footage before they file their initial reports, including for “critical” incidents (use of force or a shooting). The position aligns with some other Massachusetts police departments. But it undermines accountability, experts say, and goes against best practices and state recommendations.
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a national organization, believes officers involved in a “critical incident” should not watch body camera footage before making their initial statement in the spirit of “fairness, science, and the law.”
Some experts worry officers will consciously or subconsciously tailor their reports to what the camera shows in order to support their narrative.
21st Century Policing buried its recommendation in a footnote, stating the department’s policy of allowing officers to review body camera recordings prior to report filing is “contrary to most recommended practices.”
“We recommend that NBPD revise its [body-worn camera] policy to match contemporary best practices,” it concluded, citing PERF.
Belong echoed former Chief Paul Oliveira in citing the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police, which recommends allowing officers to view footage before filing reports on critical incidents.
“Everything that they recommend will be discussed in some fashion through the chief’s office,” he said of the 21CP report. “And it will be up to the chief to decide if he thinks it’s worth changing.”
In response to a request for comment from Police Chief Jason Thody, spokesperson Holly Huntoon issued a five-paragraph response, stating the department’s policy is consistent with those of other departments in both Massachusetts and Connecticut.
(Before coming to New Bedford, Thody served as police chief for the Hartford Police Department. A Massachusetts state task force issued a different position, recommending that officers be prevented from viewing footage before filing an initial report.)
The department then cited Hartford’s policy, which allows officers involved in a critical incident to review the footage beforehand.
“Taken together, these examples show that our policy is consistent with accepted and contemporary practices across both Massachusetts and Connecticut,” Huntoon’s email said. “While there are differing views nationally regarding the best practice on this issue, we will evaluate this recommendation along with the others contained in the 21CP report as part of our ongoing review process.”
Cameras appearing in internal affairs reviews
With a well-written policy in place, experts say body-worn cameras can be a reform tool for transparency and accountability, particularly when it comes to alleged or actual officer misconduct.
Recordings can help eliminate the “he said-she said” when the complainant and accused are telling investigators two different stories, and there are no other witnesses.
The cameras have helped officers at least twice so far, according to partially redacted internal affairs complaint data from last October to April. (The Light requested updated complaint data through this October, but the city fully redacted 19 cases, some of which regard civilian employees, stating the investigations are pending and not subject to disclosure.)
Last fall, a complainant accused a New Bedford officer who had been assisting Fall River police of entering an apartment without permission and refusing to provide identification and badge numbers when asked.
“BWC footage of the incident contradicts allegations,” the case narrative states. “They were unfounded and the case was closed.”
Another complainant accused an officer of being rude. Investigators did not sustain the complaint or the violation for civility, stating “no wrongdoing was found through the investigation.” The case file noted the incident was captured by a body-worn camera.
The department’s online filing system for internal complaints has a field for checking whether the incident was recorded on camera. Previously, officers would write “yes” if a security camera caught the incident. Now, they can denote yes for a body-worn camera, which they did in the above cases.
A tool for accountability
The cameras have also acted as a tool to hold officers in New Bedford accountable when they’ve violated rules.
About one month into the program, Officer Trevor Bettencourt Jr. was found to have had an obstruction in front of his camera lens. “When asked about it he stated there was nothing there and his camera was functioning normally.” Internal affairs sustained the violation against him, and he was counseled by a supervisor.
Another violation was sustained against Officer Patrick Kustka after the internal affairs unit determined he had not activated his camera during his interview with the complainant.
Belong said that as of October, the department has sustained three body-worn camera violations against officers.
Camera violations can also be found through audits that internal affairs is required to conduct several times a year on all sworn officers. (The internal affairs unit has to review one to three randomly selected recordings from each officer’s camera four times a year.)
Data for an audit for February through July obtained by The Light showed the most common issue was incorrect categorization of footage in the department’s computer system. Other issues, like late activation, poor video quality, and poor audio quality, each accounted for fewer than 10 out of the 250 randomly selected recordings in the dataset.
Belong said that officers previously needed to manually input the call number for each video they uploaded. Recently, the department installed software that does it automatically once the cameras are docked back at the station.
Internal affairs marked a majority of audited footage as showing no concerns. Per the department’s policy, minor policy violations will not result in discipline. But more egregious misconduct captured in the recordings — excessive force, racial bias, or negligence, for example — and criminal conduct may result in discipline.
“The most important piece of evidence”
Defense attorneys say New Bedford’s adoption of the cameras has been a big help.
“We’re finding that the video provides a whole lot of context,” said Steadman, the public defender. “It’s insight into what actually happened rather than relying on generalizations.”
Steadman said the cameras have shown the good — officers being kind, patient and respectful with her clients — but also the bad.
It’s the latter that plays a role in motions to suppress evidence or impeach a witness.
In one example, New Bedford police responded to a call from a woman who said someone had punched her and that she was bleeding. Steadman said the police report did not note whether officers checked her for injuries. However, the body camera footage captured officers looking at her injury and saying she was not bleeding, Steadman said.
“You could impeach the officer at trial because they didn’t include this information in the report,” Steadman said. (Impeachment, she explained, is a tool attorneys use to show something a witness says isn’t accurate or credible.)
Steadman also cited the value of body camera footage for cases in which a defendant doesn’t speak English. (New Bedford police employs officers who speak Spanish, K’iche’, Cabo Verdean Kriolu, and Portuguese.)
“We can have our interpreters make a true, accurate translation of what was said,” she said, noting it is “not uncommon” to find inaccuracies in police reports.
John Seed, a New Bedford-based defense attorney, said the footage is “the most important piece of evidence,” in his cases, many of which are for driving while under the influence, or OUI.
“You’d think it’d hurt you,” Seed said. “I have found it to be pretty even… There are a lot of times where I find things in there that either contradict the [police] report or are not in the report that may be helpful.”
Steadman said footage allows jurors to make their own assessments about whether the descriptors in the police report (unsteady gait, glassy eyes, slurred speech) are accurate.
Seed said the footage can also help his clients to make informed decisions about how to proceed with their cases (whether to try it or resolve it).
“It almost makes my job a little bit easier now, because it helps me to properly inform them of what is going to be their best decision,” Seed said.
Jennifer Sowa, a deputy district attorney at the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office, said in an email that body-worn camera footage has played an important role in OUI cases.
“The ability to capture, at least portions, of events is a useful tool in prosecuting criminal cases,” Sowa wrote. “Since the implementation of body worn cameras, we have seen a decrease in the number of OUI or drunk driving trials and more pleas on these types of cases.”
Seed has used the technology for a while with the Massachusetts State Police, carrying flash drives in his workbag to hand to prosecutors, who have to make a copy of the footage for him.
The processing and review of body camera videos can consume a lot of time, Steadman said. Sometimes, attorneys learn that other officers were on scene, so they have to request and review the additional footage.
CPCS offers an AI program as an optional tool. The user can upload footage and ask the system to look for everything a speaker says (be it the officer or defendant), or to search for certain statements.
Despite the added costs for departments to store the data and attorneys to review it, the parties involved — and the public — have focused on the benefits from New Bedford’s adoption of this technology.
As one person commented on a post of the April incident, “It’s good they shared this to address the accusations. If they are now being transparent, it should be handled this way even when they discover the call was handled improperly.”
Keep The Light shining with your donation.
As an independent, nonprofit news outlet, we rely on reader support to help fund the kind of in-depth journalism that keeps the public informed and holds the powerful accountable. Thank you for your support.
Thanking and supporting all law enforcement officers in New Bedford and across our country. It’s a tough job and these officers put their lives on the line every time they put their uniform on, always very grateful for their service.