Police-Encounters-With-People-In-Crisis

eviewed on the basis of objective evidence, and, therefore, there is an incentive for all
participants to act calmly.
60. While video may be better evidence than witness testimony, it too can be
misinterpreted. However, the increased transparency that results from recordings of
contentious police encounters, combined with the potential for reduced injuries and
deaths, can add public confidence in the Service’s important public work.
61. Despite the benefits of body cameras, their use during police interactions with the
public also carries significant privacy implications for the officers, subjects, and
bystanders. The Service will have to balance individuals’ rights to privacy, especially
when an officer encounters people in their homes, with the need to ensure consistency
and accountability by strictly limiting the circumstances in which police can deactivate
the cameras. Once collected, information recorded on body cameras and uploaded to a
TPS database must be subject to appropriate standards for storage, length of retention,
method of destruction, access, and disclosure (or non-disclosure) to third-party agencies
such as Crown prosecutors, the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database,
Canada Border Services Agency, and mental health professionals.
62. Many tensions surround officer discretion in the activation or deactivation of
body camera recordings. On the one hand, vulnerable groups such as people with
mental illness or substance abuse problems are among the populations most concerned
about respectful, accountable policing. Body cameras may serve to pacify encounters
between police and the public. Both participants are aware that their words and actions
will be recorded, thereby creating a more constructive environment for de-escalation
and passive resolution of situations.
63. However, some people in crisis who suffer from paranoia, delusions, or similar
symptoms may have their anxiety levels increased by the presence of a camera. In
situations where rapport and trust are central to safe de-escalation, a well-intentioned
officer’s efforts could be thwarted if he or she is not given the discretion to remove or
disable body camera recording. In turn, giving officers the discretion to stop recording
raises concerns about misuse and accountability that can only be addressed through
clear procedures and enforcement mechanisms. These procedures must set out the
grounds for de-activation and strict penalties for breaches or other attempts to avoid
creating a record of an interaction.
64. Developing a protocol to govern police discretion to de-activate body cameras
that respects individual privacy interests is a challenging endeavor that should be done
in consultation with affected stakeholder groups, including police officers, civil liberties
and privacy experts, and community members. It is preferable to have these difficult
conversations at the outset of the Service’s consideration of body cameras rather than
after TPS cameras have already collected personal information.
65. Body cameras range in cost from approximately $700 to $1,500 each. Although
equipping all officers with body cameras would be a significant financial undertaking,
the cost is somewhat lower than purchasing CEWs for all officers (approximately $1,500
each), and substantially lower than purchasing CEWs for all officers with audio/visual
Police Encounters With People in Crisis |256