Police consider options for adopting body cameras
A French police officer wearing a body-worn camera standing guard during a French minister's visit to a public school in Paris on 16 January 2024.
Photo:
AFP
The police union says officers getting body cameras for the first time will counter people doctoring phone footage of interactions.
The police are looking at options to adopt body cameras after grappling with the pros and cons for at least five years.
NZ Police Association president Chris Cahill said the cams would provide a "true picture" of what has gone on.
As things stood, officers were getting filmed anyway by the public on their smartphones, but he was aware of some of that footage being doctored to make the interaction look bad.
"I think generally they should tell the true picture of what's gone on and that's why our members are positive about them.
"I think it's a question that has sort of been kicked down the road for too long in New Zealand and we're sort of the outliers around the world."
The big question was not around the benefits, but how much storing all the camera footage would cost.
"I mean, you've got the cost of actually buying the cameras, which, you know, we'd straight away say shouldn't come out of current budgets."
That would mean something else had to be given away, he said.
"But equally, the long-term issue is data storage and how much that costs.
"I'm aware of some smaller police services around the world who have pulled the cameras because they simply can't pay that cost."
Vancouver Police Department
initially struggled with the costs but last year expanded its bodycam programme.
In the US, it is reported some police departments have so much footage they are
turning to AI to sift through it
.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell told ZB the government was a big fan of technology to help frontline police, and he personally liked bodycams.
"The use of body-worn cameras is an operational decision for the Commissioner," Mitchell said in a statement to RNZ.
"As he has signalled, police is exploring options around the potential use of body cameras, and will bring me recommendations when it is complete."
Police rolled out new tasers last year that unlike the old model, do not have an in-built camera.
"From a scrutiny of police level, that's lowered that scrutiny around the use of tasers. So I think that's where the cameras can add some value," Cahill said.
Among the options of a supplier of bodycams is the giant US company Axon, that has supplied New Zealand police with tasers for years.
Both old and new models of taser are made by Axon, which also supplies data storage services.
New Zealand police use Axon's 'evidence.com' data storage system.
Axon last year partnered with Auckland company Auror, which runs the software that enables retailers and police to use automated number plate recognition on thousands of CCTV cameras nationwide. Police have doubled their use of the number plate technology in the last three or so years.
Axon has also newly partnered in the US with Ring, which provides 'smart' security products like doorbells with cameras.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Big crowds gather in Hungarian capital to defy ban on Budapest Pride
By Olivia Kemp , CNN People gather for the 30th Budapest Pride March in Budapest, Hungary, on July 28. Photo: AFP/BALINT SZENTGALLAY Beneath a blaze of rainbow flags and amid roars of defiance, big crowds gather in the Hungarian capital Budapest for the city's 30th annual Pride march - an event that, this year, is unfolding as both a celebration and a protest. Moving through the capital in the sweltering heat, demonstrators carried signs reading "Solidarity with Budapest Pride" and waved placards bearing crossed-out illustrations of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Music played from portable speakers as people of all ages joined the march - families with pushchairs, teenagers draped in capes and older residents walking alongside activists. From the city's historic centre to its riverside roads, the procession swelled in numbers and noise - visibly reclaiming public space in defiance of a law designed to push them out. The march proceeded in open defiance of a police ban imposed earlier this year under sweeping new legislation that prohibits LGBTQ+ events nation-wide. Eszter Rein Bodi was one of those who joined the massive crowds in Budapest on Saturday (US Time), telling Reuters: "This is about much more, not just about homosexuality… This is the last moment to stand up for our rights." Krisztina Aranyi, another marcher, told the news agency "the right to assembly is a basic human right, and I don't think it should be banned." She added, "Just because someone does not like the reason why you go to the street, or they do not agree with it, you still have the right to do so." People gather for the Budapest Pride march in Hungary's capital on Saturday. Photo: Bernadett Szabo/Reuters via CNN Newsource Huge crowds turned out in the city for the parade, with many holding home-made banners aloft. One sign read "Transgender people are a blessing on this earth" while another banner read "Proud. United. Equal in every corner of the EU." At least 70 members of the European Parliament were expected to join the procession, officials told CNN in May. Van Sparrentak, who is a Dutch MEP from the parliament's "Greens/European Free Alliance" political group, told CNN that she would be attending Budapest Pride to "support the LGBTIQ+ community in Hungary, to let them know that they are not alone (and) to be visible as a community." "Pride is a protest, and if Orbán can ban Budapest Pride without consequences, every pride is one election away from being banned," she continued. Temporary cameras were installed along the path of the Budapest Pride march, months after legislation was passed allowing the use of facial recognition technology to identify participants. Photo: Balint Szentgallay/NurPhoto/Getty Images via CNN Newsource In March, Hungarian lawmakers passed legislation barring Pride events and permitting the use of facial recognition technology to identify participants - measures campaigners said was illegal and part of a wider crackdown on the LGBTQ+ community. Orban welcomed the ban, which he said would outlaw gatherings that "violate child protection laws". His government has pushed a strongly Christian and conservative agenda. The ban sparked lively protests in Budapest in March, with organisers of the city's Pride vowing to continue with the annual festival despite the new law and declaring: "We will fight this new fascist ban." A petition demanding police reject the ban has gathered over 120,000 signatures from supporters in 73 countries, urging authorities to "reject this unjust law" - believed to be the first of its kind in the EU's recent history - and ensure that the march proceeded "unhindered and peacefully, free from discrimination, harassment, fear or violence." - CNN
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Two people in critical condition after central Auckland crash
Enquiries into the cause of the crash were ongoing. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Three people have been injured in a serious car crash in central Auckland. Police were called to the intersection of Anzac Avenue and Parliament Street at 1:55am on Sunday where a Mazda had crashed into a light pole. "The occupants were taken to hospital, two in a critical condition and a third in a moderate condition," a police spokesperson said. Police had examined the scene and reopened the road. Enquiries into the cause of the crash were ongoing.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
By Andrew Chung , Reuters The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP / KAYLA BARTKOWSKI The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in the ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on US soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognises, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognised that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as US citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. - Reuters
