Introduction

Police brutality has historically been a significant social issue for the United States. The controversy surrounding it has been amplified by widespread media coverage that depicts police officers shooting and killing unarmed people of color. Police actions are monitored in two distinct ways: workplace surveillance (bodycam/dashcams) and civilian surveillance. Civilians increasingly use their smartphones to record interactions with law enforcement to expose officers and combat police misconduct against the most vulnerable. Generally, the practice of civilians surveilling law enforcement is protected by First Amendment rights and is perceived as both a safety measure and a retaliatory check on government power. Conversely, the deployment of police bodycams is also framed as a tool for accountability but functions within a public employment framework that’s subject to union protections and codified by collective bargaining agreements.

While surveillance is meant to enhance safety, it has unintended consequences that threaten privacy and continue to contribute to a broader culture of mistrust and overuse of surveillance. Both bodycams and retaliatory civilian surveillance aim to promote transparency, however, they fundamentally differ in purpose, governance, and legal contexts. Civilian surveillance seeks to empower the public, while workplace surveillance prioritize the rights of officers through union negotiations. To effectively address the challenges of surveillance, policymakers must recognize these distinctions and ensure that practices uphold accountability, respect privacy, and foster trust.

The Role of Civilian Surveillance

Smartphones provide ordinary citizens with the power to be vigilantes who are capable of documenting instances of police brutality and misconduct in real time. In the last decade, this has becoming increasingly popular with viral videos, such as the killings of Eric Garner in 2014 and George Floyd in 2020, which led to public outrage and demands for accountability by law enforcement. Excessive force is a growing problem as police in the United States are said to use force against 300,000 people each year, according to a report by The Guardian. Ultimately, as more and more individuals feel defenseless in their encounters with police, civilian surveillance provides folks with a sense of empowerment.

Protected by First Amendment rights, civilian recordings challenge official narratives, garner public support, and fight for justice. Social media platforms, such as Instagram and X, amplify the impact of videos as isolated incidents can transform into broader conversations and national controversies. For example, on X, hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #NoJusticeNoPeace have become a battle cry for movements seeking systemic change. According to a PBS NewsHour Report, the instancy and convenience of social media allows users to share raw, emotionally charged content, which helps to foster solidarity and drive action amongst its viewers.

Thus, civilian recordings also serve as a form of retaliation against police misconduct, empowering individuals to hold law enforcement accountable. It is a grassroots effort to ensure transparency and justice as there’s a concern that police footage is often altered or edited. By capturing raw, unfiltered footage, civilians play a vital role in exposing abuses of power and advocating for change.

Workplace Surveillance of Police

Police bodycams, sometimes viewed as tools of government surveillance, are a distinct form of public workplace surveillance. These devices are governed by collective bargaining agreements between law enforcement agencies and police unions, which represent the rights and interests of officers. After negotiations, these agreements establish employment policies on privacy, data retention, and usage policies. Bodycams differ significantly from civilian surveillance footage since it’s intended to provide accountability and documentation through an employer and public service.

What further exemplifies this distinction between the two practices is the central role of unions play in shaping policies that protect officers’ rights and negotiate terms of surveillance. These collective bargaining agreements reflects the structured governance of public employment and aims to balance transparency with the rights of employees, making it fundamentally different from civilian efforts to hold officers accountable where there is little to no consideration of their privacy rights.

Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

The differences and relationship between civilian and police “workplace” surveillance emphasizes the need for an approach that prioritizes accountability and privacy. Civilians have a constitutionally protected right to record public officials in public spaces, as established and upheld in cases like Glik v. Cunniffe. This right is essential to checking the misuse of government power and holding law enforcement accountable for misconduct and brutality. At the same time, while bodycams promote accountability, this type of workplace surveillance must be carefully regulated to align with police unions that advocate for officers’ privacy rights and limits overreach.

To address these challenges, policymakers should focus on creating clear guidelines for both civilian and workplace surveillance. For civilian recordings, laws should reinforce First Amendment protections and ensure that individuals can document public officials without fear of retaliation. For police bodycams, collective bargaining agreements should continue to govern the terms of use, ensuring that surveillance practices respect officers’ rights while providing transparency to the public. Policymakers should also consider the implications of bodycam footage for public trust, ensuring that it is used responsibly and not manipulated to obscure misconduct. Furthermore, police officers should be trained in effective de-escalation strategies to mitigate instances of misconduct and reduce the perceived need for civilian surveillance to hold them accountable.

By clearly distinguishing between these two forms of surveillance, policymakers can create approaches and frameworks that promote accountability without compromising privacy, trust or the rights of citizens. Civilian and workplace police surveillance serve different purposes and operate under different legal contexts, and conflating them risks compromising the effectiveness of both.

Brief Reflection

Before taking this course, I didn’t fully consider the consequences of surveillance because I, too, saw it as a tool for safety. While holding law enforcement accountable for misconduct is important, the overuse of surveillance should not be possible in the first place. Additionally, police officers have privacy rights that warrant consideration. Governments should abandon these practices, especially since the general public often views footage produced by officers as dubious and of little benefit. Instead, police surveillance only exacerbates public discomfort and cynicism toward the government. Meaningful change must start with the government limiting surveillance systems currently in place for law enforcement. It’s critical that officers receive adequately training in de-escalation strategies so that retaliatory civilian surveillance isn’t a necessary resort.