Running Head: Super Body-Worn Camera Policies Memorandum 1

Public Safety Law: Super Body-Worn Camera Policies Memorandum

Alyssa Maldonado

University of San Diego

Super Body-Worn Camera Policies Memorandum 2

Chief,

Super Body-Worn Cameras (SBWCs) are impressive pieces of technology and they have

a lot of potential to make our jobs easier. However, I believe SBWCs absolutely violate a

civilian’s right to privacy, protected under the U.S. Constitution. The right to privacy is included

in the Fourth Amendment protection “from unreasonable searches and seizures” and any

unsuspecting citizen who happens to get within 10 feet of an officer would be subjected to the

SBWC, regardless if they’re the subject of the contact (Begovich 2019a). The SBWC would then

proceed to unnecessarily obtain their DNA, which would constitute an unreasonable search. With

the Fourth Amendment, the framers of the Constitution wanted to “place obstacles in the way of

a too permeating police surveillance” and the use of SBWCs is arguably a form of this police

surveillance they were concerned about (Supreme Court 2018).

In Riley versus California, it was determined that conducting a cell phone search “now

requires a warrant because of the civilian's right of privacy” (Begovich 2019d). Cell phones and

cell phone records can potentially reveal sensitive, private information about a person, so there is

an expectation of privacy “that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable” (Supreme Court

2018). Likewise, a person should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their

own DNA, because of its ability to reveal sensitive and private information.

If you decide to purchase the SBWCs, then police officers should obtain consent before

activating them due to their ability to obtain DNA samples. The fact that “DNA data banks

continue to grow” is helping law enforcement “solve crimes” since DNA can convict the guilty

and be used “to exonerate the innocent” (Begovich 2019d). The overall safety of the community

outweighs the need for privacy of the convicted felon (Begovich 2019d). However, with the

SBWC, all subjects of police contacts would have their DNA samples obtained, regardless if the
Super Body-Worn Camera Policies Memorandum 3

incident turns out to be a felony arrest. Civilians would then have to go about getting their own

DNA expunged from the data bank, when it did not need to be there to begin with.

Regular body-worn cameras (BWCs) came about due to a “societal obsession for video

as conclusive proof” and these already have potential privacy implications (Begovich 2019b).

However, BWCs are part of the “transparency trend” and are helpful in making “law

enforcement look credible,” so the good generally outweighs the bad (Begovich 2019c). SBWCs

could be used when arresting a subject for certain felony offenses requires the collection of a

DNA sample in the state of California. The facial recognition technology could also be helpful in

situations when it is almost impossible to identify a subject without this technology, perhaps

when the subject is possibly not a U.S. citizen. While these are some potential positive uses of

the SBWC, they cross the line when it comes to privacy. The Constitution protects U.S. citizens

from government intrusion and as police officers, we swore to defend this Constitution, so we

should honor our oath (Begovich 2019a).

Super Body-Worn Camera Policies Memorandum 4

References

Begovich, M. (2019a). Presentation 1.1 Right to Privacy and Griswold v. Connecticut (Part 1)

[Transcript]. https://ole.sandiego.edu/ultra/courses/_58326_1/cl/outline

Begovich, M. (2019b). Public Safety Law Module 3 Presentation 3.1 [Transcript]. Retrieved

from https://ole.sandiego.edu/ultra/courses/_58326_1/cl/outline

Begovich, M. (2019c). LEPS 530 Public Safety Law Module 6 Presentation 1[Transcript].

Retrieved from https://ole.sandiego.edu/ultra/courses/_58326_1/cl/outline

Begovich, M. (2019d). Module 7 Presentation 7.1 Technology versus Privacy–Making Prudent

Managerial Decisions [Transcript]. Retrieved from

https://ole.sandiego.edu/ultra/courses/_58326_1/cl/outline

Supreme Court of the United States (2018 June 22). Carpenter v. the United States. Retrieved

from https://ole.sandiego.edu/ultra/courses/_58326_1/cl/outline