NEWS

Who's watching: camera use sporadic across Ohio sheriffs

Jona Ison
USA Today Network-Ohio

As law enforcement across the nation is encouraged to invest in body cameras in the wake of numerous high profile police shootings, most Ohio sheriff departments don't even have cameras in all their cruisers and nearly a third don't use cameras at all.

A Gannett Ohio poll of sheriff offices revealed 53 of the 85 responding offices had some cruiser cameras, but only 18 reported having enough for all cruisers used for road patrol.

The issue primarily comes down to one thing: how to pay for it.

"It's just money," said Ashland County Sheriff's Office Chief Deputy Carl L. Richert II. "I'd rather have people on the road than having the cameras."

Who is or isn't using cameras varies across the state as no state rules mandating camera use exist and the decision is left to local sheriffs.

While Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office oversees the largest county in the state, only eight of its cruisers have dash cameras. In rural Holmes County, home of many of the state's Amish population, every sheriff deputy is equipped with a body camera that records all contact with the public.

"We've always been more of a technological group," said Holmes Sheriff Capt. Dale Renker.

All but two of Coshocton County Sheriff's Office cruisers have cameras installed. While the department hasn't purchased body cameras, at least four deputies have bought their own.

Because of tight budgets and the public clamor for body cameras, some departments are choosing them over cruiser cameras. Neither the Marion County Sheriff's Office nor the Marion City Police use dash cameras, but both are using body cameras.

The reason: body cameras are cheaper. Each cruiser camera system costs upwards of $5,000 while a body camera is closer to $900, said Marion City's Major Jon Shaffer. Gallia Sheriff Joe Browning, however, said he believes departments will need both cameras because they capture different things.

Gannett Ohio's poll found 28 percent of the sheriff offices have body cameras, which includes Ohio's least populous county, Vinton, but none of the big three — Cuyahoga, Franklin or Hamilton. Half of the departments with body cameras didn't have enough for every road patrol deputy, but several said it was because they were in the midst of testing the cameras or waiting for additional cameras to be delivered.

A moving record

Regardless of camera type, whatever video captured is a helpful piece of evidence, said Delaware County Prosecutor Carol O'Brien. Body camera video is among the evidence she is using to review the actions of Lancaster police concerning the suicide of 29-year-old Shane Clark during a February standoff.

Having more evidence is always a plus, she said, but it's not the "end all be all in any circumstance."

"While it can add, it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. ... I think it's easy to look at a body camera and say they should have done A, B or C and not take into account stress (they are under) and the impact of stress," O'Brien said.

Dash camera video was considered a key piece of evidence in clearing Coshocton County Sheriff's Office deputies of wrongdoing during the March 2013 car chase and subsequent shooting death of 20-year-old David Stahl. However, the footage is dark and it's difficult to determine what was going on when shots were fired. Stahl's family has sued the county, claiming the department used excessive force and failed to render treatment.

There is no video evidence in the ongoing investigation into a similar case in Pike County where a March high-speed chase ended in the shooting death of 26-year-old Robert C. Rooker. The Pike County Sheriff's Office is among the 29 percent of responding sheriff's offices that don't have body or dash cameras.

Camera use can be a mixed bag when it comes to insurance liability, said John Brownlee, risk manager for the County Risk Sharing Authority of Ohio. The authority is a property and liability risk sharing pool that provides insurance for 65 Ohio counties including Coshocton.

"Video footage will allow us to better defend the actions of our officers by providing audio and visual footage of instances as they occur. The downside is that we will have to be cognizant of the fact and train accordingly that some of the footage may or may not be public information," Brownlee said.

Although body cameras are relatively new, there have been some studies that indicate they lower complaints against officers.

An Arizona study found officers without cameras had nearly three times more complaints filed against them than those officers with cameras, according to a report by the Police Executive Research Forum. Also, officers with cameras had 40 percent fewer overall complaints and 75 percent fewer use of force complaints than they did when they weren't wearing cameras the year before the study.

Waiting, watching

Clermont County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Steve Leahy feels it's too soon to be investing in body cameras because there are no standards on how they should be used and what kind of access the public can have to the recordings.

"There are a lot of gray areas and uncertainties with this right now. So I don't think it behooves anybody to go out and spend $40,000 on body cameras," Leahy said.

The hesitation isn't unwarranted. O'Brien anticipates there will be legislation created to govern body worn camera use, but that there also will be lawsuits.

"There's going to have to be a weighing of privacy interests and public records," she said. "A significant part (of what is filmed) will be talking to people at the worst moments of their lives."

While no legislation concerning body cameras has been introduced in Ohio, there are 30 other states with pending legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been critical of even those departments with policies, saying they all are lacking in some way. So last month, the ACLU released a model bill it believes fully addresses body camera use.

The ACLU's suggestions include retaining videos for three months or three years depending on what they have captured and also preventing officers from viewing them before writing initial reports to prevent camera footage from influencing their personal recollection. Officers would be required to announce they are recording and cameras could be turned off at the request of crime victims, anonymous tipsters and people inside a home when there is no warrant.

A way to pay

Policies aside, most agencies reported needing a grant to afford cameras.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance dedicated $2 million to buy body cameras for fiscal year 2015 and another $20 million is available as part of President Obama's Community Policing Initiative. Obama also has proposed putting another $30 million toward body cameras initiatives for next fiscal year.

Some deputies aren't waiting around for their departments. Several deputies in Ashland County purchased their own camera to use for certain cases, including Chief Deputy Richert. He often uses his camera to record witnesses when investigating whether sex offenders are living at their registered address. People may talk initially, but later try to change their story, he said.

"(Getting a recording) makes it a lot easier on us," Richert said.

Although there's a high interest in body cameras now and promises of funding, will it be enough for the long haul? Some sheriffs departments reported their biggest problem with in-car cameras was not necessarily the money to buy them, but to fix or replace them when they would break.

Logan County Sheriff Andrew Smith once had all of his cruisers outfitted with cameras, but is down to five because he didn't have the money to upgrade all of them. Moving forward, he plans to ditch the cruiser cams altogether and put the money into body cameras.

"So much of the work that we do is face-to-face with the public, so it (body cameras) is money better spent," Smith said.

Most of the counties that do have body cameras are more rural and have smaller forces to outfit. For example, Vinton County Sheriff's Office has just nine road patrol deputies compared to nearly 150 at the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office.

"It's something we are looking into, but it's the cost and everything else that keeps us from having them," said Mike Robison, the Hamilton County Sheriff's spokesman.

Part of that "everything else" is the cost for data storage — retaining those hours of camera footage, and is what Fairfield County Sheriff's Lt. Alex Lape said concerns them most.

Even if larger departments begin slowly purchasing cameras and find money to address data storage, it could take several years for them to get onto every officer. Neither the Ohio nor the federal task forces on community and police relations have recommended mandating body camera use. However, both reports noted additional research should be done and standards for use created.

Gannett Ohio reporters Jessie Balmert, Spencer Roush, Kristina Smith, Caitlin Turner, Eric Lagatta, Jon Stinchcomb, Todd Hill, Spenser Hickey, Bethany Bruner, Keith BieryGolick and Lou Whitmire contributed to this report.

jison@Gannett.com

Twitter: @JonaIson