The benefits of police body cameras can be witnessed in an incident involving the Vancouver Police Department.
On Tuesday, Officer Andrea Mendoza was charged with fourth-degree assault in relation to an arrest made outside a Walmart store on May 21. On video released by the police department, the officer is seen using a Taser on the back of a man suspected of shoplifting, and then pulling down his pants as he was on the ground; she can be heard threatening to use the Taser on the man’s genitals.
To be clear, Mendoza is innocent until proven guilty. And any questions about police conduct do not absolve 19-year-old Elijah Guffey-Prejean of possible criminal charges.
Police were called by Walmart officials, who said they saw two people conceal merchandise and leave without paying. Officers encountered a couple that met the description outside the store. The woman ran away while police apprehended Guffey-Prejean. He started to run at one point, and reportedly punched one officer and kicked another during a scuffle. Guffey-Prejean was booked on suspicion of third-degree assault and third-degree theft, and investigators said officers recovered $103.38 worth of merchandise from him.
While Guffey-Prejean and his companion should face appropriate consequences, the focus for now is on police conduct and information provided by body cameras.
The Vancouver Police Department adopted cameras earlier this year, with the devices issued to all 220 sworn staff members. At the time, Police Chief Jeff Mori said: “This is a very important milestone our personnel have been looking forward to for some time. And one we know the community has also been anticipating.”
Now we are seeing the advantages. This week, following the filing of the assault charge against Mendoza, Mori said: “The actions of the officer who deployed the Taser in the video are disturbing. I want to emphasize to the community that my expectation is that at all times our personnel serve the public with professionalism, compassion and respect.”
That is the expectation of the public, as well. And body cameras can provide clarity that protects both civilians and officers.
This marks a significant improvement in transparency and accountability. Until cameras and the sharing of video became widespread, police accounts would serve as the definitive word on use-of-force incidents.
For example, the initial police report on the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis officer in 2020 said: “Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress. Officers called for an ambulance.” There was no mention that Officer Derek Chauvin had knelt on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes, and the murder would have been ignored if not for video recorded by a bystander.
Most interactions involving the use of force do not have such severe consequences, and the recent Vancouver incident demonstrates the typical risks faced by law enforcement. A suspect attempts to run and then scuffles with police, heightening the intensity of the situation and endangering both himself and officers.
Body cameras are not a panacea. During the arrest at Walmart, the camera from one of the officers fell to the ground and provided minimal information, and even operational cameras cannot answer all the questions surrounding an arrest. Investigators and members of the public should not allow video to override common sense in assessing what happened.
But, as the incident demonstrates, those cameras often provide valuable information.
