Police and civil rights advocates are weighing the benefits of body cameras worn by police officers versus people's right to privacy issues.

Increased interest in use of the cameras follows several high-profile use-of-force complaints against police in recent weeks. Protests erupted after grand juries in Ferguson, Mo., and New York decided not to indict officers involved in deaths of two different black men.

Both New London and Norwich police departments have expressed interest in purchasing cameras as early as next year. New London has already pilot-tested them.

Police and civil rights advocates are counting on the cameras to add transparency and accountability while police hope to reduce unsubstantiated complaints and frivolous lawsuits.

Branford Police Capt. Geoffrey Morgan, whose department was one of the first in the state to equip its entire 50-officer force with cameras, called the program a resounding success and said substantiated complaints against officers are nearly non-existent thanks to the video and audio proof provided by the cameras during interactions with citizens.

He sees some privacy issues as uncharted territory. Morgan said recorded conversations in someone's home, especially the home of a victim, raise important questions. He said he can also think of any number of awkward situations that might be captured on camera that have a potential to embarrass or reveal details about someone that might not otherwise be public without the use of the recording devices.

There is a difference in something captured on video in a public space versus video inside someone's home talking to an officer one-on-one, Morgan said.

The pocket-sized body cameras are most commonly worn on the front of an officer's uniform and record both audio and video, as opposed to dashboard cams that record video only from a police officer's vehicle. The body cameras can also be worn on the shoulder or attached to glasses.

FOI laws would apply

Tom Hennick, public information officer for the state Freedom of Information Commission, said the existence of audio and video in police possession may be new, but existing FOI law would apply to the audio/video as it would be to any "public record."

"I thinks it's less the fact that it's a video and more that what was said in the video," Hennick said. "The question is whether or not any of the existing exemptions would apply."

Exemptions to the FOI law allow police to withhold things from the public such as evidence related to pending investigations and names of crime victims or informants.

"The uncharted territory would be perhaps trying to redact parts of the video (to comply with FOI law)," Hennick said.

Morgan said he is uncomfortable with having video of victims of crimes or people who may feel a right to some confidentiality. Officers at the department are told to use discretion when it comes to recording certain situations.

"The whole reason we use the cameras is transparency for the people we serve and a way to judge how police are doing their job," Morgan said. "Who are we to infringe upon their privacy in an environment where normally the public would not have access to?"

Morgan said these and other issues are likely to play out in a national debate.

David McGuire, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said the ACLU welcomes the use of cameras as "one of the best ways the police can restore trust and confidence."

Some of the biggest privacy issues associated with the cameras, he said, are best tackled with clear guidelines on camera use, restrictions on their use in private, non-confrontational situations and limits on retention of the videos.

"It's important that departments have well-crafted policies in place - when the cameras are turned on and off, for example," McGuire said.

A study by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Police Executive Research Forum released earlier this year called "Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned," found that several of the departments profiled exhibited sharp reductions in both complaints against police and in the use of force by officers after implementing the devices. The study also raised potential privacy issues.

Lack of guidance

The forum's report revealed that of the 63 agencies surveyed using body cameras, one-third did not have a written policy. The departments claimed a lack of guidance was to blame.

"Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial recognition technology," the study reads. "In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras give officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service."

The cameras also capture hours of video footage each day, requiring some type of management system at the department or through a private vendor. The retention of the video should be limited to about 30 days, McGuire said, since a backlog of video amounts to something akin to a database. The ACLU has voiced similar concerns about storage of police surveillance footage in public spaces and license plate reader information.

"We want (video) held for accountability but we also don't want the data to be kept so long it touches on privacy infringement," McGuire said.

McGuire echoed concern about video inside someone's home where "there is an expectation of privacy," especially if the person is making a complaint. The issue may be solved by having a policy that the officer must ask for consent before turning the camera on, he said.

"I think you're going to see a real explosion of these cameras," McGuire said. "We're not an advocate of government surveillance but in this instance it's a case of making sure police act responsibly. They show a lot of promise. In general everyone acts more responsibly when on camera."

McGuire compares the body cameras to the introduction of dashboard cams in cruisers 10 or 15 years ago. They have captured the best and worst of both officers and citizens alike, and are now the norm.

Legislation expected

McGuire said he expects issues surrounding the use of the cameras to become the subject of legislation, perhaps in some type of police accountability bill, in the near future.

Branford police started their program several years ago with just two cameras, made by VieVu, assigned to traffic officers who were interacting with citizens upwards of 3,000 times a year. The department later purchased enough to cover patrol officers on duty and earlier this year to equip the entire department, including the chief.

"They've learned to trust them," Morgan said. "Change is difficult for law enforcement. There was a lot of concern among officers that with cameras their decisions would second guessed," Morgan said.

His officers follow a written policy developed by the department for when the camera is to be turned on, which includes nearly every interaction such as traffic stops, witness interviews and arrests.

The officer is not allowed to turn off the camera until at least a minute after an encounter. Officers are strictly forbidden from copying, releasing or disseminating the video.

Norwich Police Chief Louis J. Fusaro said he budgeted $120,000 for 94 cameras and says he also expects to reduce the number of unfounded complaints with solid documentation. Norwich, unlike New London, does not use dashboard cameras, but within the past several years installed a series of surveillance cameras across the city.

"One of the points of doing this is the fact you have good documentation of what happened," versus the one-sided version in a cell phone video, Fusaro said.

g.smith@theday.com

Twitter: @SmittyDay