Electronic scrutiny might have its place. That place, it seems, is every place.
The wild, to the extent it exists in Ohio, was not so long ago a haven offering escape from everyday surveillance. It presented the prospect of retreat, even if illusory, from the grasp of technological tangle.
Roaming phones pretty much put an end to that for people, and ubiquitous trail cams allowed unwitting animals to run but not hide. The surveillance replicates, perhaps in a more benevolent form, the stakeout character of city and suburbs, where cameras keep an unblinking watch – even on porches.
Whether cameras in the hands of authority make the world safer or fairer remains questionable, though beyond dispute is it produces revenue.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) announced recently it’s spending $3.5 million allotted to the state under the Federal Coronavirus Relief Fund on body cameras to be worn no later than year’s end by wildlife and natural resources officers.
“Body cameras are becoming an increasingly important piece of technology in all areas of law enforcement,” said Gov. Mike DeWine. “These new cameras have the ability to protect natural resources and wildlife officers while also offering transparency to the public.”
The cameras will help officers “better protect the people of Ohio,” said ODNR director Mary Mertz, noting also the potential benefit of “keeping our officers safe on the job.”
It shouldn’t be doubted that confronting suspected lawbreakers about their doings while they cradle a firearm can sometimes be a hairy business.
Occasionally, the worst happens.
In December 2020, wildlife officer Kevin Behr was shot and seriously wounded while investigating a possible deer hunting violation in Clinton County. The shooter, currently serving prison time for the assault, also pleaded guilty to federal charges for illegal possession of a firearm.
A report early this year for the National Institute of Justice, an office of the U.S. Department of Justice, said the “main reasons” local policing agencies “had acquired body-worn cameras were to improve officer safety, increase evidence quality, reduce civilian complaints and reduce agency liability.”
The report adds, however, that “research does not necessarily support the effectiveness of body-worn cameras in achieving those desired outcomes.”
Citing a meta-analysis involving 70 studies of body-warn camera usage, the institute reported “no consistent or no statistically significant effects … for the impact of body-worn cameras on the use of force, assaults on officers, officer-initiated calls for service, arrests, traffic stops and tickets, and field interviews (that is, stop and frisk).”
The cost of using body cams tends to escalate, reports the Britannica Web site ProCon.org. It cites as an example Baltimore’s entry into a body-cam program, which went from an initial outlay of $11.3 million in 2016 to $35.1 million in 2020.
Another criticism is that cameras represent an invasion of privacy, subjecting citizens to potential public disclosures about their medical conditions and mental illnesses. Additionally, some witnesses, fearing reprisal, are reluctant while on camera to discuss criminal activity.
Whatever dynamic develops between wildlife officers and the Ohio public will settle whether the body-cam purchase represents money well spent. Presently, it can be noted only that it’s been spent.
