Body cameras for Grand Rapids Police: Mayor supports trial run

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A pilot project involving body cameras may begin early next year, pending further public feedback and development of policies to dictate how city police would use the technology.

Mayor George Heartwell and his colleagues on The Grand Rapids City Commission expect to hear recommendations on body cams in mid-January. At this point, Heartwell thinks the cameras are a good idea, so long as the right procedures are put in place.

“The tightrope that we walk here is one between transparency on the one side and privacy on the other side,” he said. “Anytime Big Brother is out with cameras, it raises the specter of an invasion of privacy rights.

“We’ve committed ourselves to a very aggressive timeline for developing policy and researching technology and cost. We may start out with a pilot project. I think that would be a good thing to pilot (body cameras) for a period of time and see how that works.”

RELATED: Ferguson demands response, say Grand Rapids leaders: Recommendation coming on body cameras

The City Commission this week was asked by leaders of a nonprofit community development organization to implement body cameras within 60 days. Dozens of people on Tuesday, Dec. 2, told city leaders they think the cameras would help keep cops accountable for their actions, and build trust among residents who feel they get unfairly targeted by law enforcement.

The commission responded by setting a formal public hearing for 7 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 16, at City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave. NW, to get feedback from a broader representation of the public than just those body-cam advocates who were rallied to this week’s meeting by LINC Community Revitalization, Inc.

Grand Rapids leaders also set a Jan. 13 deadline for City Manager Greg Sundstrom and Police Chief David Rahinsky to craft recommendations regarding body cameras.

“For me, it’s a slow, balanced approached that’s led by our police chief,” First Ward City Commissioner Walt Gutowski said. “There have been unintended consequences from places (using body cameras) where the technology has gotten ahead of the policy. So (Rahinsky) is saying let’s move forward, but let’s move forward in an intentional way so that we don’t have any unintended consequences.”

American Civil Liberties Union’s take on body cameras

Excerpts from an ACLU position paper on the technology
Although we generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers.

We’re against pervasive government surveillance, but when cameras primarily serve the function of allowing public monitoring of the government instead of the other way around, we generally regard that as a good thing.

The balance that needs to be struck is to ensure that officers can’t manipulate the video record, while also ensuring that officers are not subjected to a relentless regime of surveillance without any opportunity for shelter from constant monitoring.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union, Jay Stanley

Heartwell said he has heard caution about body cameras from the American Civil Liberties Union, “and that’s not a ‘don’t do it,’ but a ‘be careful and thoughtful how you do it.’” The ACLU

recommends policies

for body cameras such as prohibiting cops from having the ability to edit video on the fly, requiring cops to notify people that they are being recorded (except for in emergency situations) and deleting stored video in a timely manner.

“Our basic position is that they can be very useful, but you have to have safeguards in place to protect privacy,” said Miriam Aukerman, West Michigan regional staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan. “Body cameras can serve as an excellent oversight mechanism to prevent and address police abuses. But body cameras are not a panacea.

“Body cameras need to be part of a larger strategy to ensure police accountability, end racial profiling and restore trust between the police and public, particularly with communities of color.”

Police officers in Lowell have been wearing body cameras for about a year. The $400 cameras are supposed to be manually activated when an officer is sent to a call, makes a traffic stop or has any interaction with the public, and video from the cameras is kept until cases are adjudicated.

At Calvin College, one of two area colleges where security personnel wear body cameras, policy dictates that the cameras only can be used when campus safety officers are responding to violations of federal, state or local laws, or violations of the student code of conduct. They cannot be used in private areas such as a locker room or during a conversation with sensitive or confidential information.

"We need to see how much they cost and address privacy issues that the community might have," said Ruth Kelly, a Second Ward city commissioner in Grand Rapids. "I hesitate to say a yes or no until we've heard from everyone, but I think this is worth a very close look as a possible tool for prevention of problems and accountability."


Calls for cop bodycams fuel sales, exposure for Michigan-based Pro-Vision Video Systems

Police body cameras: Two West Michigan colleges have devices as activists call for wider use

Some data suggests that body cameras reduce use-of-force techniques by police and also reduce public complaints about cops. But studies of the technology are limited, leaving the impact of body cameras unclear.

If Grand Rapids deploys the cameras, it may satisfy citizens who perceive they will make city police more transparent and accountable. That peace of mind will come at a price: Rahinsky estimates the cost of implementing cameras as high as $1 million.

"This is not in our budget," Heartwell said. "It will have to come out of our general fund unless there's some grant dollars that come from the federal government.

“Every dollar we have is budgeted and any of the very modest surpluses that we’re enjoying right now are going into (reserves). But the fact of the matter is if this is important and it’s what our citizens are demanding, then we’re going to find a way to pay for it.”

Matt Vande Bunte covers government for MLive/Grand Rapids Press. Email him at or follow him on Twitter and Facebook.