By LARRY MAIER
County considers cameras in cop cars to tape traffic stops
Smile, you're on county-cop camera.
In the wake of recent allegations that two of its police officers committed sexual abuse, Nassau County is considering installing video cameras and audio recorders in patrol cars, hoping to protect citizens from bad cops and the county from fraudulent lawsuits.
The recommendation came from Eric Naughton, the director of the county's Office of Legislative Budget Review, who said the move also would save the county money.
By providing a permanent record of traffic stops and arrests, Naughton believes that video equipment could help prevent unwarranted lawsuits from making it to the courtroom, "if we can demonstrate early in the process that nothing happened."
"The county often faces false accusations that turn into lawsuits," he said. Naughton could not provide a definitive number as to how much the County loses every year to this type of suit.
Naughton also said the tapes could serve to allay "public concerns on issues such as racial profiling."
In a Feb. 13 letter to legislative Presiding Officer Judy Jacobs (D-Woodbury) and GOP minority leader Peter Schmitt that discussed the cost of equipment that would be needed, Naughton recommended drawing on the approximately $3.2 million in federal and state criminal-forfeiture funds currently available to the county police department to pay for it.
Naughton estimated the cost of equipment at $600,000 to $900,000 and said that if the cameras could help prevent just one major lawsuit against the county, "they would pay for themselves."
Naughton recommended in-car video cameras and recorders for all marked and unmarked police vehicles used for patrol and traffic enforcement. He said that even when the officer is not in view an audio record would be made.
Schmitt said he would support developing a pilot program, starting with the highway patrol, to test the idea before spending close to a million dollars on it. His spokesman, Bob Lazaro, said Schmitt will suggest to County Executive Thomas Gulotta and Police Commissioner William Willett that they move forward with a pilot program.
The use of cameras on cars was tried before and was discontinued due to the cost of maintenance.
Installation of surveillance equipment in patrol cars has drawn a mixed reaction from those who would be under the gaze of video and audio tape.
A Fifth Precinct officer in a marked car parked near a supermarket on Merrick Road in Valley Stream said he didn't see any problem with surveillance equipment in his car. "I have absolutely no problem with the concept," said the patrol officer. "It is just a way to document traffic stops. Nothing more than surveillance equipment."
Stan Slevinski, crime analyst at the Fifth Precinct, said such devices in police cars have positive potential. "Officers that don't do anything wrong should not fear the fact that the cameras are in the cars," he said. "The equipment should be able to be utilized by the police at all stops."
"Surveillance equipment in patrol cars has the potential to act as a deterrent to anyone who is going to do crime to the officers because they'll know they are being recorded," Slevinski said.
The county's present economic situation might not make the installation of the equipment prudent, according to Slevinski. "Money should be better spent on purchasing new cars as opposed to cameras." Slevinski said that it might be better to wait until the county's financial status improved before incurring the expense of the camera program.
Lt. Dennis Dowdell at the Fifth Precinct said he has watched television shows that demonstrate the advantage of surveillance equipment inside a patrol car. "As they turn the red lights on to pull someone over...they film a person's action through the entire stop," he said. "In those instances this is an excellent idea."
Dowdell said that a film of a roadside stop could support the prosecution's position during a trial. "It can also show when a person resists arrest," he said. "A camera could also defend a police officer from an allegation of impropriety, he said.
"If somebody makes a claim against a police officer, we will be able to have the film and defend ourselves perfectly...I think that is an excellent tool," he said.
What he found "a little silly" was the idea of filming an officer at work inside his patrol car. Filming the inside of a police car 24 hours a day seemed "silly and a total overreaction" to Dowdell. "We have to have faith in our people," he said. Several recent incidences that have stimulated the discussion of surveillance equipment inside patrol cars were just "an aberration" on a dedicated police force, he said.
"The timing of it all makes it seem like Big Brother is watching," said First Precinct Detective John Carney, who thinks that the move would be a knee-jerk reaction to recent sexual-assault charges filed against Nassau officers Jay Seifert, formerly of the Fourth Precinct, and Matthew Murphy. Seifert's charges were recently reduced from rape and sodomy, both in the first degree, to coercion, in the first and bribe receiving in the third degree and official misconduct. His next court date is scheduled for March 9.
A charge of sodomy against Murphy was also dropped after the victim admitted to having an affair with the officer. However, he is still charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a woman in August. "If in two to three months, when the smoke clears and the [police department] studies it and they think it's productive, then I think cops would buy it," Carney said.
Carney also said he doesn't think video cameras would prevent bad cops from doing bad things.
"The vast majority of cops do the right thing," he said. "But, in reality, if you are going to have one individual rogue cop who is not in line with the rest of guys on the job, he will find a way around it."
First Precinct Inspector Anthony Rocco doesn't see a need for cameras in patrol cars, but said that if the county does decide to put them in, it will not affect the ability of officers to do their job.
"Our police officers are very resilient," Rocco said. "They will do what they are supposed to do regardless of whether cameras are there or not."
But Carney thought otherwise, especially if officers feel their every move will be scrutinized. "Guys aren't robots out there," he said.
Not all police, however, are against the idea.
Two Fourth Precinct officers, who did not want their names used, said they have nothing to hide and would be in favor of the move.
"It's great. It's a safety tool," said one. "It's a great thing to have in case something goes wrong."
His partner agreed. "It's nothing to worry about unless you're doing something wrong."
Detective Sgt. Kevin Smith, a spokesman for the county police department, said Commissioner Willet hopes that the department is given time to look into the proposal before it moves forward.
"The commissioner is being very protective of the rank and file who may be very disturbed by this action," Smith said.
Although video cameras are used by police departments in other parts of the state and country, Smith said, the results are met "with mixed reviews."
In addition, Smith said that cameras break down, can be shut off, and that the majority of a police officer's day does not take place in front of his patrol car, which would be the area surveyed by the cameras.
The "cop cam" issue has been a hot topic within the county police department. Fourth Precinct Inspector George Gundmundsen told the Herald in a Feb. 16 phone call that, because of the degree of controversy, his precinct has been directed by headquarters to direct all future inquiries about the matter to the department's public information office.
A spokesman for Gulotta said that the county executive is "awaiting the recommendations of law enforcement professionals on the proposal."
Ultimately, the decision lies in the hands of the county executive.
Robert Remler contributed to this story.
