Sheriff to begin testing body cameras in McHenry County

The McHenry County Sheriff’s Office will be the first agency in the county to experiment with body-worn cameras, a trendy police tool sweeping the nation in the wake of the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen in Ferguson, Missouri.

The Aug. 9 shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown at the hands of police officer Darren Wilson and the racially charged protests in the St. Louis suburb that followed have raised questions about police tactics and the police relationship with the public.

Agencies across the country are beginning to test whether body cameras – generally the size of a pager – are the answer. In Illinois alone, police in Chicago, Elgin, Peoria and Springfield have considered body cameras for their officers after Ferguson police began attaching them to their uniforms following Brown’s shooting.

Last week, McHenry County Sheriff deputies tried on body-worn cameras for the first time ahead of a 45-day experimental trial that will have the officers use the emerging technology during street patrols, said Undersheriff Andrew Zinke.

Other departments in Crystal Lake and Huntley support the tool because they say it allows for more transparent and accountable police work. But they still are hesitant to incorporate the cameras because of lingering legal questions over privacy unresolved by the state legislature.

“It’s a natural progression, whether an officer is for or against it,” Zinke said. “It’s meant to protect the officers while they’re doing their jobs. The cameras aren’t only a saving tool for court proceedings, but also for when officers are out on the streets.”

The county’s largest police agency began considering body cameras for their deputies months before the Ferguson incident. Correctional officers have worn body cameras inside the McHenry County Jail for years, Zinke said, making it easier to incorporate the technology into deputies’ work.

The cameras can be applied nearly anywhere on an officers uniform, including a breast pocket, a tactical helmet and even eyeglasses. Unlike commonly used in-car cameras, the body-worn cameras can capture an officer’s every move and interaction, Zinke and other area police have said.

The footage consequently can provide the greatest corroboration to witness accounts and guard against claims of police brutality and excessive use of force

“If you see a video of what the officer actually saw and heard, it makes more sense to why the officer reacted the way they did,” said Crystal Lake Police Cmdr. Dan Dziewior. “It captures the absolute essence of the circumstances.”

Inside the city’s police department, boxes holding 10 body cameras have sat sealed for nearly a decade, Dziewior said. The department used a grant to purchase the equipment in anticipation that the state’s eavesdropping law – regarded as the strictest in the nation – would change.

Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court took that step by ruling the 1961 law unconstitutional on the grounds that it was overly broad and violated free speech and due process protections.

Under the law, a person could be charged with a felony if they recorded a conversation without all involved parties consenting to it first. In two related cases, the court ruled that the state’s eavesdropping law criminalizes conversations that are clearly public.

But the court kicked the issue back to the state legislature to craft new rules and define what circumstances constitute private conversations. The Illinois Senate consequently approved a bill that amended the old eavesdropping law, but it stalled in the House this spring.

Without the legal clarification, the body camera boxes inside the Crystal Lake Police Department will remain untouched, Dziewior said.

“We are still waiting for a change in the law before we can roll them out the door,” he said.

Likewise, Huntley police realize the benefits body cameras can provide officers, but they are equally apprehensive about being entangled with lawsuits.

Deputy Chief Michael Klunk said the department’s officers would need to know when body cameras could be activated. A body camera would follow an officer into private homes during a response to domestic situations and other private incidents, he said.

“Having a recording device is as objective as it’s going to get, so it benefits both sides. But right now, they are more questions than answers,” Klunk said. “Legislators do need to act and look into this issue. Eavesdropping is probably the biggest hurdle.”

As sheriff deputies embark on an experimental trial, the forthcoming test likely will be scrutinized by many agencies in the county.

Given the unresolved legal questions, the deputies will use the body cameras in similar incidents and traffic stops where their in-car cameras are activated, Zinke said.

The office also plans on working with state Rep. Jack Franks, D-Marengo, who told the Northwest Herald that he plans on meeting with other area departments to see whether a bill is needed to address their legal concerns.

“By and large, police like it, but they have to be able to turn it off sometime, too. I think we can work it out and figure out what’s best for law enforcement and people’s civil liberties,” Franks said. “If there needs to be a legislative remedy, we will do that in the spring ... We need to get together and figure out how to make it work.”