Social Media and Technology: The Eyes and Ears of Law Enforcement

Throughout the 21st century, the evolution of technology has allowed for progressive change within many spheres of modern society. While succumbing to such technological advancements, the legal field has been able to use computers and machinery to better protect and serve the public. In particular, the technology introduced within law enforcement agencies was created to increase the credibility of both police officers and suspects during arrests. Through means of surveillance footage and body-worn cameras (BWCs), interactions between legal officials and citizens are recorded. With this, social media has also become a form of corroboration as numerous online platforms allow bystanders to publicize the events. The establishment of such legal technology has unveiled the corruption within the policing system and has led to an increase of deterrence from suspects, while the liberty of social media has increased public interest and collusion in criminal cases. 

As body-worn cameras are increasingly being used by law enforcement agencies in North America, the use of such technology has exposed the bigoted conduct of numerous police officers. Throughout the past several years, instances of corruption and prejudice within the policing system have been brought to light within the public sector. To potentially resolve such, US president Barack Obama announced that the American government would begin funding the use body cameras within law enforcement. The White House Administration argued that "BWCs could be used as a technological advent that would revitalize police-public relations and prevent unjust treatment from police officers” (Ariel 732). Namely, the government intended to preserve the public’s trust in the policing system by holding officers accountable for their actions. Although the general population was supportive of the execution of body cameras, many legal officials were in disagreement. In specific, police unions opposed this technological implementation as it was thought to possibly “jeopardize officer safety as the technology may cause police officers to hesitate their actions in moments of crisis” (Sousa et al. 366). Moreover, the unions insisted that “the technology may be a mechanism for administrators to spy on their employees” (Sousa et al. 366). Ultimately, this discontent exemplified within several legal agencies was disregarded as the trial phase of BWCs commenced. During the trial run, several officers from American police stations were given the instruction to “videotape all their encounters with members of the public, to announce to the parties with whom they have engaged that the encounter was videotaped, and to subsequently store evidence on a secured cloud.” (Ariel 734). The footage of these encounters would only be accessed by other legal officials and was not to be made public. Essentially, the pilot testing showed an adequate success rate which led to the general disbursement of body cameras within the policing system. Yet, the effectiveness of this technology was not entirely recognized until recently. In May of 2020, George Floyd, a Minneapolis resident, was murdered by senior police officer Derek Chauvin. During the recent days of Chauvin’s trial, “graphic excerpts of police body camera footage showing his arrest and final moments were featured” (Levenson and Cooper). In the footage presented, Floyd can be seen gasping for air and repeatedly stating that he could not breathe as Chauvin kneels on his neck. Thus, the use of body-worn cameras has been shown to prove guilt and unlawful use of violence within the policing system. To support the use of body cameras, current US president Joseph Biden introduced the George Floyd Policing Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives in March of 2021. This criminal justice reform bill would “require federal police to wear body cameras and mandate that the footage be released on request.” (Cage). This legislative reaction further supports the use of newly developed technology within the legal system and presents body-worn cameras (BWCs) as a pillar of safety for US citizens. In brief, the use of modern technology has allowed for the exposure of deception and unjust actions of policing officials.   

While the use of technology is shown to provide visible evidence of legal misconduct, body cameras have also allowed for suspects to be increasingly compliant and improve police officers ‘safety and conduct. Normally, when one is made aware of the fact that they are being watched or recorded, they compose themselves and act accordingly with moral standards and the law. Body-worn cameras initiate this response within suspects, as the police officials are legally obligated to inform individuals of the technology being used to record the events. The pilot program initiated within the Rialto Police Station, which lasted for 12 months, “reported a relative reduction of roughly 50% in the total number of instances during which officers needed to use legal force” (Ariel 734). Such testing of body-worn cameras allowed legal experts to understand that the technology can not only be used to monitor the officer’s behaviour, but also improve that of the suspect in question. This positive change in etiquette can be defined as deterrence: the instance in which individuals may modify their actions in fear of consequence and guilt. Self-awareness theorists further supports this premise by suggesting that “individuals alter their behaviour once made aware that they are being observed” (Ariel 735). This is also applicable for officers, as their behaviour is being monitored and recorded. Therefore, they are incentivized to act fairly and without force. It is explained that “deterrence and self-awareness work equally on suspects who would otherwise decide to commit a crime and on police officers who might otherwise break the rules of conduct.” (Ariel 737). Moreover, the use of body-worn cameras can also prove the innocence of wrongfully accused officers. During the testing period initiated within the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, “there were several instances in which BWC video footage resulted in an officer’s exoneration after a citizen filed a false allegation of misconduct” (Sousa et al. 373). Thus, the use of body cameras may also provide footage that refutes deceitful claims made by individuals. Altogether, by using BWCs, the behaviour of both the officer and suspect can be positively altered while the credibility of the officer is also supported by video proof.  

Along with body-worn cameras, social media has recently been used to present proof of injustice and corruption before the public. In particular, bystanders utilize their smartphones or cameras as way of recording the events. Often, such is then posted to online platforms which are accessed by millions of individuals. With regard to the legal system specifically, “videos of violence by police are posted on social media and have become an increasingly prominent source of hashtags and an impetus for mobilizing social justice movements” (Dixon and Dundes 1). In other words, the use of technology has expanded the public’s knowledge of corruption within the legal system, thus leading to movements centered around police reform. To further publicize the events, “social media sites such as Facebook are one means to rally the public, as they allow users to discuss police brutality in online settings, independent of an incident’s coverage in traditional media” (Dixon and Dundes 1). Such form of public outcry has most notably been recognized in 2020, following the death of George Floyd. As the arrest was done in a public setting, “images of Floyd pleading for relief from the excessive force were captured on video by a bystander and shared widely on social media.” (Dixon and Dundes 2). As the footage provided proof of Chauvin’s violent and prejudice actions, many began to demand for proper punishment. In specific, “the outpouring of reactions to Floyd’s death revealed that frustration with the treatment of Black people by police had reached a tipping point” (Dixon and Dundes 3). Essentially, this proof of mistreatment was one which could not be ignored by the black community black, a racial group which has contiously fallen victim to unjust treatment from police officers throughout history. In response, social justice movements such as Black Lives Matter began protesting and vocalizing their discontent with the misuse of power within the legal system. With the evolution of technology, the flaws within the legal field have been made clear and the public is now given an assertive voice against police brutality and other forms of corruption.    

In all, body-worn cameras and social media now serve unique functions in police reform and legal justice. Personally, I have been witness to the change achieved through means of technology. By of social media, I became further educated on the treatment of George Floyd and the numerous forms of police brutality used against those of color. Inspired by such, I attended the Black Lives Matter protest in Montreal. There, it was made clear to me that technology has allowed individuals to understand the truth behind many issues regarding the legal system while also providing people with a way to collaborate and someday achieve equality.