in Bailey). Citizens may feel safer knowing their interactions with police are being recorded and their rights are protected. Officers also have an advantage, for example: if an officer is being falsely accused, he/she would have video proving his/her innocence. Cleveland Councilman Zack Reed explains "The cameras wouldn't only encourage police officers to act lawfully, but also show the public that the majority of police officers are doing their job properly every single day." (qtd. in Fieldstadt). The vast majority of police officers may be caring people who just want to serve the community. However, there are a few bad apples that give good cops a bad rep.
If BWC's become more common, that will lead to police accountability, less complaints, and more reliable surveillance. Now days, citizens record police officers using their camera phones. Usually, when a person may see an altercation happening, they pull out their cell phones to record the scene. However, they may only record part of the altercation on video. In these cases, camera phone videos do not always give viewers a clear understanding of what has taken place. Bailey, a science correspondent for Reason magazine, reports that "Some contend that since practically every citizen can now record police activity using their cell phones, police worn cameras will be unnecessary." Footage caught on camera phones do not always give the full picture. BWC's can substitute as the missing piece to the puzzle. Also, recording the police with camera phones can be convenient but also risky. Bailey adds "some states have made it illegal to record people in public without their consent, and the police are often adamant about enforcing that prohibition when the camera is turned on them. Even when the law does permit recording without consent, the police have, in some cases, confiscated cellphones and erased presumably inculpating video.
