Two Montgomery police cars to get cameras in pilot program
By: HAYLEY PETERSON
Special to The Examiner
June 10, 2009
Montgomery County has installed surveillance cameras in two police cars, following a 10-year battle between the County Council and local police union.
Police installed the cameras as part of a pilot program slated to last several months, spokesman Lt. Paul Starks said. The program will cost $1 million in the first year. At least 800 marked patrol cars will be equipped with cameras in the next three to four years.
The program comes nearly 10 years after the county agreed to install dashboard cameras as part of a settlement following the shooting death of an unarmed man by a Montgomery County police officer.
“Of the $3 million settlement, we and the plaintiff gave [Montgomery County] $1 million to go to paying for cameras to be placed in cruisers,” said Walter Blair, a lawyer who sued on behalf of the slain man’s family.
“That was back in the year 2000. Since then we have been waiting to see the cameras placed in the cruisers.”
Starks attributed the delay to arbitrations with the local police union — the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 35.
“We had to negotiate with the union,” Starks said. “They didn’t want cameras. The bottom line is we can now begin to implement them.”
Changes to the program were approved May 21.
FOP Secretary Jane Milne said union members never opposed surveillance cameras — rather, they disagreed with certain “implementation” measures. She wouldn’t elaborate.
According to an FOP memorandum, the union was particularly concerned with officers’ and citizens’ privacy rights.
But ensuring justice is more important than privacy, surveillance supporters argued.
In April, Montgomery County Officer II Dina Hoffman testified 11 times that she found a man behind the wheel of his car when she arrested him for driving under the influence, but a nearby surveillance camera showed he was lying in the back seat.
Cameras “provide the most accurate depiction of what occurs,” said Paul Mack, the defendant’s attorney.
Starks said Montgomery’s surveillance cameras would upload digitally recorded information to the county server through a wireless connection. The recordings will be stored on the server for up to 210 days.
Meanwhile, Blair’s widowed plaintiff is outraged and wants her money back — with nine years’ interest, Blair said.
“Nine years later — and there’s now an experiment on two cars? This is less than what we agreed to. In fact, it reflects a breach of contract.”
