The Camera Protects Both Sides
Something I read recently in The Atlantic reminded me of a decision I was involved in more than a decade ago when I was Vice President of Finance at the University of Toledo.
In 2015, the University of Toledo Police Department began equipping its officers with body cameras. Capt. Jeff Newton, who reported to me at the time, was involved in implementing the program, and I was able to allocate the funding necessary to purchase the cameras.
I thought it was an easy decision, but Jeff told me not everyone in the police department agreed. I remember being surprised when Jeff told me some officers didn’t like the idea of having their actions recorded and potentially reviewed later.
I understood their concern, but Jeff and I understood the body camera isn’t just there to protect the public. It’s there to protect the police officer. We went ahead with the implementation.
More than a decade later, I believe that argument is even stronger.
What Actually Happened?
I thought about my experience at UT after reading about a recent ICE shooting described in The Atlantic.
According to the article, an ICE officer shot someone while attempting to make an arrest. ICE requires officers making arrests to have body cameras and instructs them to activate the cameras before engaging in enforcement activity. But the officer involved in this shooting wasn’t wearing one.
The circumstances surrounding the shooting are disputed.
And that is exactly why the camera matters.
When a law-enforcement officer uses deadly force, there may be two very different versions of what happened.
The officer says one thing.
The person arrested—or witnesses—may say something else.
Lawyers get involved. Politicians get involved. Social media gets involved.
Before long, everyone has an opinion.
A body camera can’t answer every question.
But it can answer a very important one: What actually happened?
Cameras Protect Police Officers Doing Their Job Properly
This was the argument I made at the University of Toledo years ago.
Imagine that an officer is accused of using excessive force during an arrest.
The person arrested says the officer attacked him without provocation.
The officer says the person resisted arrest and threatened him.
Without video, investigators may be left trying to determine whose version is more credible.
With video, there may be objective evidence.
Maybe the video shows the officer acting improperly. If so, the public deserves to know that.
Maybe it shows exactly the opposite. Maybe it shows that the officer remained calm, followed proper procedures and used force only after the person resisted or threatened someone.
That camera may become the officer’s best witness.
Cameras Also Protect the Public
The other side is equally important.
Police officers have extraordinary authority.
They can stop us. They can detain us. They can arrest us. And under certain circumstances, they can legally use force—including deadly force.
Most officers exercise that authority responsibly.
But when someone is given that much power, accountability comes with it.
A body camera provides an independent record of how that authority was exercised.
If an officer behaves professionally, the video can demonstrate that.
If an officer behaves improperly, the video can demonstrate that too.
The camera doesn’t take sides. That’s its value.
Cameras Aren’t Perfect
Body cameras aren’t a magic solution.
Research on whether cameras reduce police use of force has produced mixed results.
A camera also doesn’t necessarily show everything an officer sees. The angle may be different. Something important may happen outside the camera’s field of view. Video may not reveal what an officer knew or reasonably believed at a particular moment.
There are legitimate privacy concerns as well, particularly when officers enter someone’s home or encounter victims during highly personal situations.
Those concerns need to be addressed through good policies.
But they don’t eliminate the basic value of having a visual record of a disputed encounter.
A Camera That Isn’t on Doesn’t Help
There’s one more issue that seems obvious to me.
If a law-enforcement agency requires body cameras, wearing and activating them can’t be optional.
There will occasionally be legitimate reasons why a recording isn’t available. Equipment can malfunction. Events can unfold too quickly. An officer may face an immediate threat before having an opportunity to activate a camera.
But when policy requires a camera and there isn’t a recording, there should be an explanation.
Otherwise, we’ve spent the money, developed the policy and equipped the officers—but lost the evidence at precisely the moment we needed it.
What I Believed Then, I Still Believe Today
Looking back at my experience at the University of Toledo, I understand the officers’ concerns a little better today.
None of us would particularly enjoy going to work knowing that many of our actions could be recorded and later reviewed.
But police work is different from most jobs.
Police officers carry enormous responsibility and enormous authority.
With that responsibility comes accountability.
And I continue to believe body cameras are one of those rare tools that can serve both sides of the relationship.
They can protect citizens from misconduct.
They can protect police officers from false accusations.
They can provide prosecutors and courts with better evidence.
And perhaps most importantly, they can give the rest of us something more reliable than competing stories about what happened.
When we introduced body cameras at the University of Toledo more than a decade ago, my argument was simple and it still applies today. If you did the right thing, wouldn’t you want the camera to show it?
******************************************************************************
Does Congress Really Need to Fix College Sports?
I love college sports.
My daughter Katy played on the NCAA Division II national championship softball team in 2007. I’ve been watching Michigan and Michigan State football and basketball for most of my life.
I’ll readily admit that college sports today barely resembles the college sports Katy played and I grew up watching.
Today, athletes can make substantial amounts of money from their name, image and likeness. The transfer portal allows athletes to move from school to school. Schools are beginning to share revenue directly with athletes. Conference realignment has produced leagues that sometimes make little geographic sense.
The line between amateur and professional sports has become increasingly difficult to find.
College sports has problems. I’m just not convinced Congress should be responsible for solving them.
Congress Is Getting Involved
I started thinking about this after reading a recent New York Times article about congressional efforts to bring some order to college athletics.
The Senate is considering the Protect College Sports Act, which would establish national rules covering NIL rights, scholarships, medical benefits, transfers and other aspects of college athletics.
And this isn’t some fringe proposal. It’s bipartisan. Last week, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to move forward with consideration of the legislation.
Supporters make a reasonable argument.
College sports now operate under a confusing mixture of NCAA rules, state laws, court decisions and individual conference policies. A university in one state may operate under different rules from a university in another state even though the schools compete against each other.
A national system probably does need some national rules.
But that raises a different question: How involved should Congress become?
What Is Congress For?
We have a national debt measured exceeding $40 trillion.
Social Security and Medicare face significant long-term financial pressures.
Congress continually struggles with immigration.
We have major questions involving health care, housing, infrastructure, energy, national defense and artificial intelligence.
We have a war with Iran that Congress has not approved.
Those are issues that unquestionably require federal attention.
When I look at Congress spending its time deciding how college athletics should regulate NIL payments and transfers, and I find myself asking: Is this really what we need the United States Congress working on?
I get the desire to fix college sports. College athletics isn’t merely Saturday afternoon entertainment anymore.
It’s a multibillion-dollar national enterprise. Athletes, television contracts and NIL businesses cross state lines. There are legitimate federal questions involving antitrust law, employment law and Title IX.
So perhaps Congress does have a role. I’m just not convinced it should be running the show.
Establish Some Rules and Boundaries
Congress may need to establish some basic rules.
It may need to clarify how federal antitrust and employment laws apply. It may have a role in protecting athletes’ basic rights and preventing conflicting state laws from creating an unworkable national system.
But after establishing those boundaries, shouldn’t the people who operate college athletics be responsible for figuring out the rest?
Universities and conferences helped create the current system. They chased enormous television contracts. They changed conferences in pursuit of additional revenue. Coaching salaries exploded. Athletic departments built increasingly elaborate facilities.
Meanwhile, the NCAA resisted allowing athletes to share meaningfully in the enormous amount of money being generated around them.
Eventually courts, state legislatures and changing public attitudes disrupted the old model.
Now the system is chaotic. But does the fact that college athletics created a mess mean Congress should clean it up?
I’m not convinced.
College Sports Needs to Admit What It Has Become
Part of the solution may require everyone involved to acknowledge something they resisted acknowledging for decades: Big-time college sports is a business.
We can still love Michigan football on Saturday afternoon. The players can still be students. The traditions can still matter.
But major college football and basketball are also enormous commercial enterprises.
Universities, conferences, athletes and whatever governing organization eventually emerges need to create a system that recognizes that reality while also protecting athletes and preserving opportunities in college sports that don’t generate significant revenue
Congress Has Plenty to Do
I realize Congress can address more than one issue at a time. And supporters of this legislation can reasonably argue that college athletes deserve federal protection too.
Fair enough.
But governing requires priorities.
Not every national problem requires a federal solution.
College athletics absolutely needs fixing. Athletes deserve reasonable protection. Universities need predictable rules. Fans deserve a system they can understand.
I agree with all of that.
I’m just not convinced senators and representatives should be the people to decide exactly how college sports should operate.
Perhaps Congress should establish a few basic legal rules and boundaries and then say to the universities, conferences, athletic organizations and athletes: Now fix your own game.
Because Washington already has plenty of other problems that only Washington can solve.
********************************************************************************************************
Quote of the Day: “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” — Winston Churchill
Orchid of the Day: This evening in Petoskey, there was not a cloud in the sky. The temperature was in the mid-60s. The water on Little Traverse Bay was a beautiful blue, with a few whitecaps. Leah and I couldn’t pass up a little drive in the car to take it all in. It was well spent forty-five minutes as we drove from Petoskey to Charlevoix to Boyne City to Wallon Village and back to Petoskey.
Onion of the Day: Anyone who thinks a body camera is only there to catch a police officer doing something wrong.
A body camera can certainly document misconduct. But it can also document an officer doing everything right. When accusations are made and memories differ, an objective recording may be the best protection a police officer has. Sometimes accountability and protection are the same thing.
Question of the Day: If you were a police officer and knew you had acted properly during a difficult arrest, would you want the encounter recorded on a body camera? Why or why not?
Lyrics of the Day: “Every move you make, I’ll be watching you.” A perfect choice for today’s blog.
If you know the song and artist, please leave your answer in the comments below.
Answer to Lyrics of the Day, September 21, 2026: People are Strang by The Doors
Video of the Day: Gimme Shelter