ICE body cameras could help accountability, expert says — but agency culture matters more

Congress has allocated millions of dollars for body-worn cameras for ICE agents. And, after two American citizens were killed by ICE in Minneapolis, then Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the agency would deploy the cameras to agents around the country.

But ICE agents were not wearing body cameras in two recent incidents in which people were shot and killed — in Houston and Maine. The Trump administration and congressional Democrats are accusing each other of being the reason for that.

Michael White, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Arizona State University, spoke to The Show about ICE agents and body-worn cameras.

Full conversation

MARK BRODIE: Michael, good morning. How are you doing?

MICHAEL WHITE: I’m good, Mark. Thanks for having me.

MARK BRODIE: Thanks for being here. So, how easy or difficult is it for a federal nationwide agency like ICE to get body cameras to all of its agents?

MICHAEL WHITE: You know, Mark, I guess the short answer is that it’s complicated, but I think it’s important to recognize that there’s a bit of history here. The Department of Justice, the White House, they have supported use of body-worn cameras for well over a decade at the local level.

And this crosses presidential administrations. This is one of the few things that everyone has agreed upon is a good idea. The Obama administration, both Trump administrations, the Biden administration, all have been very, very supportive of body cameras for local and even state law enforcement agencies.

But things have been different at the federal level. Back in May of 2022, then-President Biden issued an executive order, which mandated body-worn cameras for all federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE. And then those agencies had some period of time to try to get their ducks in a row, to engage in that full process.

But then when President Trump won the election and took office in January, he immediately rescinded that executive order. So, all of that time that federal law enforcement agencies had put into planning and deployment kind of was then put on hold, and agencies were left to essentially decide for themselves whether they wanted to continue with cameras or not. Some did and some didn’t.

That’s the history there, but to get back to your question, it is very complicated. The Department of Justice and White House, like I said, they’ve been supporting local and state agencies in doing this for a long time. So, the institutional knowledge is there, but there are many, many hurdles to get over, number one of which is funding.

Body-worn cameras certainly are expensive. Procurement, you have to figure out which vendor you’re going to go with, then you have to develop your policy, you have to make sure you have the infrastructure that is required for the hardware and the software, and then training, obviously, for the officers.

So, it’s certainly more complicated when you consider the fact that ICE is operating across the nation versus, say, the Phoenix Police Department, which is in one local area. But like I said, the institutional knowledge is there, so it’s just a matter of getting all those things taken care of.

MARK BRODIE: What’s the argument for having state and local police wear body cameras, but not necessarily an agency like ICE?

MICHAEL WHITE: There’s no difference for me. The arguments for body-worn cameras, the primary arguments at the local and state law enforcement level, are pretty straightforward.

One is evidence. So, when there’s encounters between law enforcement officers and community members, you capture audio and video of what transpired. Now, they’re not perfect by any means, but still, they capture things that otherwise would be missed.

Transparency, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a chief of police give a press conference and say publicly that we’re deploying cameras because we want to be transparent. So, that when things do happen, then video and audio can be released to the community to demonstrate kind of openness and transparency about what happened.

And then accountability. So, when officers engage in behaviors that violate policy or the law, you then have the information you need to hold officers to account.

And then the other big one is this idea that the presence of the camera during the encounter will change behavior for the better. That is, community members and law enforcement officers know the camera’s there, they know their behaviors are being recorded, and as a result, they’re going to behave better. That’s called a civilizing effect.

So, those are the main reasons for deploying cameras at the local and state level. Those reasons — evidence, accountability, transparency, changing behavior for the better — all apply equally well at the federal level, especially for ICE.

MARK BRODIE: So, Michael, we have about a minute before I have to let you go.

Is there evidence to suggest that when officers, at whatever level they’re at, are wearing cameras that bad things tend to happen less frequently?

MICHAEL WHITE: The evidence, in my view, is pretty strong. So, there have been 44 academic studies that have examined whether complaints against law enforcement officers decline after they start wearing cameras, and 38 of those 44 studies have documented declines. That is really persuasive evidence.

But the point I want to make, Mark, is that what really matters is the culture of the agency, because when it boils down to it, cameras are a tool. And if officers, whether it’s local, state, or ICE, if they believe that their supervisors, their agency leaders, are not going to pay attention or not going to hold them accountable for their behavior that’s recorded on those cameras, then they make no real difference at all.

There’s an old saying that culture eats policy for breakfast. So, if the agency is not responding appropriately to what officers are doing in the field, you can’t really expect then that a technology like body-worn cameras is going to change much of anything.

MARK BRODIE: Right. Interesting. All right, that is Michael White, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at ASU. Michael, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

MICHAEL WHITE: All right, Mark. Take care.

KJZZ's The Show transcripts are created for audience accessibility. Transcripts are created on deadline with the assistance of AI tools and then edited, and may not be in their final form. The authoritative record of KJZZ's programming is the audio segment.