Early in 2020, with COVID here and ready to spread, Concord Police Chief Brad Osgood met with members of his staff.
Deputy chiefs, sergeants and lieutenants gathered in a conference room at the Green Street headquarters and moved through a checklist of duties and pressing issues, a common routine to help the chief set department priorities.
Suddenly, a call came in about a shooting at the Second Start school, ending the meeting with a few subjects remaining to discuss.
One item left on the agenda was the use of cameras by police to record events during confrontations, a critical tool when charges of questionable behavior – by a citizen or an officer – surface.
“We had not gotten to body cameras by the time we heard about the shooting,” Osgood said in an interview in his office last week. “It was one thing on the agenda, and it was near the very bottom.”
Osgood scheduled another meeting to discuss the remaining items.
“I told the department that body cameras are coming,” Osgood said. “Then we see in May and June calls for police reform. We’re starting to see a ramp-up on body cameras.”
Call it a sign of the times. Even old-school chiefs like Osgood have concluded that the body camera belongs as a funded, mainstream piece of police equipment.
He said he’s going to ask for funding in the next city budget, which will be introduced in 2023. He’s already researched one camera system and will explore another, more affordable one, if and when the City Council agrees cameras are worthwhile.
With the council’s support, Osgood said, Concord will join the other Granite State departments wearing body cameras by January of 2024.
Municipalities both larger and smaller than Concord have decided years ago to cover the cost of cameras. Even the New Hampshire State Police – one of the last holdouts among state police forces in New England – are rolling out body-worn and dash-mounted cameras. Osgood says getting into the game late does not accurately reflect his feelings on using cameras. It’s simply a matter of priorities.
“It is a significant investment for the City of Concord,” the chief explained in an email, “and it must be balanced when examining all other capital investments in and for the community.”
In a separate interview at his office, Osgood said he has not been opposed to Concord officers wearing cameras.
“The idea that I am against it or we do not want body cameras is entirely false,” he said. “I told them 2½ years ago that body cameras are coming. It just depended on when.”
He compared cameras to bulletproof vests, which Osgood said were not part of the standard equipment issued when he joined the Concord Police Department 35 years ago. If officers wanted one, they paid for it themselves, Osgood said.
Then, after Jeremy Charron of the Epsom Police Department was shot and killed 25 years ago last week, things changed. The city paid for vests after that.
These days, vests are mandatory and cost about $1,000 each, according to Osgood, paid for by the city and the Federal Government in a 50-50 split.
New technology, carried by almost everyone these days, has allowed the public to film police activities, some of which included the deaths of unarmed Black men. The murder of George Floyd fueled a national outcry and calls for increased police transparency.
A national and statewide movement to incorporate the use of cameras into standard police training continues to gain momentum. Last July, the Commission on Law Enforcement, Accountability, Community and Transparency (LEACT) recommended all state and local police wear body cameras. Governor Chris Sununu endorsed the recommendations, and in July, the state’s Executive Council voted to use $719,646 to buy body-worn and dashboard cameras for 29 local police departments.
Further, 260 State Police cruisers had been equipped with front-facing and backseat cameras as of late last month, and nearly all members of the State Police have been outfitted with body-worn cameras.
And two weeks ago, the Attorney General’s Office announced that an additional $1.2 million in grants would be available to local and county law enforcement agencies to buy cameras.
And while that’s helpful, reimbursements are capped at $50,000 per agency, a small fraction of the $700,000 price tag needed to equip Concord police with cameras.
Osgood said additional funding would be needed to hire support staff to manage the new program, among other costs.
“On the operating side would be additional expenses that we would have,” Osgood said. “I was speaking with the city prosecutor’s office and they would request to hire an additional prosecutor because of the logistics behind all the videos that they would have to view.”
Despite the increased costs, Osgood said it’s time for a change. Attorney General John Formella recently said video recordings can sometimes be misleading, but he endorsed the use of cameras by state law enforcement.
“I’ve said it before, and you could quote me, and I’ll say it again: In general, I think body cameras are better for the officers and they’re better for the public, and the state will continue its efforts to promote body cams,” he said.
“But,” he added, “it’s up to local departments.”
The local and statewide departments that responded to a dangerous scenario last year in Pittsfield were not equipped with cameras.
The Attorney General’s Office announced at a press conference last month that police were justified in shooting and killing Tony Hannon.
Beyond witness testimony and police statements, a video and photos taken by an unnamed neighbor played a significant part in the investigation.
A still photo from one video showed Hannon on his front step, pointing a gun at his head. A one-second video lasted long enough to show Hannon apparently rising from his knees and turning toward the house when police, shielded by a Bear Cat, began shooting. Only one bullet was heard discharging before the video ended.
Another video, 44 seconds long, showed the barrage of gunfire, directed at Hannon, that followed. Hannon can be seen lying face up on the steps, motionless. Police then moved in with caution.
While the footage shows a lot, Hannon is never actually seen raising his gun toward police, which is what the Attorney General’s Office determined.
“He did not drop his pistol,” prosecutor Peter Hinckley of the AG’s office said during the July press conference, which was called to reveal the conclusions from the investigation. “Instead, he pointed the gun at nearby officers and began firing.”
Perhaps Hannon’s intent to shoot at police would have been clear in footage taken by a body camera, erasing any public doubt.
One resident who commented shortly after the incident did not want to speak or be named this time because of the blowback she received from neighbors who thought she had been too critical of the police.
Fourteen months ago, she said, “Any situation like that they should have a body camera. This is just to protect both sides, so an officer isn’t being accused of something they didn’t do.”
Osgood definitely stood by his department and all its officers.
“I have true confidence that my police are acting and behaving appropriately,” he said. “Body cameras are not going to catch them committing a crime. Our department, my command staff and myself have great faith that our employees are doing the right thing all the time.”
Most citizens probably believe that. But a little help is always welcome.
“Am I skeptical of body cameras?” Osgood asked. “No, I’m not. I know how they work. I have cameras at my home.”