Supported by Lewandowski, cameras on police officers are opposed in the Chamber

The use of cameras in uniforms will be the subject of one of the first clashes between Ricardo Lewandowski, future Minister of Justice and Public Security, with the police and the group of parliamentarians that represents the category in the Chamber of Deputies. The current holder of the portfolio, Flávio Dino, will leave as an inheritance to his successor a bill that treats the camera as mandatory security equipment for police officers across the country: military, civil, criminal, firefighters and experts, linked to the states, and federal and federal highways, reporting directly to the ministry.

Chosen by Lewandowski to head the National Security Secretariat, the current São Paulo Public Prosecutor, Mário Sarrubbo, said that he, along with the minister, is an enthusiast of the measure. “I know that the minister [Ricardo] Lewandowski is also an enthusiast, and we can move forward and offer states instruments and promote this good policy”, he said, in an interview with the newspaper The globe. “Police lethality is greatly reduced with the camera, just as police lethality is also reduced”, he also stated on the radio CBN.

In 2022, when the STF forced the government of Rio de Janeiro to install cameras in the uniforms of all police officers in the state, Lewandowski voted in favor, drawing attention to the objective of reducing the number of deaths caused by police officers. “A true ‘unconstitutional state of affairs’ has been established in that State, taking into account the – totally uncontrolled – spread of violence by police authorities and the unusual lethality of their actions, which – increasingly – affect innocent civilian victims, especially women and children, completely defenseless”, said the minister, now retired.

In addition to Rio de Janeiro, seven states have adopted the measure in recent years, either experimentally or partially. São Paulo started the policy in 2020, under the administration of former governor João Doria; the current one, Tarcísio de Freitas, announced that he will not continue, on the grounds that the cameras would not be effective for the safety of citizens. In Santa Catarina, the state government wants to stop use, made mandatory by the Court of Justice. Minas Gerais, Pará, Rio Grande do Norte, Roraima and Rondônia have already adopted cameras, but with a small number of police officers. Paraná should begin installation in February.

Projects in the Chamber to regulate the use of equipment

In the Chamber of Deputies, there are already 22 projects to regulate the measure. Most proposals leave it up to the police officer to decide when to turn on the camera, as is the case in most countries where it is used in uniform. This is a model opposite to that defended by the current government. Last Friday (19), the National Council for Criminal and Penitentiary Policy (CNPCP), linked to the Ministry of Justice, approved a recommendation with guidelines for the use of the equipment. The standard is not mandatory, but serves as a guideline.

In the text, it is recommended that the cameras be automatically activated throughout the entire shift. The images would be stored for three to six months, or a year in the case of operations involving arrests, searches, weapons firing and prison inspections. The recordings would be available to the Public Ministry, which controls police activities; Judiciary, for use in custody hearings (which within 24 hours can release prisoners in the act, illegally detained); to the police internal affairs bodies; and to citizens, in a justified manner.

Among the eight objectives, half are related to the control and supervision of police officers, such as “ensuring the differentiated use of force” and “preservation of citizens’ fundamental rights”; “assist in the exercise of external control over police activity”; and “assist in the exercise of external control over police activity”.

Other objectives are to “reinforce the transparency and legitimacy of actions”; “support the performance of public security professionals, and protect their physical and moral integrity”; promote the obtaining of informative elements and evidence with greater epistemic quality”; and “allow the verification of the preservation of the evidentiary chain of custody” – the last two, in practice, aim at the use of images as evidence in a criminal case.

As soon as the recommendation was released, the president of the Chamber Security Committee, deputy Ubiratan Sanderson (PL-RS), who is a federal police officer, protested. “Complete nonsense. They consider the actions of police officers to be criminal, which is why they want to monitor them ‘full time‘”, the parliamentarian told People’s Gazette.

“It will have a negative impact on the police, because while there is no quality weapons, ballistic vests, decent vehicles, decent salaries, the PT government is concerned about spending public money on cameras to monitor the steps of police operators”, he states.

He also refutes the argument that the measure could provide legal certainty for police officers who act correctly in operations. “This is the argument of those who have never been on the streets and actually faced crime and violence in general. This measure will discourage operational police work in the field, which has a totally different dynamic to that of someone in an air-conditioned office in Brasília”, says Sanderson.

In December, the Chamber Security Committee held a public hearing to debate the topic, based on the most recent bill, by federal deputy Daniela Reinehr (PL-SC), former vice-governor of Santa Catarina. She proposes leaving it up to the police officer to decide whether or not to turn on the camera. Furthermore, the recordings could only be used in her defense, not to accuse him.

“We live in a situation sui generis today with regard to ‘bodycams‘. Initially, it is believed that he envisioned equipment to improve police work. But, unfortunately, today we see a lot of them being used to benefit the defense of criminals, of people who are in disagreement with law and order. And it gives the Judiciary a false impression of having the necessary elements in the images of the police incident to instruct criminal proceedings”, said Daniela Reinehr, who is a former PM, at the hearing.

During the session, several study managers criticized the federal government’s intention to impose, “from top to bottom”, the mandatory use of cameras in uniforms.

“There is a clear intention of the federal government to control the military police, to put a collar on it,” said Santa Catarina’s deputy secretary of Security, Freibergue Rubem do Nascimento, who is a PM colonel and former national secretary for the area. “It is a production of evidence against the police officer and would give the Judiciary a VIP seat to analyze the fact in a partial way, because it would have a partial view of the facts, to the detriment of our people”, he added.

“The police today are already going out to patrol a street condemned by the media and part of society”, said the director of the State Academy of Public Security of Minas Gerais, Marco Aurélio Matos da Costa. He questioned research that shows a reduction in police lethality with the use of cameras. “Did this lethality not decrease because the police stopped approaching individuals on the street? Will the police officer controlled by a camera not approach less?”, said Costa, pointing to the equipment as a cause of inhibition, due to fear of punishment.

Deputies echoed the criticism. “I am against it, because police incidents occur in environments where intelligence no longer exists, in confrontational, confrontational environments. Many attitudes that would be considered wrong in a moment of tranquility, in a moment of debate, in an incident, become acceptable on the part of the agent. In a moment of tension, it is the only option the police officer has. These cameras can inhibit the police officer from acting at the right time, he could die because he hesitated, thinking he was being filmed and they will get it wrong and end up going to jail”, said deputy Sergeant Fahur (PSD-PR).

“We don’t know who is monitoring, how they are monitoring, who is going to pass images to whom, we don’t even know if they are a police officer. Or if it’s those fraudsters who join the police and do absolutely nothing, who never even held their finger in the door, never got into a confrontation, don’t know what an exchange of fire is, don’t know how to approach them”, protested the deputy Delegate Palumbo (MDB-SP).

“The camera today, in Rio de Janeiro, is only being used to arrest the police officer. There is nothing that favors the police officer, who today is afraid. On top of that, we have punished police officers who forgot to press the camera button to work. The policeman went there to arrest him, recovered the object, and in the end, instead of praise, he received punishment. What is more important: pressing the button or reassurance from the agent who is working and the person who needed help? It’s impossible to understand, it’s an inversion of values”, complained deputy Sergeant Portugal (Podemos-RJ).

He highlighted that the measure was imposed by the STF, during the pandemic, which prohibited the police from carrying out operations in favelas. Action was proposed by PSB to the Supreme Court.