Chicago mayor Richard Daley told the ABA conference this week that cameras in police cars will reduce the amount the city will have to pay out in damages for police malfeasance. He may be right. But let’s not forget the case of Raymond Bell who was arrested by Chicago police officer Joe D. Baker, a 23 year veteran of the force, for driving under the influence. According to Baker, Parker staggered when he got out of the car and could not stand on one leg for 30 seconds. The problem with this is that a camera mounted in the police car saw Bell walking straight and taking the field sobriety tests without problem. Case dismissed. While the article by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune doesn’t mention it, I would not be surprised if Bell is a little richer at the expense of the Chicago taxpayers.

In a Hollywood, Florida case, Officer Joel Francisco ran into a vehicle driven by a Georgetown University student. According to the officer the woman was under the influence but the case was dismissed after the office was heard discussing on a police car video camera with four other officers how to put the blame on the student for the accident. All five were suspended. The accident, by the way, was Francisco’s seventh accident in a police car since 2000.

By the way, Mayor Daley is wrong when he says that the city should not be charged when the police harass citizens in response to rough language on the part of the citizen. The police need to be able to handle a little rough language. Daley ought to have a discussion and a mug of beer with Henry Louis Gates.

The point is not whether the use of cameras in police car will save the city money or cost the city money. Nor is it whether it will result in more convictions or less convictions. The point is that the use of cameras will result in the truth coming out and then we all win.