Is The Rise of “Auditors” Helping Or Hurting Police Reform Efforts?
The rise of “auditors” not only filming but escalating issues with law enforcement for social media is a new wrinkle on the ongoing debate over policing in America.
There are strong Hoffer Principal1 implications here. The rise of “auditors” not only filming but increasingly confronting and escalating issues with law enforcement for social media is a new wrinkle on the ongoing debate over policing in America.
With varying degrees of antagonism and legal expertise, the online movement known as cop-watching or First Amendment auditing has swelled in popularity in recent years, capturing the imaginations of millions of Americans who are examining their relationship with policing after George Floyd’s murder at the hands of police in Minneapolis in 2020.
Cop-watchers and auditors say they’re waking up an over-policed nation to its plight. They’re forcing police and government agencies to train their workers to respect First Amendment rights and are willing to risk arrest in the process. A few also are cashing in — experts say the most popular auditing channels can generate more than $150,000 a month through ads and subscriptions on YouTube, Facebook and TikTok. Individual auditors can earn tens of thousands a month.
“The reason we get pulled over and we get arrested is we are trying to show people that it’s not okay to just let them get away with it, because it’s going to affect the next person,” Ruff said. “They think it’s okay because they’ve been allowed to do it.”
But such encounters also have sparked backlash. Several states have passed laws or taken steps to limit opportunities to record police interactions, restrictions that have affected reporting by news organizations. Some law enforcement leaders accuse cop-watchers of selectively editing videos, misinforming citizens, inspiring vitriol toward police, escalating tensions during police interactions with civilians, and endangering officers and civilians.
Last year, a Mesa judge ordered Ruff to stop filming Mesa police. In July, Gilbert police issued a memo describing Ruff as a potential threat to law enforcement. The department declined an interview request.
Auditor videos have led to disciplinary actions for hundreds of officers across the country, and a handful of police have lost their jobs. The interactions and resulting legal fights have found their way to a federal appeals court, which affirmed the right of civilians to film police as a result of a lawsuit brought by a Texas-based auditor.
Sean Tindell, the commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, recently met with his staff to discuss several videos alleging police misconduct, posted since last year by a Facebook watchdog group inspired and amplified by the auditor movement. Twenty years ago, Tindell said, similar complaints from citizens might not have been taken seriously.
“I’m thankful for some of these cases, because it allows us to light the do’s and don’ts,” Tindell said.
At the same time, he worries the videos have poisoned police interactions with members of the public who “got their law degree on Facebook.” Viral online confrontations between auditors and police officers also are making it difficult for agencies to attract recruits, Tindell added. “I think a lot of folks watch these videos and say, ‘I don’t want to put myself in that situation.’”
Further down the piece, and for full clarity, Ruff is explained to have served five years in prison for a 2011-armed robbery conviction, and got into filming when he observed an incident with police while working as a landscaper after serving his time.
We live in an “everything is on video now” age, and there is no changing that.
I start off with the Hoffer Principle because it is undefeated. Frankly, many problems with America’s justice system as they exist in the Year of Our Lord 2023 can be traced to the change in law enforcement from just keeping the peace and enforcing the laws to being the armed enforcement wing of the big bureaucratic business known as local, state, and federal governments. And it is a business. America spent $215 billion in 2022 on law enforcement, a $10 billion increase from the previous year. Any city, county, or municipality that wants to get under that funding spigot ain’t going to do so by keeping the need for crimefighting down.
Thus, the great cause – protecting and serving – becomes a business, and in too many cases has now devolved into a racket.
So, it is natural that the counter from the civilian population is to take to technology. The George Floyd case is what it is because a teenage girl and others whipped out their phones, and if pictures are worth a thousand words, then viral video is worth millions and millions. It is inarguable that just about the only way for folks to get a fair hearing on police mistreatment is to have it on video. It is also fair to point out the vast majority of police do their duty properly, and the viral videos of cops behaving badly and sometimes even criminally get far more attention.
Which brings us to these “auditors” and their cottage industry. The line between doing good and becoming part of the problem can sometimes be a bit tough, but there are some things we can use as guideposts. If someone is causing the incident just to get a reaction, that’s not good faith and fair practice. If someone is selectively editing or manipulating, that isn’t finding truth or correcting a wrong, it is causing wrong and obscuring the truth. Most notably, and a good rule of thumb for any viral video, is discerning who is instigating and making a situation worse and who is trying to defuse and resolve a situation. It is also fair to take note and weigh in the balance that the handful of large accounts making large sums of money are, in effect, producing a show, and the show must go on for the income to continue to roll in.
Thus, the great cause – filming police misconduct to get accountability and reform – becomes a business and is sliding towards being a racket.
Through the various flashpoints and debates surrounding police conduct, good, bad, or indifferent, it is helpful to remember that the old timers called law enforcement “peace officers” for a reason. They were to keep the peace, enforce the law, serve and protect. So much of what is going on in law enforcement can be weighed on a scale of “is this keeping the peace or making things worse” as a basic test to try and discern these incidents as they come. The militarization and “us vs them” evolution of police departments is counter to that in fundamental and important ways. If the police are instigating and getting out of line, they’ve failed in that basic function of law enforcement. If the citizenry, especially those with cameras and advertising revenue on the line are instigating and breaking the peace just to get law enforcement’s reaction to it, they have failed not just in being law abiding but in basic adulting.
Accountability has to be a two-way street when it comes to law enforcement. A concerned and aggrieved citizenry has every right to keep an eye, digital or otherwise, on how their law enforcement – that works for and is paid for by them – conduct themselves. That citizenry also needs to make sure the goal of accountability is to get a better, more fair, less antagonistic police force. That won’t happen by tolerating bad faith acts who make their money by making sure police and the public are fighting at every possible turn.
Having two rackets fight it out in the streets for online clicks is the worst possible thing for keeping the peace. And it’s bad for business. And it hurts the cause. Ratings be damned.
Originally published at Ordinary Times 8Aug23
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” ― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time