Body-worn cameras (BWCs) are touted as a much-needed remedy to address police misconduct. Proponents argue that BWCs can serve not only as an accountability instrument, but that their use will lower costs attributed to investigation and evidence collection in the event of a civilian or internal complaint. However, the push for furnishing patrol officers with BWCs in order to bolster accountability, professionalism, and faith in institutional legitimacy might be a misguided effort. The argument that public perception of police officers' use of force will be improved once officers are outfitted with a surveillance mechanism is unfounded for at least two reasons. First, evidence suggests that because they are aware of their being recorded, wrongdoing police officers may plant weapons and invoke language at a crime scene that corroborates a justified response to suspects who pose a threat. Second, civilians and officers alike have always known images of unjust state violence and that the presentation of even the most damning evidence does not necessarily deter officers from violating constitutional protections, or reduce the likelihood of being acquitted when they do. Drawing from the narratives offered by 68 Black Baltimore City residents who were interviewed on the heels of Freddie Gray's death in 2015, this study explores what surveilled community members think of BWCs and their disutility, as well as center their suggestions for true and lasting improvements in police-civilian interaction. Theoretical implications for critical race theory, legal legitimacy, and legal cynicism are also discussed.