Frequently Asked Questions

There is no evidence suggesting that body-worn cameras (BWC) have a negative impact on law enforcement–community relationships. However, a number of executives expressed concerns during their interviews with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). For example, Bob Cherry, the former President of the Baltimore City (MD) Fraternal Order of Police said, "Trust builds through relationships, and body-worn cameras start from a position of mistrust."

Officers in several other agencies noted that BWCs can hurt intelligence-gathering opportunities, as members of the public will be less likely to provide information if they know they will be recorded. Some law enforcement executives disagreed with this claim, pointing out that BWCs in and of themselves are not responsible for an agency’s relationship with the community.

There are limitations to body-worn cameras (BWC), and agencies should educate the public, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders regarding those limitations. BWCs may not capture every aspect of an encounter based on camera angle, focus, or lighting. For example, the camera view may be obscured when an officer moves his or her body. Footage may also not capture the entirety of an encounter. There may be different interpretations of what transpires on a video among those who view it.

There is also a relevant body of research on memory science: how officers perceive events during a high-stress critical incidents, and how they are able to accurately recall what transpired after the fact. Dr. Bill Lewinski, Executive Director of the Force Science Institute, testified before the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing regarding memory science and how such issues provide an important context for understanding the impact of BWCs. Dr. Lewinski identified 10 important limitations with BWCs that should shape our review and understanding of law enforcement behavior during critical encounters:

1. A camera does not follow officers' eyes or see as they see.
2. Some important danger cues cannot be recorded.
3. Camera speed differs from the speed of life.
4. A camera may not see as well as a human does in low light.
5. An officer's body may block the view.
6. A camera only records in 2-D.
7. The absence of sophisticated time-stamping may prove critical.
8. One camera may not be enough.
9. A camera encourages second-guessing.
10. A camera can never replace a thorough investigation.

Participants at the February 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel also stressed the importance of communicating the limits of the technology. Michael Kurtenbach of the Phoenix (AZ) Police Department said, "Sit down with the community and have discussions about limitations for a constructive dialogue." Inspector Steve Goodier from the Hampshire Constabulary in the United Kingdom added, "There is a gap in the limitations of the human and camera, and it is important to make that distinction."

The deployment of a body-worn camera (BWC) program by itself cannot alter law enforcement–community relations, especially if those relationships have been characterized by long-standing tension and anger. Camera deployment cannot replace community policing. Expectations about the impact of BWCs must be reasonable, and agencies should be proactive in their discussions about the technology. The key to increasing law enforcement legitimacy, especially in minority communities, rests with ensuring procedural justice and community policing. Departments should think about BWCs in terms of achieving these two objectives.

In his testimony before the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Dr. Michael D. White of Arizona State University stated the police leaders should, "Emphasize that expectations about the impact of BWCs must be reasonable. In cities like Ferguson (MO), the relationship between police and the community is defined by long-standing anger and distrust. BWCs, on their own, cannot alter that relationship. But BWCs can represent a starting point for police to demonstrate transparency and a willingness to engage with community members. This first step is especially important in cities like Ferguson where police officers are seen as enemies and threats, rather than public servants and problem solvers."

There are a number of ongoing studies, many of which are using randomized controlled trial designs. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is currently funding studies in Las Vegas and Los Angeles. The Laura and John Arnold Foundation is funding studies in Spokane (Washington), Tempe (Arizona), Anaheim (California), Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), and Arlington (Texas), as well as a national cost-effectiveness study. A number of other research studies are underway or in the planning stages in the United States and United Kingdom, including Pensacola (Florida), West Palm Beach (Florida), Orlando (Florida), Greenwood (Indiana), Miami Beach (Florida), Oakland (California), and the Isle of Wight and Essex (United Kingdom).

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has dedicated $2 million to fund two or three body-worn camera (BWC) projects as part of the Smart Policing Initiative in fiscal year 2015. As part of President Obama's Community Policing Initiative, $20 million is available to support BWC purchases and programs in fiscal year 2015. The President has proposed an additional $30 million in the fiscal year 2016 budget. Finally, the BJA Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) is a valuable resource for communities to use to procure this equipment.

For more information, see:

• FY2015 BWC Pilot Implementation Program solicitation
• 2015 JAG solicitation

There is potential to integrate body-worn cameras (BWCs) with facial recognition systems and other new technologies like live feed and auto recording. The use of facial recognition and BWCs may pose serious risks to public privacy. Agencies that explore this integration and other new technologies should proceed very cautiously and should consult with legal counsel and other relevant stakeholders.

Collaborating on a body-worn camera (BWC) policy among all interested parties from a county ensures that all parties follow the same policies and evidence retention schedule. Regional collaboration would establish consistent processes from law enforcement to the district attorney. Santa Clara County, California collaborated on a model policy that involved the county law enforcement agencies, the district attorney, and California Highway Patrol. This BWC model policy serves as an effective example of county-wide collaboration. However, such collaborative efforts might be more difficult in other jurisdictions and result in long delays in BWC implementation. Communities need to weigh the costs and benefits of collaboration and determine the best course of action for their jurisdiction over the short, medium, and long term.

Yes, there is some evidence that suggests that body-worn cameras (BWCs) improve the likelihood of successful prosecutions. In Phoenix, Arizona, a Bureau of Justice Assistance-sponsored project examined the impact of BWCs on domestic violence case processing, concluding the following: “Analysis of the data indicated that following the implementation of body cameras, cases were significantly more likely to be initiated, result in charges filed, and result in a guilty plea or guilty verdict. The analysis also determined that cases were completed faster following the implementation of body cameras, [in part because of the] addition of a court liaison officer who facilitated case processing between the Phoenix Police Department and city prosecutor’s office” (Katz et al., 2015).

While there has been little research about this issue, it is clear that an agency needs to carefully consider its policy options with respect to the release of video that may contain sensitive footage. As agencies develop policies, they need to be mindful of the impact of the video release on victims, suspects, police officers, businesses, witnesses, family members, and the investigation and prosecution of the case. In the absence of clear policy, the release of sensitive video might be left to the discretion of an administrator or a redaction specialist on a case-by-case basis.

A small or tribal agency could use the same documents on technology and implementation as any other agency. One key difference might be in policy development. The deployment of body-worn cameras (BWC) might have different policy implications for town, township, village, or tribal law enforcement agencies. Agencies should identify key reasons for developing a BWC program and what laws, rules, and cultural expectations are specific to them. Small and tribal agencies also need to be especially mindful of how their BWC program will be affected by personnel and resource limitations in their agency. They can search the BWC Toolkit to find policy references relevant to their agency size or type.

A two-page Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Law Enforcement Implementation Checklist was created for your download and use in implementing a new body-worn camera program from learning the fundamental all the way to a phased rollout. This guide captures the seven key focus areas to a comprehensive program plan and provided references back to this BWC Toolkit where relevant.

Per the National Conference of State Legislatures, an increasing number of states—30 as of Feb. 20—are considering legislation that address body-worn cameras for police officers.



Proponents of body-worn cameras believe that video and audio recordings of law enforcement’s interactions with the public will provide the best evidence of, and defense to, accusations of police misconduct. They also believe that being on camera reduces some tension between police officers and the public. For example, a field experiment conducted on body-worn cameras with the Rialto, CA, Police Department found that incidents where police used force and community member complaints against police officers were reduced 50 and 90 percent respectively compared to the previous year.

Several municipalities—including Chicago (IL), the District of Columbia, Los Angeles (CA), New York (NY) and Seattle (WA)—have recently implemented body-worn camera programs and their experiences will inform body-worn camera policy moving forward.

While many are enthusiastic about the potential benefits of body-worn cameras, there are practical and constitutional hurdles to their implementation including funding, data storage and retention, open records laws, recording in areas protected by the Fourth Amendment and appropriate regulations for police use. Many of these and other issues are addressed in state legislation.

So far there have been few enactments addressing body-worn cameras by police officers, and all became law in 2014. Pennsylvania (30 Pa.C.S.A. § 901, PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 901) enacted legislation allowing waterway and game conservation officers to wear body-worn cameras and Vermont (VT ST T. 20 § 2367) enacted a law that, in part, requested a study of their use in conjunction with Tasers. Oklahoma enacted a law classifying video and audio files from body-worn cameras, if kept, as records under their Open Records Law. Oklahoma’s (51 Okl.St.Ann. § 24A.8) law also specified situations where video could be redacted prior to being released including portions that depict the death of a person or a dead body, nudity or the identity of individuals younger than 16 years of age.

Evaluations of BWC programs vary is scope and nature. At a minimum, however, we believe that the implementing agency should consider conducting both process and impact evaluations. The process evaluation should capture the planning and deployment process, including the names of officers who have been assigned cameras. These officers should undergo routine compliance audits to determine whether they are activating their BWC when required by departmental policy. These audit reports should be provided to the officer and their supervisor on a monthly basis, and should be compiled into an annual department wide compliance report. This annual report should be provided to the community’s risk management unit. Impact evaluations vary considerably in their methodological rigor, from one group pre-post studies to randomized controlled trials. Generally, the more rigorous the better. The impact evaluation should, at a minimum, compare various outcome measures by individual assigned a BWC one year pre and postimplementation. Outcome measures examining the impact of the BWC’s might include number of complaints, number of complaints sustained, use of force incidents, and number of resisting arrest incidents. For example, a department might compare the number of complaints one year prior to an officer being assigned the BWC to the one year period following the assignment of the BWC. For many agencies it is helpful to partner with a local college or university to evaluate the implementation of the BWC program, particularly in the programs first few years of implementation.

For more information, see:

• Phoenix, Arizona
• Is This a Good Quality Outcome Evaluation Report? A Guide for Practitioners
• The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale

Questions from community members are likely to focus on several key issues. The first involves aspects of BWC policy. For example, citizens will likely ask questions such as: when will officers turn the camera on? Do they have to tell me before they turn it on? Can I ask the officer to turn the camera off? Am I allowed to request a copy of the video?

Citizens are also likely to ask privacy-related questions, such as: Are officers allowed to film in my house or apartment? What happens if the officer records my children? Who is allowed to watch the video? Is this video going to end up on the internet or YouTube? Will my neighbor be able to see this video? Citizens may also want to know about the goals of the BWC program. They may ask: Why are police officers wearing BWCs? What does the agency hope to accomplish with BWCs? Will all officers be wearing cameras? BWCs will have a significant impact on citizens, and community buy-in is critical to the success of a BWC program. As a result, Law enforcement agencies should be prepared to provide detailed responses to these and other questions.

Each department must fully examine its state, local, and tribal laws to determine when it is lawful to record events. Most communities, however, fall into one of two groups.

The first group is composed of those communities that require one-party consent. In these communities it is lawful to record communication when consent is obtained from one person (e.g., officer, suspect, or victim). Within these laws, there might already be exceptions that would cover body-worn cameras (BWC). Nonetheless, in these communities, it is up to law enforcement to determine whether they inform the individual of the recording. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) recommends that officers inform members of the public that they are being recorded "unless doing so would be unsafe, impractical, or impossible," (PERF, 2014: 40). PERF emphasizes that this does not mean that they are required to have consent to record, only that they inform the person that they are recording. The rationale for this is straightforward. If BWCs do produce benefits in terms of change in behavior (civilizing effect), those benefits can only be realized if the community member is aware of the recording.

The second group are those communities that require two-party consent. This means that it is not legal to record the interaction unless both parties consent to it being recorded. As stated above, there might also be exceptions within these laws that may cover BWC recordings. Two-party consent laws can present special problems to law enforcement agencies that are interested in implementing a BWC program because the law enforcement officers have to announce that they would like to record the interaction and obtain approval from the member of the public. As a consequence, some states such as Pennsylvania have successfully modified existing statutes to allow the law enforcement to use BWCs without two-part consent (Mateescu, Rosenblat and Boyd, 2015).

For more information, see:

• Data and Society Police Body-Worn Cameras (Mateescu, Rosenblat and Boyd, 2015): http://www.datasociety.net/pubs/dcr/PoliceBodyWornCameras.pdf
• Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf