Frequently Asked Questions

FAQs

Body-worn cameras (BWC) are only one of the tools available to law enforcement for improving community trust, transparency, and accountability. There are several benefits for law enforcement officers who wear BWCs. BWCs provide an additional layer of safety for the officer. Adoption of a BWC program can represent a law enforcement department's effort to demonstrate transparency and accountability. In several studies, community member complaints against officers decreased following adoption of BWCs (Katz et al., 2015; Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2014; Mesa Police Department, 2013). The results from these studies are supported by in-person interviews with 40 law enforcement executives conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). In one study, use-of-force by law enforcement officers decreased following adoption of BWCs (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2014). Continuing research seeks to identify the underlying cause of the benefits. Additionally, video from BWCs may assist with prosecution of criminal cases or assist in the review of community members' complaints against officers. While research in Great Britain supports this potential evidentiary benefit, research in the United States has not sufficiently investigated the evidentiary value of BWCs (Goodall, 2007).

During the February 26-27, 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel, Inspector Steve Goodier of the Hampshire Constabulary in the United Kingdom shared highlights from their yearlong study of 180 body-worn videos. He cited reductions in crime, police-generated incidents, and assaults against police officers. The Inspector further explained "a large-scale public opinion survey was done before and after program implementation that concluded 85% of the public support for BWC technology. This survey was complemented by an officer survey–an overwhelming positive for support for BWCs."

For additional information, see:

Video data storage is one of the most expensive aspects of body-worn camera (BWC) programs. Some manufacturers provide cloud-based storage. Law enforcement agencies that choose cloud-based storage typically have the option of paying by the amount of storage space that is used or paying on a per-officer/camera basis. However, some agencies elect to store data onsite locally. This requires the agency to purchase its own data storage system and store, retrieve, and share the video evidence, as well as develop the means to address chain-of-custody policies and laws of evidence.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has developed specific guidelines that departments should consider when contracting with third-party vendors for cloud-based data storage. Selected key issues include: the vendor’s system should be compliant with the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Policy (CJIS); the law enforcement agency should retain ownership of the data; the vendor should be prohibited from mining or sharing data without consent from the agency; and the agency should be permitted to conduct audits of the vendor’s cloud system. Agencies should consult the IACP guide before contracting with third-party vendors for data storage.

For more information, see:

International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP Technology Policy Framework: https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/i-j/IACP%20Technology%20Policy%20Framework%20January%202014%20Final.pdf
Law Enforcement Information Management, 2013 Conference Opening Plenary, Leveraging the Cloud for Law Enforcement: https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/c/CloudSurveyResults.pdf
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Guiding Principles on Cloud Computing in Law Enforcement: https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/c/CloudComputingPrinciples.pdf
Institute for IBM Center for the Business of Government, Mitigating Risk in the Application of Cloud Computing in Law Enforcement: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ijis.org/resource/collection/232074EF-6453-4014-BC4E-018BF818D291/Mitigating_Risks_in_the_Application_of_Cloud_Computing_in_Law_Enforcement.pdf
Booz Allen Hamilton, Economics of Cloud Computing: Addressing the Benefits of Infrastructure Cloud: http://www.iceaaonline.com/ready/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SOF09-Repczynski.pdf

Law enforcement agencies should consult with their local prosecutors and legal counsel as they design their data storage policies. Laws governing how long video must be stored may vary across cities, tribal governments, and states. Video that depicts an arrest or critical incident may have to be stored for an extended period of time. Departments have varied policies on how long they keep video that depicts an encounter where no formal action is taken. Some departments will store such video as long as a community member can file a complaint. For example, if members of the public can file a complaint for up to six months after an encounter with a law enforcement officer, it may be necessary to keep all video for six months so the video can be accessed to assist with the complaint investigation. State law may dictate the length of time for storage of more formal law enforcement encounters with members of the public. These are important issues that law enforcement agencies should discuss with their prosecuting authority before procuring storage systems or enacting any policies regarding storage.

Some departments classify body-worn camera video as either "evidentiary" or "non-evidentiary." Evidentiary video includes footage that can be used for investigative purposes, and many departments have created sub-classification systems of types of videos (homicide, use-of-force, arrest, mental health commitment, etc.). The length of time a video is retained is then typically determined by how the video is classified (evidentiary or non-evidentiary) and, if evidentiary, the type of encounter.

Many of those surveyed by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) retain non-evidentiary video for 60-90 days. Regardless, retention times should be specifically stated in department policy, as should the process for data deletion. As an indicator of transparency, many departments publicly post their retention policies on their web site.

The PERF report (PERF, 2014) also identifies a number of data storage issues that should be covered by policy and put in place:

The policy should clearly prohibit data tampering, editing, or copying.
There should be technological protections against tampering.
The department should have an auditing system in place that documents who accesses each video, when the access occurs, and why.
The policy should identify who has authority to access video.
Departments should develop a reliable back-up system for video.
Law enforcement should provide guidance on when officers should download video (e.g., at the end of the shift).
The policy should be explicit about the use of third-party vendors.

One key policy area involves activation–when are officers required to turn on the camera? Departments have varied considerably on this issue, from very broad policies that require recording every law enforcement–community member contact to highly discretionary policies. One study indicates that activation policy has a significant impact on how often cameras are used. The Mesa (AZ) Police Department employed two different administrative policies during its evaluation period. For the first six months, the policy was very restrictive and gave officers little choice regarding camera activation. During the second six months, the policy was more discretionary. During the first six months (with the restrictive policy), the 50 camera-wearing officers averaged 2,327 video files per month. During the second six-month period (with the less restrictive policy), the same 50 officers averaged 1,353 video files per month–a 42% decline in camera activations (Mesa Police Department, 2013).

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has taken the position that recording every encounter with the public would create too many opportunities to violate privacy rights and hinder positive communication between law enforcement and members of the public. PERF identified a number of problem areas, including interviews with crime victims, intelligence-gathering interviews with confidential informants, and simple casual encounters with residents in a neighborhood. Results from the PERF surveys and interviews also indicated that most departments allow for some degree of officer discretion. "Of the police departments that PERF consulted, very few have adopted the policy of recording all encounters with the public. The more common approach is to require officers to activate their cameras when responding to calls for service and during law enforcement-related activities, such as traffic stops, arrests, searches, interrogations, and pursuits." (PERF, 2014: 13)A department’s policy should clearly articulate when officers are required to record, when they can exercise discretion, and when they are prohibited from recording (e.g., interactions with colleagues during routine activities, during strip searches of suspects, and during conversations involving tactics or strategy). Most departments also require an officer to explain why he or she decided to not record an encounter. The policy may also state that an incident may not be recorded if doing so is impractical, impossible, or unsafe for the officer or other community members. Officers should also document in the official report when a video does exist.

A related key policy area is when officers should turn off the camera. Many departments have policies that state an officer can deactivate the body-worn camera (BWC) only at the conclusion of the encounter, and some also require supervisor approval for deactivation. PERF recommends that an officer continue to record the encounter until the incident is over, the officer has left the scene, or a supervisor has approved the deactivation. The officer should announce that the recording is being terminated prior to deactivation.

A department’s policy should also clearly indicate what will happen to an officer who fails to activate a camera in circumstances where activation is required. Will the officer be subject to discipline? If so, how will he or she be disciplined? The consequences for failure to activate as well as premature deactivation should be clearly stated. Several departments have developed a strategy where, for some preliminary period of time (e.g., six months), officers are not disciplined for failure to activate. During that preliminary or pilot period, agency leaders highlight the importance of activation in accordance with department policy and actively advertise that the discipline policy will change after the pilot period ends.

Lively conversation took place at the February 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel around this topic. Some notable examples include privacy comments from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Cato Institute, labor organization comments from the Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association and Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and victim issues raised by the Baltimore Child Abuse Center.

Jay Stanley from the ACLU suggested, "there needs to be clear policies and clear expectations of line officers when they record and clear consequences when they don’t follow those policies." Matthew Feeney of the Cato Institute emphasized the need for specific third-party policy citing two examples: "if the policy states that footage is released when it is not part of an investigation, under what circumstances individuals can ask for information to be held?" and, "if a community member walks past an officer and is captured on video, can that community member ask for the video to be redacted?"

Asserting that officers need room for discretion when electing to turn cameras on and off, Michael Rubin from the Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association stated, "if officers don’t have the ability to make this decision, they will record locations, events, and moments in time that should not be preserved for public consumption. Society gives law enforcement officers the discretion to determine when to use a weapon, but we’re wondering if those same officers are able to exercise sufficient judgment about when to turn on or off a video camera? For example, an officer walking into peoples’ homes should not be obligated to record where valuables are stored or document photographs of their children. Nor, should recordings of business security measures or data storage equipment be allowed to enter the public domain. Such video would only be used by criminals to case targets for future crimes or to allow the morally bankrupt of our society to immortalize people at their most emotionally vulnerable state. The result being, that the police would become secondary victimizers."

Lieutenant Daniel Zehnder, Las Vegas (NV) Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), explained, "the LVMPD camera turn on/off policy is very detailed. Officers are required to state, while on camera, why the video is being turned off–for example, an officer may turn off the camera if a child enters into the video/scene." Adam Rosenberg of the Baltimore Child Abuse Center then explained, "video technology is used for children interviews by social workers and this footage is used for conducting peer reviews. This could be an analogy for BWC. It would be great to do a peer review of regular policing to improve outcomes."

For more information, see:

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
Mesa, Arizona: http://issuu.com/leerankin6/docs/final_axon_flex_evaluation_12-3-13-
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) for the National Institute of Justice, Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement: https://nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/Primer_on_Body-Worn_Cameras.pdf

One of the primary concerns that law enforcement executives cited when interviewed by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is that body-worn cameras (BWC) will weaken trust between line officers and the leadership of the department. That is, officers will view the requirement to wear cameras as an indication that they are not trusted. One of the most commonly cited concerns among line officers is that supervisors will have unfettered access to video, allowing them to go on "fishing expeditions" to search for minor violations committed by officers in their command.

One of the most important policy issues involves how camera footage will be used by a department. Departments vary widely on this point. Some departments have policies that state a supervisor can only review an officer’s footage in response to a specific complaint. Some departments also permit supervisors to review footage for training purposes, to ensure that cameras are functioning properly, and to monitor compliance with the BWC program.

Some departments do allow their supervisors to randomly review officer video for the purpose of performance review. Chief Inspector Inglis from Greater Manchester, United Kingdom stated, "Supervisors might not get a lot of face time with officers, so reviewing the video is a good way for supervisors to appraise officers and provide feedback." (PERF, 2014: 25) Many of the departments surveyed in the PERF report do not allow for such performance-based review. PERF recommends that a department’s internal audit unit conduct periodic reviews to ensure compliance with administrative policy governing camera use.

Regardless, it is clear the BWCs present an opportunity for performance review of officers. The decision to take advantage of this opportunity should be made jointly by the department leadership, line officers, and union representatives.

Law enforcement executives who attended the February 26-27, 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel shared relevant examples of key supervisor review policies. Specifically, Chief Whent of the Oakland (CA) Police Department stated, "supervisors are required to review each subordinate’s video, but the policy is being revised to be more specific so officers are randomly reviewed." Lieutenant Daniel Zehnder from the Las Vegas (NV) Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) shared that in the LVMPD "the supervisor is required to report to the scene for any use-of-force scenario. The policy was crafted to ensure there is never a time that the video is viewed by a supervisor without the officer being notified. On the scene the video is viewed together."

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

It is important to have the prosecutor's office at the table when developing a policy to have consistency across agencies that will be bringing cases to that prosecutor's office. The evidence gathered from body-worn cameras (BWC) should be treated similarly to all other forms of evidence within a jurisdiction and in accordance with the Constitution and state, federal, local, and tribal laws. For this reason, many county prosecutors have suggested that all law enforcement agencies in a particular county, serving the same jury pool, work collaboratively to ensure BWC policies are consistent with regard to these critical evidentiary issues. This would be the same case for city prosecutors in cities where there are multiple law enforcement agencies providing service in addition to the primary law enforcement agency (e.g., school, transit, and university law enforcement).

A second important consideration is to have the defense bar be a part of the decision-making process regarding policy creation. Including the defense bar helps law enforcement agencies understand how the defense and their clients view and use the video. Communities will decide at what point in the implementation process the defense bar should receive an orientation regarding the program. Ensuring that the representatives of the accused understand the program will eliminate potential obstacles later on in actual criminal cases.

A final consideration is whether civilian members of the community should be a part of the policy decision-making process. Carlton T. Mayers, II, Esq. from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People summed it up best in a statement shared at the February 26-27, 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel: "there needs to be a transparent and collaborative relationship between law enforcement and the community it serves. In order for this to happen there needs to be a mutual understanding of what the community is experiencing and expects from law enforcement. There also needs to be a mutual understanding of what is involved in the role of law enforcement and how the community can support this role."

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQs

How often do law enforcement officers need to be retrained on proper use of body-worn cameras?

What do sergeants and other supervisors need to know about officer body-worn cameras?

What types of equipment are necessary to record and download video?

How can law enforcement agencies benefit from a body-worn camera program?

What do law enforcement agencies do with all of the data that is generated by officer body-worn cameras?

When should the recorded data from body-worn cameras be downloaded?

How long do law enforcement agencies have to store the video?

When should an officer activate and deactivate the camera?

When should a supervisor be able to review officer video?

What are some good ways for law enforcement agencies to work with prosecuting authorities on a body-worn camera program?

What should law enforcement officers do if a community member requests that the body-worn cameras be turned off?

Is it legal for law enforcement to use body-worn cameras to record incidents with community members?

Are there any other suggestions regarding the handling of body-worn camera evidence and the rights of the accused?

How can line officers and law enforcement bargaining units participate in the implementation of officer body-worn cameras programs?

What other units in the law enforcement agency should be involved in the body-worn camera implementation process?