Frequently Asked Questions

Much of what the officer needs to know about body-worn cameras (BWC) can be administered through a pre-shift/roll call training session. The training session, at a minimum, should:

• Point out the systems' hardware components (docking station, lens, on/off button, how to wear, etc.).
• Demonstrate how to operate the BWC system.
• Walk officers through a pre-shift inspection of the equipment.
• Review departmental policies related to the use of BWCs (including activation and deactivation protocols).
• Discuss how to effectively use the BWC to assist with the incident report writing and evidence collection.
• Explain how to download the video and what happens to it after download.

When asked this question during the February 26-27, 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel, participants offered these thoughts about critical elements of successful training:

• "Training programs for officers should be dependent on what you want the outcome to be," said Patricia Wolfhope, Senior Program Manager from the Science and Technology Directorate in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
• "Training was worked into roll calls for every section and hit every unit," said Sgt. Dan Gomez, Los Angeles (CA) Police Department.
• "We developed training based on what the end user needed to know about the device and how to use it," Deputy Chief Lauretta Hill, Miami Beach (FL) Police Department.

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.

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."

The technology consists of the camera, which is typically worn on the officer's uniform (placed optionally on the shoulder lapel, sunglasses, or hat), with a forward-facing viewable area. When thinking about the mounting location, an agency should consider the uniform types worn by officers and how uniforms may vary throughout the year (summer, winter). Additional accessories may be required to ensure the camera is properly positioned, securely attached and protected to support the officer and his or her unique mission.

There are a number of different types of camera with differing options, including user controls such as push to record, touch-screen controls, video and audio feed, and playback in field. The video evidence is uploaded through a docking station on a local storage device (e.g., server) or through an online web-based digital media storage platform where the evidence can be encrypted and managed. Some models also allow for video upload while in the field.

At the February 26-27, 2015, Bureau of Justice Assistance Body-Worn Camera Expert Panel convening, Donna Twyford of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection shared a warning that "cameras with lots of options are not always beneficial-they may simply just present more items that can be lost or broken." During those same discussions, Maggie Goodrich of the Los Angeles (CA) Police Department (LAPD) explained it is important to critically look at and transparently share equipment capabilities. In the LAPD, "there was an officer evaluation–if the vendor said that the camera did A, B, and C, we tested it to prove it. We conducted reviews of different mounts and evaluated video and audio quality. It was a fully transparent process we found that it was critical to receive input from those who would ultimately wear the cameras."

There are a large variety of body-worn cameras (BWC) available for use by law enforcement. They vary by a number of things, including battery life length, event marking, weight, camera placement, camera size, quality of video, vision type (day or day/night), field of view, playback capacity, charge time, pre-event recording, law enforcement radio interface, video and audio format, video safeguards, download capability, and cost. In March 2014, the National Institute of Justice published a market survey that examined BWC vendors across a range of categories, including location of the camera mount, recording capabilities, evidentiary safeguards, tracking features (e.g., chain of custody), and video management.

For more information, see:

• System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) for the Science and Technology Directorate, Body-Worn Video Cameras for Law Enforcement Assessment Report: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Body-Worn-Cams-AR_0415-508_0.pdf
• National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology (NLECTC) for the National Institute of Justice, Body-Worn Cameras for Criminal Justice: Market Survey: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/nlectc/245747.pdf
• United Kingdom Home Office, Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Device: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/homeoffice/guidance-body-worn-devices.pdf

The types of equipment that are necessary to record and download video vary by manufacturer and end user choice. At a minimum, a camera and docking station is required; some agencies elect to purchase accompanying car-mounting equipment, extra batteries, tablets, and GPS sensors.

In general, when estimating the cost of implementing a body-worn camera (BWC) program, three types of costs should be considered.

• Capital outlay. This can include the number of BWCs, mounting kits, tablets, field viewers, and docking stations.
• Operational costs. Data storage, software, and redaction costs are included in this category as well as costs associated with officer BWC administration (download time, reviewing video) and any efforts required to track and provide the video to the courts.
• Replacement costs. This is related to repairs, upgrades to next-generation technology, warranties, and replacements.

Law enforcement agencies may be required to follow their jurisdiction's procurement processes in order to purchase BWCs. This process sometimes requires the creation of a committee in charge of the procurement process, preparation of a request for proposal (RFP), review of vendor bids, and a selection process. Agency leaders should consult with their jurisdiction’s leadership to ensure that requirements for equipment purchases are followed.

In addition to the hardware and data storage costs, departments have identified other expenses. For example, "Many agencies appoint at least one full-time officer to manage the camera program. Agencies must provide ongoing training programs, ensure that cameras are properly maintained, fix technical problems, and address any issues of officer noncompliance." (PERF, 2014: 32)

The costs of managing a BWC program are extensive and must be considered long-term. Weighing costs has helped departments place principled limitations on their program. This analysis should be part of the implementation design and discussion with other criminal justice officials and the community at large. Considerations may include:

• Limiting the types of encounters that must be recorded.
• Adopting shorter data-retention time periods.
• Seeking private funding to support the program.
• Developing other storage options for videos that must be kept for longer periods of time (e.g., saving critical incidents to a separate internal drive or to a disk).

This type of evaluation can help agencies understand the costs and benefits of the technology, and can also facilitate conversations with other stakeholders about the technology.

For more information, see:

• Washington, D.C.: http://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/office%20of%20police%20complaints/publication/attachments/Final%20policy%20rec%20body%20camera.pdf or http://mpdc.dc.gov/bwc
• Baltimore, Maryland: http://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/20150218BWCWorkingGroupRecommendations.pdf
• Spokane, Washington: https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/police/accountability/bodycamera/body-worn-camera-pilot-program-audit.pdf
• Wichita, Kansas:  http://www.bwvsg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Wichita-Body-Camera-Background-Issues-Funding.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

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

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.

There are a handful of useful resources on body-worn cameras (BWC). The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office published a report in 2014 that examines key issues and offers policy recommendations. The report is based on survey responses from 254 agencies, interviews with 40 law enforcement executives who have implemented BWCs, and outcomes from a one-day conference held on September 11, 2013, that included more than 200 law enforcement executives, scholars, and experts. In April 2014, the Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center published a report that describes the core issues surrounding the technology and examines the state of research on those issues (White, 2014). In March 2014, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) published a market survey that compared BWC vendors across a range of categories. There is also a growing number of published evaluations that examine the implementation, impact, and consequences of body-worn cameras. This web site and toolkit is intended to be a clearinghouse of the latest available research, reports, and knowledge on the technology.

For additional information, see:

• 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
• System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) for the Science and Technology Directorate, Body-Worn Video Cameras for Law Enforcement Assessment Report: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Body-Worn-Cams-AR_0415-508_0.pdf
• National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology (NLECTC) for the National Institute of Justice, Body-Worn Cameras for Criminal Justice: Market Survey: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/nlectc/245747.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
• Police and Crime Standards Directorate, Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Body-worn-video-guidance-2014.pdf
• Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Canada’s Guidance for the Use of Body-Worn Cameras by Law Enforcement Authorities: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/surveillance/police-and-public-safety/gd_bwc_201502/

For additional evaluations from around the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, see:

• Phoenix, Arizona: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/PPD_SPI_Final_Report%204_28_15.pdf
• Mesa, Arizona: http://issuu.com/leerankin6/docs/final_axon_flex_evaluation_12-3-13-
• Isle of Wight, U.K.: https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/evaluation-of-the-introduction-of-personal-issue-body-worn-video-cameras-operation-hyperion-on-the-isle-of-wight(aa564df2-ffda-4b72-b0b6-7f9cb823aa77).html
• Paisley & Aberdeen, U.K.: http://www.bwvsg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/BWV-Scottish-Report.pdf
• Plymouth, U.K.: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/homeoffice/guidance-body-worn-devices.pdf
• Edmonton, Canada: http://www.cacole.ca/confere-reunion/pastCon/presentations/2014/maryS.pdf
• Los Angeles (CA) Police Department and Las Vegas (NV) Metro Police Department: http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/technology/pages/body-worn-cameras.aspx#ongoing

Or view BWC Toolkit Research Resources with the category of Implementation Experiences

There is a wide-range of important issues that may be governed by a law enforcement agency’s internal administrative policy. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) report (PERF, 2014:37) identifies a range of key policy issues, including:

• Basic camera usage: who will wear the cameras; where will the cameras be worn (hat, sunglasses, chest, etc.).
• Designated staff member: identify who is responsible for maintaining, charging, reporting, documenting malfunctions, and issuing new cameras.
• Recording protocols: when to activate and deactivate camera, and when recording is required, discretionary, and prohibited.
• Video downloading process: who will download, when download will occur, where data will be stored, and how it will be safeguarded from tampering.
• Method for documenting chain of custody.
• Data retention periods for different categories of recorded data (evidentiary, non-evidentiary).
• Process for accessing and reviewing data: identify who is authorized to review and under what circumstances (e.g., individual officers, supervisors).
• Process for releasing recorded data to the public, including redaction processes, timelines for release, and data specifically prohibited from release.
• Process for contracting with third-party vendors for data storage.

Other resources for policy considerations include: a report by the National Institute of Justice Sensor, Surveillance, and Biometric Technologies (SSBT) Center of Excellence (2012); the International Association of Chiefs of Police Body-Worn Cameras Model Policy; and the Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center Report (White, 2014).

Several policy areas are described in greater detail below.

• 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
• International Association of Chiefs of Police, Body-Worn Cameras Model Policy and Paper: https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/b/BodyWornCamerasPolicy.pdf
• System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) for the Science and Technology Directorate, Body-Worn Video Cameras for Law Enforcement Assessment Report: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Body-Worn-Cams-AR_0415-508_0.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

As agencies consider the formal adoption of body-worn cameras (BWC), some officers may choose to purchase and wear their own personal BWCs, or an officer may wish to do so if any agency does not deploy cameras to its entire force of sworn personnel. The decision to allow officers to wear personally owned devices should be made locally, but both the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and a number of law enforcement executives have expressed concern with self-purchase of BWCs. Such cameras are a potential problem because the data recorded by a personal BWC is not owned by the law enforcement agency. Moreover, there may be insufficient protections in place for proper storage and safeguarding of the video (e.g., tampering, chain of custody). PERF specifically recommends that officers be prohibited from carrying their own privately owned cameras on duty. Officers who utilize personally owned technology may have this technology seized and examined and be subject to extensive review (of personal and professional data, video, photos, etc.), which could be used to impeach the officer in legal proceedings.

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

The backend of the implementation of a body-worn camera (BWC) program requires a great deal of coordination. Criminal investigators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, forensic scientists, evidence technologists, public information officers, information technology specialists, and other personnel all need to be trained on BWC policies and need to develop their own policies and procedures for processing and using video obtained through BWCs. For example, personnel associated with the courts (e.g., prosecutors, defense attorneys) need to develop strategies for tracking and reviewing evidence obtained through BWCs; information technology specialists need to purchase and install equipment and software; and public information officers need to establish and implement protocols for releasing information obtained through BWCs. Prosecutors also need to have timely access to recorded data, as delays in gaining access could affect the adjudication of a criminal case. Law enforcement agencies should keep prosecutors and judges apprised of changes to their BWC program, especially with regard to expansion. As more cameras are deployed to officers, prosecutors (and defense attorneys) may have to adjust staffing accordingly. According to Vicki Hill, Acting City of Phoenix (AZ) Prosecutor, for every 100 cameras added by the Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, the prosecutor’s office needed to hire or re-assign a new staff member.

Participants in the February 26-27, 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Camera Expert Panel were unanimous in emphasizing the early and ongoing involvement of the prosecution community in planning and implementing a BWC program. Like other law enforcement participants, Michael Kurtenbach of the Phoenix (AZ) Police Department stated, "agencies need to involve prosecutors, the community, etc... because the development of BWC policy needs to be well-understood and comprehensive." To expound on the need, Deputy District Attorney Damon Mosler from San Diego (CA) County said, "anybody in charge of developing a body-worn camera policy should first consult prosecutors and civil liabilities attorneys." He further warned that "agencies will have problems, so they need policies in place about retention, access, and timely discovery before activation, or cases will be delayed." Vicki Hill, Acting City of Phoenix (AZ) Prosecutor, reminded the panel about the significant impact BWCs have on the prosecutor community, sharing that an "Arizona state statute dictates that we have to redact certain personally identifying information (PII) about the victims before turning it over to the defense attorney. Prosecutors have to view it, determine what has to be redacted, then render it–which takes twice as long as the length of the video to get the output. Huge financial staffing resources are required for editing video files." Expounding upon the need for prosecutor involvement, Kay Chopard Cohen, National District Attorneys Association, explained, "From a prosecutor's perspective, we need to worry about victim safety and confidentiality, about the safety of innocent bystanders." Chopard Cohen further explained, "BWCs add a layer of complexity; we want to see what happened, but sometimes when an officer responds, it is not ripe for public viewing. There are situations where we have to educate the public and legislatures that this should not be available for public viewing."

Agencies have varied considerably in the content and structure of their department policies. Many agencies have made their policies publicly available, or they will furnish their policy upon request. A number of policies have been collected by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and are available in this toolkit. In addition, there are currently several model policies available for review. The International Association of Chiefs of Police has devised a model policy. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) report (PERF, 2014) also includes a number of policy recommendations. In the United Kingdom, policy resources are available through a United Kingdom Home Office report (Goodall, 2007).

For more information, see:

• Police Executive Research Forum 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
• International Association of Chiefs of Police, Body-Worn Cameras Model Policy and Paper: https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/b/BodyWornCamerasPolicy.pdf
• United Kingdom Home Office, Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/homeoffice/guidance-body-worn-devices.pdf