FAQs

Body-Worn Camera Toolkit

Home

Getting Started

Topics

Resources & FAQs

Multimedia

Funding

Support

About

FAQs

There has been little research conducted on the effect of body-worn cameras (BWC) on criminal prosecutions. In Phoenix, AZ, researchers found that domestic violence cases involving a camera-wearing officer were more likely to be initiated by the prosecutor’s office (40.9% vs. 34.3%), have charges filed (37.7% vs. 26%), have cases furthered (12.7% vs. 6.2%), result in a guilty plea (4.4% vs. 1.2%), and result in a guilty verdict at trial (4.4% vs. 0.9%) (Katz et al., 2015).

The Plymouth (England) Head Camera Project reported that the technology increased officers’ ability to document that a violent crime had occurred, and the incidents recorded by BWCs were more likely to be resolved through guilty pleas rather than criminal trials (Goodall, 2007). In Renfrewshire, Scotland, BWC cases were 70-80% more likely to result in a guilty plea, compared to other court cases. A more recent report from Essex, Scotland, that focused specifically on domestic abuse calls also found that criminal charges were more likely to be filed in cases where an officer was wearing a BWC (Owens et al., 2014).

Anecdotal evidence from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) interviews of law enforcement executives (PERF, 2014) also suggests that BWCs may affect prosecution of cases through improved evidence collection. Chief Parker of the Dalton (GA) Police Department reported that BWCs have enhanced evidence collection at accident scenes, as officers work to secure a scene, interview witnesses and victims, and provide emergency medical care as needed. Several chiefs also indicated that BWCs are useful in domestic violence cases when it is difficult for a victim to participate. In these cases, BWC policies regarding victims, to include children and other vulnerable persons, must be carefully crafted.

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
Phoenix, Arizona

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.

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.: Enhancing Police Accountability through an Effective On-Body Camera Program for MPD Officers or MPD and Body-Worn Cameras
Baltimore, Maryland
Spokane, Washington
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned

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, A Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Body-Worn Cameras Model Policy and Paper
System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) for the Science and Technology Directorate, Body-Worn Video Cameras for Law Enforcement Assessment Report
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned

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
Mesa, Arizona
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) for the National Institute of Justice, A Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement

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."

Another key policy issue involves whether officers should be allowed to review video footage of an incident, especially a critical incident, before filing a report or making a statement. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) report notes, "The majority of law enforcement executives interviewed by PERF are in favor of allowing officers to review body-worn camera (BWC) footage prior to making a statement about an incident in which they were involved. They believe that this approach provides the best evidence of what actually took place." (PERF, 2014: 29)

Some agency leaders, defense attorneys, and civil rights advocates oppose officer review of footage before making a statement, arguing that review of the video may lead the officer to alter or tailor his or her statement. The decision to allow officers to review footage (or not) before making statements should be made locally based on discussion between the agency leaders, union representatives, and other relevant stakeholders such as prosecutors and independent law enforcement review boards, if applicable.

There is also the potential for inconsistencies to exist between the written report and the video. Departments vary in how they handle this. Some agencies do not permit officers to review the video post-event before their reports are written. These agencies take the perspective that they want the "officer's perception" of the event described in the departmental report without the assistance of reviewing the video so that the department better understands how the officer perceived the event as it occurred in the field. One criticism of this approach is that evidence presented through the officer's report and the video evidence might be inconsistent with one another, which could create complications in court. Other agencies permit the officer through agency policy to review the video of the incident while writing the departmental report. This allows the officer more opportunity to ensure that the police report does not omit things that were captured in the video. There have been no evaluations to date that have examined the strengths and weaknesses of either approach. Each agency should work with its in-house legal counsel, local prosecutors, and local defense attorney to determine which approach is best for its jurisdiction.

Lively conversation about allowing or not allowing officer viewing of video took place during the February 26-27, 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel. Although participants provided examples of when officer viewing of videos should be limited or constrained, they also discussed a number of examples illustrating the benefits derived from officers' assessment of their video, including affording valuable opportunities for self-awareness and development. Moreover, Inspector Steve Goodier of the Hampshire Constabulary in the United Kingdom also explained that his agency found situations where a video review with a supervisor or mentor proved instrumental in realizing that "certain training and instructions were not quite translating to real life, giving both an opportunity to reflect on their performance." Los Angeles (CA) Police Department's (LAPD) Maggie Goodrich shared, "the purpose of BWCs is the collection of evidence and to determine what really happened."

Jumana Musa, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, warned against giving officers the ability to view video after a use of force incident or other action resulting in a citizen complaint, explaining that the purpose of "the officer's testimony is to get their assessment of what happened in the moment, so it is important to capture what happened as they perceived it. By showing officers the video of the incident before capturing their statement, the testimony will be a result of the officer processing what they saw on the video rather than what they recalled and this could change the nature of the statement. The police are also taking statements from others involved who don’t have the same opportunity to review the video."

In response, Chief Whent of the Oakland (CA) Police Department said, "when people can view the videos, officers can view them as well, but not prior to statements in the event of an officer-involved shooting. Statements must be given first so they aren't simply recounting video." Maggie Goodrich, LAPD Chief Information Officer, said, "in more serious use-of-force and officer-involved shooting investigations, the officer can review the video before making a statement. However, the involved officers are separated, the line supervisor takes the cameras and powers them off and turns them over to the investigator, and the video review occurs once it is authorized by the investigator".

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."

The answer to this question is dependent on the size, structure, and resources available to the agency. For some agencies, a training officer or training unit might be involved; in others, it might include a commander, legal counsel, information technology specialist, or a combination of personnel. Regardless of the personnel assigned to train law enforcement officers on body-worn cameras (BWC), at least four fundamentals should be included in training:

Officers should be trained on departmental BWC policy (specifically when a BWC should be activated) and any applicable local/tribal ordinances or state laws.
Officers should be trained to conduct a pre-shift inspection of the BWC to ensure that it is in proper operating condition.
Officers should be trained on how and where to wear the BWC.
Officers should be trained on how to properly document recorded events and download the evidence for storage according to departmental policy.

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) report concludes that "rigorous, ongoing officer training" regarding policy and protocols is essential for effective use of the technology. It may also be useful for an agency to create a training manual on BWCs, and to make that manual available to officers. As use of BWCs expands in an agency, training on the technology should be incorporated into academy curriculum, so that new recruits are exposed to the cameras during their formative training experience. The training may also be provided to other stakeholders, including judges and prosecutors. Some departments have selected an officer to serve as a liaison on BWC issues. The liaison meets periodically with line officers wearing cameras to create a feedback loop regarding training, policy, and use of questions and concerns.

Some helpful considerations were shared by participants in the February 26-27 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel. Specifically, Patricia Wolfhope, Senior Program Manager from the Science and Technology Directorate in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, offered several considerations: "Training officers is highly dependent on what you want the outcome to be. When considering the technology, think about the use case first. How do you plan to use the video? Is it for evidence? Is it face recognition? Is it face detection? When officers start to see the payback of the cameras, then they buy-in and are more interested in the use of the technology. Technology is almost always ahead of privacy and policy issues."

Sergeant Dan Gomez of the Los Angeles (CA) Police Department indicated that its training was integrated into roll calls for every section, "so it would hit every unit." Gomez said, "we also did a pre-deployment training. We selected a field officer to be a liaison with the front-line troops for one-on-one interviews to get real feedback versus what they felt they had to tell implementation team and leadership. We required the vendor to participate in the training as well, but all training was led by cops to the cops. The team also trained the DA's office, who were also involved in policy discussions. A great success is the in-house train-the-trainer program, so each division had a BWC training designee. Transparency and accountability are intermixed. We expect the officer to do the right thing and focused the organization on this. When review of the video with the officer and the footage turns criminal in nature–the nature of the investigation is changed. If we know a criminal act has occurred, then the officer does not view the video–this is a different process. We educated the community that there are two different courses of action. The community didn’t know this and are satisfied with that role and expectations."

The PERF survey indicated that 94% percent of the agencies that have deployed BWCs use the video and audio footage to train officers. The report states, "Many police agencies are discovering that body-worn cameras can serve as a useful training tool to help improve officer performance. For example, agencies are using footage from body-worn cameras to provide scenario-based training, to evaluate performance of new officers in the field, and to identify new areas in which training is needed." (PERF 2014: 7)

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

FAQs

BWC Toolkit

FAQs

Do body-worn cameras assist with the prosecution of criminal cases?

What types of body-worn cameras are available to law enforcement?

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

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?

How much does it cost to implement a body-worn camera program?

What are the key policy areas law enforcement should consider before implementing a body-worn camera program?

When should an officer activate and deactivate video capture?

When should a supervisor be able to review officer video?

Should an officer be able to review the video prior to making a statement?

Should officers be able to wear their own cameras?

What do law enforcement agencies need to do to prepare the prosecutor and other criminal justice agencies for the implementation of a body-worn camera program?

Are there sample or model policies that we can examine before developing the administrative policy governing our body-worn camera program?

Who should deliver training to law enforcement officers about the deployment of body-worn cameras?