1 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program Recommendations and Lessons Learned
3 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program Recommendations and Lessons Learned
4 This project was supported by cooperative agreement number 2012-CK-WX-K028 awarded by the O ffi ce of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the o ffi cial position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References fi c agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or to speci the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant fl ux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS O ffi ce can vouch for their current validity. The points of view expressed in this publication do not necessarily re ect the opinions of individual Police Executive fl Research Forum members. Recommended citation: Miller, Lindsay, Jessica Toliver, and Police Executive Research Forum. 2014. Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned . Washington, DC: O ffi ce of Community Oriented Policing Services. ISBN: 978-1-934485-26-2 Published 2014
5 Contents Letter from the PERF Executive Director ... v ... vii fi Letter from the COPS Of ce Director ... ix . Acknowledgments ... . 1 Introduction 1 ... . eld and policy analysis fi State of the . 2 ... Project overview 5 fi . ... . Perceived Bene Chapter 1 ts of Body-Worn Cameras ... . 5 Accountability and transparency fi cer-involved incidents ... 5 Reducing complaints and resolving of ... 7 Identifying and correcting internal agency problems 9 ... . Evidence documentation Considerations for Implementation 11 . ... Chapter 2 ... 11 Privacy considerations ... 12 Determining when to record ... 14 Consent to record Recording inside private homes 15 ... 15 ... Data storage, retention, and disclosure Lessons learned on privacy considerations ... 18 ... . 19 Impact on community relationships ... . 21 Securing community support Protecting intelligence-gathering efforts ... 22 Lessons learned about impact on community relationships ... 24 ... . 24 cer concerns Addressing of fi cer concerns about body-worn cameras ... 24 Of fi ... 26 cer concerns fi Addressing of Incremental implementation ... 27 fi cer concerns ... 27 Lessons learned about addressing of ... 28 . Managing expectations Of fi cer review of video prior to making statements ... 29 ... 30 Lessons learned about managing expectations ... . 31 Financial considerations ... 32 Cost of implementation 33 ... Cost-saving strategies fi ... 34 Lessons learned about nancial considerations . Body-Worn Camera Recommendations Chapter 3 . 37 ... ... . 38 General recommendations 40 ... . Recording protocols ... . 42 Download and storage policies 45 ... . Recorded data access and review ... . 47 Training policies ... . 48 Policy and program evaluation
6 iv Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned ... 51 Conclusion . . Recommendations Matrix ... . 53 Appendix A ... 53 . Policy recommendations 53 ... General recommendations Recording protocols ... 55 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Download and storage policies Training policies 65 ... ... 66 Policy and program evaluation .. . 67 Additional lessons learned: engaging of cers, policymakers, and the community fi Appendix B . Conference attendees ... . 69 . 77 ... About PERF . 79 ... ce About the COPS Of fi
7 Letter from the PERF Executive Director he recent emergence of body-worn cameras has already had an impact on policing, and this impact will only increase as more agencies adopt this technology The decision to implement . . body-worn cameras should not be entered into lightly T Once an agency goes down the road of deploying body-worn cameras—and once the public comes to expect the availability of video records—it will become increasingly dif fi cult to have second thoughts or to scale back a body-worn camera program . A police department that deploys body-worn cameras is making a statement that it believes the cers are a matter of public record . By facing the challenges and expense of actions of its of fi purchasing and implementing a body-worn camera system, developing policies, and training its of fi cers in how to use the cameras, a department creates a reasonable expectation that members of fi cers . the public and the news media will want to review the actions of of And with certain limited exceptions that this publication will discuss, body-worn camera video footage should be made available to the public upon request—not only because the videos are public records but also because doing so enables police departments to demonstrate transparency and openness in their interactions with members of the community . cers and fi Body-worn cameras can help improve the high-quality public service expected of police of promote the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments . Furthermore, departments that are already deploying body-worn cameras tell us that the presence of cameras often improves the performance of of cers as well as the conduct of the fi community members who are recorded This is an important advance in policing . And when of . cers fi or members of the public break the law or behave badly, body-worn cameras can create a public record that allows the entire community to see what really happened . At the same time, the fact that both the public and the police increasingly feel the need to videotape every interaction can be seen both as a re fl ection of the times and as an unfortunate commentary . on the state of police-community relationships in some jurisdictions As a profession, policing has come too far in developing and strengthening relationships with its communities to allow encounters with the public to become of fi cious and legalistic . Body-worn cameras can increase accountability, fi nd a way to preserve the informal and unique relationships between but police agencies also must police of fi . cers and community members This publication, which documents extensive research and analysis by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the U . . Department of Justice’s Of fi ce of Community Oriented S Policing Services (COPS Of fi ce), will demonstrate why police departments should not deploy body- worn cameras carelessly . fi cult questions— Moreover, departments must anticipate a number of dif questions with no easy answers because they involve a careful balancing of competing legitimate interests, such as the public’s interest in seeing body-worn camera footage versus the interests of . crime victims who would prefer not to have their images disseminated to the world One of the most signi fi cant questions departments will face is how to identify which types of encounters with members of the community of fi cers should record . This decision will have important consequences in terms of privacy, transparency, and police-community relationships . Although recording policies should provide of fi cers with guidance, it is critical that policies also give of fi cers v
8 vi Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned . This discretion is a certain amount of discretion concerning when to turn their cameras on or off cers are professionals and because it allows fl important because it recognizes that of fi exibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic “bright line” rule is impossible . fi cer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be For example, an of . By using discretion, the of fi cer can reach the best solution in balancing the evidentiary recorded . value of a recorded statement with the witness’s reluctance to be recorded The decision may hinge . Or perhaps the witness will agree to be on the importance of what the witness is willing to say fi cer can simply point the camera away from the witness . recorded by audio but not video, so the of Or perhaps the witness will be willing to be recorded later, in a more private setting . By giving of fi fl icting values . Without this discretion, body-worn cers some discretion, they can balance the con fi cameras have the potential to damage important relationships that of cers have built with members . This discretion should not be limitless; instead, it should be guided by carefully of the community crafted policies that set speci c parameters for when of fi cers may use discretion . fi If police departments deploy body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of of cers to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably fi nd themselves caught fi in dif fi cult public battles that will undermine public trust in the police rather than increasing community support for the police . This publication is intended to serve as a guide to the thoughtful, careful considerations that police departments should undertake if they wish to adopt body-worn cameras . Sincerely, Chuck Wexler, Ex ecutive Director Police Executive Research Forum
9 Letter from the COPS Of fi ce Director Dear colleagues, ne of the most important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage . Whether using social media to engage the new technology to improve policing services O community, deploying new surveillance tools to identify suspects, or using data analysis to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an . unprecedented pace Body-worn cameras, which an increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting, cantly affecting the fi represent one new form of technology that is signi . Law fi eld of policing enforcement agencies are using body-worn cameras in various ways: to improve evidence collection, fi cer performance and accountability, to enhance agency transparency, to document to strengthen of fi encounters between police and the public, and to investigate and resolve complaints and of cer- . involved incidents Although body-worn cameras can offer many bene fi ts, they also raise serious questions about how . Body-worn cameras technology is changing the relationship between police and the community not only create concerns about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how of cers relate to fi people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the public . Before agencies invest considerable time and money to deploy body-worn cameras, they must consider these and other important questions . The COPS Of fi ce was pleased to partner with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to support an extensive research project that explored the numerous policy and implementation questions surrounding body-worn cameras In September 2013, the COPS Of fi ce and PERF hosted a conference . . cials, scholars, representatives from . , where more than 200 law enforcement of fi in Washington, D C . federal agencies, and other experts gathered to share their experiences with body-worn cameras The discussions from this conference, along with interviews with more than 40 police executives and a review of existing body-worn camera policies, culminated in the recommendations set forth in this publication . Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned offers practical guidance as well as a comprehensive look at the issues that body-worn cameras raise . I hope you fi nd that the wide range of perspectives, approaches, and strategies presented in this publication are useful, whether you are developing your own body-worn camera program or simply wish to learn more about the topic . The goal of the COPS Of fi ce and PERF is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the best information possible as they explore this new technology; therefore, we encourage you to share this publication, as well as your own experiences, with other law enforcement practitioners . Sincerely, Ronald L . Davis, Director Of fi ce of Community Oriented Policing Services vii
11 Acknowledgments ERF would like to thank the U S . Department of Justice’s Of fi . ce of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Of fi ce) for supporting this research into body-worn cameras . We are thankful to COPS Of P ce Director Ronald Davis and Principal Deputy Director fi Joshua Ederheimer for recognizing the increasingly important role this technology plays for law . We are also grateful to our program managers at the COPS enforcement agencies across the globe Of fi ce, Helene Bushwick and Katherine McQuay, for their support and encouragement throughout the project . We would also like to thank the law enforcement agencies that participated in our survey on body- worn cameras . Their thoughtful responses guided our research and the agenda for the executive session in Washington, D . . , in September 2013 . We are also grateful to the more than 200 police C chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, and other professionals who participated in our executive session (see . These leaders provided valuable information about their appendix B for a list of participants) experiences with body-worn cameras and prompted an insightful discussion regarding the issues these cameras raise . We are especially thankful for the more than 40 police executives who shared their body- worn camera policies with PERF and who participated in interviews with PERF staff Their . candid assessments of how this technology has impacted their agencies shaped the fi ndings and recommendations found in this publication . Finally, credit is due to PERF staff members who conducted the survey, prepared for and hosted the executive session, conducted interviews, and helped write and edit this publication, including Jessica Toliver, Lindsay Miller, Steve Yanda, and Craig Fischer . ix
13 Introduction State of the eld and policy analysis fi ver the past decade, advances in the technologies used by law enforcement agencies have . been accelerating at an extremely rapid pace Many police executives are making decisions O about whether to acquire technologies that did not exist when they began their careers—technologies like automated license plate readers, “Because technology is advancing gunshot detection systems, facial recognition software, predictive analytics faster than policy, it’s important that systems, communications systems that bring data to of fi cers’ laptops or we keep having discussions about handheld devices, GPS applications, and social media to investigate crimes what these new tools mean for us. . and communicate with the public We have to ask ourselves the hard For many police executives, the biggest challenge is not deciding whether questions. What do these technolo - to adopt one particular technology but rather nding the right mix of fi - gies mean for constitutional polic technologies for a given jurisdiction based on its crime problems, funding ing? We have to keep debating the Finding the best mix of technologies, however, must levels, and other factors . advantages and disadvantages. If begin with a thorough understanding of each type of technology . we embrace this new technology, we 1 Police leaders who have deployed body-worn cameras say there are many have to make sure that we are using . They note that body-worn cameras are bene fi ts associated with the devices it to help us do our jobs better.” useful for documenting evidence; of fi cer training; preventing and resolving – Charles Ramsey, Police Commissioner, complaints brought by members of the public; and strengthening police Philadelphia Police Department . In addition, given that police transparency, performance, and accountability now operate in a world in which anyone with a cell phone camera can record video footage of a police encounter, body-worn cameras help police departments ensure events are also captured from an of fi cer’s perspective . Scott Greenwood of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said at the September 2013 conference: The average interaction between an of cer and a citizen in an urban area is already fi . The citizen may record it on his phone If there is some con fl ict recorded in multiple ways . Often there are fi xed security cameras happening, one or more witnesses may record it . . So the thing that makes the most sense—if you really nearby that capture the interaction fi want accountability both for your of cers and for the people they interact with—is to also fi cer’s perspective . have video from the of . What are The use of body-worn cameras also raises important questions about privacy and trust the privacy issues associated with recording victims of crime? How can of fi cers maintain positive community relationships if they are ordered to record almost every type of interaction with the public? Will members of the public fi fi cer, “I am recording this nd it off-putting to be told by an of encounter,” particularly if the encounter is a casual one? Do body-worn cameras also undermine the trust between of cers and their superiors within the police department? fi In addition to these overarching issues, police leaders must also consider many practical policy issues, including the signi cant fi nancial costs of deploying cameras and storing recorded data, fi training requirements, and rules and systems that must be adopted to ensure that body-worn camera video cannot be accessed for improper reasons . 1. Body-worn cameras are small video cameras—typically attached to an o ffi cer’s clothing, helmet, or sunglasses—that can capture, from an o ffi cer’s point of view, video and audio recordings of activities, including tra ffi c stops, arrests, searches, interrogations, and critical incidents such as o ffi cer-involved shootings. 1
14 2 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a Project overview Even as police departments are increasingly adopting body-worn cameras, many questions about this technology have yet to be answered In an effort to address these questions and produce policy . guidance to law enforcement agencies, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support S . Department of Justice’s Of fi ce of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Of from the U ce), . fi . This research project consisted conducted research in 2013 on the use of body-worn cameras of three major components: an informal survey of 500 law enforcement agencies nationwide; interviews with police executives; and a conference in which police chiefs and other experts from across the country gathered to discuss the use of body-worn cameras . . The exploratory First, PERF distributed surveys to 500 police departments nationwide in July 2013 survey was designed to examine the nationwide usage of body-worn cameras and to identify the primary issues that need to be considered . Questions covered topics such as recording requirements; cers are required to wear body-worn cameras; camera placement on the body; fi whether certain of and data collection, storage, and review . PERF received responses from 254 departments (a 51 percent response rate) . Although the use of body-worn cameras is undoubtedly a growing trend, over 75 percent of the respondents reported . that they did not use body-worn cameras as of July 2013 Of the 63 agencies that reported using body-worn cameras, nearly one-third did not have a written policy governing body-worn camera “I really believe that body-worn cameras are . Many police executives reported that their hesitance to implement usage - the wave of the future for most police agen a written policy was due to a lack of guidance on what the policies - cies. This technology is driving the expecta should include, which highlights the need for a set of standards and best tions of the public. They see this out there, practices regarding body-worn cameras . and they see that other agencies that have it, Second, PERF staff members interviewed more than 40 police and their question is, ‘Why don’t you have it?’” executives whose departments have implemented—or have considered – Roberto Villaseñor, Chief of Police, . implementing—body-worn cameras As part of this process, Tucson (Arizona) Police Depar tment PERF also reviewed written policies on body-worn cameras that were shared by departments across the country . Last, PERF convened a one-day conference of more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, representatives from federal criminal justice agencies, and other experts to discuss the policy and operational issues surrounding body-worn cameras , on . . The conference, held in Washington, D . C September 11, 2013, gave participants the opportunity to share the lessons they have learned, to identify promising practices from the eld, and to engage in a dialogue about the many unresolved fi . issues regarding the use of body-worn cameras Drawing upon feedback from the conference, the survey results, and information gathered from the interviews and policy reviews, PERF created this publication to provide law enforcement agencies with guidance on the use of body-worn cameras . The fi rst chapter discusses the perceived bene ts of deploying body-worn cameras, particularly fi how law enforcement agencies have used the cameras to resolve complaints and prevent spurious complaints, to enhance transparency and of cer accountability, to identify and address structural fi problems within the department, and to provide an important new type of evidence for criminal and internal administrative investigations .
15 Introduction 3 The second chapter discusses the larger policy concerns that agencies must consider when implementing body-worn cameras, including privacy implications, the effect cameras have on fi cers’ concerns, the expectations cameras community relationships and community policing, of fi nancial costs create, and . The third chapter presents PERF’s policy recommendations, which re fl ect the promising practices and lessons that emerged from PERF’s conference and its extensive discussions with police executives and other experts following the conference . The police executives referenced throughout this publication are those who attended the September conference; participated in a discussion of body-worn cameras at PERF’s October 2013 Town Hall Meeting, a national forum held in Philadelphia; provided policies for PERF’s review; and/or 2 were interviewed by PERF in late-2013 and early-2014 . A list of participants from the September conference is located in appendix B . 2. The titles listed throughout this document re fl ect o ffi cials’ positions at the time of the September 2013 conference.
17 Chapter 1. Perceived Bene fi ts of Body-Worn Cameras Among the police executives whose departments use body-worn cameras, there is an overall perception that the cameras provide a useful tool for law enforcement . For these agencies, the ts that body-worn cameras offer—capturing a video recording of critical incidents perceived bene fi and encounters with the public, strengthening police accountability, and providing a valuable new . type of evidence—largely outweigh the potential drawbacks For example, Chief Superintendent Stephen Cullen of the New South Wales (Australia) Police Force said, “After testing out body-worn ” . cameras, we were convinced that it was the way of the future for policing Accountability and transparency The police executives whom PERF consulted cited many ways in which body-worn cameras have . fi cials said that, by helped their agencies strengthen accountability and transparency These of providing a video record of police activity, body-worn cameras have made their operations more fi transparent to the public and have helped resolve questions following an encounter between of cers and members of the public . These of fi cials also said that body-worn fi rst place cameras are helping to prevent problems from arising in the “Everyone is on their best behavior when fi by increasing of cer professionalism, helping agencies evaluate and ffi the cameras are running. The o cers, cer performance, and allowing agencies to identify and improve of fi the public—everyone.” . correct larger structural problems within the department As a result, – Ron Miller, Chief of Police, they report that their agencies are experiencing fewer complaints and To p e k a ( K a n s a s ) Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t . fi that encounters between of cers and the public have improved cer-involved incidents fi Reducing complaints and resolving of In 2012, the police department in Rialto, California, in partnership with the Body-worn camera results for University of Cambridge-Institute of Criminology (UK), examined whether Rialto (California) Police Department body-worn cameras would have any impact on the number of complaints 60 percent reduction in of fi cer use of force fi cers’ use of force Over the course of one year, . cers or on of fi against of incidents following camera deployment the department randomly assigned body-worn cameras to various front- Half the number of use of force incidents line of fi cers across 988 shifts . The study found that there was a 60 percent for shifts with cameras compared to shifts fi reduction in of cer use of force incidents following camera deployment, without cameras and during the experiment, the shifts without cameras experienced twice . as many use of force incidents as shifts with cameras The study also found 88 percent reduction in number of citizen that there was an 88 percent reduction in the number of citizen complaints complaints between the year prior to and between the year prior to camera implementation and the year following following camera deployment 3 . deployment Chief of Police William Farrar of Rialto, who oversaw the study, said, “Whether the reduced number of complaints was because of the of fi cers behaving better or . ” the citizens behaving better—well, it was probably a little bit of both A study conducted in Mesa, Arizona, also found that body-worn cameras were associated with a reduction in complaints against of fi cers . In October 2012, the Mesa Police Department implemented a one-year pilot program in which 50 of fi cers were assigned to wear body-worn cameras, and 50 . The two groups were demographically of fi cers were assigned to a control group without the cameras The Police Chief 81 3. William Farrar, “Operation Candid Camera: Rialto Police Department’s Body-Worn Camera Experiment,” (2014): 20–25. 5
18 6 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned . similar in terms of age, race, and other characteristics The study, which was conducted by Arizona fi State University, found that during the rst eight months of deployment, the of cers without the fi 4 cameras had almost three times as many complaints as the of The study . cers who wore the cameras fi also found that the of fi cers assigned body-worn cameras had 40 percent Body-worn camera results for fewer total complaints and 75 percent fewer use of force complaints Mesa (Arizona) Police Department during the pilot program than they did during the prior year when they 5 . were not wearing cameras Nearly 3x more complaints against of fi cers without cameras, eight months after camera Police ex ecutives interviewed by PERF overwhelmingly report that their deployment cers after fi agencies experienced a noticeable drop in complaints against of cers 40 percent fewer total complaints for of fi deploying body-worn cameras . “There’s absolutely no doubt that having with cameras during pilot program fi cers,” body-worn cameras reduces the number of complaints against of 75 percent fewer use of force complaints for said Chief of Police Ron Miller of Topeka, Kansas . One explanation for this fi cers with cameras during pilot program of is that the mere presence of a camera can lead to more civil interactions cers to let . “We actually encourage our of fi cers and the public between of fi . people know that they are recording,” said Chief of Police Ken Miller of Greensboro, North Carolina . ” “Why? Because we think that it elevates behavior on both sides of the camera Lieutenant Harold Rankin, who oversaw the body-worn camera program in Mesa, agrees: “Anytime you know you’re being recorded, it’s going to have an impact on your behavior When our of fi cers . encounter a confrontational situation, they’ll tell the person that the camera is running That’s often . enough to deescalate the situation . ” Many police executives report that wearing cameras has helped improve professionalism among their of fi cers . Chief Superintendent Cullen of New South Wales said, “After testing out body-worn cameras, the overwhelming response from fi of cers was that the cameras increased their professionalism because “In the testing we did [of body-worn cameras], . they knew that everything they said and did was being recorded ” we had a number of tenured o ffi cers who Many agencies have found that having video footage of an encounter wanted to wear the cameras and try them also discourages people from fi ling unfounded complaints against out, and their feedback was very positive. fi “We’ve actually had citizens come into the department to . le cers fi of They said things like, ‘You’ll be amazed at a complaint, but after we show them the video, they literally turn and how people stop acting badly when you say . walk back out,” said Chief Miller of Topeka Chief of Police Michael this is a camera, even if they’re intoxicated.’ Frazier of Surprise, Arizona, reports a similar experience . “Recently we And we also know that the overwhelming fi received an allegation that an of ling during fi cer engaged in racial pro cers are out there doing ffi majority of our o The of cer was wearing his body-worn camera, and the fi a traf fi c stop . footage showed that the allegation was completely unfounded,” Frazier a very good job, and the cameras will show “After reviewing the tape, the complainants admitted that they said . just that.” have never been treated unfavorably by any of fi cers in my department . ” , ff – Douglas Gillespie, Sheri As several police of fi cials noted, preventing unfounded complaints can Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department save departments the signi fi cant amounts of time and money spent on . lengthy investigations and lawsuits When questions arise following an encounter, police executives said that having a video record of events helps lead to a quicker resolution According to the results of PERF’s exploratory survey, the . number one reason why police departments choose to implement body-worn cameras is to provide a more accurate documentation of police encounters with the public . Police executives report that when questions arise following an encounter or a major event such as an of fi cer-involved shooting, having video from a body-worn camera can help resolve the questions . 4. Harold Rankin, “End of Program Evaluation and Recommendations: On-O ffi cer Body Camera System” (Mesa, AZ: Mesa Police Department, 2013). 5. Ibid.
19 Chapter 1. Perceived Bene fi 7 ts of Body-Worn Cameras cer’s fi Agencies are also reporting that, in most of these cases, the resolution is in support of the of Chief of Police Mike Chitwood of Daytona Beach, Florida, recalled one example in . account of events le a complaint against of cers following a contentious which a member of the public threatened to fi fi encounter . Alleging that the of fi cers had threatened him and used racial epithets, the individual said that he would go to the news media if the “The use of body-worn video by frontline of - . One of the of fi cers involved had been department failed to take action cers has real potential to reduce complaints fi “We reviewed the video, and clearly the . wearing a body-worn camera ffi of incivility and use of force by o cers. The individual lied,” recalled Chitwood . “The of fi cer was glad to have the - footage can also exonerate o ffi cers from vex footage because the individual’s allegations were absolutely not what atious and malicious complaints. In addition, . was represented in the video ” I feel there are bene fi ts to the criminal justice Body-worn cameras have also helped to resolve more serious incidents, system in terms of more guilty pleas, reduced cer-involved shootings including of Chief Miller of Topeka said fi . costs at court, and a reduction in the num - that the local district attorney cleared an of fi cer in a deadly shooting . Miller incident after viewing the of fi cer’s body-worn camera footage ber of civil cases brought against the police described how the camera footage captured the event in real time and service for unlawful arrest/excessive force. provided a record of events that would otherwise not have existed . “The We already have good examples of body- cer . entire event was captured on video from the perspective of the of fi ffi worn video footage exonerating o cers from Now tell me when that happened before the advent of body-worn malicious complaints.’’ . cameras,” said Miller – Paul Rumney, Detective Chief Superintendent, Several police departments, including those in Daytona Beach, Florida, Greater Manchester (UK) Police and Greenville, North Carolina, are fi cers with a history fi nding that of . of complaints are now actively requesting to wear cameras cers who behave properly but fi For of generate complaints because they have high levels of activity or frequent contacts with criminal . suspects, cameras can be seen as bene fi cial cers with a “We all have our small percentage of of fi “Internal Affairs has told . history of complaints,” said Chief of Police Hassan Aden of Greenville me that these of fi cers have come in to request body-worn cameras so that they can be protected ” . in the future Identifying and correcting internal agency problems Another way that body-worn cameras have strengthened accountability and transparency, according to many police executives, is by helping “We have about 450 body-worn cameras . agencies identify and correct problems within the department In fact, actively deployed, and in the overwhelming PERF’s survey found that 94 percent of respondents use body-worn majority of cases, the footage demonstrates camera footage to train of fi . cers and aid in administrative reviews that the o cer’s actions were appropriate.” ffi Many police agencies are discovering that body-worn cameras can – Sean Whent, Chief of Police, fi cer performance . For serve as a useful training tool to help improve of Oakland (California) Police Department example, agencies are using footage from body-worn cameras to provide scenario-based training, to evaluate the performance of new of fi fi eld, and to identify cers in the . new areas in which training is needed By using body-worn cameras in this way, agencies have the opportunity to raise standards of performance when it comes to tactics, communication, and customer service . This can help increase the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments . Law enforcement agencies have also found that body-worn cameras can help them to identify fi cers who abuse their authority or commit other misconduct and to assist in correcting of questionable behavior before it reaches that level . In Phoenix, for example, an of fi cer was fi red after his body-worn camera captured repeated incidents of unprofessional conduct . Following a complaint
20 8 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned fi cer, the police department reviewed footage from the incident along with video from against the of Upon . fi prior shifts nding repeated instances of verbal abuse, profanity, and threats against members . “It clearly shock cer fi of the public, the department terminated the of ed the conscience when you saw all of the different incidents,” said Assistant Chief of Police Dave Harvey of Phoenix . cers with a history of complaints be In Daytona Beach, Chief Chitwood requested that the of fi fi fi tted with body-worn cameras . rst to be out among the Although he found that usually the videos fi cers are hardworking, good police,” he has also seen how demonstrated that “the majority of the of . Chitwood said: body-worn cameras can help an agency address discipline problems fi fi We had an of tted him cer who had several questionable incidents in the past, so we out . Right in the middle of an encounter with a subject, the camera goes blank, with a camera He said that the camera malfunctioned, and then it comes back on when the incident is over . . A week later he goes to arrest a woman, and again, the camera so we gave him another one He claimed again that the camera had malfunctioned . goes blank just before the encounter . fi cer had So we conducted a forensic review of the camera, which determined that the of . intentionally hit the power button right before the camera shut off Our policy says that if . . you turn it off, you’re done He resigned the next day fi cials to address wide-reaching structural Body-worn cameras can also help law enforcement of . Many police of fi cials that PERF consulted said that body-worn problems within the department cameras have allowed them to identify potential weaknesses within their agencies and to develop solutions for improvement, such as offering new training programs or revising their departmental policies and protocols . red after his fi cer was ffi In Phoenix, an o For example, Chief of Police William Lansdowne of San Diego said body-worn camera captured repeated that one reason his department is implementing body-worn cameras incidents of unprofessional conduct. is to improve its understanding of incidents involving claims of racial pro fi ling “When it comes to collecting data, the raw numbers don’t . always fully capture the true scope of a problem,” he said “But by capturing an audio and video . fi account of an encounter, cameras provide an objective record of whether racial pro ling took place, cer behavior are present, and how often the problem occurs what patterns of of ” fi . Police agencies have also found that implementing a body-worn camera program can be useful when facing consent decrees and external investigations . Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division at the U . S . Department of Justice, said, “We want to get police departments out from under consent decrees as soon as possible . What is important is whether you can show that fi . Although it isn’t an of fi cial your of cers are engaged in constitutional policing on a regular basis Department of Justice policy, the Civil Rights Division believes that body-worn cameras can be . ” useful for doing that Many police departments that have faced external investigations, including those in New Orleans and Detroit, are in various stages of testing and implementing body-worn cameras . Police executives in these cities said that cameras help them to demonstrate they are improving policies and practices within their agencies Police Superintendent Ron Serpas of New Orleans, whose department is in the . process of deploying more than 400 body-worn cameras, said, “Body-worn cameras will be good for us . The hardworking of fi cers say, ‘Chief, just give us a chance to show everyone that we are not like the people who went astray after Hurricane Katrina . ’ The one thing that New Orleans police of fi cers want more than anything else is the independent veri fi cation that they are doing what they’re
21 Chapter 1. Perceived Bene ts of Body-Worn Cameras fi 9 ” The police departments in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Spokane, Washington are also supposed to do . implementing body-worn cameras to assist in complying with the collaborative agreements they . S . Department of Justice . entered into with the COPS Of fi ce of the U Chief of Police Charlie Beck of Los Angeles, whose department is testing body-worn cameras, rst-hand how video evidence can help in these situations . “We exited our consent fi understands decree last year, and one of the reasons that the federal judge signed off on us was that we “Recordings can help improve public trust . ” implemented in-car video,” said Beck . Evidence documentation “Some police departments are doing cantly fi Police executives said that body-worn cameras have signi themselves a disservice by not using body- cers capture evidence for investigations and court fi improved how of worn cameras. Everyone around you is going . proceedings Along with documenting encounters with members of the to have a camera, and so everyone else is public, body-worn cameras can provide a record of interrogations and going to be able to tell the story better than cers witness at crime scenes arrests, as well as what of fi . you if you don’t have these cameras. And Chief of Police Jason Parker of Dalton, Georgia, described how body- when the Civil Rights Division is looking at a cers to improve evidence collection at worn cameras have helped of fi police department, every piece of informa - accident scenes . “It is always hard to gather evidence from accident tion that shows the department is engaged He explained that of . cers are often focused on scenes,” Parker said fi in constitutional policing is important. So of securing the scene and performing life-saving measures and that witnesses and victims may not always remember what they had told course body-worn cameras can help.” fi cers in the confusion . This can lead to con fl icting reports when of – Roy L. Austin, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, victims and witnesses are asked to repeat their accounts in later Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice . “Unlike in-car cameras, body-worn cameras capture statements cers travel around the scene and everything that happens as of fi interview multiple people . The body-worn cameras have been incredibly useful in accurately preserving information . ” “Although body-worn cameras are just one tool, the quality of information that they can Some prosecutors have started encouraging police departments to use body-worn cameras to capture more reliable evidence for court, capture is unsurpassed. With sound policy particularly in matters like domestic violence cases that can be dif cult fi and guidance, their evidentiary value Chief Chitwood of Daytona Beach explained how body- . to prosecute de nitely outweighs any drawbacks fi worn cameras have changed how domestic violence cases are handled . or concerns.” “Oftentimes we know that the suspect is repeatedly abusing the victim, – Jason Parker, Chief of Police, but either the victim refuses to press charges, or there is simply not Dalton (Georgia) Police Department . With the victim’s consent, enough evidence to go to trial,” he said Daytona Beach of fi cers can now use body-worn cameras to videotape victim statements . “The footage shows fi rst-hand the victim’s injuries, demeanor, and immediate In some cases, of cers capture the assault itself on video if they arrive fi reactions,” Chitwood noted . on the scene while the incident is still ongoing . “This means that we can have enough evidence to ” . move forward with the case, even if the victim ultimately declines to prosecute Chief Miller of Topeka echoed this sentiment: “When we show suspects in domestic violence cases . footage from the body-worn cameras, often they plead guilty without even having to go to trial ”
22 Photo: Shutterstock/John Roman Images
23 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation This is especially . New technologies in policing raise numerous policy issues that must be considered fi cant implications in terms of privacy, true with body-worn cameras, which can have signi community relationships, and internal departmental affairs . As agencies develop body-worn camera programs, it is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their policies and practices intersect with Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and . these larger questions community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline of fi cers, the expectations that cameras fi cer credibility, and the fi nancial considerations that create in terms of court proceedings and of cameras present . Privacy considerations The proliferation of camera phones, advances in surveillance technology, and the emergence of social media have changed the way people view “In London we have CCTVs, which are quite privacy, contributing to the sense that, as Police Commissioner Charles extensive and becoming even more so, but Ramsey of Philadelphia said, it sometimes feels as though “everyone the distinction is that those cameras don’t is ” As technology advances and expectations of . lming everybody fi listen to your conversations. They observe privacy evolve, it is critical that law enforcement agencies carefully behavior and see what people do and cover consider how the technology they use affects the public’s privacy rights, public space, so you can see if there is a crime . especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issues being committed. But CCTVs don’t generally Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been seek out individuals. So I think there is an considered before . Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, important distinction there.” body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video – Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner, and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial London Metropolitan Police Service recognition technology . In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras give of fi cers the ability to record inside private homes and to fi lm sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service . . There is also concern about how the footage from body-worn cameras might be stored and used For example, will a person be able to obtain video that was recorded inside a neighbor’s home? fi nitely? Is it possible that the body-worn camera footage might be Will agencies keep videos inde improperly posted online? When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collection . This means making careful decisions about when of fi cers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure . 11
24 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned 12 Implementing a Determining when to record The issue with perhaps the greatest privacy implications is deciding which types of encounters . fi cers be required to record every interaction with fi Should of and activities of cers should record a member of the public? Or are there some situations in which recording should be discretionary or prohibited? cers to record all encounters with the public . One approach is to require of fi This would require fi of cers to activate their cameras not only during calls for service or other law enforcement-related encounters but also during informal conversations with members of . g . the public (e fi cer for directions or an of fi cer , a person asking an of “For the [American Civil Liberties Union], the stopping into a store and engaging in casual conversation with the cer cameras is the tension ffi challenge of on-o . This is the approach advocated by the American Civil Liberties owner) between their potential to invade privacy Union (ACLU), which stated in a report released in October 2013, “If a fi police department is to place its cameras under of cer control, then it t in promoting police fi and their strong bene fi cers’ ability must put in place tightly effective means of limiting of accountability. Overall, we think they can to choose which encounters to record That can only take the form of . be a win-win—but only if they are deployed a department-wide policy that mandates that police turn on recording within a framework of strong policies to 6 . ” during every interaction with the public ensure they protect the public without Scott Greenwood, an attorney with the ACLU, explained why the ACLU - becoming yet another system for routine sur “You don’t want to give of fi cers a advocates recording all encounters . veillance of the public, and maintain public . list and say, ‘Only record the following 10 types of situations ’ You want con dence in the integrity of those privacy fi of fi cers to record all the situations, so when a situation does go south, protections. Without such a framework, their . This is there’s an unimpeachable record of it—good, bad, ugly, all of it fi accountability bene ts would not exceed an optimal policy from a civil liberties perspective . ” their privacy risks.” Greenwood said this approach bene fi ts not only the public but also – “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in of cers . “Mandatory recording is also what will protect an of fi cer from fi Place, a Win for All” (New York: ACLU, 2013). . allegations of discretionary recording or tampering,” said Greenwood “You want activating the camera to be a re fl exive decision, not something that of fi cers have to evaluate with each new situation . If of fi cers have to determine what type of incident it is before recording, there are going to be a lot of situations in which a recording might have exonerated an of fi cer, but the recording was never made . ” However, PERF believes that requiring of fi cers to record every encounter with the public would sometimes undermine community members’ privacy rights and damage important police-community There are certain situations, such as interviews with crime victims and witnesses and relationships . informal, non-law enforcement interactions with members of the community, that call for affording cers some measure of discretion in determining whether to activate their cameras . There are fi of situations in which not recording is a reasonable decision . An agency’s body-worn camera policy should expressly describe these situations and provide solid guidance for of fi cers when they exercise discretion not to record . cer discretion is needed in sensitive situations, such as encounters with crime fi For example, of victims or witnesses who are concerned about retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with the police cers fi cer discretion is needed for routine and casual situations—such as of fi In other cases, of . on foot or bike patrol who wish to chat with neighborhood residents—and turning on a video camera could make the encounter seem of fi cious and off-putting . 6. Jay Stanley, “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win for All” (New York: ACLU, 2013), . https:// www.aclu.org/ fi les/assets/police_body-mounted_cameras.pdf
25 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 13 Of the police departments that PERF consulted, very few have adopted the policy of recording . cers to activate their The more common approach is to require of all encounters with the public fi cameras when responding to calls for service and during law enforcement-related encounters and c stops, arrests, searches, interrogations, and pursuits fi In many cases, the activities, such as traf . department’s written policy de fi nes what constitutes a law enforcement-related encounter or activity, and some policies also provide a speci . Many policies generally fi c list of which activities are included fi . Most policies also give of fi cers the discretion to cers should record indicate that when in doubt, of cers to fi not record when doing so would be unsafe, impossible, or impractical, but most require of articulate in writing their reasons for not activating the camera or to say on camera why they are . turning the camera off Police executives cite several reasons for favoring a more limited and fl fi cers to record all encounters . exible approach rather than requiring of One reason is that it gives of fi cers the discretion to not record if they Of the police departments that PERF feel that doing so would infringe on an individual’s privacy rights . consulted, very few have adopted the policy For example, many police departments, including those in Oakland of recording all encounters with the public. and Rialto, California; Mesa, Arizona; and Fort Collins, Colorado, give The more common approach is to require of fi cers discretion regarding whether to record interviews with victims ffi o cers to activate their cameras when Some departments also extend . of rape, abuse, or other sensitive crimes responding to calls for service and during The Daytona Beach this discretion to recording victims of other crimes . law enforcement-related encounters and (Florida) Police Department recently changed its policy to require that of fi cers obtain consent, on camera, from all crime victims prior to c stops, arrests, activities, such as tra ffi “This new policy is a response to the privacy recording an interview . searches, interrogations, and pursuits. concerns that arise when you are dealing with victims of crime,” said Chief of Police Mike Chitwood of Daytona Beach . fi cers to use discretion when determining whether to record encounters Some agencies encourage of . with or searches of individuals who are partially or completely unclothed Chief of Police Don Lanpher of Aberdeen, South Dakota, said, “We had an incident when of fi cers were called to assist a . All of the of fi cers had female on a landing in an apartment building who was partially undressed . Of fi cers are encouraged to use discretion cameras, but they did not record her until she was covered in those cases . ” In addition to privacy concerns, police executives cite the potential negative impact on community relationships as a reason for not requiring of fi cers to record all encounters with the public . Their goal, always, is to maintain an open dialogue with community members and preserve the trust in 7 their relationships “There are a lot of issues with recording every citizen contact without regard to . . how cooperative or adversarial it is,” said Chief of Police Ken Miller of Greensboro, North Carolina “If people think that they are going to be recorded every time they talk to an of fi cer, regardless of . the context, it is going to damage openness and create barriers to important relationships ” Commissioner Ramsey of Philadelphia agrees . “There has to be some measure of discretion . If you have a police interaction as a result of a 911 call or a reasonable suspicion stop, it is one thing—you should record in those situations . But you have to give of fi cers discretion whether to record if they are just saying ‘hello’ to someone or if they are approached by an individual who wants to give them information . ” 7. See “Impact on community relationships” on page 19 , “Securing community support” on page 21 , “Protecting intelligence-gathering e ff orts” on page 22 , and “Lessons learned about impact on community relationships” on page 24 for strategies departments have taken to address this impact.
26 14 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned fi Some police executives also believe that requiring of cers to record all encounters can signal a lack fi fi cers, which is problematic for any department that wants to encourage its of cers of trust in of to be thoughtful and to show initiative . For example, a survey of of fi cers conducted in Vacaville, California, found that although 70 percent of of fi cers were in favor of using body-worn cameras, a majority were opposed to a policy containing strict requirements of . mandatory recording of all police contacts “In a sensitive investigation, such as a rape For departments whose polices do not require of fi cers to record or child abuse case, if you have a victim who fi ciently ensure every interaction with the public, the goal is to suf doesn’t want to be recorded, I think you have accountability and adherence to the department’s body-worn camera to take that into account. I think that you For example, when of fi . policies and protocols cers have discretion to fi lm every encounter. cannot just arbitrarily not record an encounter, many departments require them to document, There are times when you’ve got to give your either on camera or in writing, the fact that they did not record and their ffi cers some discretion to turn the camera o Some departments also require of fi cers to reasons for not recording . obtain supervisor approval to deactivate the camera if a subject requests o ff . Of course, the o ffi cers should be required to not be recorded . to articulate why they’re not recording or why they’re shutting it o , but we have to ff Consent to record give them that discretion.” cers are legally required to inform subjects fi In a handful of states, of – Charlie Beck, Chief of Police, when they are recording and to obtain the person’s consent to record . Los Angeles Police Department This is known as a “two-party consent” law, and it can create challenges to implementing a body-worn camera program . In many two-party consent states, however, police executives have successfully worked with their state legislatures to have the consent requirement waived for “Legitimacy in policing is built on trust. And . body-worn police cameras For example, in February 2014 Pennsylvania - the notion of video-recording every interac enacted a law waiving the two-party consent requirement for police tion in a very tense situation would simply 8 . using body-worn cameras Efforts are under way to change two-party not be a practical operational way of deliv - consent statutes in other jurisdictions as well Each department must . ering policing. In fact, it would exacerbate research its state laws to determine whether the two-party consent all sorts of problems. In the United Kingdom, . requirement applies - we’re also subject to human rights legisla fi cers to Some police executives believe that it is good practice for of tion, laws on right to privacy, right to family inform people when they are recording, even if such disclosures are not life, and I’m sure you have similar statutes. It’s . cers are encouraged— fi In Greensboro, for example, of required by law far more complicated than a blanket policy Chief Miller of . but not required—to announce when they are recording of ‘every interaction is fi lmed.’ I think that’s Greensboro said this policy is based on the belief that the knowledge that cameras are running can help defuse potentially confrontational ffi cers far too simplistic. We have to give our o situations and improve behavior from all parties . some discretion. We cannot have a policy that limits discretion of o ffi cers to a point However, many police executives in one-party consent states do not explicitly instruct of fi cers to inform people that they are recording . where using these devices has a negative cer needs to know fi “Kansas is a one-party consent state, so only the of ff ect on community-police relations.” e But if a person asks, the of fi cer tells them the that the camera is running . – Sir Hugh Orde, President, . truth,” said Chief of Police Ron Miller of Topeka, Kansas Association of Chief Police O ffi cers (UK) 8. Police body cameras heading to Pennsylvania (February 10, 2014), ABC 27 News, http://www.abc27.com/story/24686416/ police-body-cameras-heading-to-pennsylvania .
27 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 15 Recording inside private homes Another privacy question is whether and under what conditions of fi cers “One of the things we are forgetting is that we Many law . should be allowed to record while inside a person’s home already send o ffi cers into people’s homes and enforcement agencies have taken the position that of fi cers have the right have them document all these bits of infor - to record inside a private home as long as they have a legal right to be mation that we’re worried about recording. If there cer enters a home in response fi According to this approach, if an of . an o ffi cer enters someone’s home, they docu - to a call for service, pursuant to a valid search warrant, or with consent ment the condition of the home, especially if fi cers can record what they fi of the resident, of nd inside . it’s a case about a child or involves domestic There is a concern that footage taken inside a private home may be violence or physical injury. So videos are just subject to public disclosure . Deputy Chief of Police William Roseman of a technologically advanced type of police Albuquerque described how this can be particularly problematic in states with broad public disclosure laws . “Here in Albuquerque, everything is erently ff report that should be treated no di open to public record unless it is part of an ongoing investigation . So if from an initial contact form that we currently police come into your house and it is captured on video, and if the video ll out every day. The advantage of a camera fi isn’t being used in an investigation, your neighbor can request the footage is now you have a factual representation as . under the open records act, and we must give it to them ” Scott Greenwood cer.” ffi opposed to an interpretation by an o of the ACLU has expressed similar concerns: – Chris Burbank, Chief of Police, An of cer might be allowed to go into the residence and record, but fi Salt Lake City (Utah) Police Department . that does not mean that everything inside ought to be public record . The warrant is an exception to the Fourth Amendment, not a waiver We do not want this to show up on YouTube My next-door neighbor should never be able . . to view something that happened inside my house without my permission Data storage, retention, and disclosure Decisions about where to store video footage and how long to keep it can have a far-reaching effect on privacy . Many police executives believe that privacy concerns can be addressed through data storage, retention, and disclosure policies . However, when developing these policies, agency leaders must balance privacy considerations with other factors, such as state law requirements, transparency, and data storage capacity and cost . Data storage policies Among police executives interviewed by PERF, security, reliability, cost, and technical capacity were the primary factors cited for choosing a particular method for storing video les from body-worn fi cameras . Among the more than 40 departments that PERF consulted, all stored body-worn camera video on an in-house server (managed internally) or an online cloud database (managed by a third- 9 . party vendor) Police executives noted a number of strategies that can help agencies protect the integrity and privacy of their recorded data, regardless of which storage method is used . These lessons learned regarding data storage include the following: r Consult with prosecutors and legal advisors: Legal experts can advise whether data storage policies and practices are in compliance with all relevant laws and adequately preserve evidentiary chain of custody . 9. Cloud storage is a method for storing and backing up electronic data. The data is maintained and managed remotely, generally by a third party, and made available to users over a network, or “cloud .”
28 16 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a r Explicitly prohibit data tampering, editing, and copying. Include protections against tampering with the data prior to downloading: r This helps to mitigate cers will be able to alter or delete recordings prior to downloading them Some fi concerns that of . body-worn camera systems are sold with technological safeguards that make it impossible for cer to access the data prior to downloading . an of fi Create an auditing system: r It is important to have a record of who accesses video data, when, and Some storage systems include a built-in audit trail . for what purpose . r Explicitly state who will be authorized to access data: Many written policies outline who will have . g . , supervisors, Internal Affairs, certain other of fi cers and department access to the data (e . . , administrative personnel, and prosecutors) and for what purpose (e g review, training, and investigations) . “Whether you store video internally or Some systems have a built-in r Ensure there is a reliable back-up system: externally, protecting the data and backup system that preserves recorded data, and some departments copy preserving the chain of custody should . recordings to disc and store them as evidence always be a concern. Either way, you need Specify when videos will be downloaded from the camera to the storage r something built into the system so that you The majority of existing policies system and who will download them: know that video has not been altered.” require the camera operator to download the footage by the end of – Ken Miller, Chief of Police, each shift . In the case of an of fi cer-involved shooting or other serious Greensboro (North Carolina) Police Department incident, some policies require supervisors to step in and physically take possession of the camera and assume downloading responsibilities . r Overwhelmingly, the police executives whom PERF Consider third-party vendors carefully: interviewed reported that their legal advisors and prosecutors were comfortable using a third- When deciding whether to use a third-party vendor, . party vendor to manage the storage system departments consider the vendor’s technical assistance capabilities and whether the system Police executives stressed the includes protections such as an audit trail, backup system, etc . . importance of entering into a legal contract with the vendor that protects the agency’s data These strategies are important not only for protecting the privacy rights of the people recorded but also for preserving evidence and resolving allegations of data tampering . Data retention policies The length of time that departments retain body-worn camera footage plays a key role for privacy . The longer that recorded videos are retained, the longer they are subject to public disclosure, which can be problematic if the video contains footage associated with privacy concerns . And community members’ concerns about police departments collecting data about them in the rst place are fi lessened if the videos are not retained for long periods of time . The retention times are generally dictated by the type of encounter or incident that the footage captures . Although protocols vary by department, footage is typically categorized as either “evidentiary” or “non-evidentiary . ” Evidentiary video involves footage of an incident or encounter that could prove useful for investigative purposes, such as a crime, an arrest or citation, a search, a use of force incident, or a confrontational encounter with a member of the public . Evidentiary footage is usually further categorized by speci fi c incident type, and the retention period is governed by state evidentiary rules for that incident . For example, many state laws require that footage involving a homicide
29 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 17 nitely, but video of a traf fi . fi be retained inde c citation must be kept for only a matter of months Departments often purge evidentiary videos at the conclusion of the investigation, court proceeding, or administrative hearing for which they were used . Non-evidentiary video involves footage that does necessarily have value to aid in an investigation or prosecution, such as footage of an incident or encounter that does not lead to an arrest or citation or cer might perform while on duty (e of general activities that an of g . , assisting a motorist or clearing fi . . Agencies often have more leeway in setting retention times for non-evidentiary videos, a roadway) which are generally not subject to state evidentiary laws . Of the departments that PERF consulted, the most common retention time for non-evidentiary video . Some departments retain non-evidentiary video for an even shorter was between 60 and 90 days . period Fort Collins, Colorado, for example, discards footage after seven days if there is no citizen On the contact recorded and after 30 days if contact is made but no enforcement action is taken . other end of the spectrum, some departments, such as Albuquerque, retain non-evidentiary video for a full year . Many police executives express a preference for shorter retention times for non-evidentiary video . Shorter retention periods not only address privacy concerns but also reduce the costs associated with . On the other hand, police executives noted that they must keep videos long enough data storage to demonstrate transparency and to have footage of an encounter in case a complaint arises about fi cer’s actions . For example, departments in Rialto, Fort Collins, an of Albuquerque, Daytona Beach, and Toronto base retention times in part “It is important to have retention policies that fi led . on how long it generally takes for complaints to be are directly linked to the purposes of having the video, whether that purpose is to have Public disclosure policies ffi cers and evidence of a crime or to hold o State public disclosure laws, often known as freedom of information the public accountable. Agencies should not laws, govern when footage from body-worn cameras is subject to public fi nitely, or else those retain every video inde release However, most of these laws were written long before law . videos could be used down the road for all enforcement agencies began deploying body-worn cameras, so the laws sorts of inappropriate reasons.” do not necessarily account for all of the considerations that must be made when police departments undertake a body-worn camera program . – Lorie Fridell, Associate Professor, University of South Florida Although broad disclosure policies can promote police agency transparency and accountability, some videos—especially recordings of victims or from inside people’s homes—will raise privacy concerns if they are released to the public or the news media . When determining how to approach public disclosure issues, law enforcement agencies must balance the legitimate interest of openness with protecting 10 privacy rights . In most state public disclosure laws, exceptions are outlined that may exempt body-worn camera footage from public release For example, even the broadest disclosure laws typically contain . an exception for video that contains evidence or is part of an ongoing investigation . Some state disclosure laws, such as those in North Carolina, also exempt personnel records from public release . Body-worn camera videos used to monitor of cer performance may fall under this type of exception . fi 10. Scott Greenwood of the ACLU recommends that police executives work with the ACLU to ensure that state disclosure laws contain adequate privacy protections for body-worn camera videos. “If interpreted too broadly, open records laws can undermine the accountability of law enforcement agencies,” said Greenwood. “You want to make sure that the video is not subject to arbitrary disclosure. It deserves the highest level of protection.”
30 18 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned These exceptions to public disclosure can help police departments to avoid being required to release videos if doing so could jeopardize a criminal prosecution . The exceptions can also help police to protect the privacy of crime victims and witnesses . However, by policy and practice, law enforcement agencies should apply these exceptions judiciously to avoid any suspicion by community members that police are withholding video “When developing body-worn camera In launching body-worn . footage to hide of cer misconduct or mistakes fi policies, agencies have to consider how open camera programs, law enforcement agencies should convey that their the public disclosure laws are in their state. goal is to foster transparency and accountability while protecting civil Are they going to have to give up all of their . When an agency decides whether to liberties and privacy interests footage to any person that requests it? Or are release or withhold body-worn camera footage of a particular incident, . the agency should articulate its reasons for doing so there some protections? This is important to think about when it comes to privacy.” In addition, some agencies have adopted recording and retention policies – Ron Miller, Chief of Police, that help to avoid violations of privacy . For example, some agencies To p e k a ( K a n s a s ) Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t cers to deactivate their cameras during interviews with crime fi allow of victims or witnesses And short retention times for non-evidentiary . video footage can reduce the window of opportunity for requests for release of video footage that would serve no legitimate purpose . Lessons learned on privacy considerations In their conversations with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned regarding body-worn cameras and privacy rights: r Body-worn cameras have signi fi cant implications for the public’s privacy rights, particularly when it comes to recording victim interviews, nudity, and other sensitive subjects and when recording inside people’s homes . Agencies must factor these privacy considerations into decisions about when to record, where and how long to store data, and how to respond to public requests for video footage . r In terms of when of cers should be required to activate their cameras, the most common fi fi cers to record all calls for service and law enforcement-related approach is requiring of encounters and activities and to deactivate the camera only at the conclusion of the event or . with supervisor approval It is essential to clearly de fi ne what constitutes a law enforcement-related encounter or activity r . It is also useful to provide a list of speci fi in the department’s written body-worn camera policy c activities that are included, noting that the list is not necessarily all inclusive Many agencies give . fi cers that when they are in doubt, they should record a general recommendation to of . r To protect of fi cer safety and acknowledge that recording may not be possible in every situation, it is helpful to state in policies that recording will not be required if it would be unsafe, impossible, or impractical . r Signi cant privacy concerns can arise when interviewing crime victims, particularly in fi . cers fi situations involving rape, abuse, or other sensitive matters Some agencies prefer to give of discretion regarding whether to record in these circumstances In such cases, of fi cers should take . into account the evidentiary value of recording and the willingness of the victim to speak on camera . Some agencies go a step further and require of fi cers to obtain the victim’s consent prior to recording the interview . r To promote of fi cer accountability, most policies require of fi cers to document, on camera or in writing, the reasons why the of fi cer deactivated the camera in situations that are otherwise required to be recorded .
31 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 19 In one-party consent states, of fi fi cers are r cers are not legally required to notify subjects when of However, some agencies have found that announcing the camera is running promotes . recording . better behavior and defuses potentially confrontational encounters r When making decisions about where to store body-worn camera footage, how long to keep it, and how it should be disclosed to the public, it is advisable for agencies to consult with . departmental legal counsel and prosecutors r Regardless of the chosen method for storing recorded data, agencies should take all possible . This includes explicitly stating who has steps to protect the integrity and security of the data access to the data and under what circumstances, creating an audit system for monitoring access, ensuring there is a reliable back-up system, specifying how data will be downloaded . from the camera, and including protections against data tampering prior to downloading r It is important that videos be properly categorized according to the type of event contained in the footage . How the videos are categorized will determine how long they are retained, who has . access, and whether they can be disclosed to the public To help protect privacy rights, it is generally preferable to set shorter retention times for non- r evidentiary data . The most common retention time for this video is between 60 and 90 days . r When setting retention times, agencies should consider privacy concerns, the scope of the state’s public disclosure laws, the amount of time the public needs to fi le complaints, and data storage capacity and costs . r Evidentiary footage is generally exempt from public disclosure while it is part of an ongoing investigation or court proceeding . Deleting In launching body-worn camera programs, this video after it serves its evidentiary purpose can reduce the law enforcement agencies should convey quantity of video stored and protect it from unauthorized access that their goal is to foster transparency and It is important to always check whether deletion is in . or release accountability while protecting civil liberties . compliance with laws governing evidence retention and privacy interests. Informing the public about how long video will be retained can help r Some agencies . promote agency transparency and accountability . have found it useful to post retention times on the department’s website It is important for the agency to communicate its public disclosure policy to the community r when the body-worn camera program is deployed to develop public understanding of the . technology and the reasons for adopting it Impact on community relationships Building positive relationships with the community is a critical aspect of policing, and these relationships can exist only if police have earned the trust of the people they serve . Police rely on these community partnerships to help them address crime and disorder issues . At the PERF conference, a number of participants expressed concern that excessive recording with body-worn cameras may damage the relationships of fi cers have developed with the community and hinder the openness of their community policing interactions . Some police executives fear, for
32 20 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned example, that people will be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going to be recorded, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods where residents . might be subject to retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with police Detective Bob Cherry of the Baltimore Police Department, who is also the president of the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police, said, “Trust “Before we make a decision on where to go builds through relationships, and body-worn cameras start from a with body-worn cameras, I really think that position of mistrust cers are, The comments I hear from some of . fi all of us need to stop and consider some of ‘I’m worried that if I wear a camera, it is going to make it hard these larger unanswered questions. We to continue the relationship I have with a business owner or the need to look at not only whether the These are the people I’m working with now . lady down the street cameras reduce complaints but also how ’” . to clean up the neighborhood they relate to witnesses on the street coming Some police executives reported that deploying body-worn cameras has forward, what they mean for trust and in fact had a negative impact on their intelligence-gathering activities, o ffi cer credibility, and what messages particularly when of fi cers are not allowed the discretion to turn off the they send to the public.” Chief of Police Sean Whent of Oakland, California, explained, camera . lm all detentions and to keep recording until the “Our policy is to fi – Bob Cherry, Detective of encounter is over fi . cer detains someone, and now that But let’s say an of Baltimore Police Department . person wants to give up information nding that people are not fi We are and President of Baltimore City inclined to do so with the camera running . We are considering changing Fraternal Order of Police our policy to allow of fi . ” cers to turn off the camera in those situations The Mesa (Arizona) Police Department has also found that body-worn cameras can undermine . “We have de fi nitely seen people being more reluctant to give information-gathering efforts information when they know that they are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Harold Rankin . However, other police executives said that these types of situations are rare and that body-worn cameras have not had a signi fi cant impact on their ability to gather information from the public . For some agencies, public reaction to the cameras has been practically nonexistent . Major Stephen Willis of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department said, “We have had in-car cameras for many years, and in most instances the public has an expectation that they will be recorded We . ” Deputy . encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted body-worn cameras Chief of Police Cory Christensen of Fort Collins, Colorado, said, “We are not seeing much pushback . . from the community Often people do not even notice the presence of the cameras ” “I disagree that cameras hurt community relationships,” said Chief of Police William Farrar of Rialto, cers if they have a camera on, California . “We have not seen any evidence of that . People will ask of fi . ” In fact, in its evaluation of its body-worn camera program, the but it does not seem to bother them Rialto Police Department found that of fi cers made 3,178 more contacts with the public (not counting 11 . calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year Some police executives reported that body-worn cameras have actually improved certain aspects of . their police-community relationships These executives said that the presence of cameras leads to better behavior by both the of fi cer and the person being recorded . “The cameras help defuse some I think that 98 percent of of the tensions that might come up during encounters with the public . the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Chitwood of Daytona cers wearing cameras have reported a Beach . Deputy Chief Christensen of Fort Collins agreed: “Of fi noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public With both sides behaving . ” better, community relations will improve . William Farrar, “Operation Candid Camera: Rialto Police Department’s Body-Worn Camera Experiment,” 81 11. The Police Chief (2014): 20–25.
33 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 21 Sir Robert Peel’s Principles of Policing Sir Robert Peel, who created London’s public approval of their existence, actions Metropolitan Police Force in 1829, is known and behavior and on their ability to secure as the father of modern policing. He helped and maintain public respect. to establish a policing philosophy grounded Police must recognize always that to secure in professionalism, ethics, and strong police- and maintain the respect and approval of community cooperation, which continues the public means also the securing of the uence policing to this day. The “Nine fl to in willing cooperation of the public in the Principles of Policing,” which were issued to task of securing observance of laws. fi the fi cers of the London Metropolitan rst of Police must maintain at all times a Police and re fl ect Sir Robert Peel’s philosophy, relationship with the public that gives provide guidance on the role of police and reality to the historic tradition that the the importance of maintaining strong police- police are the public and that the public community relationships. are the police, the police being only The following principles attributed to Peel members of the public who are paid to seem to have relevance for a discussion of how give full time attention to duties which are body-worn cameras can affect police of fi cers’ incumbent on every citizen in the interests relationships with community members: of community welfare and existence.* Police must recognize always that the power of the police to ful fi ll their * “Principles of Good Policing,” Institute for the Study of http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine. Civil Society, functions and duties is dependent on . php Cameras have also helped assure the public that an agency is serious fi cer accountability, according to several about transparency and of “We want our o ffi cers to go out, get out of . “We have found that body-worn cameras can actually police executives - their cars, and talk to the public about foot help strengthen trust and police legitimacy within the community,” said ball or whatever it may be to establish an To illustrate . Chief of Police Hassan Aden of Greenville, North Carolina informal relationship. That’s how you build this point, Aden shared the following story: partnerships and persuade people to give A local community group approached me with a genuine concern you information about crime in their area. I cers were racially pro fi ling subjects during traf fi c that certain of fi think if we say that every single interaction is . We went back and looked at the footage from these of fi cers’ stops going to be recorded, the danger is that it will body-worn cameras and found that there was indeed a pattern cious relationship. Maybe lead to a more o ffi of using However, we imsy probable cause when making stops . fl determined that it was a training problem and immediately changed the public will get used to it, just as in our The organization that had raised the . the relevant training protocols country they’ve gotten used to cameras on They appreciated that we . complaint was happy with the outcome the streets. But as we start o ff , I think there’s a fi had the body-worn camera footage, that the of cers’ behavior was danger that every interaction will become a . investigated, and that we used the video to help us improve - formal interaction, and the informal relation ships may be eroded.” Securing community support – Sir Peter Fahy, Chief Constable, To mitigate community concerns, many police executives found it useful Greater Manchester (UK) Police to engage the community before rolling out their camera programs The . Rialto Police Department, for example, used social media to inform the public about its body-worn camera program . “You have to engage the public before the cameras hit the streets,” said Chief Farrar of Rialto . “You have to tell people what the cameras are going to be used for and how everyone can bene fi t from them . ”
34 22 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a The Los Angeles Police Department, which is in the process of testing body-worn cameras, plans to . The Greensboro (North Carolina) Police solicit public feedback when developing its camera policies Department partnered with the Greensboro Police Foundation, which launched a “Put Cameras on Cops” public information campaign that included posting billboards and reaching out to the community . Chief Lanpher of Aberdeen said that it is also important for agencies to engage local policymakers “Police departments cannot do this alone,” he said . “We went to the mayor, and other stakeholders . ce and showed them actual footage that of the city council, and the state’s attorney’s of cers had fi fi Without their support, implementing . recorded to demonstrate why these cameras would be useful . Communication and developing those partnerships the program would have been a challenge . ” is critical There are also indications that the public is more accepting of body- worn cameras if agencies are transparent about their camera policies and “My opinion is that body-worn cameras will . Some agencies post their camera policies on their websites . practices help with community relationships. They will In addition, some agencies, such as the Oakland Police Department, cers are doing a good job and ffi show when o have proactively posted body-worn camera footage on their websites help us correct when they aren’t. This is good to demonstrate transparency and to help resolve questions surrounding for the community.” controversial incidents . — Lieutenant Dan Mark, In Phoenix, the police department released to the media body-worn Aurora (Colorado) Police Department fi Assistant cer who was fi camera footage from an of . red for misconduct Chief of Police Dave Harvey of Phoenix explained that the police union . requested the release to demonstrate transparency “It is important that agencies are open and transparent with the “I think it’s absolutely critical that we talk “If we only . community,” said Deputy Chief Christensen of Fort Collins to the public about [body-worn cameras]. ” . show the good and hide the bad, it will foster distrust of the police We need to bring them on board and have them understand what this is about and go Protecting intelligence-gathering efforts through the advantages and disadvantages In addition to engaging the public to mitigate concerns, some and the issues.” agencies have adopted recording policies that seek to minimize the – Sir Peter Fahy, Chief Constable, potential damage that body-worn cameras have on police-community Greater Manchester (UK) Police These agencies limit body-worn camera recordings to calls relationships . for service and law enforcement-related contacts, rather than recording cers do not feel compelled to record the kinds of casual fi every encounter with the public, so that of . conversations that are central to building informal relationships within the community . Chief Miller of Topeka said that this approach has worked well “I recently witnessed a community cer having a casual conversation with two citizens,” he said . “The of fi cer was wearing policing of fi a camera, but it was not running at the time . The camera was clearly visible, but it did not create a problem ” Chief Miller of Greensboro said, “From a community policing aspect, it does not . . cer sees someone on the fi If an of make sense to record every single interaction with the public street and just wants to talk about what is going on in the neighborhood, it is easier to have that ” . conversation if the camera is not running
35 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 23 fi A number of agencies also give of cers the discretion to turn off their cameras when talking with . This situation can occur when a person a person who wants to share information about a crime approaches an of cer with information or if an of fi cer interviews witnesses at a crime scene . In fi either case, police executives said that of fi cers must weigh the evidentiary value of recording the . statement with the reality that some people who share information may not want to talk on camera “If of fi cers encounter an informant or witness who isn’t comfortable being recorded, they have to decide whether obtaining the information outweighs recording the statement,” said Lieutenant “If so, our of fi cers can either turn the camera off or position the camera so that they Rankin of Mesa . People usually feel more comfortable with capture audio but not video . . ” just the audio “If o ffi cers are talking to a member of the cers to maintain fi Chief Farrar of Rialto said that it is important for of community just to say hello or to ask what “We teach credibility with people who might want to share information . is going on in the neighborhood, it is usually our of fi cers to consider the facts of each incident before they record,” he better for the relationship if the o cer does ffi fi . cers encounter reluctant witnesses, I would suggest that “When of said not record the conversation.” they develop a rapport by being honest and not pressuring them to talk, – Stephen Cullen, Chief Superintendent, ” especially on camera . New South Wales (AUS) Police Force fi Many agencies, while allowing of cers to turn off the camera at the request of the person being interviewed, nonetheless strongly encourage “It is important to remain cers to record if at all possible fi of exible, as there are no absolutes,” said fl . cer to keep Commander Michael Kurtenbach of Phoenix . fi “But we would generally recommend an of ” . the camera on if possible when gathering information from witnesses Inspector Danny Inglis of Greater Manchester, United Kingdom, agreed . “I generally think there is more to gain than lose in terms of recording these kinds of statements,” he said . “Recording is a way to capture critical intelligence and evidence . cers can turn the camera off at the person’s Our of fi rm the reason for this on camera ” fi . request, but they should con The Topeka Police Department takes a similar approach . “Of fi cers should try to leave the camera If the person does not want to talk on camera, the of on to record exactly what a person says cer . fi . Again, it is important that of fi cers can turn it off after stating the reason why,” said Chief Miller weigh the situation before making a decision . “The detectives and the . But they prosecutors will want witness interviews on camera if possible “We view evidence collection as one of the would also rather have the good information than have the witness primary functions of cameras. So in the case refuse to talk because of the camera,” said Miller . of interviewing witnesses, we would make Some police executives said that the decision to record witnesses at a every attempt to capture the statement on crime scene may depend on whether the scene is live or if it has been video. However, we do allow discretion if . In many places, including Greensboro, Daytona Beach, and controlled the person we approach requests that the fi cers typically leave their cameras running when responding Rialto, of ff camera be turned o cers just need to ffi . O to a live crime scene so they can capture spontaneous statements and understand what the tradeo is.” ff impressions . Once the scene has been controlled (crime scene tape is put ), it transitions into an investigative scene, and . up, detectives arrive, etc – Cory Christensen, Deputy Chief of Police, Fort Collins of Then they can determine whether to . cers can turn the cameras off fi (Colorado) Police Department record more detailed statements taken from witnesses at the scene . Agencies often include protections in their policies to ensure of fi cers do not abuse their recording discretion If an of fi cer chooses not to record an encounter with someone giving information, he or . she must typically document, on camera or in writing, the reason for not recording . In addition, many agencies require of fi cers to activate the camera if an interaction becomes adversarial after the initial
36 24 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned . Chief Chitwood said this approach has worked in Daytona Beach “Between their experience contact . cers know when they need to turn on their cameras Activating the camera in fi and training, the of . these situations has become second nature to them,” he said . Lessons learned about impact on community relationships In their conversations with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned when addressing the impact body-worn cameras can have on community relationships: Engaging the community prior to implementing a camera program can help secure support for r the program and increase the perceived legitimacy of the program in the community . r Agencies have found it useful to communicate with the public, local policymakers, and other . stakeholders about what the cameras will be used for and how the cameras will affect them r Social media is an effective way to facilitate public engagement . Transparency about the agency’s camera policies and practices, both prior to and after r . Examples implementation, can help increase public acceptance and hold agencies accountable of transparency include posting policies on the department website and publicly releasing video recordings of controversial incidents . Requiring of fi cers to record calls for service and law enforcement-related activities—rather than r fi every encounter with the public—can ensure of cers are not compelled to record the types of . casual conversations that are central to building informal relationships within the community In cases in which persons are unwilling to share information about a crime if they are being r recorded, it is a valuable policy to give of fi cers discretion to deactivate their cameras or to position the camera to record only audio . Of fi cers should consider whether obtaining the information outweighs the potential evidentiary value of capturing the statement on video . Recording the events at a live crime scene can help of fi r cers capture spontaneous statements and . impressions that may be useful in the later investigation or prosecution Requiring of fi cers to document, on camera or in writing, the reasons why they deactivated a r fi camera in situations that they are otherwise required to record promotes of . cer accountability Addressing o ffi cer concerns For a body-worn camera program to be effective, it needs the support not only of the community but also of the frontline of fi cers who will be wearing the cameras . Securing this support can help ensure the legitimacy of a camera program and make its implementation more successful . Agency leaders should engage in ongoing communication with of fi fi ts and cers about the program’s goals, the bene fi challenges of using cameras, and the agency’s expectations of the of . cers Of fi cer concerns about body-worn cameras One of the primary concerns for police executives is the fear that body-worn cameras will erode cers may the trust between of cers and the chief and top managers of the department . Some of fi fi view the cameras as a signal that their supervisors and managers do not trust them, and they worry that supervisors would use the cameras to track and scrutinize their every move . Inspector Inglis of Greater Manchester explained, “I have heard some resentment about the level of scrutiny that
37 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 25 cers will be under if they wear body-worn cameras This is especially true with the fi rst-level of . fi response of fi cers, who already feel they are under an extraordinary amount of pressure to get I can understand this concern . everything right . ” Given these concerns, one of the most important decisions an agency must make is how it will use cer performance . Most agencies permit supervisors to review videos fi camera footage to monitor of c incident or complaint, identify videos fi so they can investigate a speci for training purposes, ensure the system is working, and monitor overall cers say that while they are “I have heard o ffi . compliance with the camera program not opposed to using body-worn cameras, However, there is some debate over whether supervisors should also they do have some concerns. Some of these cer performance periodically and randomly review videos to monitor of . fi - concerns are more practical, like wheth Some agencies allow periodic monitoring to help proactively identify er adding new equipment will be overly problems and hold of fi cers accountable for their performance . Other burdensome. But the larger philosophical agencies permit periodic monitoring only in certain circumstances, such concern is whether these cameras send the cer has fi cer is still in a probationary period or after an of fi as when an of wrong message about the trust we place Some agencies prohibit random . received a certain number of complaints monitoring altogether because they believe doing so is unnecessary if in o ffi ffi cer cers. What does it say about o . supervisors conduct reviews when an incident occurs - professionalism and credibility if the depart cer with a camera? ffi ment has to arm every o In Greater Manchester, Inspector Inglis encourages supervisors to – Bob Cherry, Detective of randomly review camera footage . “We use random review as a teaching Baltimore Police Department tool, not just a supervision tool,” he said . “Supervisors might not get a and President of Baltimore City lot of face time with of fi cers, so reviewing the video is a good way for Fraternal Order of Police It also helps hold supervisors to appraise of fi cers and provide feedback . . cers accountable and gives them incentive to record fi of ” Other agencies expressly prohibit supervisors from randomly monitoring body-worn camera footage . fi “Per our policy, we do not randomly review videos to monitor of cer performance,” said Chief Chitwood of Daytona Beach . “Instead, our review is incident-based, so if there is an issue, we will review the . In those cases, we can also review prior videos to see if there is a pattern of behavior . ” footage The Topeka Police Department generally prohibits random monitoring, though supervisors can periodically review videos if of fi cers have received numerous complaints . Chief Miller of Topeka said that this policy strikes a balance between showing trust in the of fi cers and holding them accountable . “If an of fi cer does something wrong, you do not want to be accused of deliberate indifference because you had the videos but ignored them,” he said . “You have to show that you . reviewed the footage once you had a reason to do so ” Some police of fi cials suggested that an agency’s internal audit unit, rather than direct supervisors, should be responsible for periodic, random monitoring . They said this approach allows agencies to monitor compliance with the program and assess of cer performance without undermining fi the trust between an of fi cer and his or her supervisor . These of fi cials stressed that internal audit reviews should be truly random (rather than targeted to a speci fi c of fi cer or of fi cers) and should be conducted in accordance with a written standard of review that is communicated to the of cers . fi Chief of Police Jeff Halstead of Fort Worth, Texas, said, “Random review of the camera footage, either by an internal auditor or a supervisor, is critical to demonstrating that an agency is doing what it is supposed to do and is serious about accountability . ” In addition to concerns about trust and supervisor scrutiny, police executives said that some of fi cers worried about the dif fi culty of operating the cameras and learning a new technology . “Of fi cers can feel inundated with technology,” said Chief of Police Roberto Villaseñor of Tucson . “In the past few
38 26 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a years, our department has introduced a new records management system and a new digital radio . cers see body-worn cameras as another new piece of technology that they will So some of system fi ” Some of cers also said that cameras can be cumbersome and challenging to operate, . have to learn fi and agencies often have to test several different camera models and camera placement on the body to determine what works best . cer concerns Addressing of fi cer concerns about body-worn cameras . One of the Agencies have taken various steps to address of fi most important steps, according to many police executives, is for agency leaders to engage in open communication with of cers about what body-worn cameras will mean for them . fi For example, a survey of of fi cers conducted by the Vacaville (California) Police Department found fi cers in the implementation process—and allowing them to provide meaningful that including of . input—generated support for the cameras Some police executives, like Chief Chitwood of Daytona cer brie ngs, roll calls, Beach and Chief Lanpher of Aberdeen, have found it useful to attend of fi fi and meetings with union representatives to discuss the camera program . “My staff and I invested ngs and department meetings with all employees who would be considerable time talking at brie fi “This has . affected by body-worn cameras,” said Chief of Police Michael Frazier of Surprise, Arizona helped us gain support for the program . ” Many police executives said that creating implementation teams comprised of representatives from various units within the department “I think police agencies can help the o ffi cer . For can help improve the legitimacy of a body-worn camera program ll their duties to the public by say - and ful fi example, as agencies develop body-worn camera policies and protocols, cer [whom] we think is ffi ing, ‘We have an o it can be useful to receive input from patrol commanders and of fi cers, having problems, and we are going to look investigators, training supervisors, the legal department, communications at those videos to determine behavioral staff, Internal Affairs personnel, evidence management personnel, and patterns.’ You do not want to have a problem others across the agency who will be involved with body-worn cameras . come up later and claim that you did not fi Police executives also said it is important to emphasize to of cers that know about it even though you had videos. body-worn cameras are useful tools that can help them perform their So to me, targeted monitoring makes sense.” Chief Terry Gainer, U . Senate sergeant at arms, believes that duties S . . framing body-worn cameras as a check on of fi cer behavior is the wrong – Christy Lopez, Deputy Chief, “It’s going to be hard to encourage our of cers to be the self- fi . approach Special Litigation Section, actualized professionals that we want them to be if we say, ‘Wear this Civil Rights Division, because we’re afraid you’re bad, and cameras will help you prove that U.S. Department of Justice “Body cameras should be seen as a tool for . you’re good,’” said Gainer . creating evidence that will help ensure public safety ” Lieutenant John Carli of Vacaville, California, suggests that agencies frame the cameras as a teaching tool, rather than a disciplinary measure, by encouraging supervisors to review footage with of fi cers cers fi One suggestion to accomplish this goal is to highlight of . and provide constructive feedback whose videos demonstrate exemplary performance by showing their footage at training programs or by showing the video during an awards ceremony .
39 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 27 Incremental implementation Some police executives have also found it helpful to take an incremental approach when . implementing body-worn cameras For example, the San Diego Police Department plans to deploy fi tting 900 uniformed of fi 100 cameras as part of a pilot program with the eventual goal of out cers with cameras . “When we The Greensboro Police Department took a similar approach . fi rst deployed the cameras, there was an undercurrent of apprehension “You have to ask yourself, what is the main . So we rolled it out in small increments to on the part of the of fi cers reason you are implementing the program? cers get more comfortable with the program,” said Chief Miller help of fi cers a help - ffi Is it because you want to give o Gradual implementation can also help agencies learn . of Greensboro ful tool, or because you do not trust them? which policies, practices, and camera systems are the best fi t for their The answer to that question—and how you . Some agencies, such as the Mesa Police Department, departments cers receive ffi uence how o fl convey it—will in fi cers as a way to initially assigned cameras to the most tech-savvy of ease implementation . the program.” – Lieutenant John Carli, fi cers embrace body-worn cameras Many agencies have found that of Vacaville (California) Police Department “Our of fi cers have when they see evidence of the cameras’ bene fi ts . been fairly enthusiastic about body-worn cameras because they have seen examples of how the cameras have cleared fellow of fi cers of complaints,” said Lieutenant Dan Mark of Aurora, Colorado . “One of fi cer was threatened by an individual, and it was captured We took the footage to the city attorney’s of fi on the of fi ce, and the individual was cer’s camera . fi Once that story got out among the of . cers, we saw a lot more acceptance of successfully prosecuted ” . the cameras cers see these bene fi Police executives said that in many cases, of ts once they begin wearing the fi “The more of fi cers use the cameras, the more they want to have them,” said Lieutenant cameras . . cers, I would fi “If I could put cameras on all of my patrol of Gary Lewis from Appleton, Wisconsin ” Chief Farrar of Rialto agreed: “Now that the of . have 100 percent support fi cers wear the cameras, . ” they say that they could not do without them cer concerns fi Lessons learned about addressing of rst, o ffi cers had a lot of concerns about “A t fi Police executives revealed a number of lessons about addressing of fi cers’ - the ‘Big Brother’ aspect of body-worn cam concerns about body-worn cameras: eras. But once they wear them and see the As with any other deployment of a new technology, program, or r - bene fi ts, they are much more likely to em strategy, the best approach includes efforts by agency leaders to brace them. Resistance has been almost cers on the topic, explain the goals and bene engage of fi fi ts of the nonexistent.” initiative, and address any concerns of fi cers may have . – Chris Burbank, Chief of Police, Brie fi ngs, roll calls, and meetings with union representatives are r Salt Lake City (Utah) Police Department effective means to communicate information about a body-worn camera program . r Creating an implementation team that includes representatives from across the department can help strengthen program legitimacy and ease implementation .
40 28 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a fi r cers support the program if they view the cameras as useful Departments have found that of . , as a technology that helps to reduce complaints and produce evidence that can be tools: e g . . used in court or in internal investigations fi cers about the bene fi r Recruiting an internal “champion” to help inform of ts of the cameras has fi . proven successful in addressing of cers’ hesitation to embrace the new technology fi cers Body-worn cameras can serve as a teaching tool when supervisors review footage with of r . and provide constructive feedback r Taking an incremental approach to implementation can help make deployment run more . This can include testing cameras during a trial period, rolling out cameras slowly, or smoothly initially assigning cameras to tech-savvy of fi . cers Managing expectations Police executives said that it has become increasingly common for courts, arbitrators, and civilian review boards to expect police cers were opposed ffi “In the beginning, some o . “If your department has departments to use body-worn cameras to the cameras. But as they began wearing a civilian review board, the expectation now is that police should have - them, they saw that there were more bene “If you cameras,” said Chief of Police Chris Burbank of Salt Lake City . ffi ts than drawbacks. Some o fi cers say that don’t, they will ask, ‘Why don’t your of fi cers have cameras? Why they would not go out on the street without aren’t your cameras fully deployed? Why does the next town over have a ballistic vest; now they say they will not go cameras, but you don’t?’” out without a camera.” fi In addition, people often expect that of cers using body-worn cameras – Lieutenant Harold Rankin, will record video of everything that happens while they are on duty . Mesa (Arizona) Police Department fi But most police departments do not require of cers to record every encounter . Many agencies have policies against recording when it is unsafe or impossible, and some agencies give of fi cers discretion to deactivate their cameras in certain sensitive situations, such as during interviews with victims or . Camera malfunctions may also occur . Some agencies have taken steps to inform judges, witnesses . oversight bodies, and the public about these realities of using body-worn cameras fi Police executives said that these expectations can undermine an of cer’s credibility if questions arise about an incident that was not captured on video . This is one reason why many agencies require fi of cers to articulate, either on camera or in writing, their reasons for turning a camera off in the middle of an incident or for not turning it on in the fi rst place . These issues of credibility are also why it is important to provide rigorous, ongoing of fi cer training on body-worn camera policies and practices . nd that situational training can be particularly Some agencies fi For example, the Oakland Police Department incorporated a . useful “There is a learning curve that comes with fi cers participating in program into its police academy that involves of using body-worn cameras. And the video situational exercises using training model cameras . cannot always be taken at face value—the Expectations about body-worn cameras can also affect how cases are full story has to be known before conclusions Some police executives said that judges . prosecuted in criminal courts are reached about what the video shows.” and juries have come to rely heavily on camera footage as evidence, – Major Stephen Willis, and some judges have even dismissed a case when video did not exist . Charlotte-Mecklenburg “Juries no longer want to hear just of fi cer testimony—they want to (North Carolina) Police Department see the video,” said Detective Cherry of Baltimore . “But the video only
41 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 29 . It does not capture the entire scene, or show the of gives a small snapshot of events fi cer’s thought . cer’s investigative efforts fi cer’s fi process, or show an of This technology shouldn’t replace an of I’m concerned that if juries rely only on the video, it reduces the important role that our testimony . ” . profession plays in criminal court Of fi cer review of video prior to making statements Given the impact that body-worn cameras can have in criminal and administrative proceedings, cers should be allowed to review camera footage prior fi there is some question as to whether of to making a statement about an incident in which they were involved . According to many police cer review is that it allows of t to of cers fi fi fi executives, the primary bene to recall events more clearly, which helps get to the truth of what really cers now learn how ffi “Right from the start, o Some police executives, on the other hand, said that it is happened . to use the cameras as part of their regular fi better for an of fl ect what he or she perceived cer’s statement to re training on patrol procedures. We want during the event, rather than what the camera footage revealed . - activating the cameras to become a mus The majority of police executives consulted by PERF are in favor of cle memory so that o ffi cers do not have to allowing of fi cers to review body-worn camera footage prior to making a think about it when they are in a real-world statement about an incident in which they were involved . They believe situation.” that this approach provides the best evidence of what actually took – Sean Whent, Chief of Police, place . PERF agrees with this position . Oakland (California) Police Department “When you’re involved in a tense situation, you don’t necessarily see fi cult to everything that is going on around you, and it can later be dif remember exactly what happened,” said Police Commissioner Ramsey of Philadelphia . “So I wouldn’t have a problem with allowing an of fi cer to review a video prior to making a statement . ” Chief Burbank of Salt Lake City agreed . cers should be able to review evidence that is gathered “Of fi “Some of the most accurate . about an event, and that includes body-worn camera footage,” he said fi cers who take a moment to go back and review the circumstances . For reports are generated by of I went back and re-drove the route example, I was once involved in a pursuit that lasted 30 minutes . ling my report . Otherwise, it would have been impossible to fi and documented every turn before remember everything that happened . ” fi cer is not allowed to review Chief Miller of Topeka said that if an of fl fi cer’s statement, it can video, and if the footage con icts with the of cers every day: You usually don’t “I tell the o ffi “What we are after . cer’s credibility create unfair doubts about the of fi get hurt by the videos you have. What hurts “If you make a statement that you used force is the truth,” he said . you is when you are supposed to have a vid - because you thought a suspect had a gun but the video later shows that eo but, for whatever reason, you don’t.” it was actually a cell phone, it looks like you were lying . But if you truly – Ron Miller, Chief of Police, An . thought he had a gun, you were not lying—you were just wrong To p e k a ( K a n s a s ) Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t fi cer should be given the chance to make a statement using all of the of evidence available; otherwise, it looks like we are just trying to catch an ” cer in a lie fi of . Police executives who favor review said that of fi cers will be held accountable for their actions regardless of whether they are allowed to watch the video recordings prior to making a statement . “Of fi cers are going to have to explain their actions, no matter what the video shows,” said Chief Burbank of Salt Lake City . Chief Frazier of Surprise, Arizona, said, “If an of fi cer has acted
42 30 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned fi inappropriately, and those actions were recorded, the of cer cannot change the record and will have . to answer for his or her actions What will be gained by a review of the video is a more accurate accounting of the incident . ” fi cer’s Other police executives, however, said that the truth—and the of cer is not permitted to review credibility—are better served if an of fi he majority of police executives consulted T “In terms of the . footage of an incident prior to making a statement cers to ffi by PERF are in favor of allowing o cer’s statement, what matters is the of fi cer’s perspective at the time of fi review body-worn camera footage prior to of the event, not what is in the video,” said Major Mark Person of the making a statement about an incident in “That perspective Prince George’s County (Maryland) Police Department . which they were involved. fi If of . cers watch the video is what they are going to have to testify to before making a statement, they might tailor the statement to what they ” . It can cause them to second-guess themselves, which makes them seem less credible . see Lessons learned about managing expectations In interviews with PERF staff members, police executives discussed lessons that they have learned for managing expectations about body-worn cameras: r With more and more agencies adopting body-worn cameras, courts, arbitrators, and civilian review boards have begun to expect not only that agencies will use cameras but also that of cers will have footage of everything that happens while they are on duty . If this footage fi does not exist, even for entirely legitimate reasons, it may impact court or administrative proceedings and create questions about an of cer’s credibility . Agencies must take steps to fi fi cers adhere to agency policies about manage expectations while also working to ensure that of . activating cameras Educating oversight bodies about the realities of using cameras can help them to understand r fi operational challenges and why there may be situations in which of . cers are unable to record This can include demonstrations on how the cameras operate . r Requiring an of fi cer to articulate, on camera or in writing, the reason for not recording an event can help address questions about missing footage . Rigorous, ongoing of fi cer training on body-worn camera policies and protocols is critical for r . Situational training in which of fi cers participate in exercises using improving camera usage mock cameras can be particularly useful in helping of fi cers to understand how to operate cameras in the eld . fi r Many police executives believe that allowing of fi cers to review body-worn camera footage prior to making a statement about an incident in which they were involved provides the best evidence of what actually occurred .
43 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 31 Financial considerations fi ts to law enforcement agencies, they While body-worn cameras can provide many potential bene . come at a considerable In addition to the initial purchasing cost, agencies must devote fi nancial cost funding and staf fi ng resources toward storing recorded data, managing videos, disclosing copies of videos to the public, providing training to of fi cers, and administering the program . . For some agencies, these costs make it challenging to implement a body-worn camera program PERF’s survey revealed that 39 percent of the respondents that do not use body-worn cameras cited Chief Villaseñor of Tucson said that cost was a major obstacle to getting cost as a primary reason . “In recent years, we’ve faced serious budget cuts and have had to reduce staf ng levels,” cameras fi . “It can be hard to justify spending money on cameras when of fi he said fi ghting for their . cers are . ” However, Villaseñor has put together a review committee to evaluate costs and explore how to jobs . implement body-worn cameras in Tucson Police Commissioner Ramsey said that in departments the size of Philadelphia’s, which has 6,500 sworn of cers, the cost of implementing fi cers should be “I absolutely think that o ffi a body-worn camera program would be extraordinary . “We’ve considered allowed to review camera footage from an fi ts they can using cameras in Philadelphia, and we see all of the bene - incident in which they were involved, pri . “Cost is the primary thing holding us back . ” provide,” he said or to speaking with internal investigators. Some police executives, however, said that body-worn cameras can save With what we know of the e ect of stressful ff departments money cer professionalism, fi . They said that by improving of incidents on the human mind, o cers in ffi cer defusing potentially confrontational encounters, strengthening of fi most instances may not recall every aspect of training, and documenting encounters with the public, body-worn the incident. Or they may recall events out of cameras can help reduce spurious lawsuits and complaints against sequence or not remember everything until fi cers . They also said that these savings more than make up for the of much later. For this reason alone, allowing considerable . nancial cost of implementing a camera program fi ffi an o cer to review the video prior to making “If there is a lawsuit against the department, the settlements come from a statement seems prudent.” the department’s operational budget,” said Chief Chitwood of Daytona – Michael Frazier, Chief of Police, “By preventing these suits, the department has more money to Beach . 12 Surprise (Arizona) Police Department fi t of fi spend on cars, technology, and other things that bene ” . cers The London Metropolitan Police Service, working together with the t analysis in conjunction with its upcoming College of Policing, is planning to conduct a cost-bene fi The analysis will measure whether the cameras contribute to . pilot program of 500 cameras cost savings in terms of promoting early guilty pleas in criminal cases and quicker resolution of fi complaints against of The study will also measure community and victim satisfaction with the cers . cameras, as well as how the cameras impact the length of sentences that offenders receive . 12. S ee “Perceived Bene fi ts of Body-Worn Cameras” on page 5 for additional discussion of cost-bene fi t analysis.
44 32 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Cost of implementation The price of body-worn cameras currently ranges from approximately $120 to nearly $2,000 for each . Most of the agencies that PERF consulted spent between $800 and $1,200 for each camera . device Prices vary depending on factors such as functionality, storage capacity, and battery life Agencies . must make this initial purchase up front, and sometimes they purchase cameras as part of a contract with the manufacturer for related services, such as data storage and technical assistance . Although the initial costs of purchasing the cameras can be steep, many police executives said that data storage is the most expensive aspect of a “Once you put cameras in the fi eld, you’re body-worn camera program . “Data storage costs can be crippling,” said going to amass a lot of data that needs to be Chief Aden of Greenville . Captain Thomas Roberts of Las Vegas agreed . stored. Chiefs need to go into this with their “Storing videos over the long term is an ongoing, extreme cost that eyes wide open. They need to understand . agencies have to anticipate,” said Roberts what storage is going to cost, what their stor - The cost of data storage will depend on how many videos are produced, age capacities are, and the amount of time it If the videos . how long videos are kept, and where the videos are stored takes to review videos for public release. It is are stored on an online cloud database, the costs typically go toward a major challenge.” paying a third-party vendor to manage the data and to provide other – Kenton Rainey, Chief of Police, If videos are . services, such as technical assistance and forensic auditing Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department stored on an in-house server, agencies must often purchase additional computer equipment and spend money on technical staff and systems to . ensure the data are secure The New Orleans Police Department has launched a plan for deploying 350 body-worn cameras at 13 2 million over One an anticipated cost of $1 . . ve years—the bulk of which will go to data storage fi fi t 900 department reported that it will pay $2 million per year, mostly toward data storage, to out fi cers with cameras of . Another department spent $67,500 to purchase 50 cameras and will spend . approximately $111,000 to store the video on a cloud for two years In terms of storage, Chief Miller cers that have body-worn fi of Topeka said, “I’ve seen a formula that says that if you have 250 of . cameras, in three years you will produce 2 If the of cer was required to run the . 3 million videos fi Managing and camera continuously during his or her entire shift, it would produce even more . . ” storing that data is usually more expensive than buying the cameras In addition to the cost of purchasing cameras and storing data, administering a body-worn camera ng commitments fi Many agencies appoint fi program requires considerable ongoing . nancial and staf cer to manage the camera program fi at least one full-time of . Agencies must provide ongoing training programs, ensure that cameras are properly maintained, fi x technical problems, and address . fi any issues of of Some agencies also devote resources toward public information cer noncompliance . campaigns aimed at educating the community about the program cant administrative costs—at least in According to many police executives, one of the most signi fi terms of staff resources—involves the process of reviewing and categorizing videos . Although the exact process varies depending on the camera system, of fi cers must typically label, or “tag,” videos as evidentiary or non-evidentiary . Evidentiary videos are further categorized according to the type of fi This tagging process is . , homicide, robbery, or traf incident captured in the footage (e . g . c citation) . Most agencies that critical for determining how a video will be used and how long it will be retained PERF consulted require of fi cers to download and tag videos by the end of each shift . “NOPD Wearable Cameras Expected to Cost $1.2 Million,” The Times-Picayune, September 30, 2013, http://www.nola.com/ 13. . Since The Times-Picayune published this article, New Orleans has increased the num - crime/index.ssf/2013/09/post_346.html ber of body-worn cameras it expects to deploy from 350 to more than 400.
45 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 33 . Some of cers have expressed concern about this increase to their administrative workload “One of fi the major complaints we heard from of cers was that they were spending so much time, after their fi . The shifts were over, downloading and tagging their videos,” said Commander Tony Filler from Mesa department explored several solutions to this problem, ultimately creating an automated process that linked videos to the department’s records management system (RMS) . The department also purchased from the camera manufacturer electronic tablets that allow of fi cers to view and tag videos while . they are in the fi eld “The tablets were an additional cost, but they were worth it because they save . cers a lot of time,” said Filler fi of Police executives said that there are also signi fi cant administrative costs involved with responding to When an agency receives requests from the public or the news media for body-worn camera videos . cers or other department a disclosure request, often under the Freedom of Information Act, of fi personnel must spend time reviewing videos to nd the relevant footage, determining whether an fi exception to the presumption of disclosure applies, identifying portions that by law must be redacted, . and performing the redaction process Cost-saving strategies Police executives discussed several strategies that their agencies have employed to mitigate the fi nancial and staf considerable fi ng costs associated with body-worn cameras . These strategies focus primarily on managing the costs of data storage, which many police executives said represent the most expensive aspect of their programs . Although managing data storage costs is not the primary reason why many agencies have decided against recording non-law enforcement “Responding to public disclosure requests is related encounters with the public, it can be a factor . “There is a huge one of the biggest challenges that my de - difference in the amount of money it would take to record all encounters partment faces. When a request for a video versus adopting a more restrictive recording policy,” said Chief Miller of comes in, an o ffi cer has to sit for at least two . Greensboro “If you record everything, there are going to be astronomical hours and review the videos to nd the foot - fi cers using cameras, we have already fi With 500 of data storage costs . age and identify which portions must by law produced over 40,000 videos in just seven months . And we would have a lot more if we didn’t use a more restrictive recording policy . ” be redacted. And the actual redactions can take over 10 hours to complete.” Some agencies, such as the police departments in Oakland and Daytona – Lieutenant Harold Rankin, Beach, are working to adopt shorter data retention periods for non- Mesa (Arizona) Police Department evidentiary footage in an effort to keep data storage costs manageable . Although it is important to keep videos long enough to demonstrate transparency and preserve a record of an encounter, keeping these videos inde nitely would fi . overwhelm an agency’s resources Some agencies may even decide against adopting body-worn cameras due to the extraordinary costs of data storage . “The two biggest challenges that we face in terms of cost are data storage and responding to records requests,” said Chief Chitwood of Daytona Beach . “We had to brainstorm about how to address those costs, and one way was through changing our retention times ” . As the public becomes more familiar with the existence of police body-worn camera programs, it is reasonable to expect that members of the public and the news media will increasingly want to obtain video recordings . Such public records requests will add to the workload of managing a camera program . Captain James Jones of the Houston Police Department said, “The cost of responding to
46 34 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned . To protect open records requests played a role when we were deciding how long to keep the video privacy, you have to go through every video and make sure that you’re not disclosing something . . If you keep that you shouldn’t It takes a lot of time, and personnel, to review and redact every tape ve years, it is going to take even more . ” video for fi Agencies have also explored cheaper storage methods for videos that by law must be retained long- . For example, term, such as those containing evidence regarding a homicide or other serious felony the Greensboro Police Department deletes videos requiring long-term storage from the online cloud after importing them into its RMS or Internal Affairs case management systems . This reduces overall consumption of expensive cloud storage for videos that are required for future court proceedings . The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department or long-term retention under state personnel laws recently completed a body-worn camera trial program, and Major Willis said that the department is exploring alternative storage methods “Long-term storage costs are de fi nitely going to be a problem . . fl We are looking at cold storage, of ine storage, and shorter retention times as a way to keep those costs more manageable,” he said . fi t analysis when exploring Many police agencies have also found it useful to conduct a cost-bene . For example, agencies can conduct an audit of their whether to implement body-worn cameras fi cers to determine claims, judgments, and settlements related to litigation and complaints against of what costs they may already be incurring The costs associated with deploying body-worn cameras . may be offset by reductions in litigation costs, and agencies should carefully assess their ongoing legal expenses to determine how they could be reduced through the use of body-worn cameras . Lessons learned about fi nancial considerations In interviews with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned about the nancial costs of body-worn cameras: fi The nancial and administrative costs associated with body-worn camera programs include r fi costs of the equipment, storing and managing recorded data, and responding to public requests for disclosure . It is useful to compare the costs of the camera program with the fi nancial bene fi ts (e r g . , . fewer lawsuits and unwarranted complaints against of fi cers, as well as more ef fi cient evidence collection) . r Setting shorter retention times for non-evidentiary videos can help make the signi fi cant costs of data storage more manageable . Videos requiring long-term storage (e , those involving serious offenses) can be copied to a g . r . fi le, and deleted from the internal server or online cloud . This frees up disc, attached to the case expensive storage space for videos that are part of an ongoing investigation or that have shorter retention times . r Linking recorded data to the agency’s records management system or using electronic tablets, which of fi cers can use in the fi eld, can ease the administrative burden of tagging and categorizing videos .
47 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 35 The Los Angeles Police Department’s Approach to Financing Body-Worn Cameras In September 2013, Los Angeles Police Soboroff believes that other places can look at Commission President Steve Soboroff launched the LAPD’s fundraising approach as a model. “Probably every city in America has fi nancial a campaign to raise money to purchase on-body cameras for the Los Angeles Police Department concerns. But I believe that there are always going to be local businesses and philanthropists (LAPD). “Before being elected commission president, I heard from numerous leaders in the who are willing to help. You just have to LAPD that getting on-body cameras was a top show them that there is going to be a positive fi community and priority with a huge upside,” said Soboroff in nancial return on their †† an interview with PERF. “After hearing all of investment or donation.” However, Soboroff ts that this technology could offer, I fi the bene also said it is important that law enforcement wanted to fi agencies retain independence as they develop nd a way to proactively jump-start * the project.” their programs: “The LAPD has complete control over which cameras it chooses and its camera Realizing that trying to secure city funds for policies. That is critical—there should be no cameras would be challenging—the LAPD’s §§ fl outside in uence from donors.” in-car camera project has been going on for As Soboroff indicates, police agencies outside two decades and is only 25 percent complete— of Los Angeles have also sought private funding Soboroff devised a plan to identify private donors. Within fi for body-worn cameras. For example, the ve months, he had raised Greensboro (North Carolina) Police Department $1.3 million for a body-worn camera program, told PERF that the Greensboro Police exceeding its original goal. Contributors Foundation raised $130,000 from private donors included a number of local companies, executives, and philanthropists, including the to purchase 125 cameras. The Greensboro Police Foundation also created awareness by Los Angeles Dodgers, movie director Steven Spielberg, entertainment executive Jeffrey launching the “Put Cameras on Cops” public information campaign that included reaching Katzenberg, and former Los Angeles Mayor † out to potential donors and posting billboards Richard Riordan. in support of the program. This money will go toward purchasing 600 body-worn cameras for LAPD of cers and fi * Steve Soboroff (president, Los Angeles Police for video storage, repairs, and other costs Commission), in discussion with PERF staff members, ‡ The LAPD said it would test over two years. fall 2013. several camera models before implementing CBS Los † “LAPD to Soon Start Testing Body Cameras,” § its program. According to Soboroff, the LAPD http://losangeles.cbslocal. , January 13, 2014, Angeles will eventually need hundreds more cameras cers-to-soon-start-testing- fi com/2014/01/13/lapd-of body-cameras/ . to out fi t every patrol of cer, but he hopes the fi cials that fi pilot program will convince city of cers’ On-Body fi ‡ “LAPD Surpasses Fundraising Goal for Of Los Angeles Times http:// Cameras,” , November 6, 2013, the cameras are worth the money. “I think that articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/06/local/la-me-ln-lapd- the pilot will show that body-worn cameras cameras-20131106 . are transformative. I think it will show so many § “LAPD to Soon Start Testing Body Cameras.” fi public safety bene ts, and so many savings ** Soboroff, discussion with PERF staff members. in litigation settlement dollars, man hours, †† Ibid. and attorney hours, that the return on the cant,” investment will be apparent and signi fi §§ Ibid. ** he said.
49 Chapter 3 . Body-Worn Camera Recommendations he list of recommendations beginning on page 38 is intended to assist law enforcement . These recommendations, agencies as they develop body-worn camera policies and practices fi ce, T which are based on the research conducted by PERF with support from the COPS Of ect the promising practices and lessons that emerged from PERF’s September 2013 conference re fl in Washington, D . C . , where more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, and federal criminal fi cials shared their experiences with body-worn cameras and their perspectives on the justice of . issues discussed in this publication The recommendations also incorporate feedback gathered during fi fi ndings PERF’s interviews of more than 40 law enforcement of cials and other experts, as well as . from PERF’s review of body-worn camera policies submitted by police agencies across the country Each law enforcement agency is different, and what works in one department might not be feasible . Agencies may fi nd it necessary to adapt these recommendations to fi t their own needs, in another budget and staf fi ng limitations, state law requirements, and philosophical approach to privacy and policing issues . When developing body-worn camera policies, PERF recommends that police agencies consult with frontline of cers, local unions, the department’s legal advisors, prosecutors, community groups, other fi local stakeholders, and the general public . Incorporating input from these groups will increase the perceived legitimacy of a department’s body-worn camera policies and will make the implementation process go more smoothly for agencies that deploy these cameras . PERF recommends that each agency develop its own comprehensive written policy to govern body- worn camera usage . Policies should cover the following topics: r Basic camera usage, including who will be assigned to wear the cameras and where on the body the cameras are authorized to be placed r The designated staff member(s) responsible for ensuring cameras are charged and in proper working order, for reporting and documenting problems with cameras, and for reissuing working cameras to avert malfunction claims if critical footage is not captured r Recording protocols, including when to activate the camera, when to turn it off, and the types of circumstances in which recording is required, allowed, or prohibited r The process for downloading recorded data from the camera, including who is responsible for downloading, when data must be downloaded, where data will be stored, and how to safeguard against data tampering or deletion r The method for documenting chain of custody r The length of time recorded data will be retained by the agency in various circumstances r The process and policies for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data can be reviewed 37
50 38 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Policies for releasing recorded data to the public, including protocols regarding redactions and r responding to public disclosure requests r Policies requiring that any contracts with a third-party vendor for cloud storage explicitly state that the videos are owned by the police agency and that its use and access are governed by agency policy In summary, policies must comply with all existing laws and regulations, including those governing evidence collection and retention, public disclosure of information, and consent . Policies should be c enough to provide clear and consistent guidance to of fi cers yet allow room for fl exibility as speci fi . Agencies should make the policies available to the public, preferably by posting the program evolves the policies on the agency website . General recommendations 1 Policies should clearly state which personnel are assigned or permitted to wear body-worn . cameras and under which circumstances . fi c recommendation about which of fi It is not feasible for PERF to make a speci cers should be required to wear cameras . This decision will depend on an agency’s resources, law enforcement needs, and other factors . Lessons learned: Some agencies have found it useful to begin deployment with units that have the most frequent contacts with the public (e . g . , traf fi c or patrol of fi cers) . 2 . fi cers on a voluntary basis, policies should stipulate any If an agency assigns cameras to of fi fi cer might be required to wear one . speci c conditions under which an of fi ed number of complaints against an of fi cer or disciplinary sanctions, For example, a speci . g . , SWAT operations), might result in an or involvement in a particular type of activity (e of fi cer being required to use a body-worn camera . 3 . Agencies should not permit personnel to use privately-owned body-worn cameras while on duty . Most of the police executives whom PERF interviewed believe that allowing Rationale: of fi cers to use their own personal cameras while on duty is problematic PERF agrees with . this position . Because the agency would not own the recorded data, there would be little or no protection against the of fi cer tampering with the videos or releasing them to the public or online . In addition, chain-of-custody issues would likely prevent the video evidence from being admitted as evidence in court . This recommendation applies regardless of whether the agency has deployed body-worn cameras .
51 Chapter 3. Body-Worn Camera Recommendations 39 . Policies should specify the location on the body on which cameras should be worn 4 . The most appropriate camera placement will depend on several factors, such as the type of . camera system used Agencies should test various camera locations to see what works for cers in terms of fi eld of vision, comfort, functionality, and ease of use . their of fi Lessons learned: Police executives have provided feedback regarding their experiences with different camera placements: r Chest: According to the results of PERF’s survey, the chest was the most popular placement location among agencies . Head/sunglasses: This is a very popular location because the camera “sees what the of fi r cer sees ” The downside, however, is that an of fi cer cannot always wear sunglasses . Some . fi of cers have also reported that the headband cameras are uncomfortably tight, and some expressed concern about the potential of injury when wearing a camera so close to the . eye area Shoulder/collar: fi r cers like the perspective that this placement offers, Although some of others have found the camera can too easily be blocked when of cers raise their arms . fi One agency, for example, lost valuable footage of an active shooter incident because the of fi cer’s fi rearm knocked the camera from his shoulder . r Shooting side: fi cers should wear cameras on the gun/ Some agencies specify that of shooting side of the body, which they believe affords a clearer view of events during shooting incidents . 5 . Of fi cers who activate the body-worn camera while on duty should be required to note the fi cial incident report existence of the recording in the of . Rationale: This policy ensures that the presence of video footage is accurately documented in the case fi le so that investigators, prosecutors, oversight boards, and courts are aware of its existence . Prosecutors may need to give potentially exculpatory materials to defense attorneys . 6 . fi cers who wear body-worn cameras should be required to articulate on camera or in Of writing their reasoning if they fail to record an activity that is required by department policy . (See recommendations 7–13 for recording protocols . ) to be recorded This may occur, for example, if an of fi cer exercises recording discretion in accordance with the agency’s policy because he or she cannot record due to unsafe conditions or if a person does not give consent to record when consent is required . Rationale: This holds of fi cers accountable and helps supervisors investigate any recording irregularities that may occur .
52 40 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Recording protocols 7 fi cers should be required to activate their body-worn . As a general recording policy, of cameras when responding to all calls for service and during all law enforcement-related fi . Exceptions include encounters and activities that occur while the of cer is on duty recommendations 10 and 11 below or other situations in which activating cameras would be unsafe, impossible, or impractical . Policies and training materials should clearly de ne what is included in the description 7a: fi “law enforcement-related encounters and activities that occur while the of fi cer is on duty . ” Some agencies have found it useful to provide a list of examples in their policies, such as fi . traf c stops, arrests, searches, interrogations or interviews, and pursuits Of fi 7b: cers should also be required to activate the camera during the course of any . encounter with the public that becomes adversarial after the initial contact Rationale: The policy affords of fi cers discretion concerning whether to record informal, non-law r enforcement-related interactions with members of the community, such as a person asking an of fi fi cers having casual conversations with people they cer for directions or of . see on patrol fi cers were always required to record in these situations, it could If of inhibit the informal relationships that are critical to community policing efforts . r The policy can help to secure of fi cer support for a body-worn camera program because it demonstrates to of fi cers that they are trusted to understand when cameras should and . Protocols should be reinforced in of cer training . should not be activated fi The policy is broad enough to capture the encounters and activities that, because they r are the most likely to produce evidence or lead to complaints from community members about the police, are most in need of accurate documentation . However, the policy is . narrow enough to help keep the amount of recorded data more manageable This can help reduce the costs associated with storing data, reviewing and tagging data, and . responding to public records requests 8 . Of cers should be required to inform subjects when they are being recorded unless doing so fi would be unsafe, impractical, or impossible . Some states have two-party consent laws that require a person making a recording to obtain the consent of the person or persons being recorded . In this case, of fi cers must obtain consent unless the law provides an exception for police recordings . Most states fi have one-party consent policies, which allow of cers to make recordings without obtaining consent . PERF recommends that police in all states inform subjects that they are being recorded, aside from the exceptions stated already . This policy does not mean that of fi cers in one- party consent states must obtain consent prior to recording; rather, they must inform . subjects when the camera is running Rationale: The mere knowledge that one is being recorded can help promote civility during police-citizen encounters . Police executives report that cameras improve both of fi cer professionalism and the public’s behavior, an observation that is supported by evaluations of body-worn camera programs .
53 Chapter 3. Body-Worn Camera Recommendations 41 . Once activated, the body-worn camera should remain in recording mode until the conclusion 9 cer has left the scene, or a supervisor has authorized (on of an incident/encounter, the of fi . camera) that a recording may cease Of fi cers should also announce while the camera is recording that the incident has concluded and the recording will now cease . See further discussion in recommendation 11b, “Lessons learned . ” . Regardless of the general recording policy contained in recommendation 7, of fi cers should be 10 required to obtain consent prior to recording interviews with crime victims . There are signi fi cant privacy concerns associated with videotaping crime Rationale: victims PERF believes that requiring of fi cers to obtain consent prior to recording . interviews with victims is the best way to balance privacy concerns with the need to accurately document events . This policy should apply regardless of whether consent is required under state law . . Crime victims should give or deny consent in writing and/or on camera . Regardless of the general recording policy contained in recommendation 7, of fi cers should 11 have the discretion to keep their cameras turned off during conversations with crime witnesses and members of the community who wish to report or discuss criminal activity in their neighborhood . 11a: When determining whether to record interviews with witnesses and members of the community who wish to share information, of fi cers should always consider both the evidentiary value of recording and the subject’s comfort with speaking on camera . To better fi cers record statements made by witnesses and capture evidence, PERF recommends that of However, if a person will not talk unless the camera is turned people sharing information . off, of cers may decide that obtaining the information is more important than recording . fi fi PERF recommends allowing of . cers that discretion 11b: Policies should provide clear guidance regarding the circumstances under which of fi cers will be allowed to exercise discretion to record, the factors that of fi cers should consider when deciding whether to record, and the process for documenting whether to record . Situations in which of fi cers may need to exercise discretion include the following: When a community member approaches an of fi cer to report a crime or share information r When an of fi cer attempts to interview witnesses, either at a crime scene or during follow- r up interviews Rationale: Some witnesses and community members may be hesitant to come forward with information if they know their statements will be recorded They may fear retaliation, . worry about their own privacy, or not feel comfortable sharing sensitive information on camera . This hesitancy can undermine community policing efforts and make it more dif fi cult for of fi cers to collect important information .
54 42 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Agencies have adopted various approaches for recording conversations Lessons learned: with witnesses or other people who want to share information: fi r cer Record unless the subject requests otherwise; after receiving such a request, the of can turn the camera off . fi cers to proactively obtain consent from the subject prior to recording r Require of . Allow of fi cers to position the camera so they capture only audio, and not video, of the r person making the statement . Instruct of fi cers to keep their cameras running during the initial response to an ongoing/ r live crime scene to capture spontaneous statements and impressions but to turn the camera off once the scene is controlled and moves into the investigative stage Of fi cers . may then make a case-by-case decision about whether to record later interviews with witnesses on the scene . If an of fi cer does turn the camera off prior to obtaining information from a witness or fi cer should document on camera the reason for doing so . informant, the of 12 . Agencies should prohibit recording other agency personnel during routine, non-enforcement- related activities unless recording is required by a court order or is authorized as part of an administrative or criminal investigation . Under this policy, for example, of cers may not record their partner while they are fi patrolling in their vehicle (unless they are responding to a call for service), are having lunch at their desks, are on breaks, are in the locker room, etc . Rationale: This policy supports of fi cer privacy and ensures of fi cers feel safe to engage in routine, informal, non-law enforcement-related conversations with their colleagues . . 13 Policies should clearly state any other types of recordings that are prohibited by the agency . Prohibited recordings should include the following: Conversations with con fi dential informants and undercover of fi r cers (to protect con dentiality and of fi cer safety) fi r . g . , bathrooms or locker rooms) Places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists (e r Strip searches r Conversations with other agency personnel that involve case tactics or strategy Download and storage policies 14 . Policies should designate the of fi cer as the person responsible for downloading recorded data from his or her body-worn camera . However, in certain clearly identi fi ed circumstances (e . g . , of fi cer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, or other incidents involving the of fi cer that result in a person’s bodily harm or death), the of fi cer’s supervisor should immediately take physical custody of the camera and should be responsible for downloading the data .
55 Chapter 3. Body-Worn Camera Recommendations 43 . Policies should include speci c measures to prevent data tampering, deleting, and copying . 15 fi Common strategies include the following: Using data storage systems with built-in audit trails r fi cer’s body-worn camera at r Requiring the supervisor to physically take custody of the of cer was involved fi the scene of a shooting or at another serious incident in which the of and to assume responsibility for downloading the data (see recommendation 14) Conducting forensic reviews of the camera equipment when questions arise (e . g . , r if an of fi cer claims that he or she failed to record an incident because the camera malfunctioned) 16 Data should be downloaded from the body-worn camera by the end of each shift in which . the camera was used . Rationale: First, many camera systems recharge and clear old data during the downloading process, so this policy helps to ensure cameras are properly maintained and ready for the . next use fi cer’s memory for the purpose of tagging Second, events will be fresh in the of and categorizing . Third, this policy ensures evidence will be entered into the system in a timely manner . 17 . Of fi cers should properly categorize and tag body-worn camera videos at the time they are downloaded . fi ed according to the type of event or incident captured Videos should be classi . in the footage If video contains footage that can be used in an investigation or captures a confrontational encounter between an of fi cer and a member of the public, it should be deemed . If the video “evidentiary” and categorized and tagged according to the type of incident does not contain evidence or it captures a routine, non-confrontational encounter, it should be considered “non-evidentiary” or a “non-event . ” Rationale: Proper labeling of recorded data is critical for two reasons . First, the retention time for recorded data typically depends on the category of the event captured in the video . Thus, proper tagging is critical for determining how long the data will be retained in the agency’s system . Second, accurate tagging helps supervisors, prosecutors, and other authorized personnel to readily identify and access the data they need for investigations or court proceedings . Some agencies report that reviewing and tagging recorded data can be Lessons learned: a time-consuming process that is prone to human error . One agency addressed this issue by working with the camera manufacturer to develop an automated process that links the recorded data to the agency’s records management system Some camera systems can also . be linked to electronic tablets that of fi cers can use to review and tag recorded data while still in the fi eld .
56 44 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned . Policies should speci cally state the length of time that recorded data must be retained . For 18 fi . example, many agencies provide 60-day or 90-day retention times for non-evidentiary data Agencies should clearly state all retention times in the policy and make the retention times public by posting them on their websites to ensure community members are aware of the amount of time they have to request copies of video footage . Retention times for recorded data are typically subject to state laws and regulations that . Agencies should consult with legal counsel to ensure govern other types of evidence retention policies are in compliance with these laws . For evidentiary data, most state laws provide speci c retention times depending on r fi the type of incident . Agencies should set retention times for recorded data to meet the . minimum time required by law but may decide to keep recorded data longer r For non-evidentiary data, policies should follow state law requirements when applicable . However, if the law does not provide speci fi c requirements for non-evidentiary data, the agency should set a retention time that takes into account the following: | Departmental policies governing retention of other types of electronic records | Openness of the state’s public disclosure laws | Need to preserve footage to promote transparency and investigate citizen complaints | Capacity for data storage Agencies should obtain written approval for retention schedules from their legal counsel and prosecutors . 19 . Policies should clearly state where body-worn camera videos are to be stored . The decision of where to store recorded data will depend on each agency’s needs and resources . PERF does not recommend any particular storage method . Agencies should consult with their department’s legal counsel and with prosecutors to ensure the method for data storage meets any legal requirements and chain-of-custody needs . Common storage locations include in-house servers (managed internally) and online cloud databases (managed by a third-party vendor) . Some agencies burn recorded data to discs as part of the evidence fi le folder . Lessons learned: Factors that agency leaders should consider when determining storage location include the following: r Security concerns r Reliable methods for backing up data r Chain-of-custody issues r Capacity for data storage
57 Chapter 3. Body-Worn Camera Recommendations 45 Police executives and prosecutors report that they have had no issues to Lessons learned: date with using a third-party vendor to manage recorded data on an online cloud, so long When using a third-party vendor, the as the chain of custody can be properly established . keys to protecting the security and integrity of the data include the following: r Using a reputable, experienced third-party vendor r Entering into a legal contract that governs the vendor relationship and protects the agency’s data Using a system that has a built-in audit trail to prevent data tampering and r unauthorized access r Using a system that has a reliable method for automatically backing up data Consulting with prosecutors and legal advisors r Recorded data access and review 20 Of fi cers should be permitted to review video footage of an incident in which they were . . involved, prior to making a statement about the incident fi cer is involved in a shooting and has to give a This can occur, for example, if an of statement about the shooting that may be used in an administrative review or a criminal or civil court proceeding . Rationale: r Reviewing footage will help of fi cers remember the incident more clearly, which leads to more accurate documentation of events . The goal is to fi nd the truth, which is facilitated by letting of fi . cers have all possible evidence of the event Real-time recording of the event is considered best evidence It often provides a more r . accurate record than an of fi cer’s recollection, which can be affected by stress and other . factors Research into eyewitness testimony demonstrates that stressful situations with many distractions are dif fi cult even for trained observers to recall correctly . r If a jury or administrative review body sees that the report says one thing and the video indicates another, this can create inconsistencies in the evidence that might damage a case or unfairly undermine the of fi cer’s credibility . 21 Written policies should clearly describe the circumstances in which supervisors will be . authorized to review an of fi cer’s body-worn camera footage . Common situations in which supervisors may need to review footage include the following: r To investigate a complaint against an of fi cer or a speci fi c incident in which the of fi cer was involved r To identify videos for training purposes and for instructional use
58 46 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned PERF also recommends that supervisors be permitted to review footage to ensure compliance with recording policies and protocols, speci fi cally for the following situations: fi fi eld training of fi cer When of cers are still in a probationary period or are with a r fi r When of cers have had a pattern of allegations of verbal or physical abuse When of fi cers, as a condition of being put back on the street, agree to a more r intensive review When of fi cers are identi r ed through an early intervention system fi 22 An agency’s internal audit unit, rather than the of fi cer’s direct chain of command, should . periodically conduct a random review of body-worn camera footage to monitor compliance with the program and assess overall of cer performance . fi PERF recommends that an agency’s internal audit unit (e . g Rationale: , the Staff Inspection . Unit) conduct these random footage reviews to avoid undermining the trust between an of fi cer and his or her supervisor . The internal audit unit’s random monitoring program should be governed by a clearly- de fi ned policy, which should be made available to of fi cers . 23 . Policies should explicitly forbid agency personnel from accessing recorded data for personal . use and from uploading recorded data onto public and social media websites Agencies must take every possible precaution to ensure body-worn camera Rationale: footage is not used, accessed, or released for any unauthorized purpose . This prohibition should be explicitly stated in the written policy . . Written policies should also describe the sanctions for violating this prohibition 24 . fi c measures for preventing unauthorized access or release of Policies should include speci . recorded data . All video recordings should be considered the Some systems have built-in audit trails agency’s property and be subject to any evidentiary laws and regulations . 25 . Agencies should have clear and consistent protocols for releasing recorded data externally . to the public and the news media (a . a . Public Disclosure Policies) k Each agency’s policy . must be in compliance with the state’s public disclosure laws (often known as Freedom of Information Acts) . Policies should state who is allowed to authorize the release of data and the process for responding to public requests for data . PERF generally recommends a broad disclosure policy to promote agency transparency and accountability . However, there are some videos—such as recordings of victims and witnesses and videos taken inside private homes—that raise privacy concerns if they are publicly released . These privacy considerations must be taken into account when deciding when to release video to the public . The policy should also identify any exemptions to public disclosure that are outlined in the state Freedom of Information laws .
59 Chapter 3. Body-Worn Camera Recommendations 47 . In certain cases, an agency may want to proactively release body-worn camera footage cer’s video For example, some agencies have released footage to share what the of fi . In some cases, the video may support a camera showed regarding controversial incidents cer was in compliance with the law . contention that an of fi In other cases, the video may fi cer . P olicies should show that the department is taking appropriate action against an of . When determining specify the circumstances in which this type of public release is allowed whether to proactively release data to the public, agencies should consider whether the footage will be used in a criminal court case, and the potential effects that releasing the . data might have on the case Lessons learned: r While agencies that have implemented body-worn cameras report that responding to public disclosure requests can be administratively complicated, departments must implement systems that ensure responses to these requests are timely, ef fi cient, and fully transparent This process should include reviewing footage to locate the requested video, . determining which portions are subject to public release under state disclosure laws, and redacting any portions that state law prohibits from disclosure (e . g . , images of juveniles’ faces) . r The most important element of an agency’s policy is to communicate it clearly and . consistently within the community Training policies 26 . Body-worn camera training should be required for all agency personnel who may use or otherwise be involved with body-worn cameras . This should include supervisors whose of cers wear cameras, records/evidence management fi personnel, training personnel, Internal Affairs, etc . Agencies may also wish to offer training as a courtesy to prosecutors to help them better understand how to access the data (if authorized), what the limitations of the technology are, and how the data may be used in court . 27 . Before agency personnel are equipped with body-worn cameras, they must receive all mandated training . 28 . Body-worn camera training should include the following: r All practices and protocols covered by the agency’s body-worn camera policy (which should be distributed to all personnel during training) r An overview of relevant state laws governing consent, evidence, privacy, and public disclosure r Procedures for operating the equipment safely and effectively r Scenario-based exercises that replicate situations that of fi cers might encounter in the fi eld
60 48 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Procedures for downloading and tagging recorded data r r Procedures for accessing and reviewing recorded data (only for personnel authorized to access the data) Procedures for preparing and presenting digital evidence for court r Procedures for documenting and reporting any malfunctioning device or r supporting system . A body-worn camera training manual should be created in both digital and hard-copy form 29 and should be readily available at all times to agency personnel . . The training manual should be posted on the agency’s intranet . Agencies should require refresher courses on body-worn camera usage and protocols at least 30 . once per year Agencies should also require ongoing monitoring of body-worn camera technology for updates on equipment, data storage options, court proceedings, liability issues, etc . Policy and program evaluation 31 . Agencies should collect statistical data concerning body-worn camera usage, including when . video footage is used in criminal prosecutions and internal affairs matters fi ed points throughout the year or as Statistics should be publicly released at various speci . part of the agency’s year-end report Collecting and releasing statistical information about body-worn camera footage Rationale: helps to promote transparency and trust within the community . It also allows agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of their body-worn camera programs and to identify areas for improvement . 32 Agencies should conduct evaluations to analyze the fi nancial impact of implementing a . body-worn camera program . These studies should analyze the following: r The anticipated or actual cost of purchasing equipment, storing recorded data, and responding to public disclosure requests r The anticipated or actual cost savings, including legal fees and other costs associated with defending lawsuits and complaints against of fi cers r Potential funding sources for a body-worn camera program
61 Chapter 3. Body-Worn Camera Recommendations 49 . . 33 Agencies should conduct periodic reviews of their body-worn camera policies and protocols Evaluations should be based on a set standard of criteria, such as the following: r Recording policies r Data storage, retention, and disclosure policies Training programs r r Community feedback Of fi cer feedback r Internal audit review discoveries r r Any other policies that govern body-worn camera usage An initial evaluation should be conducted at the conclusion of the body-worn camera pilot program or at a set period of time (e . g . , six months) after the cameras were fi rst implemented Subsequent evaluations should be performed on a regular basis as determined . by the agency . Rationale: Body-worn camera technology is new and evolving . In addition, the policy issues associated with body-worn cameras are just recently being fully considered and understood . Agencies must continue to examine whether their policies and protocols take into account new technologies, are in compliance with new laws, and re fl ect the most up- to-date research and best practices . Evaluations will also help agencies determine whether their policies and practices are effective and appropriate for their departments .
63 Conclusion The recent emergence of body-worn cameras has already impacted policing, and this impact will . P increase as more agencies adopt this technology olice agencies that are considering implementing Once an agency travels down the road . body-worn cameras should not enter into this decision lightly cult to reverse course because the public will come to of deploying body-worn cameras, it will be dif fi expect the availability of video records . When implemented correctly, body-worn cameras can help strengthen the policing profession . These cameras can help promote agency accountability and transparency, and they can be useful tools for increasing of cer professionalism, improving of fi cer training, preserving evidence, and documenting fi encounters with the public However, they also raise issues as a practical matter and at the policy . . Police agencies must determine what level, both of which agencies must thoughtfully examine adopting body-worn cameras will mean in terms of police-community relationships, privacy, trust and legitimacy, and internal procedural justice for of fi cers . Police agencies should adopt an incremental approach to implementing a body-worn camera program . This means testing the cameras in pilot programs and engaging of fi cers and the community during implementation . It also means carefully crafting body-worn camera policies that balance accountability, transparency, and privacy rights, as well as preserving the important relationships that exist between of cers and members of the community . fi PERF’s recommendations provide guidance that is grounded in current research and in the lessons . learned from police agencies that have adopted body-worn cameras However, because the technology is so new, a large body of research does not yet exist regarding the effects body-worn cameras have on policing . Additional research and fi eld experience are needed before the full impact of body-worn cameras can be understood, and PERF’s recommendations may evolve as further evidence is gathered . Like other new forms of technology, body-worn cameras have the potential to transform the fi eld of policing . To make sure this change is positive, police agencies must think critically about the issues that cameras raise and must give careful consideration when developing body-worn camera policies and practices . First and foremost, agencies must always remember that the ultimate purpose of these cameras should be to help of fi cers protect and serve the people in their communities . 51
65 Appendix A. Recommendations Matrix The tables below include the 33 policy recommendations and other lessons learned that are found These recommendations, which are based on the research conducted by . throughout this publication fl ect the promising practices and lessons that emerged PERF with support from the COPS Of fi ce, re . , where more than 200 police chiefs, C from PERF’s September 2013 conference in Washington, D . cials shared their experiences with body-worn sheriffs, scholars, and federal criminal justice of fi The recommendations also . cameras and their perspectives on the issues discussed in this report cials incorporate feedback gathered during PERF’s interviews of more than 40 law enforcement of fi fi ndings from PERF’s review of body-worn camera policies submitted and other experts, as well as by police agencies across the country . Policy recommendations General recommendations Rationale for Recommendation and Page No. Recommendation Tips for Implementation Reference(s) The decision about which o cers should wear body-worn Assignment of ffi Policies should clearly state which personnel are assigned 1 or permitted to wear body-worn cameras and under which cameras will depend on an agency’s resources, law cameras: p. 38 circumstances. enforcement needs, and other factors. Implementation tip: Incremental Some agencies t nd it useful to begin deployment - implementa fi with units that have the most frequent contacts with tion: p. 27 c or patrol o ffi cers). the public (e.g., tra ffi If an agency assigns cameras to o ffi cers on a voluntary 2 Use of body- O ffi cers who are not otherwise assigned body-worn basis, policies should stipulate any speci cameras may become required to wear one in certain fi c conditions worn cameras to cer might be required to wear one. cer ffi circumstances, such as the following: improve o under which an o ffi performance: After receiving a speci t ed number of complaints or fi – 9 p. 7 disciplinary actions When participating in a certain type of activity, such t Assignment of as SWAT operations cameras: p. 38 Agencies should not permit personnel to use The agency would not own recordings made from personal Personal 3 devices; thus, there would be little or no protection privately-owned body-worn cameras while on duty. cameras: p. 38 - against data tampering or releasing the videos to the pub lic or online. There would also be chain-of-custody issues Data protection: with admitting personal recordings as evidence in court. 16; – pp. 15 17 – 19; 42 – 47 Policies should specify the location on the body on which Implementation tips: Camera 4 placement: p. 39 cameras should be worn. t Factors to consider when determining camera place - eld of vision, comfort, functionality, fi ment include ease of use, and the type of camera system used. t Agencies should fi eld test various camera locations. 53
66 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned 54 Implementing a Page Rationale for Recommendation and Recommendation No. Tips for Implementation Reference(s) O ffi cers who activate the body-worn camera while on duty Documentation 5 This policy ensures that the presence of video footage is fi le so that investiga - accurately documented in the case of camera should be required to note the existence of the recording cial incident report. in the o tors, prosecutors, oversight boards, and courts are aware usage: p. 39 ffi of its existence. O ffi cers who wear body-worn cameras should be required Documenting cer fails to record an ffi 6 There may be times when an o to articulate on camera or in writing their reasoning if they the failure to event or activity that is otherwise required by agency policy to be recorded. This may arise under the following fail to record an activity that is required by department record: policy to be recorded. (See Recommendations 7-13 for pp. 13; 14; circumstances: 19; 23; 28; – 18 Recording Protocols.) When conditions make it unsafe or impossible to t 30; 39 activate the camera When an o ffi cer exercises discretion, per agency t Recording policy, to not record because doing so would be discretion: detrimental to other agency priorities (e.g., protecting pp. 12 – 14; privacy rights, preserving community relations, or – 23; – 19; 22 18 facilitating intelligence gathering) 40 t When the camera malfunctions or otherwise fails to capture the event/activity cers should document in writing In these situations, o ffi and/or on camera their reasons for not recording. This holds o ffi cers accountable, allows supervisors to investi - gate recording irregularities, and documents the absence of video footage for investigations and court proceedings. Implementation tips: ffi cer’s t The failure to record should be noted in the o written report. t If the o ffi cer deactivates the camera in the middle cer should state on camera the of recording, the o ffi reasons why.
67 Appendixes 55 Recording protocols Page Findings in Support of Recommendation and No. Recommendation Tips for Implementation Reference(s) ffi cers should be required to Recording 7 General recording policy: O cers to record all encounters with ffi Rather than requiring o activate their body-worn cameras when responding to all the public, most agencies that PERF consulted require discretion: 14; – o cers to record during calls for service and during all calls for service and during all law enforcement-related ffi pp. 12 18 – 23; cer is – law enforcement-related encounters and activities. encounters and activities that occur while the o ffi 19; 22 PERF agrees with this approach. This means that o ffi 40 cers on duty. Exceptions include recommendations 10 and 11 have discretion whether to record informal, non-law below or other situations in which activating cameras would be unsafe, impossible, or impractical. enforcement-related interactions with the public. The reasons for adopting this approach include the following: t Protecting relationships between the police and the community ff Promoting community policing e t orts ffi t cer support for the body-worn camera Securing o program by signaling that they are trusted to know when to record Keeping data storage manageable t 7a Policies and training materials should clearly de fi ne what Recording c fi cers should have clear guidance about which speci ffi O types of activities, events, and encounters they are re - is included in the description “law enforcement-related guidance: 24; – quired to record. pp. 13; 18 cer is encounters and activities that occur while the o ffi 40 on duty.” Implementation tip: t Some agencies have found it useful to provide a list of c examples in their policies, such as tra c stops, speci ffi fi arrests, searches, interrogations or interviews, and pursuits. Policies should note that these types of lists are not exhaustive. These recording policies should be reinforced in t training. 7b O ffi cers should also be required to activate the camera Recording cers are given discretion to not record informal, non- ffi If o during the course of adversarial encounter with the public that any law enforcement-related encounters with the public, they encounters: becomes adversarial after the initial contact. should nonetheless be instructed to activate their cameras pp. 23; 40 - if the encounter becomes adversarial. This provides docu mentation of the encounter in the event that a complaint later arises. It also may help to defuse tense situations and Preserving prevent further escalation. documentation Implementation tip: for complaints: 7 – cers may be called upon to activate their cameras ffi O pp. 5 t quickly and in high-stress situations. Therefore, train - - ing programs should strive to ensure that camera acti Situational vation becomes second-nature to o ffi cers. Situational training: training is particularly useful to achieve this goal. pp. 28 – 29; 47
68 56 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a Findings in Support of Recommendation and Page No. Recommendation Tips for Implementation Reference(s) O ffi Consent (in 8 The mere knowledge that one is being recorded can help cers should be required to inform subjects when they general): promote civility during police encounters with the public. are being recorded unless doing so would be unsafe, impractical, or impossible. Many police executives have found that o ffi cers can avoid pp. 14; 40 adversarial situations if they inform people that they are being recorded. Improving Implementation tips: police-citizen t In states with two-party consent laws, o ffi cers are encounters: pp. 6; 14 required to announce they are recording and to obtain the subject’s consent. Agencies should consult their state laws to determine whether this requirement Informing applies. when t In one-party consent states, PERF’s recommendation recording: ffi that o cers inform a person that he or she is being pp. 6; 14; recorded does mean that o ffi not cers must also 19; 40 18 – obtain the person’s consent to record. cer may exercise discretion to not announce t An o ffi that he or she is recording if doing so would be unsafe, impractical, or impossible. 9 Once activated, the body-worn camera should remain in Camera Implementation tip: recording mode until the conclusion of an incident/en - deactivation: ffi t cers should Prior to deactivating the camera, o – 19; 41 ffi counter, the o pp. 18 cer has left the scene, or a supervisor has announce that the incident has concluded and that authorized (on camera) that a recording may cease. the recording will now cease. Regardless of the general recording policy contained in Recording 10 cant privacy concerns associated with There are signi fi cers should be required to obtain videotaping crime victims. PERF believes that requiring recommendation 7, o crime victims: ffi 19; – o pp. 13; 18 ffi cers to obtain consent prior to recording interviews consent prior to recording interviews with crime victims. 40-41 with victims is the best way to balance privacy concerns with the need to accurately document events. Implementation tips: Victims should give or deny consent in writing and/ t or on camera. t This policy should apply regardless of whether consent is required under state law.
69 Appendixes 57 Findings in Support of Recommendation and Page No. Recommendation Tips for Implementation Reference(s) Regardless of the general recording policy contained in Impact on cers is to ffi One of the most important jobs of police o 11 intelligence- cers should have the discretion to ffi gather information about crime that occurs in their recommendation 7, o keep their cameras turned o orts may be ff during conversations with gathering communities. These intelligence-gathering e ff ff e crime witnesses and members of the community who wish orts: formal (e.g., through interviews with witnesses of a crime) – pp. 19 to report or discuss criminal activity in their neighborhood. or informal (e.g., through conversations with community 21 ffi cer has a relationship). Some members with whom the o police executives report that body-worn cameras can Recording orts, as some witnesses ff inhibit intelligence-gathering e statements - and community members may be hesitant to report in from witnesses formation if they know their statements will be recorded. or citizen They may fear retaliation, worry about their own privacy, informants: or not feel comfortable sharing sensitive information on pp. 22 23; – ffi camera. O cers should have the discretion to keep their 42 – 41 ff cameras turned o in these situations. Implementation tips: If a person is not comfortable sharing information on t camera, some agencies permit o cers to position the ffi camera so that they capture only audio, not video, recordings of the person making the statement. This ff a ords greater privacy protections while still preserv - ing evidentiary documentation. It is useful for o t cers to keep their cameras running ffi during the initial response to an ongoing/live crime scene to capture spontaneous statements and impres - sions made by people at the scene. Once the scene is controlled and has moved into the investigative stage, cers may make a case-by-case decision about o ffi whether to record later interviews with witnesses. When encountering a reluctant witness, o ffi cers t should attempt to develop a rapport by being honest and not pressuring the person to talk on camera. t If an o ffi cer turns the camera o ff prior to obtaining ffi information, the o cer should document on camera the reason for doing so. When determining whether to record interviews with Recording Recorded statements made by crime victims and members 11a statements witnesses and members of the community who wish to of the community can provide valuable evidence for ffi share information, o from witnesses investigations and prosecutions. Therefore, it is always cers should always consider both preferable to capture these statements on camera when the evidentiary value of recording and the subject’s com - or citizen fort with speaking on camera. To better capture evidence, informants: possible. 23; – PERF recommends that o pp. 22 cers record statements made ffi Implementation tips: 42 – 41 by witnesses and people sharing information. However, t cers to keep the camera ac Many agencies instruct o - ffi ff , if a person will not talk unless the camera is turned o tivated when speaking with witnesses or informants ffi cers may decide that obtaining the information is more o unless the person actively requests otherwise. important than recording. PERF recommends allowing ffi cers that discretion. o Agencies should work with prosecutors to determine t how best to weigh the importance of having a re - corded statement versus the importance of gathering information when a witness refuses to speak on camera. Recording Although discretion is important for protecting community 11b Policies should provide clear guidance regarding the - cers will be allowed to exer ffi policing e ff orts, this discretion must not be unlimited. statements circumstances under which o from witnesses cise discretion to record, the factors that o O ffi cers should always adhere to agency policies regarding ffi cers should discretion and should document when they exercise this consider when deciding whether to record, and the process or citizen informants: for documenting whether to record. discretion. pp. 22 – 23; 41 – 42
70 58 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a Findings in Support of Recommendation and Page No. Recommendation Tips for Implementation Reference(s) Agencies should prohibit recording other agency personnel Prohibited This policy supports o ffi cer privacy and ensures 12 during routine, non-enforcement-related activities unless o ffi cers feel safe to engage in routine, informal, recordings: non-law enforcement-related conversations with their recording is required by a court order or is authorized as p. 42 colleagues. Situations that should not be recorded include part of an administrative or criminal investigation. the following: t Non-law enforcement-related conversations held cers while on patrol (except while ffi between o responding to a call for service) Conversations between agency personnel held during t breaks, at lunch, in the locker room, or during other non-law enforcement-related activities Prohibited 13 When determining whether a recording should be Policies should clearly state any other types of recordings that are prohibited by the agency. Prohibited recordings prohibited, agencies should consider privacy concerns, recordings: 38; 42 – the need for transparency and accountability, the safety should include the following: pp. 37 of the o cer and the citizen, and the evidentiary value of ffi dential informants and fi Conversations with con t recording. ffi fi cers to protect con undercover o dentiality and Privacy cer safety o ffi considerations (in general): Places where a reasonable expectation of privacy t 20 – pp. 11 exists (e.g., bathrooms or locker rooms) t Strip searches Conversations with other agency personnel that t involve case tactics or strategy
71 Appendixes 59 Download and storage policies Findings in Support of Recommendation and Page Recommendation No. Reference(s) Tips for Implementation Policies should designate the o ffi cer as the person cer to Data protection: 14 ffi cient for an o ffi In most cases, it is more e 16; – responsible for downloading recorded data from his or her download recorded data from his or her own body-worn pp. 15 18 44 – – 19; 42 cer will have the best access to the camera body-worn camera. However, in certain clearly identi ffi fi ed camera. The o and knowledge of the footage for tagging/documentation cer-involved shootings, in-custody ffi circumstances (e.g., o ffi cer is involved in a shooting ffi purposes. However, if the o cer that result deaths, or other incidents involving the o or other incident that results in someone’s bodily harm cer’s supervisor ffi in a person’s bodily harm or death), the o should immediately take physical custody of the camera cer’s supervisor to take ffi or death, it is prudent for the o ffi immediate custody of the o cer’s camera for evidence and should be responsible for downloading the data. preservation purposes. Data protection: fi c measures to prevent data 15 Implementation tips: Policies should include speci 16; – tampering, deleting, and copying. pp. 15 Agencies should create an audit system that monitors t 45 – 18 – 19; 42 who accesses recorded data, when, and for what purpose. Some camera systems come with a built-in audit trail. Agencies can conduct forensic reviews to determine t whether recorded data has been tampered with. Data should be downloaded from the body-worn camera Data protection: The majority of agencies that PERF consulted require 16 16; – o ffi cers to download recorded data by the conclusion of by the end of each shift in which the camera was used. pp. 15 18 19; 42 – 45 – his or her shift. The reasons for this include the following: Many camera systems recharge and clear old data t during the downloading process. t cer’s memory for the ffi Events will be fresh in the o purpose of tagging and categorizing. Evidence will be entered into the system in a t timely manner. O ffi cers should properly categorize and tag body-worn Data tagging: 17 Properly categorizing and labeling/tagging recorded – 17; video is important for the following reasons: pp. 16 camera videos at the time they are downloaded. Videos 18 19; 33 – 34; – fi ed according to the type of event or should be classi The type of event/incident on the video will typically t 43 incident captured in the footage. dictate data retention times. It enables supervisors, investigators, and prosecutors t to more easily identify and access the data they need. Implementation tips: t Some camera systems can be linked to an agency’s records management system to allow for automated tagging and documentation. t Some camera systems can be linked to electronic - cers can use to review and tag record ffi tablets that o cer time ffi eld. This saves the o fi ed data while in the spent tagging data at the end of his or her shift.
72 60 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a Findings in Support of Recommendation and Page No. Recommendation Tips for Implementation Reference(s) Policies should speci fi cally state the length of time that Data retention: Most state laws provide speci fi c retention times for videos 18 that contain evidentiary footage that may be used for 19; – pp. 16 recorded data must be retained. For example, many 33 agencies provide 60-day or 90-day retention times for – 45 investigations and court proceedings. These retention 34; 43 – non-evidentiary data. times will depend on the type of incident captured in the footage. Agencies typically have more discretion when setting retention times for videos that do not contain evidentiary footage. When setting retention times, agencies should consider the following: State laws governing evidence retention t Departmental policies governing retention of other t types of electronic records t The openness of the state’s public disclosure laws t The need to preserve footage to promote transparency The length of time typically needed to receive and t investigate citizen complaints The agency’s capacity for data storage t Implementation tips: Agencies should make retention times public by t posting them on their websites. When setting retention times, agencies should t consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with relevant evidentiary laws. Agencies should obtain written approval for retention schedules from prosecutors and legal counsel.
73 Appendixes 61 Page Findings in Support of Recommendation and Recommendation No. Reference(s) Tips for Implementation Common storage locations include in-house servers 19 Data storage: Policies should clearly state where body-worn camera videos are to be stored. (managed internally) and online cloud databases pp. 15 – 16; 18 – 19; 32 – 34; (managed by a third-party vendor). Factors that agencies 43 44 should consider when determining where to store data – include the following: Security concerns t t Reliable methods for backing up data t Chain-of-custody issues t Capacity for data storage Implementation tips: t Agencies should consult with prosecutors and legal advisors to ensure data storage methods meet all legal requirements and chain-of-custody needs. For videos requiring long-term storage, some t agencies burn the data to a disc, attach it to the case le, and delete it from the internal server or online fi database. This frees up expensive storage space for videos that are part of an ongoing investigation or that have shorter retention times. t The agencies that PERF consulted report having no issues to date with using a third-party vendor to manage recorded data. To protect the security and integrity of data managed by a third party, agencies should use a reputable, experienced vendor; enter into a legal contract with the vendor that protects the agency’s data; ensure the system includes a built-in audit trail and reliable backup methods; and consult with legal advisors.
74 62 Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a Recorded data access and review Findings in Support of Recommendation and Page No. Recommendation Tips for Implementation Reference(s) O ffi O ffi cer review Most agencies that PERF consulted permit o ffi cers to 20 cers should be permitted to review video footage of of footage: review video footage of an incident in which they were an incident in which they were involved, prior to making a 30; – involved, such as a shooting, prior to making a statement pp. 29 statement about the incident. 45 – that might be used in an administrative review or court 47 proceeding. The reasons for this policy include the following: t Reviewing footage will help lead to the truth of the incident by helping o ffi cers to remember an incident more clearly. Real-time recording is considered best evidence and t provides a more accurate record than the o cer’s ffi recollection. Research into eyewitness testimony has demonstrat t - ed that stressful situations with many distractions are di cult for even trained observers to recall correctly. ffi O t ffi cers will have to explain and account for their actions, regardless of what the video shows. Written policies should clearly describe the circumstances Supervisor PERF recommends that supervisors be authorized to 21 in which supervisors will be authorized to review an review footage in the following circumstances: review of ffi footage: o cer’s body-worn camera footage. t When a supervisor needs to investigate a complaint 26; – pp. 24 ffi against an o c incident in which the cer or a speci fi 27 – 47 28; 45 – ffi o cer was involved t When a supervisor needs to identify videos for training purposes and for instructional use t When o ffi cers are still in a probationary period or are cer with a fi eld training o ffi When o t cers have had a pattern of allegations of ffi abuse or misconduct cers have agreed to a more intensive review ffi When o t as a condition of being put back on the street When an o t fi cer has been identi ffi ed through an early intervention system
75 Appendixes 63 Findings in Support of Recommendation and Page Recommendation No. Reference(s) Tips for Implementation ffi cer’s Randomly monitoring an o Internal audit 22 An agency’s internal audit unit, rather than the o cer’s camera footage ffi can help proactively identify problems, determine unit review direct chain of command, should periodically conduct a noncompliance, and demonstrate accountability. of footage: random review of body-worn camera footage to monitor cer pp. 24 – compliance with the program and assess overall o ffi 26; 28; However, unless prompted by one of the situations performance. described in recommendation 21, PERF does not generally 45 – 47 recommend that supervisors randomly monitor footage cers in their chain of command for the recorded by o ffi ffi purpose of spot-checking the o cers’ performance. Instead, an agency’s internal audit unit should be responsible for conducting random monitoring. This allows agencies to monitor compliance with the program and assess performance without undermining the trust cer and his or her supervisor. ffi between an o Implementation tips: Internal audit reviews should be truly random and t ffi cers. fi not target a speci c o cer or o ffi Audits should be conducted in accordance with t a written standard of review that is communicated cers. to o ffi Policies should explicitly forbid agency personnel from ac - Data protection: Agencies must take every possible precaution to ensure 23 – 16; that camera footage is not used, accessed, or released for cessing recorded data for personal use and from uploading pp. 15 46 – 19; 45 – 18 any unauthorized purposes. recorded data onto public and social media websites. Implementation tips: t Written policies should describe the sanctions for violating this prohibition. Policies should include speci fi c measures for preventing All video recordings should be considered the agency’s 24 Data protection: – 16; pp. 15 property and be subject to any evidentiary laws and unauthorized access or release of recorded data. 18 – 19; 45 – 46 regulations. (See also recommendations 15 and 23.)
76 64 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Page Findings in Support of Recommendation and Recommendation No. Tips for Implementation Reference(s) Agencies should have clear and consistent protocols Public 25 PERF generally recommends a broad public disclosure policy for body-worn camera videos. By implementing a disclosure: for releasing recorded data externally to the public and body-worn camera program, agencies are demonstrating 19; – pp. 17 the news media (a.k.a. Public Disclosure Policies). Each 34; 46 47 agency’s policy must be in compliance with the state’s – that they are committed to transparency and account - – 33 ability, and their disclosure policies should re fl ect this public disclosure laws (often known as Freedom of commitment. Information Acts). However, there are some situations when an agency may determine that publicly releasing body-worn camera footage is not appropriate. These include the following: Videos that contain evidentiary footage being used t in an ongoing investigation or court proceeding are typically exempted from disclosure by state public disclosure laws. t When the videos raise privacy concerns, such as recordings of crime victims or witnesses or footage taken inside a private home, agencies must balance privacy concerns against the need for transparency while complying with relevant state public disclosure laws. Implementation tips: Policies should state who is allowed to authorize the t release of videos. When determining whether to proactively release t videos to the public (rather than in response to a public disclosure request), agencies should consider whether the footage will be used in a criminal court case and the potential e ff ects that releasing the data may have on the case. - Policies should clearly state the process for respond t ing to public disclosure requests, including the review and redaction process. t Agencies should always communicate their public disclosure policies to the public.
77 Appendixes 65 Training policies Page Findings in Support of Recommendation and Recommendation No. Reference(s) Tips for Implementation Training: Personnel who receive training should include the 26 Body-worn camera training should be required for all – 49 agency personnel who may use or otherwise be involved pp. 47 following: with body-worn cameras. t O ffi cers who will be assigned or permitted to wear cameras cers wear cameras ffi Supervisors whose o t Records/evidence management personnel t Training personnel t t Internal A ff airs Anyone else who will be involved with the body-worn t camera program Implementation tip: er training to ff As a courtesy, agencies may wish to o t - prosecutors so they can better understand how to ac cess the data, what the limitations of the technology are, and how the data may be used in court. Before agency personnel are equipped with body-worn 27 This ensures o ffi cers are prepared to operate the cameras Training: – 29; eld. fi pp. 25; 28 cameras, they must receive all mandated training. safely and properly prior to wearing them in the 49 – 47 Implementation tips: Training: 28 Body-worn camera training should include the following: – 30; pp. 7; 26 t Agencies can use existing body-worn camera t All practices and protocols covered by the agency’s 47 – 49 body-worn camera policy (which should be distribut - footage to train o ffi cers on the proper camera ed to all personnel during training) practices and protocols. t t cers ffi An overview of relevant state laws governing consent, Scenario-based training can be useful to help o evidence, privacy, and public disclosure become accustomed to wearing and activating their cameras. Some agencies require o ffi cers to participate Procedures for operating the equipment safely t in situational exercise using training model cameras. and e ff ectively t Scenario-based exercises that replicate situations that eld o ffi cers might encounter in the fi Procedures for downloading and tagging t recorded data t Procedures for accessing and reviewing recorded data (only for personnel authorized to access the data) Procedures for preparing and presenting digital t evidence for court t Procedures for documenting and reporting any malfunctioning device or supporting system A body-worn camera training manual should be created 29 Implementation tip: Training: 49 – in both digital and hard-copy form and should be readily pp. 47 The training manual should be posted on the t available at all times to agency personnel. agency’s intranet. 30 Agencies should require refresher courses on body-worn Body-worn camera technology is constantly evolving. In Training: 49 – pp. 47 camera usage and protocols at least once per year. addition to yearly refresher courses, training should occur anytime an agency’s body-worn camera policy changes. Agencies should also keep abreast of new technology, data storage options, court proceedings, and other issues surrounding body-worn cameras.
78 Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned 66 Implementing a Body-Worn Policy and program evaluation Findings in Support of Recommendation and Page Recommendation No. Reference(s) Tips for Implementation Collecting and releasing data about body-worn cameras Agencies should collect statistical data concerning body- Engaging the 31 public: - worn camera usage, including when video footage is used helps promote transparency and trust within the commu 22; 24; – in criminal prosecutions and internal a pp. 21 ff nity. It also helps agencies to evaluate the e ff airs matters. ectiveness of 28 – their programs, to determine whether their goals are be - 48 – 29; 47 ing met, and to identify areas for improvement. Agencies ndings when presenting information fi can also use the about their body-worn camera programs to o ffi cers, oversight boards, policymakers, and the community. Implementation tip: t Statistics should be publicly released at various fi speci ed points throughout the year or as part of the agency’s year-end report. Agencies should conduct evaluations to analyze the Financial 32 A cost-bene fi t analysis can help an agency to determine the feasibility of implementing a body-worn camera fi considerations: nancial impact of implementing a body-worn camera 34; – program. program. The analysis should examine the following: pp. 30 – 48 49 The anticipated or actual cost of purchasing t equipment, storing recorded data, and responding to public disclosure requests Cost-bene t fi analysis: p.31 The anticipated or actual cost savings, including t legal fees and other costs associated with defending cers lawsuits and complaints against o ffi Reducing t Potential funding sources for a body-worn complaints camera program and lawsuits: – 9 pp. 6 Agencies should conduct periodic reviews of their body- Program 33 Body-worn camera technology is new and evolving, and the policy issues associated with body-worn cameras evaluation: worn camera policies and protocols. – 49 are just recently being fully considered. Agencies must p. 48 continue to examine whether their policies and protocols take into account new technologies, are in compliance with new laws, and re fl ect the most up-to-date research and best practices. Evaluations will also help agencies de - ff ective termine whether their policies and practices are e and appropriate for their departments. Implementation tips: Evaluations should be based on a set of standard t criteria and outcome measures. An initial evaluation should be conducted at the t conclusion of the body-worn camera pilot program or at a set period of time (e.g., six months) after rst implemented. Subsequent fi the cameras were evaluations should be conducted on a regular basis as determined by the agency.
79 Appendixes 67 cers, policymakers, ffi Additional lessons learned: engaging o and the community cials whom PERF consulted, it is critical for agencies to engage According to the police of fi the community, policymakers, courts, oversight boards, unions, frontline of fi cers, and other stakeholders about the department’s body-worn camera program . Open communication—both prior to and after camera deployment—can strengthen the perceived legitimacy of the camera program, demonstrate agency transparency, and help educate stakeholders about the realities of using body- . worn cameras The following table presents lessons that agencies shared with PERF with respect to . engaging stakeholders Page No. Lesson Learned Reference(s) Engaging the community prior to implementing a camera program can help secure support for the program and 22; 24 pp. 21 – 1 increase the perceived legitimacy of the program within the community. 22; 24 – pp. 21 Agencies have found it useful to communicate with the public, local policymakers, and other stakeholders about what 2 ect them. ff the cameras will be used for and how the cameras will a – 22; 24 pp. 21 3 Social media is an e ff ective way to facilitate public engagement about body-worn cameras. 22; 24 – Transparency about the agency’s camera policies and practices, both prior to and after implementation, can help pp. 21 4 increase public acceptance and hold agencies accountable. Examples of transparency include posting policies on the agency’s website and publicly releasing video recordings of controversial incidents. 27 – cers with any new technology, program, or strategy, the best approach includes e 5 orts by agency ffi When presenting o pp. 26 ff fi ts of the initiative, and address any concerns o ffi cers leaders to engage o ffi cers on the topic, explain the goals and bene may have. – 27 ective means to communicate with o ffi cers about ngs, roll calls, and meetings with union representatives are e pp. 26 Brie ff 6 fi the agency’s body-worn camera program. – 27 7 Creating an implementation team that includes representatives from across the agency can help strengthen program pp. 26 legitimacy and ease implementation. 27 – pp. 26 8 ffi Agencies have found that o cers support a body-worn camera program if they view the cameras as useful tools: e.g., as a technology that helps to reduce complaints and produce evidence that can be used in court or in internal investigations. 27 – ffi cers about the bene fi ts of the cameras has proven successful in 9 Recruiting an internal “champion” to help inform o pp. 26 cers’ concerns about embracing the new technology. addressing o ffi 27 – pp. 26 Taking an incremental approach to implementation can help make deployment run more smoothly. This can include 10 testing cameras during a trial period, rolling out cameras slowly, or initially assigning cameras to tech savvy o cers. ffi – 30 pp. 28 11 Educating oversight bodies about the realities of using cameras can help them to understand operational challenges and why there may be situations in which o ffi cers are unable to record. This can include demonstrations to judges, attorneys, and civilian review boards about how the cameras operate.
81 Appendix B. Conference attendees ce convened this one-day conference on September 11, 2013, in Washington, fi PERF and the COPS Of , to discuss the policy and operational issues surrounding body-worn cameras . The titles listed D C . . . below re fl ect attendees’ positions at the time of the conference Albuquerque (NM) Police Department Aurora (CO) Police Department William Roseman ark Dan M Lieutenant Deputy Chief of Police Baltimore County (MD) Police Department Alexandria (VA) Police Department Karen Johnson David Huchler Major Deputy Chief of Police James Johnson Eddie Reyes Chief of Police Deputy Chief of Police Baltimore (MD) Fraternal Order of Police Anne Arundel County (MD) Police Department Bob Cherry President Herbert Hasenpusch Captain Baltimore (MD) Police Department Thomas Kohlmann Jeronimo Rodriguez Lieutenant Deputy Police Commissioner Appleton (WI) Police Department Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department Gary Lewis Kenton Rainey Lieutenant Chief of Police Arlington County (VA) Police Department Boyd (VA) Police Department Jason Bryk Michael Brave Lieutenant ffi cer Training O Michael Dunne Bureau of Justice Assistance Deputy Chief of Police U.S. Department of Justice Lauretta Hill David Adams Assistant Chief of Police Senior Policy Advisor Arnold & Porter LLP Steve Edwards Senior Policy Advisor Meredith Esser Associate Kristen Mahoney Deputy Director of Policy Peter Zimroth Partner Denise O’Donnell Director Atlanta (GA) Police Department Brian Reaves Todd Coyt Senior Statistician Lieutenant Cornelia Sigworth Joseph Spillane Senior Advisor Major Christopher Traver Senior Policy Advisor 69
82 70 Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a Body-Worn Calgary (AB) Police Service Columbus (OH) Division of Police Trevor Daroux Gary Cameron Commander, Narcotics Bureau Deputy Chief of Police Evel Kiez Commission on Accreditation for Law Sergeant Enforcement Agencies, Inc. Asif Rashid Craig Hartley Sergeant ff Sta Deputy Director Camden County (NJ) Police Department CP2, Inc. Orlando Cuevas Carl Peed Deputy Chief of Police President Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC) Dallas (TX) Police Department Police Department Andrew Acord Michael Adams Deputy Chief of Police Major Dalton (GA) Police Department Stephen Willis Jason Parker Major Chief of Police Cincinnati (OH) Police Department Daytona Beach (FL) Police Department Thomas Streicher Michael Chitwood Chief of Police (Retired) Chief of Police City of Akron (OH) Police Department Denver (CO) Police Department James Nice Magen Dodge Chief of Police Commander Civil Rights Division Des Moines (IA) Police Department U.S. Department of Justice Judy Bradshaw Roy L. Austin, Jr. Chief of Police Deputy Assistant Attorney General Todd Dykstra Christy Lopez Captain Deputy Chief Stephen Waymire Zazy Lopez Major Attorney Detroit (MI) Police Department rey Murray ff Je James Craig Attorney Chief of Police Tim Mygatt Digital Ally, Inc. Special Counsel Matthew Andrews Rashida Ogletree Engineer Attorney Stan Ross CNA Corporation CEO James Stewart Eugene (OR) Police Department Director of Public Safety James Durr Captain
83 Appendixes 71 Fairfax County (VA) Police Department Greenville (NC) Police Department Hassan Aden Bob Blakley Chief of Police Lieutenant Greenwood & Streicher LLC Fayetteville (NC) Police Department Wayne Burgess Scott Greenwood Lieutenant CEO Bradley Chandler Gulf States Regional Center for Public Safety Assistant Chief of Police Innovations Timothy Tew Daphne Levenson Lieutenant Director Federal Bureau of Investigation Harrisonburg (VA) Police Department Jacques Battiste John Hancock Supervisory Special Agent cer O ffi Federal Emergency Management Agency Roger Knott Roberto Hylton Lieutenant Senior Law Enforcement Advisor Hayward (CA) Police Department Edward Welch Lauren Sugayan Director Program Analyst Fort Collins (CO) Police Department Henrico County (VA) Division of Police Cory Christensen Douglas Middleton Deputy Chief of Police Chief of Police Garner (NC) Police Department Herndon (VA) Police Department Chris Hagwood Maggie DeBoard Lieutenant Chief of Police Glenview (IL) Police Department Steven Pihonak William Fitzpatrick Sergeant Chief of Police Houston (TX) Police Department Grand Junction (CO) Police Department Jessica Anderson John Camper Sergeant Chief of Police James Jones Greater Manchester (UK) Police Captain Paul Rumney Charles McClelland Detective Chief Superintendent Chief of Police Greensboro (NC) Police Department Indianapolis (IN) Department of Public Safety Kenneth Miller Chief of Police David Riggs Director George Richey Captain Innovative Management Consulting, Inc. Wayne Scott Thomas Maloney Deputy Chief of Police Senior Consultant
84 Body-Worn Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a 72 Camera Program: ’s Department International Association of Chiefs of Police ff Los Angeles County Sheri David Betkey Mike Fergus Division Chief Program Manager David Roberts Kevin Goran Senior Program Manager Division Chief James Hellmold Jersey City (NJ) Police Department Assistant Sheri ff Matthew Dillon Chris Marks ffi cer Police ID O Lieutenant Stephen Golecki ffi Sr. Police ID O Los Angeles Police Department cer Greg Meyer Samantha Pescatore cer O Captain (Retired) ffi John Scalcione Louisville (KY) Metro Police Department cer O ffi Robert Schroeder Daniel Sollitti Major Captain Lynchburg (VA) Police Department L-3 Communications Mark Jamison Michael Burridge Captain Executive Director, Public Safety Ryan Zuidema Lakehurst (NJ) Police Department Captain Eric Higgins Madison (WI) Police Department Chief of Police June Groehler Lansing (MI) Police Department Lieutenant Michael Yankowski Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester Chief of Police Mildred Olinn Las Vegas Metropolitan (NV) Partner Police Department Eugene Ramirez Liesl Freedman Senior Partner General Counsel Maryland State Police Department Thomas Roberts Michael Brady Captain Sergeant Leesburg (VA) Police Department ff ord Hughes Cli Carl Maupin Assistant Bureau Chief Lieutenant Thomas Vondersmith Director Lenexa (KS) Police Department Dawn Layman Meriden (CT) Police Department Major Je ff ry Cossette Chief of Police Timothy Topulos Deputy Chief of Police
85 Appendixes 73 Mesa (AZ) Police Department Motorola Solutions, Inc. Tony Filler Domingo Herraiz Vice President Commander Kelly Kirwan Metropolitan Nashville (TN) Police Corporate Vice President Department Steve Sebestyen Michael Anderson Business Development Manager Chief of Police John Singleton MPH Industries Inc. IT Security Manager Larry Abel ffi cer Senior Training O Metropolitan (DC) Police Department Brian Bobick National Institute of Justice Sergeant U.S. Department of Justice Alfred Durham Brett Chapman Assistant Chief of Police Social Science Analyst Barry Gersten William Ford CIO Division Director Lamar Greene National Law Enforcement Museum Assistant Chief of Police Sarah Haggerty Cathy Lanier Associate Curator Chief of Police National Press Photographers Association Thomas Wilkins Mickey Osterreicher Executive Director General Counsel Miami Beach (FL) Police Department New Haven (CT) Police Department David De La Espriella Luiz Casanova Captain Assistant Chief of Police Milwaukee (WI) Police Department New Orleans (LA) Police Department Mary Hoerig Ronal Serpas Inspector of Police Superintendent of Police Minneapolis (MN) Police Department New South Wales (AUS) Police Force Bruce Folkens Stephen Cullen Commander Chief Superintendent Janeé Harteau New York City Police Department Chief of Police Terrence Riley Montgomery County (MD) Police Department Inspector Brian Acken Director Luther Reynolds Assistant Chief of Police
86 Body-Worn Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a 74 Camera Program: O ffi Newark (NJ) Police Department ce of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Sheilah Coley Chief of Police Linda Mansour airs Intergovernmental A ff Samuel DeMaio Katherine Darke Schmitt Director Policy Advisor Michele MacPhee Lieutenant Panasonic Brian O’Hara Norihiro Kondo Lieutenant Group Manager Norfolk (VA) Police Department Philadelphia (PA) Police Department Frances Emerson Charles Ramsey Captain Police Commissioner James Ipock Anthony Washington Lieutenant Inspector Northern California Regional Phoenix (AZ) Police Department Intelligence Center Dave Harvey Daniel Mahoney Assistant Chief of Police Deputy Director Police and Public Safety Consultant Oakland (CA) Police Department Robert Lunney Sean Whent Consultant Chief of Police Police Foundation O ffi ce of Community Oriented Jim Bueermann Policing Services President U.S. Department of Justice Jim Specht Melissa Bradley Assistant to the President for Program Specialist Communications and Policy Helene Bushwick Supervisory Policy Analyst Poulsbo (WA) Police Department Joshua Ederheimer Alan Townsend Acting Director Chief of Police Mora Fiedler Prince George’s County (MD) Social Science Analyst Police Department Dean Kueter Joshua Brackett ff Acting Chief of Sta Corporal Debra McCullough Mark Person Senior Social Science Analyst Major Katherine McQuay Henry Stawinski III Senior Policy Analyst Deputy Chief of Police Tawana Waugh Hector Velez Senior Program Specialist Deputy Chief of Police John Wells Program Specialist
87 Appendixes 75 Prince William County (VA) San Leandro (CA) Police Department Police Department Sandra Spagnoli Charlie Deane Chief of Police Chief of Police (Retired) Seattle (WA) Police Department Javid Elahi David Puente Lieutenant Detective Thomas Pulaski Spokane (WA) Police Department Senior Administrative Manager Bradley Arleth Ramsey County (MN) Sheri ff ’s O ffi ce Commander Robert Allen Craig Meidl Director of Planning and Policy Analysis Assistant Chief of Police Rialto (CA) Police Department Tim Schwering William Farrar Deputy Director Chief of Police eld (MO) Police Department fi Spring Richmond (CA) Police Department Paul Williams Allwyn Brown Chief of Police Deputy Chief of Police Tampa (FL) Police Department Richmond (VA) Police Department Michael Baumaister Scott Booth Captain Major TASER International Sydney Collier Je ff Kukowski Major Chief Operating O ffi cer Roger Russell Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police Captain Maggi McLean Duncan Riverside (CA) Police Department Executive Director and CEO Bruce Loftus Thomasville (NC) Police Department Lieutenant Rusty Fritz Roanoke (VA) County Police Department Sergeant Mike Warner Topeka (KS) Police Department Assistant Chief of Police Ronald Miller Robinson & Yu LLC Chief of Police David Robinson Toronto (ON) Police Service Principal Mike Federico Royal Canadian Mounted Police Deputy Chief of Police K. Troy Lightfoot John Sandeman Director of Operational Policy and Compliance Unit Commander San Diego County District Attorney, Peter Sloly Bureau of Investigations Deputy Chief of Police Adolfo Gonzales Chief Investigator
88 76 Recommendations and Lessons Learned Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Tucson (AZ) Police Department U.S. State Department Sharon Allen Jody Platt ffi cer Public Diplomacy O Deputy Chief of Police Jim Rizzi VIEVU Captain Steven Lovell UCLA Anderson School of Management President Peter Scranton Virginia Beach Police Department James Cervera University of California, San Diego Police Department Chief of Police Orville King Richard Cheatham Chief of Police PTO Coordinator David Rose Todd Jones Captain Lieutenant University of South Florida West Palm Beach (FL) Police Department Lorie Fridell Anthony Kalil Captain Associate Professor Sarah Mooney U.S. Capitol Police Department Captain Kim Dine Yakima (WA) Police Department Chief of Police Je ff Schneider Daniel Malloy Inspector Captain
89 About PERF The (PERF) is an independent research organization that focuses Police Executive Research Forum . fi ed best practices on on critical issues in policing Since its founding in 1976, PERF has identi fundamental issues such as reducing police use of force, developing community policing and problem-oriented policing, using technologies to deliver police services to the community, and evaluating crime reduction strategies . PERF strives to advance professionalism in policing and to improve the delivery of police services through the exercise of strong national leadership, public debate of police and criminal justice issues, and research and policy development . fi ndings, PERF conducts In addition to conducting research and publishing reports on our management studies of individual law enforcement agencies, educates hundreds of police of cials fi each year in a three-week executive development program, and provides executive search services to governments that wish to conduct national searches for their next police chief . All of PERF’s work bene fi ts from PERF’s status as a membership organization of police of fi cials, academics, federal government leaders, and others with an interest in policing and criminal justice . All PERF members must have a four-year college degree and must subscribe to a set of founding principles, emphasizing the importance of research and public debate in policing, adherence to the Constitution and the highest standards of ethics and integrity, and accountability to the communities that police agencies serve . PERF is governed by a member-elected president and board of directors and a board-appointed executive director . A staff of approximately 30 full-time professionals is based in W ashington, D . C . To learn more, visit PERF online at www . policeforum . org . 77
90 About the COPS Of fi ce Of fi fi ce) is the component of the U . S . The ce of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Of Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community policing by the nation’s . state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies through information and grant resources Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime . Rather than simply responding to crimes once they have been committed, community policing concentrates on preventing crime and eliminating the atmosphere of fear it creates . Earning the trust of the community and making those individuals stakeholders in their own safety enables law enforcement to better understand and address both the needs of the community and the factors that . contribute to crime fi ce awards grants to state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies to The COPS Of ghting hire and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime fi technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies COPS Of fi ce funding also provides . training and technical assistance to community members and local government leaders and all levels . of law enforcement fi ce has produced and compiled a broad range of information The COPS Of resources that can help law enforcement better address speci c crime and operational issues, and fi help community leaders better understand how to work cooperatively with their law enforcement agency to reduce crime . r Since 1994, the COPS Of fi ce has invested more than $14 billion to add community policing of fi fi ghting technology, support crime prevention cers to the nation’s streets, enhance crime . initiatives, and provide training and technical assistance to help advance community policing To date, the COPS Of fi ce has funded approximately 125,000 additional of fi cers to more than r 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country in small and large . jurisdictions alike r Nearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government leaders have been trained through COPS Of fi ce-funded training organizations . r To date, the COPS Of fi ce has distributed more than 8 . 57 million topic-speci fi c publications, training curricula, white papers, and resource CDs . COPS Of fi ce resources, covering a wide breadth of community policing topics—from school and campus safety to gang violence—are available, at no cost, through its online Resource Center at www . cops . usdoj . gov . This easy-to-navigate website is also the grant application portal, providing access to online application forms .
92 In recent years, many law enforcement agencies have been deploying small video cameras worn by o cers to record encounters with the public; investigate o ffi cer-involved incidents; ffi produce evidence; and strengthen agency performance, accountability, and transparency. While body-worn cameras have the potential to improve police services, they also raise issues involving privacy, police-community relationships, procedural justice, and technical and cost questions, all of which agencies should examine as they consider this technology. ffi ce of Community Oriented The Police Executive Research Forum, with support from the O Policing Services, conducted research in 2013 on the use of body-worn cameras. This research included interviews with police executives, a review of agencies’ policies, and a national conference at which 200 police executives and other experts discussed their experiences with body-worn cameras. This publication describes the fi ndings of this research, explores the issues surrounding body-worn cameras, and o ff ers policy recommendations for law enforcement agencies. Polic e Executive Research Forum U.S. Department of Justice 1120 Connecticut Avenue NW ce of Community Oriented Policing Services O ffi Suite 930 145 N Street NE Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20530 202-466-7820 To obtain details on COPS Office programs, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770. Visit PERF online at www.policeforum.org. ce online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. Visit the COPS O ffi ISBN: 978-1-934485-26-2 e051427647 Published 2014
2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report To the Secretary of Health and Human ServicesMore info »
IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK FOR THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD FULLY REVISED THIRD EDITION IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK FOR THE CONVENTION ON THE FOR THE CONVENTION ON THE RI...More info »
NTP TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES IN Hsd:SPRAGUE DAWLEY SD RATS EXPOSED TO WHOLE-BODY RADIO FREQUENCY AT A FREQUENCY (900 MHz) AND RADIATION GSM AND CDMA MODULATIONS ( ...More info »