Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned 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 from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), conducted research in 2013 on the use of body-worn cameras. This research project consisted 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. First, PERF distributed surveys to 500 police departments nationwide in July 2013. The exploratory 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; whether certain officers are required to wear body-worn cameras; camera placement on the body; 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 – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Chief of Police, Tucson (Arizona) Police Department one-third did not have a written policy governing body-worn camera usage. Many police executives reported that their hesitance to implement a written policy was due to a lack of guidance on what the policies should include, which highlights the need for a set of standards and best practices regarding body-worn cameras. Second, PERF staff members interviewed more than 40 police executives whose departments have implemented—or have considered implementing—body-worn cameras. As part of this process, 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. The conference, held in Washington, D.C., on September 11,...
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned Some police executives also believe that requiring officers to record all encounters can signal a lack of trust in officers, which is problematic for any department that wants to encourage its officers – Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department – Xxx Xxxx Xxxx, President, Association of Chief Police Officers (UK) mandatory recording of all police contacts. For departments whose polices do not require officers to record every interaction with the public, the goal is to sufficiently ensure accountability and adherence to the department’s body-worn camera policies and protocols. For example, when officers have discretion to not record an encounter, many departments require them to document, either on camera or in writing, the fact that they did not record and their reasons for not recording. Some departments also require officers to obtain supervisor approval to deactivate the camera if a subject requests to not be recorded. In a handful of states, officers are legally required to inform subjects when they are recording and to obtain the person’s consent to record. 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 body-worn police cameras. For example, in February 2014 Pennsylvania enacted a law waiving the two-party consent requirement for police using body-worn cameras.8 Efforts are under way to change two-party consent statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Each department must research its state laws to determine whether the two-party consent requirement applies. Some police executives believe that it is good practice for officers to inform people when they are recording, even if such disclosures are not required by law. In Greensboro, for example, officers are encouraged— but not required—to announce when they are recording. Chief Xxxxxx of Greensboro said this policy is based on the belief that the knowledge that cameras are running can help defuse potentially confrontational situations and improve behavior from all parties. However, many police executives in one-party consent states do not explicitly instruct officers to inform people that they are recording. “Kansas is a one-party consent state, so only the officer needs to know that the camera is running. But if a person...
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned “Whether you store video internally or externally, protecting the data and preserving the chain of custody should always be a concern. Either way, you need something built into the system so that you know that video has not been altered.”
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. ISBN: 978-1-934485-26-2 Published 2014 Contents State of the field and policy analysis 1 Project overview 2
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 – Xxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Topeka (Kansas) Police Department suspicion by community members that police are withholding video footage to hide officer misconduct or mistakes. In launching body-worn camera programs, law enforcement agencies should convey that their goal is to xxxxxx transparency and accountability while protecting civil liberties and privacy interests. When an agency decides whether to release or withhold body-worn camera footage of a particular incident, the agency should articulate its reasons for doing so. In addition, some agencies have adopted recording and retention policies that help to avoid violations of privacy. For example, some agencies allow officers to deactivate their cameras during interviews with crime 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. 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: • Body-worn cameras have significant 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. • In terms of when officers should be required to activate their cameras, the most common approach is requiring officers to record all calls for service and law enforcement-related encounters and activities and to deactivate the camera only at the conclusion of the event or with supervisor approval. • It is essential to clearly define what constitutes a law enforcement-related encounter or activity in the department’s written body-worn camera policy. It is also useful to provide a list of specific activities that are included, noting that the list is not neces...
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned open records requests played a role when we were deciding how long to keep the video. To protect privacy, you have to go through every video and make sure that you’re not disclosing something that you shouldn’t. It takes a lot of time, and personnel, to review and redact every tape. If you keep video for five years, it is going to take even more.” Agencies have also explored cheaper storage methods for videos that by law must be retained long- term, such as those containing evidence regarding a homicide or other serious felony. For example, 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 or long-term retention under state personnel laws. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department recently completed a body-worn camera trial program, and Major Xxxxxx said that the department is exploring alternative storage methods. “Long-term storage costs are definitely going to be a problem. We are looking at cold storage, offline storage, and shorter retention times as a way to keep those costs more manageable,” he said. Many police agencies have also found it useful to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when exploring whether to implement body-worn cameras. For example, agencies can conduct an audit of their claims, judgments, and settlements related to litigation and complaints against officers to determine 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 financial considerations In interviews with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned about the financial costs of body-worn cameras: r The financial and administrative costs associated with body-worn camera programs include costs of the equipment, storing and managing recorded data, and responding to public requests for disclosure. r It is useful to compare the costs of the camera program with the financial benefits (e.g., fewer lawsuits and unwarranted complaints against officers, as well as more efficient evidence col...
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned r Policies for releasing recorded data to the public, including protocols regarding redactions and 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 specific enough to provide clear and consistent guidance to officers yet allow room for flexibility as the program evolves. Agencies should make the policies available to the public, preferably by posting the policies on the agency website.
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned In Phoenix, an officer was fired after his body-worn camera captured repeated incidents of unprofessional conduct.
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned “Before we make a decision on where to go with body-worn cameras, I really think that all of us need to stop and consider some of these larger unanswered questions. We need to look at not only whether the cameras reduce complaints but also how they relate to witnesses on the street coming forward, what they mean for trust and officer credibility, and what messages they send to the public.”
