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 Xxx Xxxxxx of the Baltimore Police Department, who is also “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.” – Xxx Xxxxxx, Detective of Baltimore Police Department and President of Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police the president of the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police, said, “Trust builds through relationships, and body-worn cameras start from a position of mistrust. The comments I hear from some officers are, ‘I’m worried that if I wear a camera, it is going to make it hard to continue the relationship I have with a business owner or the lady down the street. These are the people I’m working with now to clean up the neighborhood.’” Some police executives reported that deploying body-worn cameras has in fact had a negative impact on their intelligence-gathering activities, particularly when officers are not allowed the discretion to turn off the camera. Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxx of Oakland, California, explained, “Our policy is to film all detentions and to keep recording until the encounter is over. But let’s say an officer detains someone, and now that person wants to give up information. We are finding that people are not inclined to do so with the camera running. We are considering changing our policy to allow officers to turn off the camera in those situations.” The Mesa (Arizona) Police Department has also found that body-worn cameras can undermine information-gathering efforts. “We have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know that they are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx Xxxxxx. However, other police executives said that these types of situations are rare and that body-worn cameras have not had a significant impact on their ability to gather information from the public. For some agencies, public reaction to the cameras has been practically ...
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned a certain amount of discretion concerning when to turn their cameras on or off. This discretion is important because it recognizes that officers are professionals and because it allows flexibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic “bright line” rule is impossible. For example, an officer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be recorded. By using discretion, the officer can reach the best solution in balancing the evidentiary value of a recorded statement with the witness’s reluctance to be recorded. The decision may hinge on the importance of what the witness is willing to say. Or perhaps the witness will agree to be recorded by audio but not video, so the officer can simply point the camera away from the witness. Or perhaps the witness will be willing to be recorded later, in a more private setting. By giving officers some discretion, they can balance the conflicting values. Without this discretion, body-worn cameras have the potential to damage important relationships that officers have built with members of the community. This discretion should not be limitless; instead, it should be guided by carefully crafted policies that set specific parameters for when officers may use discretion. If police departments deploy body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of officers to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably find themselves caught in difficult 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, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Executive Director Police Executive Research Forum vi Letter from the COPS Office Director O Dear colleagues, ne of the most important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage new technology to improve policing services. Whether using social media to engage the 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, represent one new form of technology that is significantly affecting the field of policing. Law enforcement agencies are ...
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 • Explicitly prohibit data tampering, editing, and copying. • Include protections against tampering with the data prior to downloading: This helps to mitigate concerns that officers will be able to alter or delete recordings prior to downloading them. Some body-worn camera systems are sold with technological safeguards that make it impossible for an officer to access the data prior to downloading. • Create an auditing system: It is important to have a record of who accesses video data, when, and for what purpose. Some storage systems include a built-in audit trail. • Explicitly state who will be authorized to access data: Many written policies outline who will have access to the data (e.g., supervisors, Internal Affairs, certain other officers and department personnel, and prosecutors) and for what purpose (e.g., administrative review, training, and investigations). “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.” – Xxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Greensboro (North Carolina) Police Department • Ensure there is a reliable back-up system: Some systems have a built-in backup system that preserves recorded data, and some departments copy recordings to disc and store them as evidence. • Specify when videos will be downloaded from the camera to the storage system and who will download them: The majority of existing policies require the camera operator to download the footage by the end of each shift. In the case of an officer-involved shooting or other serious incident, some policies require supervisors to step in and physically take possession of the camera and assume downloading responsibilities. • Consider third-party vendors carefully: Overwhelmingly, the police executives whom XXXX interviewed reported that their legal advisors and prosecutors were comfortable using a third- party vendor to manage the storage system. When deciding whether to use a third-party vendor, departments consider the vendor’s technical assistance capabilities and whether the system includes protections such as an audit trail, backup system, etc. Police executives stressed the 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 ...
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. General recommendations
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 Letter from the PERF Executive Director v Letter from the COPS Office Director vii Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1 State of the field and policy analysis 1 Project overview 2
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned XXXX also recommends that supervisors be permitted to review footage to ensure compliance with recording policies and protocols, specifically for the following situations: r When officers are still in a probationary period or are with a field training officer r When officers have had a pattern of allegations of verbal or physical abuse r When officers, as a condition of being put back on the street, agree to a more intensive review r When officers are identified through an early intervention system
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned r Procedures for downloading and tagging recorded data r Procedures for accessing and reviewing recorded data (only for personnel authorized to access the data) r Procedures for preparing and presenting digital evidence for court r Procedures for documenting and reporting any malfunctioning device or supporting system
Body-Worn Camera Program. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the proper use, management, storage, and retrieval of video and audio data recorded by Body Worn Cameras (BWCs). They are an effective law enforcement tool that reinforces the public's perception of police professionalism and preserves factual representations of officer-civilian interactions. BWCs may be useful in documenting crime and accident scenes or other events that include the confiscation and documentation of incidental evidence or contraband. The equipment will enhance the Department’s ability to document and review statements and events during the course of an incident, preserve video and audio information and evidence for investigative and prosecutorial purposes. BWC recordings, however, provide limited perspective of encounters and incidents and must be considered with all other available evidence, such as witnesses' statements, officer interviews, forensic analysis and documentary evidence. Video images cannot always show the full story nor do video images capture an entire scene. Any person reviewing body-worn camera footage must be cautious before drawing conclusions about what is truly being represented on footage. Additionally, studies have shown that BWCs are a contributing factor in reducing complaints against police officers, increasing police accountability, and enhancing public trust. This policy is not meant to create the necessity for more reports by officers. However, any circumstance where the BWC does not function properly or other circumstances arise that do not allow for a full recording of any interaction; a recording is interrupted; or the camera is not activated in accordance with this policy, a log entry shall be made or a report shall be generated. POLICY It is the policy of the Burlington Police Department to respect the legitimate privacy interests of all persons in Burlington, while ensuring professionalism in its workforce. Officers shall only use BWCs within the context of existing and applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and Department rules and policies. The Department prohibits recording civilians based solely upon the civilian’s political or religious beliefs or upon the exercise of the civilian’s constitutional rights, including but not limited to freedom of speech, religious expression, and lawful petition and assembly. BWC footage shall not be reviewed to identify the presence of individual participants at such e...
Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned 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 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 “I really believe that body-worn cameras are the wave of the future for most police agen- cies. This technology is driving the expecta- tions of the public. They see this out there, and they see that other agencies that have it, and their question is, ‘Why don’t you have it?’” – 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 co...
