Common use of Body-Worn Camera Program Clause in Contracts

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 nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 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 encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, 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 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Rialto, California. “We have not seen any evidence of that. People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but it does not seem to bother them.” In fact, in its evaluation of its body-worn camera program, the Rialto Police Department found that officers made 3,178 more contacts with the public (not counting calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year.11 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 officer and the person being recorded. “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions that might come up during encounters with the public. I think that 98 percent of the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improve.”

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned 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 to be thoughtful and to show initiative. For example, a survey of officers conducted in Vacaville, California, found that people will be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going to be recorded, particularly although 70 percent of officers were in high-crime neighborhoods where residents might be subject to retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with police. Detective Xxx Xxxxxx favor of the Baltimore Police Department, who is also “Before we make a decision on where to go with using body-worn cameras, a majority were opposed to a policy containing strict requirements of “In a sensitive investigation, such as a rape or child abuse case, if you have a victim who doesn’t want to be recorded, I really think you have to take that into account. I think that you cannot just arbitrarily film every encounter. There are times when you’ve got to give your officers some discretion to turn the camera off. Of course, the officers should be required to articulate why they’re not recording or why they’re shutting it off, but we have to give them that discretion.” – Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department “Legitimacy in policing is built on trust. And the notion of video-recording every interac- tion in a very tense situation would simply not be a practical operational way of deliv- ering policing. In fact, it would exacerbate all sorts of us need problems. In the United Kingdom, we’re also subject to stop human rights legisla- tion, laws on right to privacy, right to family life, and consider some I’m sure you have similar statutes. It’s far more complicated than a blanket policy of these larger unanswered questions‘every interaction is filmed.’ I think that’s far too simplistic. We need have to look at give our officers some discretion. We cannot only whether the cameras reduce complaints but also how they relate have a policy that limits discretion of officers to witnesses a point where using these devices has a negative effect on the street coming forward, what they mean for trust and officer credibility, and what messages they send to the publiccommunity-police relations.” – Xxx XxxxxxXxxx Xxxx, Detective President, Association of Baltimore Chief Police Department 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 President of Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police adherence to the president of the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police, said, “Trust builds through relationships, and department’s body-worn cameras start from 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 position subject requests to not be recorded. Consent to record In a handful of mistruststates, officers are legally required to inform subjects when they are recording and to obtain the person’s consent to record. The comments I hear from some officers areThis is known as a “two-party consent” law, ‘I’m worried that if I wear and it can create challenges to implementing a camerabody-worn camera program. In many two-party consent states, it is going however, police executives have successfully worked with their state legislatures to make it hard 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 continue change two-party consent statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Each department must research its state laws to determine whether the relationship I have with a business owner or the lady down the streettwo-party consent requirement applies. These are the people I’m working with now to clean up the neighborhood.’” Some police executives reported believe that deploying body-worn cameras has in fact had a negative impact on their intelligence-gathering activitiesit is good practice for officers to inform people when they are recording, particularly when even if such disclosures are not required by law. In Greensboro, for example, officers are encouraged— but not allowed the discretion required—to turn off the cameraannounce when they are recording. Chief Xxxxxx of Police Xxxx Xxxxx of Oakland, California, explained, “Our Greensboro said this policy is to film based on the belief that the knowledge that cameras are running can help defuse potentially confrontational situations and improve behavior from all detentions and to keep recording until the encounter is overparties. But let’s say an officer detains someoneHowever, and now that person wants to give up information. We are finding that people are many police executives in one-party consent states do not inclined to do so with the camera running. We are considering changing our policy to allow explicitly instruct 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 inform people being more reluctant to give information when they know that they are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx Xxxxxxrecording. However“Kansas is a one-party consent state, other police executives said so only the officer needs to know that these types of situations are rare and that body-worn cameras have not had the camera is running. But if a significant impact on their ability to gather information from person asks, the public. For some agencies, public reaction to officer tells them the cameras has been practically nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 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 encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, 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 relationshipstruth,” said Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx of RialtoTopeka, California. “We have not seen any evidence of that. People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but it does not seem to bother themKansas.” In fact, in its evaluation of its body-worn camera program, the Rialto Police Department found that officers made 3,178 more contacts with the public (not counting calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year.11 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 officer and the person being recorded. “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions that might come up during encounters with the public. I think that 98 percent of the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improve.”

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 Learned‌ The Los Angeles Police Department, who which is also “Before we make a decision on where to go with in the process of testing body-worn cameras, I really think that all of us need plans 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 mistrustsolicit public feedback when developing its camera policies. 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 Greensboro (ArizonaNorth Carolina) Police Department has 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 found important for agencies to engage local policymakers and other stakeholders. “Police departments cannot do this alone,” he said. “We went to the mayor, the city council, and the state’s attorney’s office and showed them actual footage that officers had recorded to demonstrate why these cameras would be useful. Without their support, implementing the program would have been a challenge. Communication and developing those partnerships is critical.” “My opinion is that body-worn cameras can undermine informationwill help with community relationships. They will show when officers are doing a good job and help us correct when they aren’t. This is good for the community.” — Lieutenant Xxx Xxxx, Aurora (Colorado) Police Department “I think it’s absolutely critical that we talk to the public about [body-gathering effortsworn cameras]. We need to bring them on board and have them understand what this is about and go through the advantages and disadvantages and the issues.” – Xxx Xxxxx Xxxx, Chief Constable, Greater Manchester (UK) Police There are also indications that the public is more accepting of body- worn cameras if agencies are transparent about their camera policies and practices. Some agencies post their camera policies on their websites. In addition, some agencies, such as the Oakland Police Department, have proactively posted body-worn camera footage on their websites to demonstrate transparency and to help resolve questions surrounding controversial incidents. In Phoenix, the police department released to the media body-worn camera footage from an officer who was fired for misconduct. Assistant Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxx of Phoenix explained that the police union requested the release to demonstrate transparency. “We have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know It is important that they agencies are being videotapedopen and transparent with the community,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx XxxxxxDeputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx. However“If we only show the good and hide the bad, other police executives said it will xxxxxx distrust of the police.” Protecting intelligence-gathering efforts In addition to engaging the public to mitigate concerns, some agencies have adopted recording policies that these types of situations are rare and seek to minimize the potential damage 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 nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 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 encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, 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 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Rialto, California. “We have not seen any evidence of that. People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but it does not seem to bother them.” In fact, in its evaluation of its body-worn camera program, the Rialto Police Department found that officers made 3,178 more contacts with the public (not counting calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year.11 Some police executives reported that body-worn cameras have actually improved certain aspects of their police-community relationships. These executives agencies limit body-worn camera recordings to calls for service and law enforcement-related contacts, rather than recording every encounter with the public, so that officers do not feel compelled to record the kinds of casual conversations that are central to building informal relationships within the community. Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka said that the presence of cameras leads to better behavior by both the this approach has worked well. “I recently witnessed a community policing officer and the person being recordedhaving a casual conversation with two citizens,” he said. “The cameras help defuse some officer was wearing a camera, but it was not running at the time. The camera was clearly visible, but it did not create a problem.” Chief Xxxxxx of the tensions that might come up during encounters Greensboro said, “From a community policing aspect, it does not make sense to record every single interaction with the public. I think that 98 percent of If an officer sees someone on the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement street and just wants to talk about what is going on in the quality of their encounters with neighborhood, it is easier to have that conversation if the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improvecamera is not running.”

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned exampleagainst the officer, the police department reviewed footage from the incident along with video from prior shifts. Upon finding repeated instances of verbal abuse, profanity, and threats against members of the public, the department terminated the officer. “It clearly shocked the conscience when you saw all of the different incidents,” said Assistant Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxx of Phoenix. In Daytona Beach, Chief Xxxxxxxx requested that people will the officers with a history of complaints be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going among the first 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 outfitted with body-worn cameras. Although he found that usually the videos demonstrated that “the majority of the officers are hardworking, I really think good police,” he has also seen how body-worn cameras can help an agency address discipline problems. Xxxxxxxx said: We had an officer who had several questionable incidents in the past, so we outfitted him with a camera. Right in the middle of an encounter with a subject, the camera goes blank, and then it comes back on when the incident is over. He said that all the camera malfunctioned, so we gave him another one. A week later he goes to arrest a woman, and again, the camera goes blank just before the encounter. He claimed again that the camera had malfunctioned. So we conducted a forensic review of us need the camera, which determined that the officer had 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. Body-worn cameras can also help law enforcement officials to stop address wide-reaching structural problems within the department. Many police officials that PERF consulted said that body-worn cameras have allowed them to identify potential weaknesses within their agencies and consider some to develop solutions for improvement, such as offering new training programs or revising their departmental policies and protocols. In Phoenix, an officer was fired after his body-worn camera captured repeated incidents of these larger unanswered questionsunprofessional conduct. We need For example, Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx of San Diego said that one reason his department is implementing body-worn cameras is to look at not only improve its understanding of incidents involving claims of racial profiling. “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 account of an encounter, cameras provide an objective record of whether the cameras reduce complaints but also how they relate to witnesses on the street coming forwardracial profiling took place, what they mean for trust and patterns of officer credibilitybehavior are present, and what messages they send to how often the publicproblem occurs.” – Police agencies have also found that implementing a body-worn camera program can be useful when facing consent decrees and external investigations. Xxx Xxxxxx, Detective deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Baltimore Police Department and President of Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police the president of the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of PoliceJustice, said, “Trust builds through relationships, and body-worn cameras start We want to get police departments out from a position of mistrustunder consent decrees as soon as possible. The comments I hear from some officers are, ‘I’m worried What is important is whether you can show 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 your officers are not allowed engaged in constitutional policing on a regular basis. Although it isn’t an official Department of Justice policy, 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 Civil Rights Division believes that body-worn cameras can undermine information-gathering efforts. “We be useful for doing that.” Many police departments that have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know that they faced external investigations, including those in New Orleans and Detroit, are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx Xxxxxx. However, other police executives said that these types in various stages of situations are rare testing 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 nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 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 encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted implementing body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief . Police executives in these cities said that cameras help them to demonstrate they are improving policies and practices within their agencies. Police Superintendent Xxx Xxxxxx of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx New Orleans, whose department is in the process of Fort Xxxxxxx, Coloradodeploying more than 400 body-worn cameras, 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 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Rialto, California. “We have not seen any evidence of that. People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but it does not seem to bother them.” In fact, in its evaluation of its body-worn camera program, the Rialto Police Department found that officers made 3,178 more contacts with the public (not counting calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year.11 Some police executives reported that bodyBody-worn cameras have actually improved certain aspects of their police-community relationshipswill be good for us. These executives said The hardworking officers say, ‘Chief, just give us a chance to show everyone that we are not like the presence of cameras leads to better behavior by both people who went astray after Hurricane Xxxxxxx.’ The one thing that New Orleans police officers want more than anything else is the officer and the person being recorded. “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions independent verification that might come up during encounters with the public. I think that 98 percent of the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improve.”they are doing what they’re

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned examplesimilar in terms of age, race, and other characteristics. The study, which was conducted by Arizona State University, found that people will be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going to be recordedduring the first eight months of deployment, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods where residents might be subject to retaliation if they are seen the officers without the cameras had almost three times as cooperating with police. Detective Xxx Xxxxxx of many complaints as the Baltimore Police Department, officers who is also “Before we make a decision on where to go with bodywore the cameras.4 The study 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 camera results 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 ▪ Nearly 3x more complaints against officers without cameras, eight months after camera deployment ▪ 40 percent fewer total complaints for officers with cameras during pilot program ▪ 75 percent fewer use of force complaints for officers with cameras during pilot program also found that the officers assigned body-worn cameras can undermine informationhad 40 percent fewer total complaints and 75 percent fewer use of force complaints during the pilot program than they did during the prior year when they were not wearing cameras.5 Police executives interviewed by PERF overwhelmingly report that their agencies experienced a noticeable drop in complaints against officers after deploying body-gathering effortsworn cameras. “We have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know There’s absolutely no doubt that they are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx Xxxxxx. However, other police executives said that these types of situations are rare and that having body-worn cameras have not had a significant impact on their ability to gather information from reduces the public. For some agencies, public reaction to the cameras has been practically nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx number 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 encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, 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 relationshipscomplaints against officers,” said Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx of RialtoTopeka, CaliforniaKansas. One explanation for this is that the mere presence of a camera can lead to more civil interactions between officers and the public. “We have not seen any evidence actually encourage our officers to let people know that they are recording,” said Chief of thatPolice Xxx Xxxxxx of Greensboro, North Carolina. People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but “Why? Because we think that it does not seem to bother themelevates behavior on both sides of the camera.” In factLieutenant Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, in its evaluation of its who oversaw the body-worn camera programprogram in Mesa, agrees: “Anytime you know you’re being recorded, it’s going to have an impact on your behavior. When our officers 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 officers. Chief Superintendent Xxxxxx of New South Wales said, “After testing out body-worn cameras, the Rialto overwhelming response from “In the testing we did [of body-worn cameras], we had a number of tenured officers who wanted to wear the cameras and try them out, and their feedback was very positive. They said things like, ‘You’ll be amazed at how people stop acting badly when you say this is a camera, even if they’re intoxicated.’ And we also know that the overwhelming majority of our officers are out there doing a very good job, and the cameras will show just that.” – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers was that the cameras increased their professionalism because they knew that everything they said and did was being recorded.” Many agencies have found that having video footage of an encounter also discourages people from filing unfounded complaints against officers. “We’ve actually had citizens come into the department to file a complaint, but after we show them the video, they literally turn and walk back out,” said Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka. Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of Surprise, Arizona, reports a similar experience. “Recently we received an allegation that an officer engaged in racial profiling during a traffic stop. The officer was wearing his body-worn camera, and the footage showed that the allegation was completely unfounded,” Xxxxxxx said. “After reviewing the tape, the complainants admitted that they have never been treated unfavorably by any officers made 3,178 more contacts with in my department.” As several police officials noted, preventing unfounded complaints can save departments the public (not counting calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year.11 Some significant amounts of time and money spent on lengthy investigations and lawsuits. When questions arise following an encounter, police executives reported said that having a video record of events helps lead to a quicker resolution. According to the results of XXXX’s exploratory survey, the number one reason why police departments choose to implement body-worn cameras have actually improved certain aspects is to provide a more accurate documentation of their police-community relationships. These executives said that the presence of cameras leads to better behavior by both the officer and the person being recorded. “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions that might come up during police encounters with the public. I think Police executives report that 98 percent of when questions arise following an encounter or a major event such as an officer-involved shooting, having video from a body-worn camera can help resolve the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improvequestions.”

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 nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 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 encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, 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 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Rialto, California. “We have not seen any evidence of that. People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but it does not seem to bother them.” In fact, in its evaluation of its body-worn camera program, the Rialto Police Department found that officers made 3,178 more contacts with the public (not counting calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year.11 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 officer and the person being recorded. “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions that might come up during encounters with the public. I think that 98 e8 percent of the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improve.”

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 policepolice . 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 mistrustmistrust . 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 streetstreet . 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 cameracamera . Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxx of Oakland, California, explained, “Our policy is to film all detentions and to keep recording until the encounter is overover . But let’s say an officer detains someone, and now that person wants to give up informationinformation . We are finding that people are not inclined to do so with the camera runningrunning . We are considering changing our policy to allow officers to turn off the camera in those situationssituations .” The Mesa (Arizona) Police Department has also found that body-worn cameras can undermine information-gathering effortsefforts . “We have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know that they are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx XxxxxxXxxxxx . 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 publicpublic . For some agencies, public reaction to the cameras has been practically nonexistentnonexistent . Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 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 recordedrecorded . We encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted body-worn camerascameras .” Deputy Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, Colorado, said, “We are not seeing much pushback from the communitycommunity . Often people do not even notice the presence of the camerascameras .” “I disagree that cameras hurt community relationships,” said Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Rialto, CaliforniaCalifornia . “We have not seen any evidence of thatthat . People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but it does not seem to bother themthem .” In fact, in its evaluation of its body-worn camera program, the Rialto Police Department found that officers made 3,178 more contacts with the public (not counting calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year.11 year .11 Some police executives reported that body-worn cameras have actually improved certain aspects of their police-community relationshipsrelationships . These executives said that the presence of cameras leads to better behavior by both the officer and the person being recordedrecorded . “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions that might come up during encounters with the publicpublic . I think that 98 percent of the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona BeachBeach . Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the publicpublic . With both sides behaving better, community relations will improveimprove .”

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned examplesimilar in terms of age, race, and other characteristics . The study, which was conducted by Arizona State University, found that people will be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going to be recordedduring the first eight months of deployment, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods where residents might be subject to retaliation if they are seen the officers without the cameras had almost three times as cooperating with police. Detective Xxx Xxxxxx of many complaints as the Baltimore Police Department, officers who is also “Before we make a decision on where to go with bodywore the cameras .4 The study 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 camera results 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 ƒ Nearly 3x more complaints against officers without cameras, eight months after camera deployment ƒ 40 percent fewer total complaints for officers with cameras during pilot program ƒ 75 percent fewer use of force complaints for officers with cameras during pilot program also found that the officers assigned body-worn cameras can undermine information-gathering efforts. “We have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information had 40 percent fewer total complaints and 75 percent fewer use of force complaints during the pilot program than they did during the prior year when they know were not wearing cameras .5 Police executives interviewed by PERF overwhelmingly report that they are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx Xxxxxx. However, other police executives said that these types of situations are rare and that their agencies experienced a noticeable drop in complaints against officers after deploying 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 nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 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 There’s absolutely no doubt that they will be recorded. We encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted having body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief cameras reduces the number of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, 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 relationshipscomplaints against officers,” said Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx of RialtoTopeka, CaliforniaKansas . One explanation for this is that the mere presence of a camera can lead to more civil interactions between officers and the public . “We have not seen any evidence actually encourage our officers to let people know that they are recording,” said Chief of thatPolice Xxx Xxxxxx of Greensboro, North Carolina . People will ask officers if they have a “Why? Because we think that it elevates behavior on both sides of the camera on, but it does not seem to bother them.” In factLieutenant Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, in its evaluation of its who oversaw the body-worn camera programprogram in Mesa, agrees: “Anytime you know you’re being recorded, it’s going to have an impact on your behavior . When our officers 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 officers . Chief Superintendent Xxxxxx of New South Wales said, “After testing out body-worn cameras, the Rialto overwhelming response from “In the testing we did [of body-worn cameras], we had a number of tenured officers who wanted to wear the cameras and try them out, and their feedback was very positive. They said things like, ‘You’ll be amazed at how people stop acting badly when you say this is a camera, even if they’re intoxicated.’ And we also know that the overwhelming majority of our officers are out there doing a very good job, and the cameras will show just that.” – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers was that the cameras increased their professionalism because they knew that everything they said and did was being recorded .” Many agencies have found that having video footage of an encounter also discourages people from filing unfounded complaints against officers made 3,178 more contacts with . “We’ve actually had citizens come into the public (not counting calls for service) department to file a complaint, but after we show them the video, they literally turn and walk back out,” said Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka . Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of Surprise, Arizona, reports a similar experience . “Recently we received an allegation that an officer engaged in racial profiling during a traffic stop . The officer was wearing his body-worn camera, and the year footage showed that cameras were deployed than the allegation was completely unfounded,” Xxxxxxx said . “After reviewing the tape, the complainants admitted that they have never been treated unfavorably by any officers in my department .” As several police officials noted, preventing unfounded complaints can save departments the prior year.11 Some significant amounts of time and money spent on lengthy investigations and lawsuits . When questions arise following an encounter, police executives reported said that having a video record of events helps lead to a quicker resolution . According to the results of XXXX’s exploratory survey, the number one reason why police departments choose to implement body-worn cameras have actually improved certain aspects is to provide a more accurate documentation of their police-community relationships. These executives said that the presence of cameras leads to better behavior by both the officer and the person being recorded. “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions that might come up during police encounters with the publicpublic . I think Police executives report that 98 percent of when questions arise following an encounter or a major event such as an officer-involved shooting, having video from a body-worn camera can help resolve the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improvequestions .”

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned 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 to be thoughtful and to show initiative . For example, a survey of officers conducted in Vacaville, California, found that people will be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going to be recorded, particularly although 70 percent of officers were in high-crime neighborhoods where residents might be subject to retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with police. Detective Xxx Xxxxxx favor of the Baltimore Police Department, who is also “Before we make a decision on where to go with using body-worn cameras, a majority were opposed to a policy containing strict requirements of “In a sensitive investigation, such as a rape or child abuse case, if you have a victim who doesn’t want to be recorded, I really think you have to take that into account. I think that you cannot just arbitrarily film every encounter. There are times when you’ve got to give your officers some discretion to turn the camera off. Of course, the officers should be required to articulate why they’re not recording or why they’re shutting it off, but we have to give them that discretion.” – Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department “Legitimacy in policing is built on trust. And the notion of video-recording every interac- tion in a very tense situation would simply not be a practical operational way of deliv- ering policing. In fact, it would exacerbate all sorts of us need problems. In the United Kingdom, we’re also subject to stop human rights legisla- tion, laws on right to privacy, right to family life, and consider some I’m sure you have similar statutes. It’s far more complicated than a blanket policy of these larger unanswered questions‘every interaction is filmed.’ I think that’s far too simplistic. We need have to look at give our officers some discretion. We cannot only whether the cameras reduce complaints but also how they relate have a policy that limits discretion of officers to witnesses a point where using these devices has a negative effect on the street coming forward, what they mean for trust and officer credibility, and what messages they send to the publiccommunity-police relations.” – Xxx XxxxxxXxxx Xxxx, Detective President, Association of Baltimore Chief Police Department 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 President 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 . Consent to record In a handful of Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police states, officers are legally required to inform subjects when they are recording and to obtain the president of the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police, said, person’s consent to record . This is known as a “Trust builds through relationshipstwo-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 start from a position of mistrust.8 Efforts are under way to change two-party consent statutes in other jurisdictions as well . The comments I hear from some officers are, ‘I’m worried that if I wear a camera, it is going Each department must research its state laws to make it hard to continue determine whether the relationship I have with a business owner or the lady down the streettwo-party consent requirement applies . These are the people I’m working with now to clean up the neighborhood.’” Some police executives reported believe that deploying body-worn cameras has in fact had a negative impact on their intelligence-gathering activitiesit is good practice for officers to inform people when they are recording, particularly when even if such disclosures are not required by law . In Greensboro, for example, officers are encouraged— but not allowed the discretion required—to turn off the cameraannounce when they are recording . Chief Xxxxxx of Police Xxxx Xxxxx of Oakland, California, explained, “Our Greensboro said this policy is to film based on the belief that the knowledge that cameras are running can help defuse potentially confrontational situations and improve behavior from all detentions and to keep recording until the encounter is overparties . But let’s say an officer detains someoneHowever, and now that person wants to give up information. We are finding that people are many police executives in one-party consent states do not inclined to do so with the camera running. We are considering changing our policy to allow explicitly instruct 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 inform people being more reluctant to give information when they know that they are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx Xxxxxxrecording . However“Kansas is a one-party consent state, other police executives said so only the officer needs to know that these types of situations are rare and that body-worn cameras have not had the camera is running . But if a significant impact on their ability to gather information from person asks, the public. For some agencies, public reaction to officer tells them the cameras has been practically nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 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 encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, 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 relationshipstruth,” said Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx of RialtoTopeka, California. “We have not seen any evidence of that. People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but it does not seem to bother themKansas .” In fact, in its evaluation of its body-worn camera program, the Rialto Police Department found that officers made 3,178 more contacts with the public (not counting calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year.11 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 officer and the person being recorded. “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions that might come up during encounters with the public. I think that 98 percent of the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improve.”

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 Learned‌ The Los Angeles Police Department, who which is also “Before we make a decision on where to go with in the process of testing body-worn cameras, I really think that all of us need plans 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 mistrustsolicit public feedback when developing its camera policies . 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 Greensboro (ArizonaNorth Carolina) Police Department has 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 found important for agencies to engage local policymakers and other stakeholders . “Police departments cannot do this alone,” he said . “We went to the mayor, the city council, and the state’s attorney’s office and showed them actual footage that officers had recorded to demonstrate why these cameras would be useful . Without their support, implementing the program would have been a challenge . Communication and developing those partnerships is critical .” “My opinion is that body-worn cameras can undermine informationwill help with community relationships. They will show when officers are doing a good job and help us correct when they aren’t. This is good for the community.” — Lieutenant Xxx Xxxx, Aurora (Colorado) Police Department “I think it’s absolutely critical that we talk to the public about [body-gathering effortsworn cameras]. We need to bring them on board and have them understand what this is about and go through the advantages and disadvantages and the issues.” – Xxx Xxxxx Xxxx, Chief Constable, Greater Manchester (UK) Police There are also indications that the public is more accepting of body- worn cameras if agencies are transparent about their camera policies and practices . Some agencies post their camera policies on their websites . In addition, some agencies, such as the Oakland Police Department, have proactively posted body-worn camera footage on their websites to demonstrate transparency and to help resolve questions surrounding controversial incidents . In Phoenix, the police department released to the media body-worn camera footage from an officer who was fired for misconduct . Assistant Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxx of Phoenix explained that the police union requested the release to demonstrate transparency . “We have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know It is important that they agencies are being videotapedopen and transparent with the community,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx XxxxxxDeputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx . However“If we only show the good and hide the bad, other it will xxxxxx distrust of the police executives said .” Protecting intelligence-gathering efforts In addition to engaging the public to mitigate concerns, some agencies have adopted recording policies that these types of situations are rare and seek to minimize the potential damage that body-worn cameras have not had a significant impact on their ability to gather information from the publicpolice-community relationships . For some agencies, public reaction to the cameras has been practically nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 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 encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, 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 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Rialto, California. “We have not seen any evidence of that. People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but it does not seem to bother them.” In fact, in its evaluation of its These agencies limit body-worn camera programrecordings to calls for service and law enforcement-related contacts, rather than recording every encounter with the Rialto Police Department found public, so that officers made 3,178 more contacts do not feel compelled to record the kinds of casual conversations that are central to building informal relationships within the community . Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka said that this approach has worked well . “I recently witnessed a community policing officer having a casual conversation with two citizens,” he said . “The officer was wearing a camera, but it was not running at the time . The camera was clearly visible, but it did not create a problem .” Chief Xxxxxx of Greensboro said, “From a community policing aspect, it does not make sense to record every single interaction with the public (not counting calls for service) during . If an officer sees someone on the year that cameras were deployed than street and just wants to talk about what is going on in the prior year.11 Some police executives reported neighborhood, it is easier to have that body-worn cameras have actually improved certain aspects of their police-community relationships. These executives said that conversation if the presence of cameras leads to better behavior by both the officer and the person being recorded. “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions that might come up during encounters with the public. I think that 98 percent of the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improvecamera is not running .”

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned exampleagainst the officer, the police department reviewed footage from the incident along with video from prior shifts . Upon finding repeated instances of verbal abuse, profanity, and threats against members of the public, the department terminated the officer . “It clearly shocked the conscience when you saw all of the different incidents,” said Assistant Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxx of Phoenix . In Daytona Beach, Chief Xxxxxxxx requested that people will the officers with a history of complaints be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going among the first 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 outfitted with body-worn camerascameras . Although he found that usually the videos demonstrated that “the majority of the officers are hardworking, I really think good police,” he has also seen how body-worn cameras can help an agency address discipline problems . Xxxxxxxx said: We had an officer who had several questionable incidents in the past, so we outfitted him with a camera . Right in the middle of an encounter with a subject, the camera goes blank, and then it comes back on when the incident is over . He said that all the camera malfunctioned, so we gave him another one . A week later he goes to arrest a woman, and again, the camera goes blank just before the encounter . He claimed again that the camera had malfunctioned . So we conducted a forensic review of us need the camera, which determined that the officer had 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 . Body-worn cameras can also help law enforcement officials to stop address wide-reaching structural problems within the department . Many police officials that PERF consulted said that body-worn cameras have allowed them to identify potential weaknesses within their agencies and consider some to develop solutions for improvement, such as offering new training programs or revising their departmental policies and protocols . In Phoenix, an officer was fired after his body-worn camera captured repeated incidents of these larger unanswered questionsunprofessional conduct. We need For example, Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx of San Diego said that one reason his department is implementing body-worn cameras is to look at not only improve its understanding of incidents involving claims of racial profiling . “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 account of an encounter, cameras provide an objective record of whether the cameras reduce complaints but also how they relate to witnesses on the street coming forwardracial profiling took place, what they mean for trust and patterns of officer credibilitybehavior are present, and what messages they send to how often the publicproblem occurs .” – Police agencies have also found that implementing a body-worn camera program can be useful when facing consent decrees and external investigations . Xxx Xxxxxx, Detective deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division at the U .S . Department of Baltimore Police Department and President of Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police the president of the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of PoliceJustice, said, “Trust builds through relationships, and body-worn cameras start We want to get police departments out from a position of mistrustunder consent decrees as soon as possible . The comments I hear from some officers are, ‘I’m worried What is important is whether you can show 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 your officers are not allowed engaged in constitutional policing on a regular basis . Although it isn’t an official Department of Justice policy, 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 Civil Rights Division believes that body-worn cameras can undermine information-gathering efforts. “We be useful for doing that .” Many police departments that have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know that they faced external investigations, including those in New Orleans and Detroit, are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Xxxxxx Xxxxxx. However, other police executives said that these types in various stages of situations are rare testing and that implementing body-worn cameras have not had a significant impact on . Police executives in these cities said that cameras help them to demonstrate they are improving policies and practices within their ability to gather information from the publicagencies . For some agencies, public reaction to the cameras has been practically nonexistent. Major Xxxxxxx Police Superintendent Xxx Xxxxxx of New Orleans, whose department is in 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 encountered very little resistance from the public when we piloted process of deploying more than 400 body-worn cameras.” Deputy Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx, 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 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Rialto, California. “We have not seen any evidence of that. People will ask officers if they have a camera on, but it does not seem to bother them.” In fact, in its evaluation of its body-worn camera program, the Rialto Police Department found that officers made 3,178 more contacts with the public (not counting calls for service) during the year that cameras were deployed than in the prior year.11 Some police executives reported that bodyBody-worn cameras have actually improved certain aspects of their police-community relationshipswill be good for us . These executives said The hardworking officers say, ‘Chief, just give us a chance to show everyone that we are not like the presence of cameras leads to better behavior by both people who went astray after Hurricane Xxxxxxx.’ The one thing that New Orleans police officers want more than anything else is the officer and the person being recorded. “The cameras help defuse some of the tensions independent verification that might come up during encounters with the public. I think that 98 percent of the time, cameras help improve relationships with the community,” said Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach. Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx agreed: “Officers wearing cameras have reported a noticeable improvement in the quality of their encounters with the public. With both sides behaving better, community relations will improve.”they are doing what they’re