Common use of Body-Worn Camera Program Clause in Contracts

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ Even as police departments are increasingly adopting body-worn cameras, many questions about this technology have yet to be answered. In an effort to address these questions and produce policy guidance to law enforcement agencies, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), conducted research in 2013 on the use of body-worn cameras. This research project consisted of three major components: an informal survey of 500 law enforcement agencies nationwide; interviews with police executives; and a conference in which police chiefs and other experts from across the country gathered to discuss the use of body-worn cameras. First, PERF distributed surveys to 500 police departments nationwide in July 2013. The exploratory survey was designed to examine the nationwide usage of body-worn cameras and to identify the primary issues that need to be considered. Questions covered topics such as recording requirements; whether certain officers are required to wear body-worn cameras; camera placement on the body; and data collection, storage, and review. PERF received responses from 254 departments (a 51 percent response rate). Although the use of body-worn cameras is undoubtedly a growing trend, over 75 percent of the respondents reported that they did not use body-worn cameras as of July 2013. Of the 63 agencies that reported using body-worn cameras, nearly – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Chief of Police, Tucson (Arizona) Police Department one-third did not have a written policy governing body-worn camera usage. Many police executives reported that their hesitance to implement a written policy was due to a lack of guidance on what the policies should include, which highlights the need for a set of standards and best practices regarding body-worn cameras. Second, PERF staff members interviewed more than 40 police executives whose departments have implemented—or have considered implementing—body-worn cameras. As part of this process, PERF also reviewed written policies on body-worn cameras that were shared by departments across the country. Last, PERF convened a one-day conference of more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, representatives from federal criminal justice agencies, and other experts to discuss the policy and operational issues surrounding body-worn cameras. The conference, held in Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2013, gave participants the opportunity to share the lessons they have learned, to identify promising practices from the field, and to engage in a dialogue about the many unresolved issues regarding the use of body-worn cameras. Drawing upon feedback from the conference, the survey results, and information gathered from the interviews and policy reviews, PERF created this publication to provide law enforcement agencies with guidance on the use of body-worn cameras. The first chapter discusses the perceived benefits of deploying body-worn cameras, particularly how law enforcement agencies have used the cameras to resolve complaints and prevent spurious complaints, to enhance transparency and officer accountability, to identify and address structural problems within the department, and to provide an important new type of evidence for criminal and internal administrative investigations.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ Even as police departments are increasingly adopting The Los Angeles Police Department, which is in the process of testing body-worn cameras, many questions plans to solicit public feedback when developing its camera policies. The Greensboro (North Carolina) Police Department partnered with the Greensboro Police Foundation, which launched a “Put Cameras on Cops” public information campaign that included posting billboards and reaching out to the community. Chief Lanpher of Aberdeen said that it is also important for agencies to engage local policymakers 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.” — Lieutenant Xxx Xxxx, Aurora (Colorado) Police Department – 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 this technology have yet to be answeredtheir camera policies and practices. Some agencies post their camera policies on their websites. In an effort to address these questions and produce policy guidance to law enforcement addition, some agencies, such as the Oakland Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)Department, 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 have proactively posted body-worn camerascamera footage on their websites to demonstrate transparency and to help resolve questions surrounding controversial incidents. This research project consisted of three major components: an informal survey of 500 law enforcement agencies nationwide; interviews with In Phoenix, the police executives; and a conference in which police chiefs and other experts from across department released to the country gathered to discuss the use of media body-worn camerascamera footage from an officer who was fired for misconduct. FirstAssistant Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxx of Phoenix explained that the police union requested the release to demonstrate transparency. “It is important that agencies are open and transparent with the community,” said Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx. “If we only show the good and hide the bad, PERF distributed surveys it will xxxxxx distrust of the police.” In addition to 500 police departments nationwide in July 2013. The exploratory survey was designed engaging the public to examine mitigate concerns, some agencies have adopted recording policies that seek to minimize the nationwide usage of potential damage that body-worn cameras and to identify the primary issues that need to be consideredhave on police-community relationships. 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 These agencies that reported using body-worn cameras, nearly – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Chief of Police, Tucson (Arizona) Police Department one-third did not have a written policy governing limit body-worn camera usagerecordings 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. Many police executives reported Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka said that their hesitance to implement this approach has worked well. “I recently witnessed a written policy community policing officer having a casual conversation with two citizens,” he said. “The officer was due to wearing a lack of guidance on what camera, but it was not running at the policies should include, which highlights the need for a set of standards and best practices regarding body-worn cameras. Second, PERF staff members interviewed more than 40 police executives whose departments have implemented—or have considered implementing—body-worn cameras. As part of this process, PERF also reviewed written policies on body-worn cameras that were shared by departments across the country. Last, PERF convened a one-day conference of more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, representatives from federal criminal justice agencies, and other experts to discuss the policy and operational issues surrounding body-worn camerastime. The conferencecamera was clearly visible, held in Washingtonbut it did not create a problem.” Chief Xxxxxx of Greensboro said, D.C.“From a community policing aspect, on September 11, 2013, gave participants it does not make sense to record every single interaction with the opportunity to share the lessons they have learned, to identify promising practices from the field, and to engage in a dialogue about the many unresolved issues regarding the use of body-worn cameraspublic. Drawing upon feedback from the conference, the survey results, and information gathered from the interviews and policy reviews, PERF created this publication to provide law enforcement agencies with guidance If an officer sees someone on the use of body-worn cameras. The first chapter discusses street and just wants to talk about what is going on in the perceived benefits of deploying body-worn camerasneighborhood, particularly how law enforcement agencies it is easier to have used that conversation if the cameras to resolve complaints and prevent spurious complaints, to enhance transparency and officer accountability, to identify and address structural problems within the department, and to provide an important new type of evidence for criminal and internal administrative investigationscamera is not running.”

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ Even Learned offers practical guidance as police departments are increasingly adopting well as a comprehensive look at the issues that body-worn camerascameras raise. I hope you find that the wide range of perspectives, many questions approaches, and strategies presented in this publication are useful, whether you are developing your own body-worn camera program or simply wish to learn more about this technology have yet the topic. The goal of the COPS Office and PERF is to be answered. In an effort to address these questions and produce policy guidance to ensure that law enforcement agenciesagencies have the best information possible as they explore this new technology; therefore, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)we encourage you to share this publication, as well as your own experiences, with support from other law enforcement practitioners. Sincerely, Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, Director Office of Community Oriented Policing Services P Acknowledgments‌ ERF would like to thank the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), conducted ) for supporting this research in 2013 on the use of into body-worn cameras. This research project consisted of three major components: an informal survey of 500 We are thankful to COPS Office Director Xxxxxx Xxxxx and Principal Deputy Director Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx for recognizing the increasingly important role this technology plays for law enforcement agencies nationwide; interviews with police executives; and a conference in which police chiefs and other experts from across the country gathered globe. We are also grateful to discuss our program managers at the use of body-COPS Office, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx XxXxxx, for their support and encouragement throughout the project. We would also like to thank the law enforcement agencies that participated in our survey on body- worn cameras. FirstTheir thoughtful responses guided our research and the agenda for the executive session in Washington, PERF distributed surveys to 500 police departments nationwide D.C., in July September 2013. The exploratory survey was designed We are also grateful to examine the nationwide usage of body-worn cameras and to identify the primary issues that need to be considered. Questions covered topics such as recording requirements; whether certain officers are required to wear body-worn cameras; camera placement on the body; and data collection, storage, and review. PERF received responses from 254 departments (a 51 percent response rate). Although the use of body-worn cameras is undoubtedly a growing trend, over 75 percent of the respondents reported that they did not use body-worn cameras as of July 2013. Of the 63 agencies that reported using body-worn cameras, nearly – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Chief of Police, Tucson (Arizona) Police Department one-third did not have a written policy governing body-worn camera usage. Many police executives reported that their hesitance to implement a written policy was due to a lack of guidance on what the policies should include, which highlights the need for a set of standards and best practices regarding body-worn cameras. Second, PERF staff members interviewed more than 40 police executives whose departments have implemented—or have considered implementing—body-worn cameras. As part of this process, PERF also reviewed written policies on body-worn cameras that were shared by departments across the country. Last, PERF convened a one-day conference of more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, representatives from federal criminal justice agenciesand other professionals who participated in our executive session (see appendix B for a list of participants). These leaders provided valuable information about their experiences with body-worn cameras and prompted an insightful discussion regarding the issues these cameras raise. We are especially thankful for the more than 40 police executives who shared their body- worn camera policies with PERF and who participated in interviews with PERF staff. Their candid assessments of how this technology has impacted their agencies shaped the findings and recommendations found in this publication. Finally, credit is due to PERF staff members who conducted the survey, prepared for and hosted the executive session, conducted interviews, and helped write and edit this publication, including Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxx, and Xxxxx Xxxxxxx. Introduction‌‌ O ver the past decade, advances in the technologies used by law enforcement agencies have been accelerating at an extremely rapid pace. Many police executives are making decisions about whether to acquire technologies that did not exist when they began their careers—technologies like automated license plate readers, gunshot detection systems, facial recognition software, predictive analytics systems, communications systems that bring data to officers’ laptops or handheld devices, GPS applications, and social media to investigate crimes and communicate with the public. For many police executives, the biggest challenge is not deciding whether to adopt one particular technology but rather finding the right mix of technologies for a given jurisdiction based on its crime problems, funding levels, and other experts to discuss factors. Finding the policy and operational issues surrounding best mix of technologies, however, must begin with a thorough understanding of each type of technology. Police leaders who have deployed body-worn camerascameras1 say there are many benefits associated with the devices. They note that body-worn cameras are useful for documenting evidence; officer training; preventing and resolving complaints brought by members of the public; and strengthening police transparency, performance, and accountability. In addition, given that police now operate in a world in which anyone with a cell phone camera can record – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Police Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department video footage of a police encounter, body-worn cameras help police departments ensure events are also captured from an officer’s perspective. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said at the September 2013 conference: The average interaction between an officer and a citizen in an urban area is already recorded in multiple ways. The conferencecitizen may record it on his phone. If there is some conflict happening, held in Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2013, gave participants one or more witnesses may record it. Often there are fixed security cameras nearby that capture the opportunity interaction. So the thing that makes the most sense—if you really want accountability both for your officers and for the people they interact with—is to share the lessons they also have learned, to identify promising practices video from the field, and to engage in a dialogue about the many unresolved issues regarding the officer’s perspective. The use of body-worn camerascameras also raises important questions about privacy and trust. Drawing upon feedback from What are the conferenceprivacy issues associated with recording victims of crime? How can officers maintain positive community relationships if they are ordered to record almost every type of interaction with the public? Will members of the public find it off-putting to be told by an officer, “I am recording this encounter,” particularly if the survey results, and information gathered from the interviews and policy reviews, PERF created this publication to provide law enforcement agencies with guidance on the use of encounter is a casual one? Do body-worn cameras. The first chapter discusses cameras also undermine the perceived benefits trust between officers and their superiors within the police department? In addition to these overarching issues, police leaders must also consider many practical policy issues, including the significant financial costs of deploying cameras and storing recorded data, training requirements, and rules and systems that must be adopted to ensure that body-worn camera video cannot be accessed for improper reasons. 1. Body-worn cameras are small video cameras—typically attached to an officer’s clothing, particularly how law enforcement agencies have used the cameras to resolve complaints helmet, or sunglasses—that can capture, from an officer’s point of view, video and prevent spurious complaintsaudio recordings of activities, to enhance transparency and officer accountabilityincluding traffic stops, to identify and address structural problems within the departmentarrests, searches, interrogations, and to provide an important new type of evidence for criminal and internal administrative investigationscritical incidents such as officer-involved shootings.