Common use of Body-Worn Camera Program Clause in Contracts

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned a certain amount of discretion concerning when to turn their cameras on or off. This discretion is important because it recognizes that officers are professionals and because it allows flexibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic “bright line” rule is impossible. For example, an officer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be recorded. By using discretion, the officer can reach the best solution in balancing the evidentiary value of a recorded statement with the witness’s reluctance to be recorded. The decision may hinge on the importance of what the witness is willing to say. Or perhaps the witness will agree to be recorded by audio but not video, so the officer can simply point the camera away from the witness. Or perhaps the witness will be willing to be recorded later, in a more private setting. By giving officers some discretion, they can balance the conflicting values. Without this discretion, body-worn cameras have the potential to damage important relationships that officers have built with members of the community. This discretion should not be limitless; instead, it should be guided by carefully crafted policies that set specific parameters for when officers may use discretion. If police departments deploy body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of officers to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably find themselves caught in difficult public battles that will undermine public trust in the police rather than increasing community support for the police. This publication is intended to serve as a guide to the thoughtful, careful considerations that police departments should undertake if they wish to adopt body-worn cameras. Sincerely, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Executive Director Police Executive Research Forum vi Letter from the COPS Office Director‌ O Dear colleagues, ne of the most important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage new technology to improve policing services. Whether using social media to engage the community, deploying new surveillance tools to identify suspects, or using data analysis to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an unprecedented pace. Body-worn cameras, which an increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting, represent one new form of technology that is significantly affecting the field of policing. Law enforcement agencies are using body-worn cameras in various ways: to improve evidence collection, to strengthen officer performance and accountability, to enhance agency transparency, to document encounters between police and the public, and to investigate and resolve complaints and officer- involved incidents. Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the public. Before agencies invest considerable time and money to deploy body-worn cameras, they must consider these and other important questions. The COPS Office was pleased to partner with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to support an extensive research project that explored the numerous policy and implementation questions surrounding body-worn cameras. In September 2013, the COPS Office and PERF hosted a conference in Washington, D.C., where more than 200 law enforcement officials, scholars, representatives from federal agencies, and other experts gathered to share their experiences with body-worn cameras. The discussions from this conference, along with interviews with more than 40 police executives and a review of existing body-worn camera policies, culminated in the recommendations set forth in this publication.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned a certain amount of discretion concerning when to turn their cameras on or off. This discretion is important because it recognizes that officers are professionals and because it allows flexibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic “bright line” rule is impossible. For example, an officer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be recorded. By using discretion, the officer can reach the best solution in balancing the evidentiary value of a recorded statement with the witness’s reluctance to be recorded. The decision may hinge on the importance of what the witness is willing to say. Or perhaps the witness will agree to be recorded by audio but not video, so the officer can simply point the camera away from the witness. Or perhaps the witness will be willing to be recorded later, in a more private setting. By giving officers some discretion, they can balance the conflicting values. Without this discretion, body-worn cameras have the potential to damage important relationships that officers have built with members of the community. This discretion should not be limitless; instead, it should be guided by carefully crafted policies that set specific parameters for when officers may use discretion. If Learned‌ Project overview Even as police departments deploy body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of officers to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably find themselves caught in difficult public battles that will undermine public trust in the police rather than increasing community support for the police. This publication is intended to serve as a guide to the thoughtful, careful considerations that police departments should undertake if they wish to adopt body-worn cameras. Sincerely, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Executive Director Police Executive Research Forum vi Letter from the COPS Office Director‌ O Dear colleagues, ne of the most important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage new technology to improve policing services. Whether using social media to engage the community, deploying new surveillance tools to identify suspects, or using data analysis to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an unprecedented pace. Body-worn cameras, which an increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting, represent one new form of technology that is significantly affecting the field of policing. Law enforcement agencies are using body-worn cameras in various ways: to improve evidence collection, to strengthen officer performance and accountability, to enhance agency transparency, to document encounters between police and the public, and to investigate and resolve complaints and officer- involved incidents. Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the public. Before agencies invest considerable time and money to deploy increasingly adopting body-worn cameras, they must consider many questions about this technology have yet to be answered. In an effort to address these questions and other important questions. The COPS Office was pleased produce policy guidance to partner with law enforcement agencies, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to ), with support an extensive 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 explored 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 numerous body; and data collection, storage, and review. PERF received responses from 254 departments (a 51 percent response rate). Although the use of body-worn cameras is undoubtedly a growing trend, over 75 percent of the respondents reported that they did not use body-worn cameras as of July 2013. Of the 63 agencies that reported using body-worn cameras, nearly “I really believe that body-worn cameras are the wave of the future for most police agen- cies. This technology is driving the expecta- tions of the public. They see this out there, and they see that other agencies that have it, and their question is, ‘Why don’t you have it?’” – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Chief of Police, Tucson (Arizona) Police Department one-third did not have a written policy governing body-worn camera usage. Many police executives reported that their hesitance to implement a written policy was due to a lack of guidance on what the policies should include, which highlights the need for a set of standards and best practices regarding body-worn cameras. Second, PERF staff members interviewed more than 40 police executives whose departments have implemented—or have considered implementing—body-worn cameras. As part of this process, PERF also reviewed written policies on body-worn cameras that were shared by departments across the 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 implementation questions operational issues surrounding body-worn cameras. In September 2013The conference, the COPS Office and PERF hosted a conference held in Washington, D.C., where more than 200 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 officials, scholars, representatives from federal agencies, and other experts gathered to share their experiences agencies with guidance on the use of body-worn cameras. The discussions from this conference, along with interviews with more than 40 police executives and a review first chapter discusses the perceived benefits of existing deploying body-worn camera policiescameras, culminated in particularly how law enforcement agencies have used the recommendations set forth in this publicationcameras 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 offers practical guidance as well as a certain amount of discretion concerning when to turn their cameras on or off. This discretion is important because it recognizes comprehensive look at the issues that officers are professionals and because it allows flexibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic “bright line” rule is impossible. For example, an officer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be recorded. By using discretion, the officer can reach the best solution in balancing the evidentiary value of a recorded statement with the witness’s reluctance to be recorded. The decision may hinge on the importance of what the witness is willing to say. Or perhaps the witness will agree to be recorded by audio but not video, so the officer can simply point the camera away from the witness. Or perhaps the witness will be willing to be recorded later, in a more private setting. By giving officers some discretion, they can balance the conflicting values. Without this discretion, body-worn cameras have raise. I hope you find that the potential to damage important relationships that officers have built with members wide range of the community. This discretion should not be limitless; insteadperspectives, it should be guided by carefully crafted policies that set specific parameters for when officers may use discretion. If police departments deploy approaches, and strategies presented in this publication are useful, whether you are developing your own body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of officers to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably find themselves caught in difficult public battles that will undermine public trust in the police rather than increasing community support for the police. This publication is intended to serve as a guide to the thoughtful, careful considerations that police departments should undertake if they camera program or simply wish to adopt learn more about the topic. The goal of the COPS Office and PERF is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the best information possible as they explore this new technology; therefore, we encourage you to share this publication, as well as your own experiences, with other law enforcement practitioners. Sincerely, 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) for supporting this research into body-worn cameras. Sincerely, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Executive Director Police Executive Research Forum vi Letter from the We are thankful to COPS Office Director‌ O Dear colleagues, ne of Director Xxxxxx Xxxxx and Principal Deputy Director Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx for recognizing the most increasingly important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage new role this technology to improve policing services. Whether using social media to engage the community, deploying new surveillance tools to identify suspects, or using data analysis to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an unprecedented pace. Body-worn cameras, which an increasing number of plays for law enforcement agencies across the globe. We are adoptingalso grateful to our program managers at the COPS Office, represent one new form of technology that is significantly affecting Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx XxXxxx, for their support and encouragement throughout the field of policingproject. Law We would also like to thank the law enforcement agencies are using body-worn cameras that participated in various ways: to improve evidence collection, to strengthen officer performance and accountability, to enhance agency transparency, to document encounters between police and the public, and to investigate and resolve complaints and officer- involved incidents. Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the public. Before agencies invest considerable time and money to deploy body-worn cameras, they must consider these and other important questions. The COPS Office was pleased to partner with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to support an extensive research project that explored the numerous policy and implementation questions surrounding body-our survey on body- worn cameras. In September 2013, Their thoughtful responses guided our research and the COPS Office and PERF hosted a conference agenda for the executive session in Washington, D.C., where in September 2013. We are also grateful to the more than 200 law enforcement officialspolice chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, representatives from federal agencies, and other experts gathered to share 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 camerascameras and prompted an insightful discussion regarding the issues these cameras raise. The discussions from this conference, along with interviews with 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 State of the field and policy analysis 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 factors. Finding the best mix of technologies, however, must begin with a thorough understanding of each type of technology. Police leaders who have deployed body-worn cameras1 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 “Because technology is advancing faster than policy, it’s important that we keep having discussions about what these new tools mean for us. We have to ask ourselves the hard questions. What do these technolo- xxxx mean for constitutional polic- ing? We have to keep debating the advantages and disadvantages. If we embrace this new technology, we have to make sure that we are using it to help us do our jobs better.” – 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 review citizen in an urban area is already recorded in multiple ways. The citizen may record it on his phone. If there is some conflict happening, one or more witnesses may record it. Often there are fixed security cameras nearby that capture the 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 also have video from the officer’s perspective. The use of existing body-worn cameras also raises important questions about privacy and trust. What are the privacy 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 encounter is a casual one? Do body-worn cameras also undermine the 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 policies, culminated in the recommendations set forth in this publicationvideo cannot be accessed for improper reasons.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned a certain amount of discretion concerning when to turn their cameras on or offoff . This discretion is important because it recognizes that officers are professionals and because it allows flexibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic “bright line” rule is impossibleimpossible . For example, an officer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be recordedrecorded . By using discretion, the officer can reach the best solution in balancing the evidentiary value of a recorded statement with the witness’s reluctance to be recordedrecorded . The decision may hinge on the importance of what the witness is willing to saysay . Or perhaps the witness will agree to be recorded by audio but not video, so the officer can simply point the camera away from the witnesswitness . Or perhaps the witness will be willing to be recorded later, in a more private settingsetting . By giving officers some discretion, they can balance the conflicting valuesvalues . Without this discretion, body-worn cameras have the potential to damage important relationships that officers have built with members of the communitycommunity . This discretion should not be limitless; instead, it should be guided by carefully crafted policies that set specific parameters for when officers may use discretiondiscretion . If police departments deploy body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of officers to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably find themselves caught in difficult public battles that will undermine public trust in the police rather than increasing community support for the policepolice . This publication is intended to serve as a guide to the thoughtful, careful considerations that police departments should undertake if they wish to adopt body-worn camerascameras . Sincerely, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Executive Director Police Executive Research Forum vi Letter from the COPS Office Director‌ O Dear colleagues, ne of the most important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage new technology to improve policing servicesservices . Whether using social media to engage the community, deploying new surveillance tools to identify suspects, or using data analysis to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an unprecedented pacepace . Body-worn cameras, which an increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting, represent one new form of technology that is significantly affecting the field of policingpolicing . Law enforcement agencies are using body-worn cameras in various ways: to improve evidence collection, to strengthen officer performance and accountability, to enhance agency transparency, to document encounters between police and the public, and to investigate and resolve complaints and officer- involved incidentsincidents . Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the communitycommunity . Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the publicpublic . Before agencies invest considerable time and money to deploy body-worn cameras, they must consider these and other important questionsquestions . The COPS Office was pleased to partner with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to support an extensive research project that explored the numerous policy and implementation questions surrounding body-worn camerascameras . In September 2013, the COPS Office and PERF hosted a conference in Washington, D.C.D .C ., where more than 200 law enforcement officials, scholars, representatives from federal agencies, and other experts gathered to share their experiences with body-worn camerascameras . The discussions from this conference, along with interviews with more than 40 police executives and a review of existing body-worn camera policies, culminated in the recommendations set forth in this publicationpublication .

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned offers practical guidance as well as a certain amount of discretion concerning when to turn their cameras on or off. This discretion is important because it recognizes comprehensive look at the issues that officers are professionals and because it allows flexibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic “bright line” rule is impossible. For example, an officer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be recorded. By using discretion, the officer can reach the best solution in balancing the evidentiary value of a recorded statement with the witness’s reluctance to be recorded. The decision may hinge on the importance of what the witness is willing to say. Or perhaps the witness will agree to be recorded by audio but not video, so the officer can simply point the camera away from the witness. Or perhaps the witness will be willing to be recorded later, in a more private setting. By giving officers some discretion, they can balance the conflicting values. Without this discretion, body-worn cameras have raise . I hope you find that the potential to damage important relationships that officers have built with members wide range of the community. This discretion should not be limitless; insteadperspectives, it should be guided by carefully crafted policies that set specific parameters for when officers may use discretion. If police departments deploy approaches, and strategies presented in this publication are useful, whether you are developing your own body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of officers to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably find themselves caught in difficult public battles that will undermine public trust in the police rather than increasing community support for the police. This publication is intended to serve as a guide to the thoughtful, careful considerations that police departments should undertake if they camera program or simply wish to adopt body-worn cameras. Sincerely, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Executive Director Police Executive Research Forum vi Letter from the COPS Office Director‌ O Dear colleagues, ne of the most important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage new technology to improve policing services. Whether using social media to engage the community, deploying new surveillance tools to identify suspects, or using data analysis to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an unprecedented pace. Body-worn cameras, which an increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting, represent one new form of technology that is significantly affecting the field of policing. Law enforcement agencies are using body-worn cameras in various ways: to improve evidence collection, to strengthen officer performance and accountability, to enhance agency transparency, to document encounters between police and the public, and to investigate and resolve complaints and officer- involved incidents. Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns learn more about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the public. Before agencies invest considerable time and money to deploy body-worn cameras, they must consider these and other important questionstopic . The COPS Office was pleased to partner with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to support an extensive research project that explored the numerous policy and implementation questions surrounding body-worn cameras. In September 2013, goal of the COPS Office and PERF hosted a conference is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the best information possible as they explore this new technology; therefore, we encourage you to share this publication, as well as your own experiences, with other law enforcement practitioners . Sincerely, 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) for supporting this research into body-worn cameras . 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 across the globe . We are also grateful to our program managers at the 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 . Their thoughtful responses guided our research and the agenda for the executive session in Washington, D.C.D .C ., where in September 2013 . We are also grateful to the more than 200 law enforcement officialspolice chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, representatives from federal agencies, and other experts gathered to share 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 camerascameras and prompted an insightful discussion regarding the issues these cameras raise . The discussions from this conference, along with interviews with 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 State of the field and policy analysis 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 factors . Finding the best mix of technologies, however, must begin with a thorough understanding of each type of technology . Police leaders who have deployed body-worn cameras1 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 “Because technology is advancing faster than policy, it’s important that we keep having discussions about what these new tools mean for us. We have to ask ourselves the hard questions. What do these technolo- xxxx mean for constitutional polic- ing? We have to keep debating the advantages and disadvantages. If we embrace this new technology, we have to make sure that we are using it to help us do our jobs better.” – 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 review citizen in an urban area is already recorded in multiple ways . The citizen may record it on his phone . If there is some conflict happening, one or more witnesses may record it . Often there are fixed security cameras nearby that capture the 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 also have video from the officer’s perspective . The use of existing body-worn cameras also raises important questions about privacy and trust . What are the privacy 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 encounter is a casual one? Do body-worn cameras also undermine the 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 policies, culminated in the recommendations set forth in this publicationvideo cannot be accessed for improper reasons .

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned Learned‌ The Los Angeles Police Department, which is in the process of testing body-worn cameras, 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 certain amount “Put Cameras on Cops” public information campaign that included posting billboards and reaching out to the community. Chief Xxxxxxx of discretion concerning 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.” “My opinion is that body-worn cameras will help with community relationships. They will show when to turn their cameras on or offofficers are doing a good job and help us correct when they aren’t. This discretion 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-worn 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. “It is important because it recognizes that officers agencies are professionals open and because it allows flexibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic “bright line” rule is impossible. For example, an officer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be recorded. By using discretion, the officer can reach the best solution in balancing the evidentiary value of a recorded statement transparent with the witness’s reluctance community,” said Deputy Chief Xxxxxxxxxxx of Fort Xxxxxxx. “If we only show the good and hide the bad, it will xxxxxx distrust of the police.” Protecting intelligence-gathering efforts In addition to be recorded. The decision may hinge on engaging the importance of what public to mitigate concerns, some agencies have adopted recording policies that seek to minimize the witness is willing to say. Or perhaps the witness will agree to be recorded by audio but not video, so the officer can simply point the camera away from the witness. Or perhaps the witness will be willing to be recorded later, in a more private setting. By giving officers some discretion, they can balance the conflicting values. Without this discretion, potential damage that body-worn cameras have on police-community relationships. These agencies limit body-worn camera recordings to calls for service and law enforcement-related contacts, rather than recording every encounter with the potential to damage important relationships public, so that officers have built with members do not feel compelled to record the kinds of casual conversations that are central to building informal relationships within the community. This discretion should 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 be limitless; insteadrunning 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 should be guided by carefully crafted policies that set specific parameters for when officers may use discretion. If police departments deploy body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of officers does not make sense to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably find themselves caught in difficult public battles that will undermine public trust in the police rather than increasing community support for the police. This publication is intended to serve as a guide to the thoughtful, careful considerations that police departments should undertake if they wish to adopt body-worn cameras. Sincerely, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Executive Director Police Executive Research Forum vi Letter from the COPS Office Director‌ O Dear colleagues, ne of the most important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage new technology to improve policing services. Whether using social media to engage the community, deploying new surveillance tools to identify suspects, or using data analysis to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an unprecedented pace. Body-worn cameras, which an increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting, represent one new form of technology that is significantly affecting the field of policing. Law enforcement agencies are using body-worn cameras in various ways: to improve evidence collection, to strengthen officer performance and accountability, to enhance agency transparency, to document encounters between police and the public, and to investigate and resolve complaints and officer- involved incidents. Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information record every single interaction with the public. Before agencies invest considerable time If an officer sees someone on the street and money just wants to deploy body-worn cameras, they must consider these and other important questions. The COPS Office was pleased to partner with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to support an extensive research project that explored the numerous policy and implementation questions surrounding body-worn cameras. In September 2013, the COPS Office and PERF hosted a conference in Washington, D.C., where more than 200 law enforcement officials, scholars, representatives from federal agencies, and other experts gathered to share their experiences with body-worn cameras. The discussions from this conference, along with interviews with more than 40 police executives and a review of existing body-worn camera policies, culminated talk about what is going on in the recommendations set forth in this publicationneighborhood, it is easier to have that conversation if the camera is not running.”