Common use of Body-Worn Camera Program Clause in Contracts

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ Some police executives also believe that requiring officers to record all encounters can signal a lack of trust in officers, which is problematic for any department that wants to encourage its officers – Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department – Xxx Xxxx Xxxx, President, Association of Chief Police Officers (UK) mandatory recording of all police contacts. For departments whose polices do not require officers to record every interaction with the public, the goal is to sufficiently ensure accountability and adherence to the department’s body-worn camera policies and protocols. For example, when officers have discretion to not record an encounter, many departments require them to document, either on camera or in writing, the fact that they did not record and their reasons for not recording. Some departments also require officers to obtain supervisor approval to deactivate the camera if a subject requests to not be recorded. In a handful of states, officers are legally required to inform subjects when they are recording and to obtain the person’s consent to record. This is known as a “two-party consent” law, and it can create challenges to implementing a body-worn camera program. In many two-party consent states, however, police executives have successfully worked with their state legislatures to have the consent requirement waived for body-worn police cameras. For example, in February 2014 Pennsylvania enacted a law waiving the two-party consent requirement for police using body-worn cameras.8 Efforts are under way to change two-party consent statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Each department must research its state laws to determine whether the two-party consent requirement applies. Some police executives believe that it is good practice for officers to inform people when they are recording, even if such disclosures are not required by law. In Greensboro, for example, officers are encouraged— but not required—to announce when they are recording. Chief Xxxxxx of Greensboro said this policy is based on the belief that the knowledge that cameras are running can help defuse potentially confrontational situations and improve behavior from all parties. However, many police executives in one-party consent states do not explicitly instruct officers to inform people that they are recording. “Kansas is a one-party consent state, so only the officer needs to know that the camera is running. But if a person asks, the officer tells them the truth,” said Chief of Police Xxx Xxxxxx of Topeka, Kansas.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ Some police executives also believe that requiring officers to record all encounters can signal a lack of trust in officers, which is problematic for any department that wants to encourage its officers to be thoughtful and to show initiative. For example, a survey of officers conducted in Vacaville, California, found that although 70 percent of officers were in favor of using body-worn cameras, a majority were opposed to a policy containing strict requirements of doesn’t want to be recorded, I 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 life, and I’m sure you have similar statutes. It’s far more complicated than a blanket policy of ‘every interaction is filmed.’ I think that’s far too simplistic. We have to give our officers some discretion. We cannot have a policy that limits discretion of officers to a point where using these devices has a negative effect on community-police relations.” – Xxx Xxxx Xxxx, President, Association of Chief Police Officers (UK) mandatory recording of all police contacts. For departments whose polices do not require officers to record every interaction with the public, the goal is to sufficiently ensure accountability and adherence to the department’s body-worn camera policies and protocols. For example, when officers have discretion to not record an encounter, many departments require them to document, either on camera or in writing, the fact that they did not record and their reasons for not recording. Some departments also require officers to obtain supervisor approval to deactivate the camera if a subject requests to not be recorded. In a handful of states, officers are legally required to inform subjects when they are recording and to obtain the person’s consent to record. This is known as a “two-party consent” law, and it can create challenges to implementing a body-worn camera program. In many two-party consent states, however, police executives have successfully worked with their state legislatures to have the consent requirement waived for body-worn police cameras. For example, in February 2014 Pennsylvania enacted a law waiving the two-party consent requirement for police using body-worn cameras.8 Efforts are under way to change two-party consent statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Each department must research its state laws to determine whether the two-party consent requirement applies. Some police executives believe that it is good practice for officers to inform people when they are recording, even if such disclosures are not required by law. In Greensboro, for example, officers are encouraged— but not required—to announce when they are recording. Chief Xxxxxx of Greensboro said this policy is based on the belief that the knowledge that cameras are running can help defuse potentially confrontational situations and improve behavior from all parties. However, many police executives in one-party consent states do not explicitly instruct officers to inform people that they are recording. “Kansas is a one-party consent state, so only the officer needs to know that the camera is running. But if a person asks, the officer tells them the truth,” said Chief of Police Xxx Xxxxxx of Topeka, Kansas.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ Some police executives also believe that requiring officers to record all encounters can signal a lack of trust in officers, which is problematic for any department that wants to encourage its officers to be thoughtful and to show initiative. For example, a survey of officers conducted in Vacaville, California, found that although 70 percent of officers were in favor of using body-worn cameras, a majority were opposed to a policy containing strict requirements of – Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department – Xxx Xxxx Xxxx, President, Association of Chief Police Officers (UK) mandatory recording of all police contacts. For departments whose polices do not require officers to record every interaction with the public, the goal is to sufficiently ensure accountability and adherence to the department’s body-worn camera policies and protocols. For example, when officers have discretion to not record an encounter, many departments require them to document, either on camera or in writing, the fact that they did not record and their reasons for not recording. Some departments also require officers to obtain supervisor approval to deactivate the camera if a subject requests to not be recorded. In a handful of states, officers are legally required to inform subjects when they are recording and to obtain the person’s consent to record. This is known as a “two-party consent” law, and it can create challenges to implementing a body-worn camera program. In many two-party consent states, however, police executives have successfully worked with their state legislatures to have the consent requirement waived for body-worn police cameras. For example, in February 2014 Pennsylvania enacted a law waiving the two-party consent requirement for police using body-worn cameras.8 Efforts are under way to change two-party consent statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Each department must research its state laws to determine whether the two-party consent requirement applies. Some police executives believe that it is good practice for officers to inform people when they are recording, even if such disclosures are not required by law. In Greensboro, for example, officers are encouraged— but not required—to announce when they are recording. Chief Xxxxxx of Greensboro said this policy is based on the belief that the knowledge that cameras are running can help defuse potentially confrontational situations and improve behavior from all parties. However, many police executives in one-party consent states do not explicitly instruct officers to inform people that they are recording. “Kansas is a one-party consent state, so only the officer needs to know that the camera is running. But if a person asks, the officer tells them the truth,” said Chief of Police Xxx Xxxxxx of Topeka, Kansas.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ Some police executives also believe that requiring officers to record all encounters can signal a lack of trust in officersThe Los Angeles Police Department, which is problematic 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 “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 any department 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 wants officers had recorded to encourage its 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 officers – Xxxxxxx are doing a good job and help us correct when they aren’t. This is good for the community.” — Lieutenant Xxx Xxxx, Chief of Police, Los Angeles Aurora (Colorado) Police Department – Xxx Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxx, PresidentChief Constable, Association of Chief Police Officers Greater Manchester (UK) mandatory 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 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, it will xxxxxx distrust of the police.” In addition to engaging the public to mitigate concerns, some agencies have adopted recording of all police policies that seek to minimize the 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. For departments whose polices , rather than recording every encounter with the public, so that officers do not require officers 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. If an officer sees someone on the street and just wants to talk about what is going on in the neighborhood, the goal it is to sufficiently ensure accountability and adherence to the department’s body-worn camera policies and protocols. For example, when officers have discretion to not record an encounter, many departments require them to document, either on camera or in writing, the fact that they did not record and their reasons for not recording. Some departments also require officers to obtain supervisor approval to deactivate the camera if a subject requests to not be recorded. In a handful of states, officers are legally required to inform subjects when they are recording and to obtain the person’s consent to record. This is known as a “two-party consent” law, and it can create challenges to implementing a body-worn camera program. In many two-party consent states, however, police executives have successfully worked with their state legislatures easier to have the consent requirement waived for body-worn police cameras. For example, in February 2014 Pennsylvania enacted a law waiving the two-party consent requirement for police using body-worn cameras.8 Efforts are under way to change two-party consent statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Each department must research its state laws to determine whether the two-party consent requirement applies. Some police executives believe that it is good practice for officers to inform people when they are recording, even conversation if such disclosures are not required by law. In Greensboro, for example, officers are encouraged— but not required—to announce when they are recording. Chief Xxxxxx of Greensboro said this policy is based on the belief that the knowledge that cameras are running can help defuse potentially confrontational situations and improve behavior from all parties. However, many police executives in one-party consent states do not explicitly instruct officers to inform people that they are recording. “Kansas is a one-party consent state, so only the officer needs to know that the camera is not running. But if a person asks, the officer tells them the truth,” said Chief of Police Xxx Xxxxxx of Topeka, Kansas.”