Common use of Body-Worn Camera Program Clause in Contracts

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ open records requests played a role when we were deciding how long to keep the video. To protect privacy, you have to go through every video and make sure that you’re not disclosing something that you shouldn’t. It takes a lot of time, and personnel, to review and redact every tape. If you keep video for five years, it is going to take even more.” Agencies have also explored cheaper storage methods for videos that by law must be retained long- term, such as those containing evidence regarding a homicide or other serious felony. For example, the Greensboro Police Department deletes videos requiring long-term storage from the online cloud after importing them into its RMS or Internal Affairs case management systems. This reduces overall consumption of expensive cloud storage for videos that are required for future court proceedings or long-term retention under state personnel laws. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department recently completed a body-worn camera trial program, and Major Xxxxxx said that the department is exploring alternative storage methods. “Long-term storage costs are definitely going to be a problem. We are looking at cold storage, offline storage, and shorter retention times as a way to keep those costs more manageable,” he said. Many police agencies have also found it useful to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when exploring whether to implement body-worn cameras. For example, agencies can conduct an audit of their claims, judgments, and settlements related to litigation and complaints against officers to determine what costs they may already be incurring. The costs associated with deploying body-worn cameras may be offset by reductions in litigation costs, and agencies should carefully assess their ongoing legal expenses to determine how they could be reduced through the use of body-worn cameras. Lessons learned about financial considerations In interviews with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned about the financial costs of body-worn cameras: r The financial and administrative costs associated with body-worn camera programs include costs of the equipment, storing and managing recorded data, and responding to public requests for disclosure. r It is useful to compare the costs of the camera program with the financial benefits (e.g., fewer lawsuits and unwarranted complaints against officers, as well as more efficient evidence collection). r Setting shorter retention times for non-evidentiary videos can help make the significant costs of data storage more manageable. r Videos requiring long-term storage (e.g., those involving serious offenses) can be copied to a disc, attached to the case file, and deleted from the internal server or online cloud. This frees up expensive storage space for videos that are part of an ongoing investigation or that have shorter retention times. r Linking recorded data to the agency’s records management system or using electronic tablets, which officers can use in the field, can ease the administrative burden of tagging and categorizing videos.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ open records requests played These exceptions to public disclosure can help police departments to avoid being required to release videos if doing so could jeopardize a role when we were deciding how long criminal prosecution. The exceptions can also help police to keep protect the videoprivacy of crime victims and witnesses. To protect privacyHowever, you by policy and practice, law enforcement agencies should apply these exceptions judiciously to avoid any “When developing body-worn camera policies, agencies have to go through every video and make sure that you’re not disclosing something that you shouldn’tconsider how open the public disclosure laws are in their state. It takes a lot of time, and personnel, to review and redact every tape. If you keep video for five years, it is Are they going to take even morehave to give up all of their footage to any person that requests it? Or are there some protections? This is important to think about when it comes to privacy.” Agencies – Xxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Topeka (Kansas) Police Department suspicion by community members that police are withholding video footage to hide officer misconduct or mistakes. In launching body-worn camera programs, law enforcement agencies should convey that their goal is to xxxxxx transparency and accountability while protecting civil liberties and privacy interests. When an agency decides whether to release or withhold body-worn camera footage of a particular incident, the agency should articulate its reasons for doing so. In addition, some agencies have also explored cheaper storage methods for videos adopted recording and retention policies that by law must be retained long- term, such as those containing evidence regarding a homicide or other serious felonyhelp to avoid violations of privacy. For example, the Greensboro Police Department deletes videos requiring long-term storage from the online cloud after importing them into its RMS some agencies allow officers to deactivate their cameras during interviews with crime victims or Internal Affairs case management systemswitnesses. This reduces overall consumption of expensive cloud storage for videos that are required for future court proceedings or long-term retention under state personnel laws. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department recently completed a body-worn camera trial program, and Major Xxxxxx said that the department is exploring alternative storage methods. “Long-term storage costs are definitely going to be a problem. We are looking at cold storage, offline storage, and shorter And short retention times as a way to keep those costs more manageable,” he said. Many police agencies have also found it useful to conduct a costfor non-benefit analysis when exploring whether to implement body-worn cameras. For example, agencies evidentiary video footage can conduct an audit reduce the window of their claims, judgments, and settlements related to litigation and complaints against officers to determine what costs they may already be incurring. The costs associated with deploying body-worn cameras may be offset by reductions in litigation costs, and agencies should carefully assess their ongoing legal expenses to determine how they could be reduced through the use opportunity for requests for release of body-worn camerasvideo footage that would serve no legitimate purpose. Lessons learned about financial on privacy considerations In interviews their conversations with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned about the financial costs of regarding body-worn cameras and privacy rights: • Body-worn cameras have significant implications for the public’s privacy rights, particularly when it comes to recording victim interviews, nudity, and other sensitive subjects and when recording inside people’s homes. Agencies must factor these privacy considerations into decisions about when to record, where and how long to store data, and how to respond to public requests for video footage. • In terms of when officers should be required to activate their cameras: r The financial , the most common approach is requiring officers to record all calls for service and administrative costs associated law enforcement-related encounters and activities and to deactivate the camera only at the conclusion of the event or with supervisor approval. • It is essential to clearly define what constitutes a law enforcement-related encounter or activity in the department’s written body-worn camera programs include costs policy. It is also useful to provide a list of specific activities that are included, noting that the list is not necessarily all inclusive. Many agencies give a general recommendation to officers that when they are in doubt, they should record. • To protect officer safety and acknowledge that recording may not be possible in every situation, it is helpful to state in policies that recording will not be required if it would be unsafe, impossible, or impractical. • Significant privacy concerns can arise when interviewing crime victims, particularly in situations involving rape, abuse, or other sensitive matters. Some agencies prefer to give officers discretion regarding whether to record in these circumstances. In such cases, officers should take into account the evidentiary value of recording and the willingness of the equipmentvictim to speak on camera. Some agencies go a step further and require officers to obtain the victim’s consent prior to recording the interview. • To promote officer accountability, storing and managing recorded datamost policies require officers to document, and responding to public requests for disclosure. r It is useful to compare on camera or in writing, the costs of reasons why the officer deactivated the camera program with the financial benefits (e.g., fewer lawsuits and unwarranted complaints against officers, as well as more efficient evidence collection). r Setting shorter retention times for non-evidentiary videos can help make the significant costs of data storage more manageable. r Videos requiring long-term storage (e.g., those involving serious offenses) can be copied to a disc, attached to the case file, and deleted from the internal server or online cloud. This frees up expensive storage space for videos in situations that are part of an ongoing investigation or that have shorter retention times. r Linking recorded data otherwise required to the agency’s records management system or using electronic tablets, which officers can use in the field, can ease the administrative burden of tagging and categorizing videosbe recorded.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ open records requests played a role when we were deciding how long to keep the video. To protect privacy, you have to go through every video and make sure that you’re not disclosing something that you shouldn’t. It takes a lot of time, and personnel, to review and redact every tape. If you keep video for five years, it is going to take even more.” Agencies have also explored cheaper storage methods for videos that by law must be retained long- term, such as those containing evidence regarding a homicide or other serious felony. For example, the Greensboro Police Department deletes videos requiring long-term storage from the online cloud after importing them into its RMS or Internal Affairs case management systems. This reduces overall consumption of expensive cloud storage for videos that are required for future court proceedings or long-term retention under state personnel laws. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department recently completed a body-worn camera trial program, and Major Xxxxxx said that the department is exploring alternative storage methods. “Long-term storage costs are definitely going to be a problem. We are looking at cold storage, offline storage, and shorter retention times as a way to keep those costs more manageable,” he said. Many police agencies have also found it useful to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when exploring whether to implement body-worn cameras. For example, agencies can conduct an audit of their claims, judgments, and settlements related to litigation and complaints against officers to determine what costs they may already be incurring. The costs associated with deploying body-worn cameras may be offset by reductions in litigation costs, and agencies should carefully assess their ongoing legal expenses to determine how they could be reduced through the use of body-worn cameras. Lessons learned about financial considerations In interviews with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned about the financial costs of body-worn cameras: r • The financial and administrative costs associated with body-worn camera programs include costs of the equipment, storing and managing recorded data, and responding to public requests for disclosure. r • It is useful to compare the costs of the camera program with the financial benefits (e.g., fewer lawsuits and unwarranted complaints against officers, as well as more efficient evidence collection). r • Setting shorter retention times for non-evidentiary videos can help make the significant costs of data storage more manageable. r • Videos requiring long-term storage (e.g., those involving serious offenses) can be copied to a disc, attached to the case file, and deleted from the internal server or online cloud. This frees up expensive storage space for videos that are part of an ongoing investigation or that have shorter retention times. r • Linking recorded data to the agency’s records management system or using electronic tablets, which officers can use in the field, can ease the administrative burden of tagging and categorizing videos.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ open records requests played These exceptions to public disclosure can help police departments to avoid being required to release videos if doing so could jeopardize a role when we were deciding how long criminal prosecution. The exceptions can also help police to keep protect the videoprivacy of crime victims and witnesses. To protect privacyHowever, you by policy and practice, law enforcement agencies should apply these exceptions judiciously to avoid any “When developing body-worn camera policies, agencies have to go through every video and make sure that you’re not disclosing something that you shouldn’tconsider how open the public disclosure laws are in their state. It takes a lot of time, and personnel, to review and redact every tape. If you keep video for five years, it is Are they going to take even morehave to give up all of their footage to any person that requests it? Or are there some protections? This is important to think about when it comes to privacy.” Agencies – Xxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Topeka (Kansas) Police Department suspicion by community members that police are withholding video footage to hide officer misconduct or mistakes. In launching body-worn camera programs, law enforcement agencies should convey that their goal is to xxxxxx transparency and accountability while protecting civil liberties and privacy interests. When an agency decides whether to release or withhold body-worn camera footage of a particular incident, the agency should articulate its reasons for doing so. In addition, some agencies have also explored cheaper storage methods for videos adopted recording and retention policies that by law must be retained long- term, such as those containing evidence regarding a homicide or other serious felonyhelp to avoid violations of privacy. For example, the Greensboro Police Department deletes videos requiring long-term storage from the online cloud after importing them into its RMS some agencies allow officers to deactivate their cameras during interviews with crime victims or Internal Affairs case management systemswitnesses. This reduces overall consumption of expensive cloud storage for videos that are required for future court proceedings or long-term retention under state personnel laws. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department recently completed a body-worn camera trial program, and Major Xxxxxx said that the department is exploring alternative storage methods. “Long-term storage costs are definitely going to be a problem. We are looking at cold storage, offline storage, and shorter And short retention times as a way to keep those costs more manageable,” he said. Many police agencies have also found it useful to conduct a costfor non-benefit analysis when exploring whether to implement body-worn cameras. For example, agencies evidentiary video footage can conduct an audit reduce the window of their claims, judgments, and settlements related to litigation and complaints against officers to determine what costs they may already be incurring. The costs associated with deploying body-worn cameras may be offset by reductions in litigation costs, and agencies should carefully assess their ongoing legal expenses to determine how they could be reduced through the use opportunity for requests for release of body-worn camerasvideo footage that would serve no legitimate purpose. Lessons learned about financial on privacy considerations In interviews their conversations with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned about the financial costs of regarding body-worn camerascameras and privacy rights: r The financial and administrative costs associated with bodyBody-worn camera programs include costs of cameras have significant implications for the equipmentpublic’s privacy rights, storing particularly when it comes to recording victim interviews, nudity, and managing recorded other sensitive subjects and when recording inside people’s homes. Agencies must factor these privacy considerations into decisions about when to record, where and how long to store data, and responding how to respond to public requests for disclosurevideo footage. r It In terms of when officers should be required to activate their cameras, the most common approach is useful requiring officers to compare record all calls for service and law enforcement-related encounters and activities and to deactivate the costs camera only at the conclusion of the camera program event or with the financial benefits (e.g., fewer lawsuits and unwarranted complaints against officers, as well as more efficient evidence collection). r Setting shorter retention times for non-evidentiary videos can help make the significant costs of data storage more manageable. r Videos requiring long-term storage (e.g., those involving serious offenses) can be copied to a disc, attached to the case file, and deleted from the internal server or online cloud. This frees up expensive storage space for videos that are part of an ongoing investigation or that have shorter retention times. r Linking recorded data to the agency’s records management system or using electronic tablets, which officers can use in the field, can ease the administrative burden of tagging and categorizing videossupervisor approval.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ open records requests played These exceptions to public disclosure can help police departments to avoid being required to release videos if doing so could jeopardize a role when we were deciding how long criminal prosecution . The exceptions can also help police to keep protect the videoprivacy of crime victims and witnesses . To protect privacyHowever, you by policy and practice, law enforcement agencies should apply these exceptions judiciously to avoid any “When developing body-worn camera policies, agencies have to go through every video and make sure that you’re not disclosing something that you shouldn’tconsider how open the public disclosure laws are in their state. It takes a lot of time, and personnel, to review and redact every tape. If you keep video for five years, it is Are they going to take even morehave to give up all of their footage to any person that requests it? Or are there some protections? This is important to think about when it comes to privacy.” Agencies – Xxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Topeka (Kansas) Police Department suspicion by community members that police are withholding video footage to hide officer misconduct or mistakes . In launching body-worn camera programs, law enforcement agencies should convey that their goal is to xxxxxx transparency and accountability while protecting civil liberties and privacy interests . When an agency decides whether to release or withhold body-worn camera footage of a particular incident, the agency should articulate its reasons for doing so . In addition, some agencies have also explored cheaper storage methods for videos adopted recording and retention policies that by law must be retained long- term, such as those containing evidence regarding a homicide or other serious felonyhelp to avoid violations of privacy . For example, the Greensboro Police Department deletes videos requiring long-term storage from the online cloud after importing them into its RMS some agencies allow officers to deactivate their cameras during interviews with crime victims or Internal Affairs case management systemswitnesses . This reduces overall consumption of expensive cloud storage for videos that are required for future court proceedings or long-term retention under state personnel laws. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department recently completed a body-worn camera trial program, and Major Xxxxxx said that the department is exploring alternative storage methods. “Long-term storage costs are definitely going to be a problem. We are looking at cold storage, offline storage, and shorter And short retention times as a way to keep those costs more manageable,” he said. Many police agencies have also found it useful to conduct a costfor non-benefit analysis when exploring whether to implement body-worn cameras. For example, agencies evidentiary video footage can conduct an audit reduce the window of their claims, judgments, and settlements related to litigation and complaints against officers to determine what costs they may already be incurring. The costs associated with deploying body-worn cameras may be offset by reductions in litigation costs, and agencies should carefully assess their ongoing legal expenses to determine how they could be reduced through the use opportunity for requests for release of body-worn camerasvideo footage that would serve no legitimate purpose . Lessons learned about financial on privacy considerations In interviews their conversations with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned about the financial costs of regarding body-worn cameras and privacy rights: • Body-worn cameras have significant implications for the public’s privacy rights, particularly when it comes to recording victim interviews, nudity, and other sensitive subjects and when recording inside people’s homes . Agencies must factor these privacy considerations into decisions about when to record, where and how long to store data, and how to respond to public requests for video footage . • In terms of when officers should be required to activate their cameras: r The financial , the most common approach is requiring officers to record all calls for service and administrative costs associated law enforcement-related encounters and activities and to deactivate the camera only at the conclusion of the event or with supervisor approval . • It is essential to clearly define what constitutes a law enforcement-related encounter or activity in the department’s written body-worn camera programs include costs policy . It is also useful to provide a list of specific activities that are included, noting that the list is not necessarily all inclusive . Many agencies give a general recommendation to officers that when they are in doubt, they should record . • To protect officer safety and acknowledge that recording may not be possible in every situation, it is helpful to state in policies that recording will not be required if it would be unsafe, impossible, or impractical . • Significant privacy concerns can arise when interviewing crime victims, particularly in situations involving rape, abuse, or other sensitive matters . Some agencies prefer to give officers discretion regarding whether to record in these circumstances . In such cases, officers should take into account the evidentiary value of recording and the willingness of the equipmentvictim to speak on camera . Some agencies go a step further and require officers to obtain the victim’s consent prior to recording the interview . • To promote officer accountability, storing and managing recorded datamost policies require officers to document, and responding to public requests for disclosure. r It is useful to compare on camera or in writing, the costs of reasons why the officer deactivated the camera program with the financial benefits (e.g., fewer lawsuits and unwarranted complaints against officers, as well as more efficient evidence collection). r Setting shorter retention times for non-evidentiary videos can help make the significant costs of data storage more manageable. r Videos requiring long-term storage (e.g., those involving serious offenses) can be copied to a disc, attached to the case file, and deleted from the internal server or online cloud. This frees up expensive storage space for videos in situations that are part of an ongoing investigation or that have shorter retention times. r Linking otherwise required to be recorded data to the agency’s records management system or using electronic tablets, which officers can use in the field, can ease the administrative burden of tagging and categorizing videos.

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned‌ open records requests played a role when we were deciding how long to keep the videovideo . To protect privacy, you have to go through every video and make sure that you’re not disclosing something that you shouldn’tn’t . It takes a lot of time, and personnel, to review and redact every tapetape . If you keep video for five years, it is going to take even moremore .” Agencies have also explored cheaper storage methods for videos that by law must be retained long- term, such as those containing evidence regarding a homicide or other serious felonyfelony . For example, the Greensboro Police Department deletes videos requiring long-term storage from the online cloud after importing them into its RMS or Internal Affairs case management systemssystems . This reduces overall consumption of expensive cloud storage for videos that are required for future court proceedings or long-term retention under state personnel lawslaws . The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department recently completed a body-worn camera trial program, and Major Xxxxxx said that the department is exploring alternative storage methodsmethods . “Long-term storage costs are definitely going to be a problemproblem . We are looking at cold storage, offline storage, and shorter retention times as a way to keep those costs more manageable,” he saidsaid . Many police agencies have also found it useful to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when exploring whether to implement body-worn camerascameras . For example, agencies can conduct an audit of their claims, judgments, and settlements related to litigation and complaints against officers to determine what costs they may already be incurringincurring . The costs associated with deploying body-worn cameras may be offset by reductions in litigation costs, and agencies should carefully assess their ongoing legal expenses to determine how they could be reduced through the use of body-worn camerascameras . Lessons learned about financial considerations In interviews with PERF staff members, police executives and other experts revealed a number of lessons that they have learned about the financial costs of body-worn cameras: r • The financial and administrative costs associated with body-worn camera programs include costs of the equipment, storing and managing recorded data, and responding to public requests for disclosuredisclosure . r • It is useful to compare the costs of the camera program with the financial benefits (e.g.e .g ., fewer lawsuits and unwarranted complaints against officers, as well as more efficient evidence collection)) . r • Setting shorter retention times for non-evidentiary videos can help make the significant costs of data storage more manageablemanageable . r • Videos requiring long-term storage (e.g.e .g ., those involving serious offenses) can be copied to a disc, attached to the case file, and deleted from the internal server or online cloudcloud . This frees up expensive storage space for videos that are part of an ongoing investigation or that have shorter retention timestimes . r • Linking recorded data to the agency’s records management system or using electronic tablets, which officers can use in the field, can ease the administrative burden of tagging and categorizing videosvideos .