Common use of Body-Worn Camera Program Clause in Contracts

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned • Explicitly prohibit data tampering, editing, and copying. • Include protections against tampering with the data prior to downloading: This helps to mitigate concerns that officers will be able to alter or delete recordings prior to downloading them. Some body-worn camera systems are sold with technological safeguards that make it impossible for an officer to access the data prior to downloading. • Create an auditing system: It is important to have a record of who accesses video data, when, and for what purpose. Some storage systems include a built-in audit trail. • Explicitly state who will be authorized to access data: Many written policies outline who will have access to the data (e.g., supervisors, Internal Affairs, certain other officers and department personnel, and prosecutors) and for what purpose (e.g., administrative review, training, and investigations). “Whether you store video internally or externally, protecting the data and preserving the chain of custody should always be a concern. Either way, you need something built into the system so that you know that video has not been altered.” – Xxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Greensboro (North Carolina) Police Department • Ensure there is a reliable back-up system: Some systems have a built-in backup system that preserves recorded data, and some departments copy recordings to disc and store them as evidence. • Specify when videos will be downloaded from the camera to the storage system and who will download them: The majority of existing policies require the camera operator to download the footage by the end of each shift. In the case of an officer-involved shooting or other serious incident, some policies require supervisors to step in and physically take possession of the camera and assume downloading responsibilities. • Consider third-party vendors carefully: Overwhelmingly, the police executives whom XXXX interviewed reported that their legal advisors and prosecutors were comfortable using a third- party vendor to manage the storage system. When deciding whether to use a third-party vendor, departments consider the vendor’s technical assistance capabilities and whether the system includes protections such as an audit trail, backup system, etc. Police executives stressed the importance of entering into a legal contract with the vendor that protects the agency’s data. These strategies are important not only for protecting the privacy rights of the people recorded but also for preserving evidence and resolving allegations of data tampering. Data retention policies The length of time that departments retain body-worn camera footage plays a key role for privacy. The longer that recorded videos are retained, the longer they are subject to public disclosure, which can be problematic if the video contains footage associated with privacy concerns. And community members’ concerns about police departments collecting data about them in the first place are lessened if the videos are not retained for long periods of time. The retention times are generally dictated by the type of encounter or incident that the footage captures. Although protocols vary by department, footage is typically categorized as either “evidentiary” or “non-evidentiary.” Evidentiary video involves footage of an incident or encounter that could prove useful for investigative purposes, such as a crime, an arrest or citation, a search, a use of force incident, or a confrontational encounter with a member of the public. Evidentiary footage is usually further categorized by specific incident type, and the retention period is governed by state evidentiary rules for that incident. For example, many state laws require that footage involving a homicide

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned • r Explicitly prohibit data tampering, editing, and copying. • r Include protections against tampering with the data prior to downloading: This helps to mitigate concerns that officers will be able to alter or delete recordings prior to downloading them. Some body-worn camera systems are sold with technological safeguards that make it impossible for an officer to access the data prior to downloading. • r Create an auditing system: It is important to have a record of who accesses video data, when, and for what purpose. Some storage systems include a built-in audit trail. • r Explicitly state who will be authorized to access data: Many written policies outline who will have access to the data (e.g., supervisors, Internal Affairs, certain other officers and department personnel, and prosecutors) and for what purpose (e.g., administrative review, training, and investigations). “Whether you store video internally or externally, protecting the data and preserving the chain of custody should always be a concern. Either way, you need something built into the system so that you know that video has not been altered.” – Xxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Greensboro (North Carolina) Police Department • r Ensure there is a reliable back-up system: Some systems have a built-in backup system that preserves recorded data, and some departments copy recordings to disc and store them as evidence. • r Specify when videos will be downloaded from the camera to the storage system and who will download them: The majority of existing policies require the camera operator to download the footage by the end of each shift. In the case of an officer-involved shooting or other serious incident, some policies require supervisors to step in and physically take possession of the camera and assume downloading responsibilities. • r Consider third-party vendors carefully: Overwhelmingly, the police executives whom XXXX interviewed reported that their legal advisors and prosecutors were comfortable using a third- party vendor to manage the storage system. When deciding whether to use a third-party vendor, departments consider the vendor’s technical assistance capabilities and whether the system includes protections such as an audit trail, backup system, etc. Police executives stressed the importance of entering into a legal contract with the vendor that protects the agency’s data. These strategies are important not only for protecting the privacy rights of the people recorded but also for preserving evidence and resolving allegations of data tampering. Data retention policies The length of time that departments retain body-worn camera footage plays a key role for privacy. The longer that recorded videos are retained, the longer they are subject to public disclosure, which can be problematic if the video contains footage associated with privacy concerns. And community members’ concerns about police departments collecting data about them in the first place are lessened if the videos are not retained for long periods of time. The retention times are generally dictated by the type of encounter or incident that the footage captures. Although protocols vary by department, footage is typically categorized as either “evidentiary” or “non-evidentiary.” Evidentiary video involves footage of an incident or encounter that could prove useful for investigative purposes, such as a crime, an arrest or citation, a search, a use of force incident, or a confrontational encounter with a member of the public. Evidentiary footage is usually further categorized by specific incident type, and the retention period is governed by state evidentiary rules for that incident. For example, many state laws require that footage involving a homicide

Body-Worn Camera Program. Recommendations and Lessons Learned • Explicitly prohibit data tampering, editing, and copying. • Include protections against tampering with the data prior to downloading: This helps to mitigate concerns that officers will be able to alter or delete recordings prior to downloading themthem . Some body-worn camera systems are sold with technological safeguards that make it impossible for an officer to access the data prior to downloadingdownloading . • Create an auditing system: It is important to have a record of who accesses video data, when, and for what purposepurpose . Some storage systems include a built-in audit trailtrail . • Explicitly state who will be authorized to access data: Many written policies outline who will have access to the data (e.g.e .g ., supervisors, Internal Affairs, certain other officers and department personnel, and prosecutors) and for what purpose (e.g.e .g ., administrative review, training, and investigations)) . “Whether you store video internally or externally, protecting the data and preserving the chain of custody should always be a concern. Either way, you need something built into the system so that you know that video has not been altered.” – Xxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Greensboro (North Carolina) Police Department • Ensure there is a reliable back-up system: Some systems have a built-in backup system that preserves recorded data, and some departments copy recordings to disc and store them as evidenceevidence . • Specify when videos will be downloaded from the camera to the storage system and who will download them: The majority of existing policies require the camera operator to download the footage by the end of each shiftshift . In the case of an officer-involved shooting or other serious incident, some policies require supervisors to step in and physically take possession of the camera and assume downloading responsibilitiesresponsibilities . • Consider third-party vendors carefully: Overwhelmingly, the police executives whom XXXX interviewed reported that their legal advisors and prosecutors were comfortable using a third- party vendor to manage the storage systemsystem . When deciding whether to use a third-party vendor, departments consider the vendor’s technical assistance capabilities and whether the system includes protections such as an audit trail, backup system, etcetc . Police executives stressed the importance of entering into a legal contract with the vendor that protects the agency’s datadata . These strategies are important not only for protecting the privacy rights of the people recorded but also for preserving evidence and resolving allegations of data tamperingtampering . Data retention policies The length of time that departments retain body-worn camera footage plays a key role for privacyprivacy . The longer that recorded videos are retained, the longer they are subject to public disclosure, which can be problematic if the video contains footage associated with privacy concernsconcerns . And community members’ concerns about police departments collecting data about them in the first place are lessened if the videos are not retained for long periods of timetime . The retention times are generally dictated by the type of encounter or incident that the footage capturescaptures . Although protocols vary by department, footage is typically categorized as either “evidentiary” or “non-evidentiaryevidentiary .” Evidentiary video involves footage of an incident or encounter that could prove useful for investigative purposes, such as a crime, an arrest or citation, a search, a use of force incident, or a confrontational encounter with a member of the publicpublic . Evidentiary footage is usually further categorized by specific incident type, and the retention period is governed by state evidentiary rules for that incidentincident . For example, many state laws require that footage involving a homicide