Common use of Perceived Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras Clause in Contracts

Perceived Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras. 9‌ supposed to do.” The police departments in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Spokane, Washington are also implementing body-worn cameras to assist in complying with the collaborative agreements they entered into with the COPS Office of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxx of Los Angeles, whose department is testing body-worn cameras, understands first-hand how video evidence can help in these situations. “We exited our consent decree last year, and one of the reasons that the federal judge signed off on us was that we implemented in-car video,” said Xxxx. “Recordings can help improve public trust.” Evidence documentation Police executives said that body-worn cameras have significantly improved how officers capture evidence for investigations and court proceedings. Along with documenting encounters with members of the public, body-worn cameras can provide a record of interrogations and arrests, as well as what officers witness at crime scenes. Chief of Police Xxxxx Xxxxxx of Dalton, Georgia, described how body- worn cameras have helped officers to improve evidence collection at accident scenes. “It is always hard to gather evidence from accident scenes,” Xxxxxx said. He explained that officers are often focused on securing the scene and performing life-saving measures and that witnesses and victims may not always remember what they had told officers in the confusion. This can lead to conflicting reports when victims and witnesses are asked to repeat their accounts in later statements. “Unlike in-car cameras, body-worn cameras capture everything that happens as officers travel around the scene and interview multiple people. The body-worn cameras have been incredibly useful in accurately preserving information.” Some prosecutors have started encouraging police departments to use body-worn cameras to capture more reliable evidence for court, particularly in matters like domestic violence cases that can be difficult to prosecute. Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach explained how body- worn cameras have changed how domestic violence cases are handled. “Oftentimes we know that the suspect is repeatedly abusing the victim, but either the victim refuses to press charges, or there is simply not enough evidence to go to trial,” he said. With the victim’s consent, Daytona Beach officers can now use body-worn cameras to videotape “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body- worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera, and so everyone else is going to be able to tell the story better than you if you don’t have these cameras. And when the Civil Rights Division is looking at a police department, every piece of informa- tion that shows the department is engaged in constitutional policing is important. So of course body-worn cameras can help.” – Xxx X. Xxxxxx, Xx., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice “Although body-worn cameras are just one tool, the quality of information that they can capture is unsurpassed. With sound policy and guidance, their evidentiary value definitely outweighs any drawbacks or concerns.” – Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Xxxxxx (Georgia) Police Department victim statements. “The footage shows first-hand the victim’s injuries, demeanor, and immediate reactions,” Xxxxxxxx noted. In some cases, officers capture the assault itself on video if they arrive on the scene while the incident is still ongoing. “This means that we can have enough evidence to move forward with the case, even if the victim ultimately declines to prosecute.” Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka echoed this sentiment: “When we show suspects in domestic violence cases footage from the body-worn cameras, often they plead guilty without even having to go to trial.” Photo: Shutterstock/Xxxx Xxxxx Images Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation‌‌ New technologies in policing raise numerous policy issues that must be considered. This is especially true with body-worn cameras, which can have significant implications in terms of privacy, community relationships, and internal departmental affairs. As agencies develop body-worn camera programs, it is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their policies and practices intersect with these larger questions. Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline officers, the expectations that cameras create in terms of court proceedings and officer credibility, and the financial considerations that cameras present. Privacy considerations The proliferation of camera phones, advances in surveillance technology, and the emergence of social media have changed the way people view privacy, contributing to the sense that, as Police Commissioner Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Philadelphia said, it sometimes feels as though “everyone is filming everybody.” As technology advances and expectations of privacy evolve, it is critical that law enforcement agencies carefully consider how the technology they use affects the public’s privacy rights, especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issues. Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered before. Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial recognition technology. In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras give “In London we have CCTVs, which are quite extensive and becoming even more so, but the distinction is that those cameras don’t listen to your conversations. They observe behavior and see what people do and cover public space, so you can see if there is a crime being committed. But CCTVs don’t generally seek out individuals. So I think there is an important distinction there.” – Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx-Howe, Commissioner, London Metropolitan Police Service officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service. There is also concern about how the footage from body-worn cameras might be stored and used. For example, will a person be able to obtain video that was recorded inside a neighbor’s home? Will agencies keep videos indefinitely? Is it possible that the body-worn camera footage might be improperly posted online? When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collection. This means making careful decisions about when officers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure.

Perceived Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras. 9‌ supposed 5 Accountability and transparency 5 Reducing complaints and resolving officer-involved incidents 5 Identifying and correcting internal agency problems 7 Evidence documentation 9 Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 11 Privacy considerations 11 Determining when to do.” The police departments in Las Vegasrecord 12 Consent to record 14 Recording inside private homes 15 Data storage, Nevadaretention, and Spokane, Washington are also implementing disclosure 15 Lessons learned on privacy considerations 18 Impact on community relationships 19 Securing community support 21 Protecting intelligence-gathering efforts 22 Lessons learned about impact on community relationships 24 Addressing officer concerns 24 Officer concerns about body-worn cameras 24 Addressing officer concerns 26 Incremental implementation 27 Lessons learned about addressing officer concerns 27 Managing expectations 28 Officer review of video prior to assist in complying with making statements 29 Lessons learned about managing expectations 30 Financial considerations 31 Cost of implementation 32 Cost-saving strategies 33 Lessons learned about financial considerations 34 Chapter 3. Body-Worn Camera Recommendations 37 General recommendations 38 Recording protocols 40 Download and storage policies 42 Recorded data access and review 45 Training policies 47 Policy and program evaluation 48 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Conclusion 51 Appendix A. Recommendations Matrix 53 Policy recommendations 53 General recommendations 53 Recording protocols 55 Download and storage policies 59 Training policies 65 Policy and program evaluation 66 Additional lessons learned: engaging officers, policymakers, and the collaborative agreements they entered into with community 67 Appendix B. Conference attendees 69 About PERF 77 About the COPS Office 79 iv T Letter from the PERF Executive Director‌ he recent emergence of body-worn cameras has already had an impact on policing, and this impact will only increase as more agencies adopt this technology. The decision to implement body-worn cameras should not be entered into lightly. Once an agency goes down the U.S. Department road of Justice. Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxx of Los Angeles, whose department is testing deploying body-worn cameras, understands first—and once the public comes to expect the availability of video records—it will become increasingly difficult to have second thoughts or to scale back a body-hand how video evidence can help in these situationsworn camera program. “We exited our consent decree last year, and one of the reasons A police department that the federal judge signed off on us was that we implemented in-car video,” said Xxxx. “Recordings can help improve public trust.” Evidence documentation Police executives said that deploys body-worn cameras have significantly improved is making a statement that it believes the actions of its officers are a matter of public record. By facing the challenges and expense of purchasing and implementing a body-worn camera system, developing policies, and training its officers in how officers capture evidence for investigations to use the cameras, a department creates a reasonable expectation that members of the public and court proceedingsthe news media will want to review the actions of officers. Along And with documenting encounters certain limited exceptions that this publication will discuss, body-worn camera video footage should be made available to the public upon request—not only because the videos are public records but also because doing so enables police departments to demonstrate transparency and openness in their interactions with members of the publiccommunity. Body-worn cameras can help improve the high-quality public service expected of police officers and promote the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments. Furthermore, departments that are already deploying body-worn cameras tell us that the presence of cameras often improves the performance of officers as well as the conduct of the community members who are recorded. This is an important advance in policing. And when officers or members of the public break the law or behave badly, body-worn cameras can provide create a public record of interrogations that allows the entire community to see what really happened. At the same time, the fact that both the public and arrests, as well as what officers witness at crime scenes. Chief of Police Xxxxx Xxxxxx of Dalton, Georgia, described how body- worn cameras have helped officers the police increasingly feel the need to improve evidence collection at accident scenes. “It is always hard to gather evidence from accident scenes,” Xxxxxx said. He explained that officers are often focused on securing the scene and performing life-saving measures and that witnesses and victims may not always remember what they had told officers in the confusion. This can lead to conflicting reports when victims and witnesses are asked to repeat their accounts in later statements. “Unlike in-car cameras, body-worn cameras capture everything that happens as officers travel around the scene and interview multiple people. The body-worn cameras have been incredibly useful in accurately preserving information.” Some prosecutors have started encouraging police departments to use body-worn cameras to capture more reliable evidence for court, particularly in matters like domestic violence cases that videotape every interaction can be difficult seen both as a reflection of the times and as an unfortunate commentary on the state of police-community relationships in some jurisdictions. As a profession, policing has come too far in developing and strengthening relationships with its communities to prosecuteallow encounters with the public to become officious and legalistic. Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach explained how body- worn cameras have changed how domestic violence cases are handled. “Oftentimes we know that the suspect is repeatedly abusing the victim, but either the victim refuses to press charges, or there is simply not enough evidence to go to trial,” he said. With the victim’s consent, Daytona Beach officers can now use body-worn cameras to videotape “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body- worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera, and so everyone else is going to be able to tell the story better than you if you don’t have these cameras. And when the Civil Rights Division is looking at a police department, every piece of informa- tion that shows the department is engaged in constitutional policing is important. So of course bodyBody-worn cameras can help.” – Xxx X. Xxxxxxincrease accountability, Xx.but police agencies also must find a way to preserve the informal and unique relationships between police officers and community members. This publication, Deputy Assistant Attorney Generalwhich documents extensive research and analysis by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Civil Rights Division, with support from the U.S. Department of Justice “Although Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), will demonstrate why police departments should not deploy body- worn cameras carelessly. Moreover, departments must anticipate a number of difficult questions— questions with no easy answers because they involve a careful balancing of competing legitimate interests, such as the public’s interest in seeing body-worn cameras are just one tool, camera footage versus the quality interests of information that they can capture crime victims who would prefer not to have their images disseminated to the world. One of the most significant questions departments will face is unsurpassed. With sound policy and guidance, their evidentiary value definitely outweighs any drawbacks or concerns.” – Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief how to identify which types of Police, Xxxxxx (Georgia) Police Department victim statements. “The footage shows first-hand encounters with members of the victim’s injuries, demeanor, and immediate reactions,” Xxxxxxxx noted. In some cases, community officers capture the assault itself on video if they arrive on the scene while the incident is still ongoing. “This means that we can have enough evidence to move forward with the case, even if the victim ultimately declines to prosecute.” Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka echoed this sentiment: “When we show suspects in domestic violence cases footage from the body-worn cameras, often they plead guilty without even having to go to trial.” Photo: Shutterstock/Xxxx Xxxxx Images Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation‌‌ New technologies in policing raise numerous policy issues that must be consideredshould record. This is especially true with body-worn cameras, which can decision will have significant implications important consequences in terms of privacy, transparency, and police-community relationships, and internal departmental affairs. As agencies develop body-worn camera programs, it is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their Although recording policies and practices intersect should provide officers with these larger questions. Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline officers, the expectations that cameras create in terms of court proceedings and officer credibility, and the financial considerations that cameras present. Privacy considerations The proliferation of camera phones, advances in surveillance technology, and the emergence of social media have changed the way people view privacy, contributing to the sense that, as Police Commissioner Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Philadelphia said, it sometimes feels as though “everyone is filming everybody.” As technology advances and expectations of privacy evolveguidance, it is critical that law enforcement agencies carefully consider how the technology they use affects the public’s privacy rights, especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issues. Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered before. Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial recognition technology. In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras policies also give “In London we have CCTVs, which are quite extensive and becoming even more so, but the distinction is that those cameras don’t listen to your conversations. They observe behavior and see what people do and cover public space, so you can see if there is a crime being committed. But CCTVs don’t generally seek out individuals. So I think there is an important distinction there.” – Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx-Howe, Commissioner, London Metropolitan Police Service officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service. There is also concern about how the footage from body-worn cameras might be stored and used. For example, will a person be able to obtain video that was recorded inside a neighbor’s home? Will agencies keep videos indefinitely? Is it possible that the body-worn camera footage might be improperly posted online? When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collection. This means making careful decisions about when officers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure.officers

Perceived Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras. 9‌ supposed 5 Accountability and transparency 5 Reducing complaints and resolving officer-involved incidents 5 Identifying and correcting internal agency problems 7 Evidence documentation e Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation 11 Privacy considerations 11 Determining when to do.” The police departments in Las Vegasrecord 12 Consent to record 14 Recording inside private homes 15 Data storage, Nevadaretention, and Spokane, Washington are also implementing disclosure 15 Lessons learned on privacy considerations 18 Impact on community relationships 1e Securing community support 21 Protecting intelligence-gathering efforts 22 Lessons learned about impact on community relationships 24 Addressing officer concerns 24 Officer concerns about body-worn cameras 24 Addressing officer concerns 26 Incremental implementation 27 Lessons learned about addressing officer concerns 27 Managing expectations 28 Officer review of video prior to assist in complying with making statements 2e Lessons learned about managing expectations 30 Cost of implementation 32 Cost-saving strategies 33 Lessons learned about financial considerations 34 Chapter 3. Body-Worn Camera Recommendations 37 General recommendations 38 Recording protocols 40 Download and storage policies 42 Recorded data access and review 45 Training policies 47 Policy and program evaluation 48 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Conclusion 51 Appendix A. Recommendations Matrix 53 Policy recommendations 53 General recommendations 53 Recording protocols 55 Download and storage policies 5e Training policies 65 Policy and program evaluation 66 Additional lessons learned: engaging officers, policymakers, and the collaborative agreements they entered into with community 67 Appendix B. Conference attendees 69 About PERF 77 About the COPS Office 79 iv T Letter from the PERF Executive Director‌ he recent emergence of body-worn cameras has already had an impact on policing, and this impact will only increase as more agencies adopt this technology. The decision to implement body-worn cameras should not be entered into lightly. Once an agency goes down the U.S. Department road of Justice. Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxx of Los Angeles, whose department is testing deploying body-worn cameras, understands first—and once the public comes to expect the availability of video records—it will become increasingly difficult to have second thoughts or to scale back a body-hand how video evidence can help in these situationsworn camera program. “We exited our consent decree last year, and one of the reasons A police department that the federal judge signed off on us was that we implemented in-car video,” said Xxxx. “Recordings can help improve public trust.” Evidence documentation Police executives said that deploys body-worn cameras have significantly improved is making a statement that it believes the actions of its officers are a matter of public record. By facing the challenges and expense of purchasing and implementing a body-worn camera system, developing policies, and training its officers in how officers capture evidence for investigations to use the cameras, a department creates a reasonable expectation that members of the public and court proceedingsthe news media will want to review the actions of officers. Along And with documenting encounters certain limited exceptions that this publication will discuss, body-worn camera video footage should be made available to the public upon request—not only because the videos are public records but also because doing so enables police departments to demonstrate transparency and openness in their interactions with members of the publiccommunity. Body-worn cameras can help improve the high-quality public service expected of police officers and promote the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments. Furthermore, departments that are already deploying body-worn cameras tell us that the presence of cameras often improves the performance of officers as well as the conduct of the community members who are recorded. This is an important advance in policing. And when officers or members of the public break the law or behave badly, body-worn cameras can provide create a public record of interrogations that allows the entire community to see what really happened. At the same time, the fact that both the public and arrests, as well as what officers witness at crime scenes. Chief of Police Xxxxx Xxxxxx of Dalton, Georgia, described how body- worn cameras have helped officers the police increasingly feel the need to improve evidence collection at accident scenes. “It is always hard to gather evidence from accident scenes,” Xxxxxx said. He explained that officers are often focused on securing the scene and performing life-saving measures and that witnesses and victims may not always remember what they had told officers in the confusion. This can lead to conflicting reports when victims and witnesses are asked to repeat their accounts in later statements. “Unlike in-car cameras, body-worn cameras capture everything that happens as officers travel around the scene and interview multiple people. The body-worn cameras have been incredibly useful in accurately preserving information.” Some prosecutors have started encouraging police departments to use body-worn cameras to capture more reliable evidence for court, particularly in matters like domestic violence cases that videotape every interaction can be difficult seen both as a reflection of the times and as an unfortunate commentary on the state of police-community relationships in some jurisdictions. As a profession, policing has come too far in developing and strengthening relationships with its communities to prosecuteallow encounters with the public to become officious and legalistic. Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach explained how body- worn cameras have changed how domestic violence cases are handled. “Oftentimes we know that the suspect is repeatedly abusing the victim, but either the victim refuses to press charges, or there is simply not enough evidence to go to trial,” he said. With the victim’s consent, Daytona Beach officers can now use body-worn cameras to videotape “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body- worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera, and so everyone else is going to be able to tell the story better than you if you don’t have these cameras. And when the Civil Rights Division is looking at a police department, every piece of informa- tion that shows the department is engaged in constitutional policing is important. So of course bodyBody-worn cameras can help.” – Xxx X. Xxxxxxincrease accountability, Xx.but police agencies also must find a way to preserve the informal and unique relationships between police officers and community members. This publication, Deputy Assistant Attorney Generalwhich documents extensive research and analysis by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Civil Rights Division, with support from the U.S. Department of Justice “Although Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), will demonstrate why police departments should not deploy body- worn cameras carelessly. Moreover, departments must anticipate a number of difficult questions— questions with no easy answers because they involve a careful balancing of competing legitimate interests, such as the public’s interest in seeing body-worn cameras are just one tool, camera footage versus the quality interests of information that they can capture crime victims who would prefer not to have their images disseminated to the world. One of the most significant questions departments will face is unsurpassed. With sound policy and guidance, their evidentiary value definitely outweighs any drawbacks or concerns.” – Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief how to identify which types of Police, Xxxxxx (Georgia) Police Department victim statements. “The footage shows first-hand encounters with members of the victim’s injuries, demeanor, and immediate reactions,” Xxxxxxxx noted. In some cases, community officers capture the assault itself on video if they arrive on the scene while the incident is still ongoing. “This means that we can have enough evidence to move forward with the case, even if the victim ultimately declines to prosecute.” Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka echoed this sentiment: “When we show suspects in domestic violence cases footage from the body-worn cameras, often they plead guilty without even having to go to trial.” Photo: Shutterstock/Xxxx Xxxxx Images Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation‌‌ New technologies in policing raise numerous policy issues that must be consideredshould record. This is especially true with body-worn cameras, which can decision will have significant implications important consequences in terms of privacy, transparency, and police-community relationships, and internal departmental affairs. As agencies develop body-worn camera programs, it is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their Although recording policies and practices intersect should provide officers with these larger questions. Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline officers, the expectations that cameras create in terms of court proceedings and officer credibility, and the financial considerations that cameras present. Privacy considerations The proliferation of camera phones, advances in surveillance technology, and the emergence of social media have changed the way people view privacy, contributing to the sense that, as Police Commissioner Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Philadelphia said, it sometimes feels as though “everyone is filming everybody.” As technology advances and expectations of privacy evolveguidance, it is critical that law enforcement agencies carefully consider how the technology they use affects the public’s privacy rights, especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issues. Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered before. Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial recognition technology. In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras policies also give “In London we have CCTVs, which are quite extensive and becoming even more so, but the distinction is that those cameras don’t listen to your conversations. They observe behavior and see what people do and cover public space, so you can see if there is a crime being committed. But CCTVs don’t generally seek out individuals. So I think there is an important distinction there.” – Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx-Howe, Commissioner, London Metropolitan Police Service officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service. There is also concern about how the footage from body-worn cameras might be stored and used. For example, will a person be able to obtain video that was recorded inside a neighbor’s home? Will agencies keep videos indefinitely? Is it possible that the body-worn camera footage might be improperly posted online? When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collection. This means making careful decisions about when officers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure.officers

Perceived Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras. 9‌ supposed 7‌ Agencies are also reporting that, in most of these cases, the resolution is in support of the officer’s account of events. Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach, Florida, recalled one example in which a member of the public threatened to dofile a complaint against officers following a contentious encounter. Alleging that the officers had threatened him and used racial epithets, the individual said that he would go to the news media if the department failed to take action. One of the officers involved had been wearing a body-worn camera. “We reviewed the video, and clearly the individual lied,” recalled Xxxxxxxx. “The officer was glad to have the footage because the individual’s allegations were absolutely not what was represented in the video.” Body-worn cameras have also helped to resolve more serious incidents, including officer-involved shootings. Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka said that the local district attorney cleared an officer in a deadly shooting incident after viewing the officer’s body-worn camera footage. Xxxxxx described how the camera footage captured the event in real time and provided a record of events that would otherwise not have existed. “The entire event was captured on video from the perspective of the officer. Now tell me when that happened before the advent of body-worn cameras,” said Xxxxxx. Several police departments departments, including those in Las VegasDaytona Beach, NevadaFlorida, and SpokaneGreenville, Washington North Carolina, are finding that officers with a history “The use of body-worn video by frontline of- ficers has real potential to reduce complaints of incivility and use of force by officers. The footage can also implementing exonerate officers from vex- atious and malicious complaints. In addition, I feel there are benefits to the criminal justice system in terms of more guilty pleas, reduced costs at court, and a reduction in the num- ber of civil cases brought against the police service for unlawful arrest/excessive force. We already have good examples of body- worn video footage exonerating officers from malicious complaints.’’ – Xxxx Xxxxxx, Detective Chief Superintendent, Greater Manchester (UK) Police of complaints are now actively requesting to wear cameras. For officers who behave properly but generate complaints because they have high levels of activity or frequent contacts with criminal suspects, cameras can be seen as beneficial. “We all have our small percentage of officers with a history of complaints,” said Chief of Police Xxxxxx Xxxx of Greenville. “Internal Affairs has told me that these officers have come in to request body-worn cameras to assist so that they can be protected in complying with the collaborative agreements they entered into with the COPS Office of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxx of Los Angeles, whose department is testing body-worn cameras, understands first-hand how video evidence can help in these situations. “We exited our consent decree last year, and one of the reasons that the federal judge signed off on us was that we implemented in-car video,” said Xxxx. “Recordings can help improve public trustfuture.” Evidence documentation Police executives said Identifying and correcting internal agency problems Another way that body-worn cameras have significantly improved how strengthened accountability and transparency, according to many police executives, is by helping agencies identify and correct problems within the department. In fact, PERF’s survey found that 94 percent of respondents use body-worn camera footage to train officers capture evidence for investigations and court proceedingsaid in administrative reviews. Along with documenting encounters with members of the public, Many police agencies are discovering that body-worn cameras can provide serve as a record of interrogations and arrestsuseful training tool to help improve officer performance. For example, as well as what officers witness at crime scenes. Chief of Police Xxxxx Xxxxxx of Dalton, Georgia, described how body- worn cameras have helped officers to improve evidence collection at accident scenes. “It is always hard to gather evidence from accident scenes,” Xxxxxx said. He explained that officers agencies are often focused on securing the scene and performing life-saving measures and that witnesses and victims may not always remember what they had told officers in the confusion. This can lead to conflicting reports when victims and witnesses are asked to repeat their accounts in later statements. “Unlike in-car cameras, body-worn cameras capture everything that happens as officers travel around the scene and interview multiple people. The body-worn cameras have been incredibly useful in accurately preserving information.” Some prosecutors have started encouraging police departments to use body-worn cameras to capture more reliable evidence for court, particularly in matters like domestic violence cases that can be difficult to prosecute. Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach explained how body- worn cameras have changed how domestic violence cases are handled. “Oftentimes we know that the suspect is repeatedly abusing the victim, but either the victim refuses to press charges, or there is simply not enough evidence to go to trial,” he said. With the victim’s consent, Daytona Beach officers can now use body-worn cameras to videotape “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body- worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera, and so everyone else is going to be able to tell the story better than you if you don’t have these cameras. And when the Civil Rights Division is looking at a police department, every piece of informa- tion that shows the department is engaged in constitutional policing is important. So of course body-worn cameras can help.” – Xxx X. Xxxxxx, Xx., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice “Although body-worn cameras are just one tool, the quality of information that they can capture is unsurpassed. With sound policy and guidance, their evidentiary value definitely outweighs any drawbacks or concerns.” – Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Xxxxxx (Georgia) Police Department victim statements. “The footage shows first-hand the victim’s injuries, demeanor, and immediate reactions,” Xxxxxxxx noted. In some cases, officers capture the assault itself on video if they arrive on the scene while the incident is still ongoing. “This means that we can have enough evidence to move forward with the case, even if the victim ultimately declines to prosecute.” Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka echoed this sentiment: “When we show suspects in domestic violence cases footage from the body-worn cameras, often they plead guilty without even having to go to trial.” Photo: Shutterstock/Xxxx Xxxxx Images Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation‌‌ New technologies in policing raise numerous policy issues that must be considered. This is especially true with body-worn cameras, which can have significant implications in terms of privacy, community relationships, and internal departmental affairs. As agencies develop body-worn camera programs, it is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their policies and practices intersect with these larger questions. Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline officers, the expectations that cameras create in terms of court proceedings and officer credibility, and the financial considerations that cameras present. Privacy considerations The proliferation of camera phones, advances in surveillance technology, and the emergence of social media have changed the way people view privacy, contributing to the sense that, as Police Commissioner Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Philadelphia said, it sometimes feels as though “everyone is filming everybody.” As technology advances and expectations of privacy evolve, it is critical that law enforcement agencies carefully consider how the technology they use affects the public’s privacy rights, especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issues. Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered before. Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial recognition technology. In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras give “In London we have CCTVs, which are quite extensive and becoming even more so, but the distinction is that those cameras don’t listen to your conversations. They observe behavior and see what people do and cover public space, so you can see if there is a crime being committed. But CCTVs don’t generally seek out individuals. So I think there is an important distinction there.” – Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx-Howe, Commissioner, London Metropolitan Police Service officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service. There is also concern about how the footage from body-worn cameras might be stored to provide “We have about 450 body-worn cameras actively deployed, and usedin the overwhelming majority of cases, the footage demonstrates that the officer’s actions were appropriate.” – Xxxx Xxxxx, Chief of Police, Oakland (California) Police Department scenario-based training, to evaluate the performance of new officers in the field, and to identify new areas in which training is needed. For By using body-worn cameras in this way, agencies have the opportunity to raise standards of performance when it comes to tactics, communication, and customer service. This can help increase the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments. Law enforcement agencies have also found that body-worn cameras can help them to identify officers who abuse their authority or commit other misconduct and to assist in correcting questionable behavior before it reaches that level. In Phoenix, for example, will a person be able to obtain video that an officer was recorded inside a neighbor’s home? Will agencies keep videos indefinitely? Is it possible that the fired after his body-worn camera footage might be improperly posted online? When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency captured repeated incidents of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collectionunprofessional conduct. This means making careful decisions about when officers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure.Following a complaint

Perceived Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras. 9‌ supposed 7‌ Agencies are also reporting that, in most of these cases, the resolution is in support of the officer’s account of events. Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach, Florida, recalled one example in which a member of the public threatened to dofile a complaint against officers following a contentious encounter. Alleging that the officers had threatened him and used racial epithets, the individual said that he would go to the news media if the department failed to take action. One of the officers involved had been wearing a body-worn camera. “We reviewed the video, and clearly the individual lied,” recalled Xxxxxxxx. “The officer was glad to have the footage because the individual’s allegations were absolutely not what was represented in the video.” Body-worn cameras have also helped to resolve more serious incidents, including officer-involved shootings. Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka said that the local district attorney cleared an officer in a deadly shooting incident after viewing the officer’s body-worn camera footage. Xxxxxx described how the camera footage captured the event in real time and provided a record of events that would otherwise not have existed. “The entire event was captured on video from the perspective of the officer. Now tell me when that happened before the advent of body-worn cameras,” said Xxxxxx. Several police departments departments, including those in Las VegasDaytona Beach, NevadaFlorida, and SpokaneGreenville, Washington North Carolina, are finding that officers with a history “The use of body-worn video by frontline of- ficers has real potential to reduce complaints of incivility and use of force by officers. The footage can also implementing exonerate officers from vex- atious and malicious complaints. In addition, I feel there are benefits to the criminal justice system in terms of more guilty pleas, reduced costs at court, and a reduction in the num- ber of civil cases brought against the police service for unlawful arrest/excessive force. We already have good examples of body- worn video footage exonerating officers from malicious complaints.’’ – Xxxx Xxxxxx, Detective Chief Superintendent, Greater Manchester (UK) Police of complaints are now actively requesting to wear cameras. For officers who behave properly but generate complaints because they have high levels of activity or frequent contacts with criminal suspects, cameras can be seen as beneficial. “We all have our small percentage of officers with a history of complaints,” said Chief of Police Xxxxxx Xxxx of Greenville. “Internal Affairs has told me that these officers have come in to request body-worn cameras to assist so that they can be protected in complying with the collaborative agreements they entered into with the COPS Office of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxx of Los Angeles, whose department is testing body-worn cameras, understands first-hand how video evidence can help in these situations. “We exited our consent decree last year, and one of the reasons that the federal judge signed off on us was that we implemented in-car video,” said Xxxx. “Recordings can help improve public trustfuture.” Evidence documentation Police executives said Identifying and correcting internal agency problems Another way that body-worn cameras have significantly improved how strengthened accountability and transparency, according to many police executives, is by helping agencies identify and correct problems within the department. In fact, PERF’s survey found that e4 percent of respondents use body-worn camera footage to train officers capture evidence for investigations and court proceedingsaid in administrative reviews. Along with documenting encounters with members of the public, Many police agencies are discovering that body-worn cameras can provide serve as a record of interrogations and arrestsuseful training tool to help improve officer performance. For example, as well as what officers witness at crime scenes. Chief of Police Xxxxx Xxxxxx of Dalton, Georgia, described how body- worn cameras have helped officers to improve evidence collection at accident scenes. “It is always hard to gather evidence from accident scenes,” Xxxxxx said. He explained that officers agencies are often focused on securing the scene and performing life-saving measures and that witnesses and victims may not always remember what they had told officers in the confusion. This can lead to conflicting reports when victims and witnesses are asked to repeat their accounts in later statements. “Unlike in-car cameras, body-worn cameras capture everything that happens as officers travel around the scene and interview multiple people. The body-worn cameras have been incredibly useful in accurately preserving information.” Some prosecutors have started encouraging police departments to use body-worn cameras to capture more reliable evidence for court, particularly in matters like domestic violence cases that can be difficult to prosecute. Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach explained how body- worn cameras have changed how domestic violence cases are handled. “Oftentimes we know that the suspect is repeatedly abusing the victim, but either the victim refuses to press charges, or there is simply not enough evidence to go to trial,” he said. With the victim’s consent, Daytona Beach officers can now use body-worn cameras to videotape “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body- worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera, and so everyone else is going to be able to tell the story better than you if you don’t have these cameras. And when the Civil Rights Division is looking at a police department, every piece of informa- tion that shows the department is engaged in constitutional policing is important. So of course body-worn cameras can help.” – Xxx X. Xxxxxx, Xx., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice “Although body-worn cameras are just one tool, the quality of information that they can capture is unsurpassed. With sound policy and guidance, their evidentiary value definitely outweighs any drawbacks or concerns.” – Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Xxxxxx (Georgia) Police Department victim statements. “The footage shows first-hand the victim’s injuries, demeanor, and immediate reactions,” Xxxxxxxx noted. In some cases, officers capture the assault itself on video if they arrive on the scene while the incident is still ongoing. “This means that we can have enough evidence to move forward with the case, even if the victim ultimately declines to prosecute.” Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka echoed this sentiment: “When we show suspects in domestic violence cases footage from the body-worn cameras, often they plead guilty without even having to go to trial.” Photo: Shutterstock/Xxxx Xxxxx Images Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation‌‌ New technologies in policing raise numerous policy issues that must be considered. This is especially true with body-worn cameras, which can have significant implications in terms of privacy, community relationships, and internal departmental affairs. As agencies develop body-worn camera programs, it is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their policies and practices intersect with these larger questions. Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline officers, the expectations that cameras create in terms of court proceedings and officer credibility, and the financial considerations that cameras present. Privacy considerations The proliferation of camera phones, advances in surveillance technology, and the emergence of social media have changed the way people view privacy, contributing to the sense that, as Police Commissioner Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Philadelphia said, it sometimes feels as though “everyone is filming everybody.” As technology advances and expectations of privacy evolve, it is critical that law enforcement agencies carefully consider how the technology they use affects the public’s privacy rights, especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issues. Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered before. Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial recognition technology. In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras give “In London we have CCTVs, which are quite extensive and becoming even more so, but the distinction is that those cameras don’t listen to your conversations. They observe behavior and see what people do and cover public space, so you can see if there is a crime being committed. But CCTVs don’t generally seek out individuals. So I think there is an important distinction there.” – Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx-Howe, Commissioner, London Metropolitan Police Service officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service. There is also concern about how the footage from body-worn cameras might be stored to provide “We have about 450 body-worn cameras actively deployed, and usedin the overwhelming majority of cases, the footage demonstrates that the officer’s actions were appropriate.” – Xxxx Xxxxx, Chief of Police, Oakland (California) Police Department scenario-based training, to evaluate the performance of new officers in the field, and to identify new areas in which training is needed. For By using body-worn cameras in this way, agencies have the opportunity to raise standards of performance when it comes to tactics, communication, and customer service. This can help increase the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments. Law enforcement agencies have also found that body-worn cameras can help them to identify officers who abuse their authority or commit other misconduct and to assist in correcting questionable behavior before it reaches that level. In Phoenix, for example, will a person be able to obtain video that an officer was recorded inside a neighbor’s home? Will agencies keep videos indefinitely? Is it possible that the fired after his body-worn camera footage might be improperly posted online? When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency captured repeated incidents of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collectionunprofessional conduct. This means making careful decisions about when officers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure.Following a complaint

Perceived Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras. 9‌ supposed 5 Accountability and transparency 5 Reducing complaints and resolving officer-involved incidents 5 Identifying and correcting internal agency problems 7 Evidence documentation 9 Chapter 2 . Considerations for Implementation 11 Privacy considerations 11 Determining when to do.” The police departments in Las Vegasrecord 12 Consent to record 14 Recording inside private homes 15 Data storage, Nevadaretention, and Spokane, Washington are also implementing disclosure 15 Lessons learned on privacy considerations 18 Impact on community relationships 19 Securing community support 21 Protecting intelligence-gathering efforts 22 Lessons learned about impact on community relationships 24 Addressing officer concerns 24 Officer concerns about body-worn cameras 24 Addressing officer concerns 26 Incremental implementation 27 Lessons learned about addressing officer concerns 27 Managing expectations 28 Officer review of video prior to assist in complying with making statements 29 Lessons learned about managing expectations 30 Financial considerations 31 Cost of implementation 32 Cost-saving strategies 33 Lessons learned about financial considerations 34 Chapter 3 . Body-Worn Camera Recommendations 37 General recommendations 38 Recording protocols 40 Download and storage policies 42 Recorded data access and review 45 Training policies 47 Policy and program evaluation 48 Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Conclusion 51 Appendix A . Recommendations Matrix 53 Policy recommendations 53 General recommendations 53 Recording protocols 55 Download and storage policies 59 Training policies 65 Policy and program evaluation 66 Additional lessons learned: engaging officers, policymakers, and the collaborative agreements they entered into with community 67 Appendix B . Conference attendees 69 About PERF 77 About the COPS Office 79 iv T Letter from the PERF Executive Director‌ he recent emergence of body-worn cameras has already had an impact on policing, and this impact will only increase as more agencies adopt this technology . The decision to implement body-worn cameras should not be entered into lightly . Once an agency goes down the U.S. Department road of Justice. Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxx of Los Angeles, whose department is testing deploying body-worn cameras, understands first—and once the public comes to expect the availability of video records—it will become increasingly difficult to have second thoughts or to scale back a body-hand how video evidence can help in these situationsworn camera program . “We exited our consent decree last year, and one of the reasons A police department that the federal judge signed off on us was that we implemented in-car video,” said Xxxx. “Recordings can help improve public trust.” Evidence documentation Police executives said that deploys body-worn cameras have significantly improved is making a statement that it believes the actions of its officers are a matter of public record . By facing the challenges and expense of purchasing and implementing a body-worn camera system, developing policies, and training its officers in how to use the cameras, a department creates a reasonable expectation that members of the public and the news media will want to review the actions of officers capture evidence for investigations . And with certain limited exceptions that this publication will discuss, body-worn camera video footage should be made available to the public upon request—not only because the videos are public records but also because doing so enables police departments to demonstrate transparency and court proceedings. Along with documenting encounters openness in their interactions with members of the publiccommunity . Body-worn cameras can help improve the high-quality public service expected of police officers and promote the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments . Furthermore, departments that are already deploying body-worn cameras tell us that the presence of cameras often improves the performance of officers as well as the conduct of the community members who are recorded . This is an important advance in policing . And when officers or members of the public break the law or behave badly, body-worn cameras can provide create a public record of interrogations that allows the entire community to see what really happened . At the same time, the fact that both the public and arrests, as well as what officers witness at crime scenes. Chief of Police Xxxxx Xxxxxx of Dalton, Georgia, described how body- worn cameras have helped officers the police increasingly feel the need to improve evidence collection at accident scenes. “It is always hard to gather evidence from accident scenes,” Xxxxxx said. He explained that officers are often focused on securing the scene and performing life-saving measures and that witnesses and victims may not always remember what they had told officers in the confusion. This can lead to conflicting reports when victims and witnesses are asked to repeat their accounts in later statements. “Unlike in-car cameras, body-worn cameras capture everything that happens as officers travel around the scene and interview multiple people. The body-worn cameras have been incredibly useful in accurately preserving information.” Some prosecutors have started encouraging police departments to use body-worn cameras to capture more reliable evidence for court, particularly in matters like domestic violence cases that videotape every interaction can be difficult seen both as a reflection of the times and as an unfortunate commentary on the state of police-community relationships in some jurisdictions . As a profession, policing has come too far in developing and strengthening relationships with its communities to prosecuteallow encounters with the public to become officious and legalistic . Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach explained how body- worn cameras have changed how domestic violence cases are handled. “Oftentimes we know that the suspect is repeatedly abusing the victim, but either the victim refuses to press charges, or there is simply not enough evidence to go to trial,” he said. With the victim’s consent, Daytona Beach officers can now use body-worn cameras to videotape “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body- worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera, and so everyone else is going to be able to tell the story better than you if you don’t have these cameras. And when the Civil Rights Division is looking at a police department, every piece of informa- tion that shows the department is engaged in constitutional policing is important. So of course bodyBody-worn cameras can help.” – Xxx X. Xxxxxxincrease accountability, Xx.but police agencies also must find a way to preserve the informal and unique relationships between police officers and community members . This publication, Deputy Assistant Attorney Generalwhich documents extensive research and analysis by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Civil Rights Division, U.S. with support from the U .S . Department of Justice “Although Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), will demonstrate why police departments should not deploy body- worn cameras carelessly . Moreover, departments must anticipate a number of difficult questions— questions with no easy answers because they involve a careful balancing of competing legitimate interests, such as the public’s interest in seeing body-worn cameras are just one tool, camera footage versus the quality interests of information that they can capture crime victims who would prefer not to have their images disseminated to the world . One of the most significant questions departments will face is unsurpassed. With sound policy and guidance, their evidentiary value definitely outweighs any drawbacks or concerns.” – Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief how to identify which types of Police, Xxxxxx (Georgia) Police Department victim statements. “The footage shows first-hand encounters with members of the victim’s injuries, demeanor, and immediate reactions,” Xxxxxxxx noted. In some cases, community officers capture the assault itself on video if they arrive on the scene while the incident is still ongoing. “This means that we can have enough evidence to move forward with the case, even if the victim ultimately declines to prosecute.” Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka echoed this sentiment: “When we show suspects in domestic violence cases footage from the body-worn cameras, often they plead guilty without even having to go to trial.” Photo: Shutterstock/Xxxx Xxxxx Images Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation‌‌ New technologies in policing raise numerous policy issues that must be consideredshould record . This is especially true with body-worn cameras, which can decision will have significant implications important consequences in terms of privacy, community relationshipstransparency, and internal departmental affairspolice-community relationships . As agencies develop body-worn camera programs, it is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their Although recording policies and practices intersect should provide officers with these larger questions. Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline officers, the expectations that cameras create in terms of court proceedings and officer credibility, and the financial considerations that cameras present. Privacy considerations The proliferation of camera phones, advances in surveillance technology, and the emergence of social media have changed the way people view privacy, contributing to the sense that, as Police Commissioner Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Philadelphia said, it sometimes feels as though “everyone is filming everybody.” As technology advances and expectations of privacy evolveguidance, it is critical that law enforcement agencies carefully consider how the technology they use affects the public’s privacy rights, especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issues. Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered before. Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial recognition technology. In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras policies also give “In London we have CCTVs, which are quite extensive and becoming even more so, but the distinction is that those cameras don’t listen to your conversations. They observe behavior and see what people do and cover public space, so you can see if there is a crime being committed. But CCTVs don’t generally seek out individuals. So I think there is an important distinction there.” – Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx-Howe, Commissioner, London Metropolitan Police Service officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service. There is also concern about how the footage from body-worn cameras might be stored and used. For example, will a person be able to obtain video that was recorded inside a neighbor’s home? Will agencies keep videos indefinitely? Is it possible that the body-worn camera footage might be improperly posted online? When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collection. This means making careful decisions about when officers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure.officers

Perceived Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras. 9‌ supposed 7‌ Agencies are also reporting that, in most of these cases, the resolution is in support of the officer’s account of events . Chief of Police Xxxx Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach, Florida, recalled one example in which a member of the public threatened to dofile a complaint against officers following a contentious encounter . Alleging that the officers had threatened him and used racial epithets, the individual said that he would go to the news media if the department failed to take action . One of the officers involved had been wearing a body-worn camera . “We reviewed the video, and clearly the individual lied,” recalled Xxxxxxxx . “The officer was glad to have the footage because the individual’s allegations were absolutely not what was represented in the video .” Body-worn cameras have also helped to resolve more serious incidents, including officer-involved shootings . Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka said that the local district attorney cleared an officer in a deadly shooting incident after viewing the officer’s body-worn camera footage . Xxxxxx described how the camera footage captured the event in real time and provided a record of events that would otherwise not have existed . “The entire event was captured on video from the perspective of the officer . Now tell me when that happened before the advent of body-worn cameras,” said Xxxxxx . Several police departments departments, including those in Las VegasDaytona Beach, NevadaFlorida, and SpokaneGreenville, Washington North Carolina, are finding that officers with a history “The use of body-worn video by frontline of- ficers has real potential to reduce complaints of incivility and use of force by officers. The footage can also implementing exonerate officers from vex- atious and malicious complaints. In addition, I feel there are benefits to the criminal justice system in terms of more guilty pleas, reduced costs at court, and a reduction in the num- ber of civil cases brought against the police service for unlawful arrest/excessive force. We already have good examples of body- worn video footage exonerating officers from malicious complaints.’’ – Xxxx Xxxxxx, Detective Chief Superintendent, Greater Manchester (UK) Police of complaints are now actively requesting to wear cameras . For officers who behave properly but generate complaints because they have high levels of activity or frequent contacts with criminal suspects, cameras can be seen as beneficial . “We all have our small percentage of officers with a history of complaints,” said Chief of Police Xxxxxx Xxxx of Greenville . “Internal Affairs has told me that these officers have come in to request body-worn cameras to assist so that they can be protected in complying with the collaborative agreements they entered into with the COPS Office of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxx of Los Angeles, whose department is testing body-worn cameras, understands first-hand how video evidence can help in these situations. “We exited our consent decree last year, and one of the reasons that the federal judge signed off on us was that we implemented in-car video,” said Xxxx. “Recordings can help improve public trustfuture .” Evidence documentation Police executives said Identifying and correcting internal agency problems Another way that body-worn cameras have significantly improved how strengthened accountability and transparency, according to many police executives, is by helping agencies identify and correct problems within the department . In fact, PERF’s survey found that 94 percent of respondents use body-worn camera footage to train officers capture evidence for investigations and court proceedingsaid in administrative reviews . Along with documenting encounters with members of the public, Many police agencies are discovering that body-worn cameras can provide serve as a record of interrogations and arrestsuseful training tool to help improve officer performance . For example, as well as what officers witness at crime scenes. Chief of Police Xxxxx Xxxxxx of Dalton, Georgia, described how body- worn cameras have helped officers to improve evidence collection at accident scenes. “It is always hard to gather evidence from accident scenes,” Xxxxxx said. He explained that officers agencies are often focused on securing the scene and performing life-saving measures and that witnesses and victims may not always remember what they had told officers in the confusion. This can lead to conflicting reports when victims and witnesses are asked to repeat their accounts in later statements. “Unlike in-car cameras, body-worn cameras capture everything that happens as officers travel around the scene and interview multiple people. The body-worn cameras have been incredibly useful in accurately preserving information.” Some prosecutors have started encouraging police departments to use body-worn cameras to capture more reliable evidence for court, particularly in matters like domestic violence cases that can be difficult to prosecute. Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach explained how body- worn cameras have changed how domestic violence cases are handled. “Oftentimes we know that the suspect is repeatedly abusing the victim, but either the victim refuses to press charges, or there is simply not enough evidence to go to trial,” he said. With the victim’s consent, Daytona Beach officers can now use body-worn cameras to videotape “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body- worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera, and so everyone else is going to be able to tell the story better than you if you don’t have these cameras. And when the Civil Rights Division is looking at a police department, every piece of informa- tion that shows the department is engaged in constitutional policing is important. So of course body-worn cameras can help.” – Xxx X. Xxxxxx, Xx., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice “Although body-worn cameras are just one tool, the quality of information that they can capture is unsurpassed. With sound policy and guidance, their evidentiary value definitely outweighs any drawbacks or concerns.” – Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Xxxxxx (Georgia) Police Department victim statements. “The footage shows first-hand the victim’s injuries, demeanor, and immediate reactions,” Xxxxxxxx noted. In some cases, officers capture the assault itself on video if they arrive on the scene while the incident is still ongoing. “This means that we can have enough evidence to move forward with the case, even if the victim ultimately declines to prosecute.” Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka echoed this sentiment: “When we show suspects in domestic violence cases footage from the body-worn cameras, often they plead guilty without even having to go to trial.” Photo: Shutterstock/Xxxx Xxxxx Images Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation‌‌ New technologies in policing raise numerous policy issues that must be considered. This is especially true with body-worn cameras, which can have significant implications in terms of privacy, community relationships, and internal departmental affairs. As agencies develop body-worn camera programs, it is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their policies and practices intersect with these larger questions. Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline officers, the expectations that cameras create in terms of court proceedings and officer credibility, and the financial considerations that cameras present. Privacy considerations The proliferation of camera phones, advances in surveillance technology, and the emergence of social media have changed the way people view privacy, contributing to the sense that, as Police Commissioner Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Philadelphia said, it sometimes feels as though “everyone is filming everybody.” As technology advances and expectations of privacy evolve, it is critical that law enforcement agencies carefully consider how the technology they use affects the public’s privacy rights, especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issues. Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered before. Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial recognition technology. In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras give “In London we have CCTVs, which are quite extensive and becoming even more so, but the distinction is that those cameras don’t listen to your conversations. They observe behavior and see what people do and cover public space, so you can see if there is a crime being committed. But CCTVs don’t generally seek out individuals. So I think there is an important distinction there.” – Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx-Howe, Commissioner, London Metropolitan Police Service officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service. There is also concern about how the footage from body-worn cameras might be stored to provide “We have about 450 body-worn cameras actively deployed, and usedin the overwhelming majority of cases, the footage demonstrates that the officer’s actions were appropriate.” – Xxxx Xxxxx, Chief of Police, Oakland (California) Police Department scenario-based training, to evaluate the performance of new officers in the field, and to identify new areas in which training is needed . For By using body-worn cameras in this way, agencies have the opportunity to raise standards of performance when it comes to tactics, communication, and customer service . This can help increase the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments . Law enforcement agencies have also found that body-worn cameras can help them to identify officers who abuse their authority or commit other misconduct and to assist in correcting questionable behavior before it reaches that level . In Phoenix, for example, will a person be able to obtain video that an officer was recorded inside a neighbor’s home? Will agencies keep videos indefinitely? Is it possible that the fired after his body-worn camera footage might be improperly posted online? When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency captured repeated incidents of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collectionunprofessional conduct . This means making careful decisions about when officers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure.Following a complaint

Perceived Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras. 9‌ supposed to dodo .” The police departments in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Spokane, Washington are also implementing body-worn cameras to assist in complying with the collaborative agreements they entered into with the COPS Office of the U.S. U .S . Department of JusticeJustice . Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxx of Los Angeles, whose department is testing body-worn cameras, understands first-hand how video evidence can help in these situationssituations . “We exited our consent decree last year, and one of the reasons that the federal judge signed off on us was that we implemented in-car video,” said XxxxXxxx . “Recordings can help improve public trusttrust .” Evidence documentation Police executives said that body-worn cameras have significantly improved how officers capture evidence for investigations and court proceedingsproceedings . Along with documenting encounters with members of the public, body-worn cameras can provide a record of interrogations and arrests, as well as what officers witness at crime scenesscenes . Chief of Police Xxxxx Xxxxxx of Dalton, Georgia, described how body- worn cameras have helped officers to improve evidence collection at accident scenesscenes . “It is always hard to gather evidence from accident scenes,” Xxxxxx saidsaid . He explained that officers are often focused on securing the scene and performing life-saving measures and that witnesses and victims may not always remember what they had told officers in the confusionconfusion . This can lead to conflicting reports when victims and witnesses are asked to repeat their accounts in later statementsstatements . “Unlike in-car cameras, body-worn cameras capture everything that happens as officers travel around the scene and interview multiple peoplepeople . The body-worn cameras have been incredibly useful in accurately preserving informationinformation .” Some prosecutors have started encouraging police departments to use body-worn cameras to capture more reliable evidence for court, particularly in matters like domestic violence cases that can be difficult to prosecuteprosecute . Chief Xxxxxxxx of Daytona Beach explained how body- worn cameras have changed how domestic violence cases are handledhandled . “Oftentimes we know that the suspect is repeatedly abusing the victim, but either the victim refuses to press charges, or there is simply not enough evidence to go to trial,” he saidsaid . With the victim’s consent, Daytona Beach officers can now use body-worn cameras to videotape “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body- worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera, and so everyone else is going to be able to tell the story better than you if you don’t have these cameras. And when the Civil Rights Division is looking at a police department, every piece of informa- tion that shows the department is engaged in constitutional policing is important. So of course body-worn cameras can help.” – Xxx X. Xxxxxx, Xx., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice “Although body-worn cameras are just one tool, the quality of information that they can capture is unsurpassed. With sound policy and guidance, their evidentiary value definitely outweighs any drawbacks or concerns.” – Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief of Police, Xxxxxx (Georgia) Police Department victim statementsstatements . “The footage shows first-hand the victim’s injuries, demeanor, and immediate reactions,” Xxxxxxxx notednoted . In some cases, officers capture the assault itself on video if they arrive on the scene while the incident is still ongoingongoing . “This means that we can have enough evidence to move forward with the case, even if the victim ultimately declines to prosecuteprosecute .” Chief Xxxxxx of Topeka echoed this sentiment: “When we show suspects in domestic violence cases footage from the body-worn cameras, often they plead guilty without even having to go to trialtrial .” Photo: Shutterstock/Xxxx Xxxxx Images Chapter 22 . Considerations for Implementation‌‌ New technologies in policing raise numerous policy issues that must be consideredconsidered . This is especially true with body-worn cameras, which can have significant implications in terms of privacy, community relationships, and internal departmental affairsaffairs . As agencies develop body-worn camera programs, it is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their policies and practices intersect with these larger questionsquestions . Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline officers, the expectations that cameras create in terms of court proceedings and officer credibility, and the financial considerations that cameras presentpresent . Privacy considerations The proliferation of camera phones, advances in surveillance technology, and the emergence of social media have changed the way people view privacy, contributing to the sense that, as Police Commissioner Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx of Philadelphia said, it sometimes feels as though “everyone is filming everybodyeverybody .” As technology advances and expectations of privacy evolve, it is critical that law enforcement agencies carefully consider how the technology they use affects the public’s privacy rights, especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issuesissues . Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered beforebefore . Unlike many traditional surveillance methods, body-worn cameras can simultaneously record both audio and video and capture close-up images that allow for the potential use of facial recognition technologytechnology . In addition, while stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras give “In London we have CCTVs, which are quite extensive and becoming even more so, but the distinction is that those cameras don’t listen to your conversations. They observe behavior and see what people do and cover public space, so you can see if there is a crime being committed. But CCTVs don’t generally seek out individuals. So I think there is an important distinction there.” – Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx-Howe, Commissioner, London Metropolitan Police Service officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for serviceservice . There is also concern about how the footage from body-worn cameras might be stored and usedused . For example, will a person be able to obtain video that was recorded inside a neighbor’s home? Will agencies keep videos indefinitely? Is it possible that the body-worn camera footage might be improperly posted online? When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collectioncollection . This means making careful decisions about when officers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosuredisclosure .