Policy Body Cameras Police Body Cameras

Numerous studies performed by researchers have shown that body cameras positively impact both the police force and the community where they are implemented by police. From both a safety perspective and an accountability perspective, police body cameras allow society to be better served. This paper will provide information on effectiveness, how body cameras are reliable, how they protect both officers and citizens, what budgetary concerns should be addressed when implementing them, and how evidence gathered from them can be used in court.

The study by Ariel, Farrar and Sutherland (2015) showed that when police used body cameras there was a "50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use of force" (p. 532). The researchers observed that the mere existence body cameras, in other words, created an atmosphere of de-escalation. Instead of relying upon force and immediately using force and escalating a situation, police were more conscious of their role as peace officers and there was more of a tendency on their part to de-escalate rather than escalate situations where tension was building. On the other hand, the study indicated that when officers did not wear body cameras, the result was different -- more disturbances resulted, situations escalated more rapidly, and "citizen complaints were almost 10 times higher" than situations wherein officers wore cameras (Ariel, Farrar, Sutherland, 2015, p. 532).

As Liebman (2015) reports, legislators across the country are pointing out the positive impact of police body cameras, highlighting the numerous studies that have been performed showing how cameras "effectively reduce the number of violent police encounters" and how they "provide a sense of accountability and transparency between police and the public that is currently lacking" by allowing real-time data to be recorded and stored so that administrators and public officials can see for themselves how a situation occurred and who should be held responsible (p. 346). The point is that body cameras are an effective way to mitigate the risk of violence in interactions between officers and the public. Cameras act as a deterrent of sorts and signify both to the public and to the law enforcement officer wearing the camera that everyone is being watched and everyone will be judged for his or her actions.

One way that the camera can act as a deterrent is that officers are required to alert the public that they are indeed being recorded by a body camera. This warning was one of the recommendations of the ACLU, which was concerned that cameras might violate privacy rights of the public. However, the Community Oriented Policing Services of the U.S. Department of Justice's Recommendations (2014) noted that the majority of law enforcement agencies and departments across the country hold the view that if a police officer has a right to enter into a person's home then what happens in that home should also be recorded as it is part of the job of providing law enforcement. By only allowing uniformed officers on-duty to wear body cameras and requiring them to alert citizens of the fact that they are wearing a camera (per the request of the ACLU), officers can deter escalation of situations and violence, as all parties will understand that it is no longer a matter of "he-said, she-said," because the camera does not lie (Ramirez, 2015). Thus, cameras protect both officers and the public by serving as a neutral party, a mediator so to speak between law enforcement officers and citizens. They serve as a reminder to both sides that everything they do and say will be stored as evidence, if needed, of any wrongdoing. As studies have shown, people are more likely to consider their thoughts, words and actions more carefully when they know that they are being recorded. In short, cameras can actually encourage more positive and peaceful interactions between officers and citizens and protect both from experiencing lapses in judgment or from emotions flying high as a result of escalating situations: cameras promote cooler heads and encourage peaceful resolution of conflict

That being said, it should be noted that body cameras are a reliable technology for capturing events as they unfold from the perspective of the officer on the scene. Cameras can be always-on or turned on manually. Always-on cameras are more reliable in the sense that there is no way for them to be turned off and thereby miss something that happens between an officer and the public. The camera is constantly rolling and the officer has no way to shut...

This is the most reliable method of ensuring that one's conduct at all times will be scrutinized if there is a complaint made or if violence is used in a situation.
In terms of the storage of data, camera footage is reliably stored typically using cloud-service technology, that allows footage to be streamed directly to an upload feed where footage is stored for upwards of a month before being deleted, unless a complaint or a report of violence has caused the footage to be flagged for keeping. Then it is marked and preserved for records should an internal review or court records require the footage as evidence.

Controlling the storage of footage is, therefore, not up to the individual officers; there is or should be in place a department with oversight that is both civilian and official-based, in the sense that a member of the public and a member of the department combine to work together to ensure that both parties are represented fairly in every case in which there is some question or conflict involved.

This, however, is where budgetary concerns can come into play. Using cloud-service technology can be expensive, as many departments are finding out. In fact, any kind of storage of digitally recorded data is expensive, for it either requires suitable server space or man-hours spent manually uploading and tagging individual files. Neither is preferable but necessity is such that the former is more than likely the most affordable way forward. According to the National Institute of Justice (2016), law enforcement budgets will have to be adjusted in order to take into account and make room for the monthly fees associated with cloud-storage -- fees that can reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars depending upon the size and usage of a department and its body camera program. Thus, attending to the budget and ensuring that the funds are available for a body camera program is one aspect that must be met before such a program can be implemented.

Once the program is implemented, however, the next question that has to be answered is just how effective cameras are as sources of evidence when it comes to court proceedings. The study by McDonald et al. (2015) shows that cameras are actually a good source of evidence as far as juries and judges are concerned. Body cameras and digital technology in general can erase any shadows of doubt from a trial or court proceeding, whereas prior to the existence of body cameras, jurors had to weigh a case by the testimonies that could be dubious. Body cameras are instrumental and more and more commonplace in courtrooms across the country, as they allow prosecutors to determine whether an officer was in the right or in the wrong after a situation escalated and violence ensued. Cameras can be used to determine exactly what happened at a scene, how it happened, how the officer conducted himself or herself, and how the citizens involved behaved. Body cameras serve as a neutral, dispassionate, third-eye observer and provide courts with direct access into a scenario, should a case require such evidence. For this reason, they are becoming more and more important as a social and legal factor in stabilizing relationships between law enforcement officers and communities and supporting and promoting the concept of justice and law in courtroom proceedings.

The only concern left to be discussed regarding the subject of police body cameras is the ethical matter of safeguarding data and ensuring that cyber criminals cannot gain access to it in order to exploit footage for personal gain. Because of ethical concerns regard public privacy and safety, footage should not be stored for any longer than is vitally necessary, and unless data is flagged as evidence that will be needed later for whatever purposes (whether review, clarification, or legal proceeding) it should be deleted within a reasonable amount of time. (This not only ensures public safety and privacy but also cuts down on the costs associated with storage fees).

Thus, safety issues centering on maintaining a secure storage facility, whether localized or cloud-based, should focus on administrative strategies that ensure a proper chain of custody is always documented so that data does not go "missing," is not misplaced, stolen, made public without the gaining of permission from the appropriate administrators, etc. Guidelines into how oversight should be conducted and who should be allowed access to footage once it is recorded and uploaded to storage files, should be made apparent to all personnel as well as to the public so that the…