Police Body Cameras: Effectiveness, Evidence, and Policy

Introduction: The Case for Police Body Cameras

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

Reducing Use of Force and Citizen Complaints

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 of body cameras created an atmosphere of de-escalation. Instead of relying upon force and immediately escalating a situation, police were more conscious of their role as peace officers and showed a greater tendency 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 occurred, situations escalated more rapidly, and "citizen complaints were almost 10 times higher" than in situations where officers wore cameras (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015, p. 532).

As Liebman (2015) reports, legislators across the country are pointing to the positive impact of police body cameras, highlighting numerous studies 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 review how a situation occurred and who should be held responsible (p. 346). Body cameras are thus an effective way to mitigate the risk of violence in interactions between officers and the public. They act as a deterrent of sorts, signaling to both the public and the law enforcement officer that everyone is being watched and will be judged for their actions.

How Body Cameras Protect Officers and Citizens

One way that the camera can act as a deterrent is that officers are required to alert the public that they are being recorded. This requirement was one of the recommendations of the ACLU, which was concerned that cameras might violate the privacy rights of citizens. However, the Community Oriented Policing Services of the U.S. Department of Justice's Recommendations (2014) noted that the majority of law enforcement agencies hold the view that if a police officer has the right to enter a person's home, then what happens in that home should also be recorded as part of the job of providing law enforcement.

By limiting body cameras to uniformed officers on duty and requiring them to alert citizens that they are wearing a camera, officers can deter escalation and violence, as all parties understand that it is no longer a matter of "he-said, she-said" — the camera does not lie (Ramirez, 2015). Cameras thereby protect both officers and the public by serving as a neutral party, a mediator between law enforcement 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 carefully consider their words and actions when they know they are being recorded. In short, cameras can encourage more positive and peaceful interactions between officers and citizens, protecting both from lapses in judgment or from emotions running high as a result of an escalating situation: cameras promote cooler heads and encourage peaceful resolution of conflict.

References

Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens' complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509–535.

Community Oriented Policing Services of U.S. Department of Justice Recommendations. (2014). Police Executive Research Forum. Justice.gov. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf

Liebman, B. (2015). The watchman blinded: Does the North Carolina Public Records Law frustrate the purpose of police body worn cameras? North Carolina Law Review, 94, 344–356.

McDonald, L. et al. (2015). Digital evidence in the jury room: The impact of mobile technology on the jury. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 27(2), 179–194.

National Institute of Justice. (2016). NIJ.gov. Retrieved from http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/technology/pages/body-worn-cameras.aspx

Ramirez, E. (2015). Report on body worn cameras. BJA.gov. Retrieved from https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/14-005_Report_BODY_WORN_CAMERAS.pdf