Document Arvada_doc_379ce5ef8a

Staff study 14-09 Body Worn Camera Video Technology ***INTER-AGENCY VERSION FOR RELEASE*** Draft Date: 02/19/15 2014 City of Arvada, Colorado This work may be reprinted or used in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes only if the reprinting or use carries the following attribution: Reprinted by permission of the City of Arvada Police Department, City of Arvada, Arvada, Colorado. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Definitions & Abbreviations vii Study Overview 1 Introduction to Body Worn Camera Use by Law Enforcement 4 Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks of Implementing BWC 5 Balancing Agency Transparency with Citizen and Officer Privacy 14 How to Implement a Body Worn Camera Program 17 1. Define Agency Goals and Objectives for Implementing a Body Worn Camera Program 20 2. Draft a Policy That Aligns Officer Actions with Agency-Defined Goals 23 3. Identify Logistical Solutions that Support Agency Body Worn Camera Goals and Policies 35 Technology Hardware 35 Cameras 35 Technology Software 36 Video Management 37 Personnel 41 Downloading Video 41 Managing Video 42 Managing Software 43 Managing Hardware 43 Responding to Data Requests from the Public and District Attorney’s Office 43 District Attorney Perspective 45 Financial Commitment 50 Cost Comparison (for reference only!) 52 IT Perspective (written by A. Storrs) 56 4. Put it all together 67 Site Surveys 72 Small Colorado Police Department (~50 sworn officers) 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Mid-sized Police Department 200 sworn officers) 72 Large Police Department (~700 sworn officers) 73 PowerDMS Survey Queries Current Arvada Police Department Sworn Officer’s Perceptions about Body Worn Cameras 82 Arvada Police Department Body Worn Camera Pilot Data 83 86 Acknowledgements 90 Bibliography 91 Appendix 93 PERF 2014 Body Worn Camera Program Recommendations 94 10 limitations of body cams you need to know for your protection 97 Force Science Video Advisory 103 iii ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Table of Figures Figure 1. A body worn camera passively records an incident taking place within its field of view. The camera does not make decisions, evaluate threats, or receive any input other than audio and visual within its 8 Figure 2. In a dynamic critical incident situation, a law enforcement officer’s decisions are affected by different types of sensory input that must be processed through different filters, resulting in an evaluation of the situation and the threat level. The officer then must determine the best course of action, often in fractions of seconds. 8 Figure 3. Individuals viewing video, including jurors, observe the content of the video and process it through their own individual filters. Depending on their background and experiences, different people can reach different conclusions about what “really” happened after viewing the same video. 11 Figure 4. The lifecycle of video generated by body worn cameras. 17 Figure 5. Agency goals must be clearly defined prior to making any other decisions because they will determine how implementing a Body Worn Camera program will affect all involved workgroups. Budgets may be considered in the top of the cascade if that is appropriate to achieving agency 18 Figure 6. Budgets may be considered at the end of the decision cascade if tailoring the program to meet agency goals is a higher priority than allocating a certain dollar amount. 19 Figure 7. Issues that must be considered prior to defining agency goals and objectives (not necessarily an exhaustive list or in a linear hierarchical order). 21 Figure 8. Issues that must be considered prior to developing policy or committing to a technology strategy (not necessarily an exhaustive list or in a linear hierarchical order). 23 Figure 9. Issues that must be considered prior to developing policy or committing to a technology strategy, not necessarily in a linear hierarchical order. 35 Figure 10. How a BWC program will affect personnel and workgroups throughout the agency will be determined by the decisions made regarding goals, policy, and technological investment. 41 Figure 11. Body Worn Camera programs can be implemented without (relatively) large monetary investment in the equipment; however this strategy places enormous burden on personnel in various workgroups and may ultimately be cost inefficient. 51 iv ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 12. Body Worn Camera technology is advanced enough to allow high levels of automation and increased burden on vendors to maintain hardware, ensure security, provide software for maintaining audit trails and editing (e.g. redacting) videos. Vendor options can also include integration between BWC software and current Records Management Software to reduce the time required to correctly label and store video. The increased vendor costs would be accompanied by a reduced burden on workgroups within the agency and may ultimately be less costly. 52 Figure 13. Agencies must understand and carefully consider issues relevant to body worn cameras and then decide whether or not they will implement a program. 68 Figure 14. Example of decision tree for implementing a Body Worn Camera program where budget issues are defined early in the process and a bare-bones technology strategy combined with strict recording requirements are in place. A smaller investment in technology will lead to increased work burden and personnel costs for workgroups involved in managing and maintaining video. 69 Figure 15. Example of decision tree for implementing a Body Worn Camera program where recording requirements are moderate, a decision has been made to reduce the work burden on agency personnel, and budget issues are decided at the end of the process. A decision to invest in features such as integration and utilizing vendor software to manage and maintain video data will reduce agency personnel work load, but it requires a larger financial investment in the technology. 70 v ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Page intentionally left blank vi ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Definitions & Abbreviations BWC – Body-worn camera BWV – Body-worn video BWVC – Body-worn video camera CAD – Computer Assisted Dispatch DIMS – Digital Image Management System IACP – International Association of Chiefs of Police LEA – Law Enforcement Agency LEO – Law Enforcement Officer PERF – Police Executive Research Forum RMS – Records Management System VMS – Video Management System Byte conversions: 1 Terabyte (TB) = 1024 GB (Gigabyte) 1 Gigabyte (GB) = 1024 MB (Megabyte) 1 Megabyte (MB) = 1024 KB (Kilobyte) vii ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Study Overview Body worn video cameras, referred to as BWVC, BWV, or BWC, are small portable cameras similar to cameras used to self-record action sports such as skateboarding and skiing. Law enforcement use of this technology appears to be less than 10 years old, although documentation on this issue is sparse. BWC specifically designed for law enforcement use incorporate security features not found on action sports cameras such as watermarking and disabled editing features to ensure chain-of-custody audit trails conform to rules of evidence. In addition, law enforcement camera models are meant to mount on officer uniforms and be compatible with other law enforcement equipment such as police portable radios. The relative newness of this technology being used in the criminal justice arena means there are few scientific studies regarding how BWC affect law enforcement and there is almost no case law that addresses this issue or provides guidance to agencies. There are serious constitutional concerns pertinent to BWC in law enforcement that other types of video such as dash-cams and CCTV have not addressed specifically because BWC accompany officers wherever they go. In addition to legal uncertainties surrounding law enforcement use of BWC, there are technological limitations to consider. The costs associated with a well-designed and managed BWC program are quite high and may be out of an agency’s reach. Video generated by officer BWC is at a minimum considered a Criminal Justice Record and may become evidence in a criminal case. Therefore the video must be collected, stored, managed, and maintained according to specific rules, laws, and statutes. Each of these issues must be carefully considered and accounted for by any agency considering a BWC program. This study has two aims: 1. to provide a brief summary of the most up-to-date information available regarding the use of BWC during the commission of law enforcement activities, and 2. to provide a road map of the logistical and legal issues a Law Enforcement Agency will have to consider when deciding whether or not to implement a body worn video camera program. We summarize information collected through extensive research on this issue and by speaking with other law enforcement agencies that have firsthand experience using 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study BWC. Several comprehensive publications regarding the use of BWC in law enforcement were released in 2014 and we specifically tried to avoid rewriting the information in these excellent resources (Miller, Toliver, & PERF, 2014; White, 2014). These and other reviews, such as the UK’s Home Office recommendations, provide invaluable information and should be referenced for detailed analyses on this topic, recommendations for best-practices, and model policies if the decision is made to implement a BWC program. This study aims to illuminate the complexity of this issue and highlight the issues that must be considered by those who will ultimately decide whether or not their agency should have a BWC program in order to make informed decisions. This study specifically covers: the current status of BWC in law enforcement, the perceived benefits and drawbacks to BWC as a law enforcement tool, and a suggested work flow for deciding what financial, technological, and personnel resources would be required to support a well-designed BWC. Although this study is not designed to make specific recommendations due to the top-down decision flow required to create a BWC program (discussed in detail in later sections), there are a few issues our research indicates are essential to establishing a successful program once an agency has committed to using BWC. 1. The agency must define goals and objectives for officer use of BWC that are specific to that agency. 2. Attempting to implement a BWC program without committing the financial resources required to ensure the program is minimally disruptive to all personnel involved in managing the program is costly in the long run. A rudimentary or flawed system may compromise data security and the agency’s ability to comply with electronic data requirements – ultimately undoing the utility of BWC video. 3. The most successful BWC programs were implemented slowly, under a framework of clearly identified goals for the agency bringing BWC technology to its officers, and with substantial and genuine input from both officers and the community. 4. An agency beginning a BWC program must thoroughly understand the complex issues relevant to use of video in a criminal justice setting and be ready to commit significant resources and effort to educating those who will view video in 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study an investigatory role as well as the public on the limitations of BWC video as evidence. At the end of each major segment of this study, we have included a Bottom Line review of the major points addressed in that segment for ease of review. We were able to speak with command-level representatives from three Colorado agencies and two out-of-state agencies regarding their experiences with BWC. The Colorado agencies we spoke with ranged from small (~50 sworn personnel), mid- sized (~200 sworn personnel), to large (~700 sworn personnel) agencies. These agencies also varied in the length of time they have been using BWC, their technological strategies, and in their policies regarding officer-use of BWC. In addition, we were fortunate to be able to speak with the police department protecting one of the 10 busiest airports in the United States 200 sworn personnel) and the Department of Corrections in the Sheriff Department serving one of the top five largest five counties in the United States. Information and perspectives from each of these agencies are included throughout this study. 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Introduction to Body Worn Camera Use by Law Enforcement Written historical accounts of law enforcement using video recorders to document encounters with citizens are sparse. In-vehicle “dash-cam” video use began in the 1980’s in the US (IACP, 2003), and lessons learned from the implementation of that technology can provide valuable insight into matters agencies must take into account when implementing a BWC program. Hong Kong Police reported using hand-held video recorders to record law enforcement activities in 2006, but have only recently begun testing BWC (Hong Kong Police, 2014). Available documentation suggests the first systematic pilot study investigating the use of body worn video cameras to document law enforcement activities was conducted by the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, UK, in 2005 (Goodall, 2007). The UK Home Office (comparable to the US Department of Justice) was involved in that study and continued to investigate the use of body worn video cameras, developing recommendations and guidelines for their use in 2007 as more police agencies in the UK incorporated this technology. In 2008 in the US, the National Institute of Justice’s National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) began distributing body worn cameras to approximately 20 agencies, although the total number of cameras and departments involved were not identified. The Lafayette (Colorado) Police Department may have been one of the first agencies in the nation to independently test and implement BWC, starting their pilot program at the end of 2009 (TechBeat, 2010). There are few examples of large-scale and long-term use of BWC given that use of this technology as a law enforcement tool is essentially less than 10 years old. It is not surprising then that there have been very few empirical studies on the effects of law enforcement implementing BWC technologies (White, 2014). Misperceptions about how video collected from BWC can ‘provide an accurate accounting of events’ are rampant among lawmakers, politicians, media, the public, and those who work in the criminal justice system itself. Furthermore, there is virtually no case law to provide agencies guidance on how to balance this new technology with considerable constitutional and legal issues such as civil liberties and citizen’s privacy. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks of Implementing BWC Commonly stated reasons and perceived benefits for law enforcement using body-worn cameras to document their activities include the following: 1. Evidence collection 2. Improve officer behavior 3. Improve officer safety / reducing aggression against officers 4. Improve public relations 5. Increase agency transparency 6. Monitor officer performance 7. Officer training opportunities 8. Produce civilizing effect on public and officers 9. Reduce false claims/litigation It is worth repeating that very few studies have investigated the effect(s) of using body-worn cameras on any of the above-noted reasons (White, 2014). An extensive literature search conducted in October 2014 did not find a single published peer- reviewed study addressing this issue. Additionally, there are noteworthy concerns with officers using BWC that have yet to be addressed by lawmakers or courts at State or Federal levels. ***Update: the first peer-reviewed study was published online in late 2014. Ariel, W.A. Farrar, and A. Sutherland. The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizen’s complaints against the police: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Online 11/19/14. Agencies surveyed for this study and those mentioned in the literature seem to universally agree that the video collected by BWC has been useful for impeding frivolous or nuisance complaints against officers and as a medium to collect and preserve evidence (Miller, Toliver, & PERF, 2014; White, 2014). The effect(s) of BWC- generated video on the outcome of more serious incidents such as officer-involved shootings or other critical incidents are unclear because there currently is no organized system to track and document such occurrences. Commonly stated perceived drawbacks and limitations for using body-worn cameras include: 1. Dampen cooperation from witnesses / informants 2. Everything is discoverable, even when the camera was mistakenly left on 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 3. Financial investment (hardware, software, storage / retrieval / editing, personnel) up front and ongoing costs 4. Intrusions on citizen privacy and expectations of privacy 5. Investments in Training / Policy 6. Law enforcement officer (LEO) privacy and expectations of privacy (FOP / Union concerns) 7. LEO health and safety concerns wearing additional equipment, wearing equipment near eyes and/or head that could cause injuries 8. Potential for “supervisor fishing” to punish officers for minor infractions 9. Potential to exacerbate trauma for victims / witnesses 10. Privileged communications 11. Religious / cultural insensitivities (e.g. filming people in their homes when they are not wearing attire usually worn in public, etc.) 12. The erroneous assessment of video evidence as being able to present “the entire story,” despite known distortions and limitations of 2-D video (e.g. time compression, etc.) 13. The tendency to view law enforcement testimony and/or evidence under a lens of “if it isn’t on video, it didn’t happen or it doesn’t count” There are no data supporting or refuting the perceived drawbacks to BWC, as is the case for the perceived benefits; however, the increased attention the topic has received has generated dialogue on issues surrounding BWC. Behavioral scientists and legal scholars caution against overstating the importance of video during law enforcement investigations, particularly without giving informed and cautious consideration to its limitations. The inability of video to capture phenomena experienced by humans, such as visual looming (perception of time to collision with an approaching object), as well as the and sociology of how different people view and interpret events captured on video, may ultimately limit video’s usefulness in presenting “the facts” in certain circumstances (Force Science Institute Special Report, 2014; Kahan, Hoffman, & and Braman, 2009; Force Science Institute, 2010). While some have proposed that BWV might one day become a video logbook of law enforcement activities and eliminate the need for other types of documentation, science and demonstrate that video can never replace thorough and competent investigation and reporting. Agencies considering using BWC as a means to prove action-appropriateness must understand and accept the fundamental reality that having video of an incident, most specifically a critical and emotionally-charged incident, may 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study only change the specifics of the argument regarding the appropriateness of law enforcement’s actions rather than eliminate arguments all-together. Force Science Institute published a list of 10 limitations of video that must be considered: 10 limitations of body cams you need to know for your protection COPIED VERBATIM (Force Science Institute Special Report, 2014) (The full document is reproduced in the Appendix): 1. A camera doesn’t follow your eyes or see as they see. 2. Some important danger cues can’t be recorded (e.g. tactile cues, history, experience). 3. Camera speed differs from the speed of life. 4. A camera may see better than you do in low light. 5. Your body may block the view. 6. A camera only records in 2-D. 7. The absence of sophisticated time-stamping may prove critical. 8. One camera may not be enough. 9. A camera encourages second-guessing. 10. A camera can never replace a thorough investigation. Geis and Blake (2014) expand on some of these issues and further describe the drawbacks inherent in comparing images recorded by a mechanical camera against human responses, particularly relevant when images captured by BWC are intended for use as evidence in critical incidents. The authors clarify the differences between visual acuity and perception; differences between how the human eye captures images compared to a camera lens; and how the physiological arousal humans experience under stressful conditions alters perception in ways that cannot be captured by a camera (see Figure 1. and Figure 2. below). For example, human eyes must make rapid movements, or saccades, several times a second so that the brain can perceive and process visual information. A camera simply records whatever is within its field of view without perceiving, processing, or responding to incoming stimuli. As the use of BWC during the commission of law enforcement activities increases, people who work with video as evidence and the public should become more educated about these difficulties and shortcomings. 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 1. A body worn camera passively records an incident taking place within its field of view. The camera does not make decisions, evaluate threats, or receive any input other than audio and visual within its range. Figure 2. In a dynamic critical incident situation, a law enforcement officer’s decisions are affected by different types of sensory input that must be processed through different filters, resulting in an evaluation of the situation and the threat level. The officer then must determine the best course of action, often in fractions of seconds. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study “The camera doesn’t lie” … “Video is an objective observer” … “Why wasn’t that officer wearing a camera so we could KNOW what happened?” When cautioning against BWC’s limited ability to accurately reflect details of a critical incident, comparisons are frequently made to the number of cameras used to evaluate close calls at sporting events such as football and baseball games. Depending on the number of officers involved in a critical incident and how many of those officers are wearing BWC, it is possible that only one BWC might capture images of the incident. To put this into context, compare the relative simplicity of data collected from a single, fixed BWC with the video-capturing and analysis systems used when televising National Football League games: “A typical SNF [Sunday Night Football] broadcast uses 30 cameras (22 camera operators plus robotic and fixed cameras), dozens of playback machines and miles upon miles of video and audio cable. … state-of-the-art television technology NBC uses for the broadcasts, including Super Slo-Mo, Extreme Slo-Mo (XMO), Cable Cam aerial camera, 4K camera technology, innovative graphics, and 5.1 surround sound, to enhance the viewing experience.” October 21, 2013; (The National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians–Communications Workers of America (NABET-CWA)) http://www.cwa- nion.org/sites/nabetcwa/index.php/news/entry/sunday_night_football_crew_working_all_d ay_for_sunday_night/ The advanced technology and the number of cameras recording each play does not eliminate disagreements regarding the accuracy of referee calls, despite repeated slow motion replays and viewing the play from multiple angles. While the sports analogy illustrates the technology required to precisely capture an event, it cannot speak to the gravity of situations where video of a critical incident is used to determine culpability or recreate what happened. Dash cam footage taken in 2003 illustrates the hazards of operating under the assumption video can always correctly portray the totality of circumstances of an incident. Two patrol vehicles involved in this incident capture footage from two separate angles. Please take the time to view these videos in correct order and ask yourself after viewing footage from each camera: was this a justified police shooting? If you were sitting on a jury or a review board, would you hold the officers criminally liable for their actions? If the only video footage was from the first vehicle’s dash cam and the officers’ testimony described the incident differently than what the video captured, would you believe the officers were involved in a cover-up or were somehow misremembering the incident? As an agency, do you have a system in place to explain 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study such discrepancies to the public? (Videos 1 & 2 combined: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmq2BAEZik). The limitations of using BWC video as evidence extend beyond mechanical vs. human issues. A study conducted by legal scholars demonstrates that having a video record of an event does not provide an indisputable account of that event (Kahan, Hoffman, & and Braman, 2009). Their study addressed questions that arose in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Harris, 2007: a case where an officer attempted to conduct a traffic stop, the defendant eluded law enforcement at high speed in traffic, a vehicle pursuit ensued, and ultimately ended after an officer successfully struck the defendant’s rear bumper causing the defendant to lose control of his vehicle and crash. The defendant was paralyzed as a result of the crash and he claimed officer’s actions violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The pursuit and crash were captured by in-car dash cameras and the video evidence became a focal point of the Supreme Court decision in favor of the officer. The Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of the officer and stated the video evidence of the incident “speaks for itself,” and “no reasonable juror could find that the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk to the public” (Kahan, Hoffman, & and Braman, 2009). In Kahan et al’s study, approximately 1350 randomly selected subjects were asked to behave as jurors in a hypothetical lawsuit based on Scott v. Harris. They were given a list of facts both the defense and prosecution stipulated were true and were shown the in-car video of the car chase at the center of the suit. Despite being presented with the same information and watching the same video evidence, subjects in this experiment “sharply disagreed” about who was at fault (police or defendant), who created more risk to public safety, who bore more culpability, and whether police use of force was justified. These differences in opinion were statistically associated with demographic factors such as subjects’ ethnicity, political ideology/party affiliation, sex, and cultural identity (see Figure While most subjects reached the same conclusions the deciding Justices did, other participants reached different conclusions, negating the idea that the video “spoke for itself” and that everyone who saw it would interpret it the same way. The subjects who reached different conclusions (in this case finding police were at fault and were the ones who behaved recklessly, not Harris) were not statistical anomalies and could be characterized as sharing distinct social views and perceptions about authority. 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 3. Individuals viewing video, including jurors, observe the content of the video and process it through their own individual filters. Depending on their background and experiences, different people can reach different conclusions about what “really” happened after viewing the same video. An important note, the subjects who participated in this study were randomly selected by KnowledgePanel, a company that provides “a probability-based panel designed to be statistically representative of the U.S. population” to participate in academic research. In other words, the participants had no direct physical or emotional connection to the community where the incident occurred. Video evidence observed by members of a community who generally trust and respect law enforcement could reasonably be expected to have different significance than video evidence observed by members of a community who fundamentally distrust law enforcement. BWC video is repeatedly heralded as a panacea for all that leads to tensions between police and citizens; however this is an uninformed notion. Legal and appropriate law enforcement actions are generally not understood by the public, nor are they appropriately explained by media or political pundits, and any use of force or restraint appears ugly to the uneducated eye. Video has the ability to confound a situation as easily as it could inform. In December 2014 a Staten Island grand jury decision not to indict officers for a July in- custody death sparked outrage, protests, and damaged law-enforcement-community relations. Video footage of at least part of the event was available and played repeatedly by media outlets. The cell phone footage was recorded by a citizen and therefore the integrity or completeness of that video is not known; however, this incident highlights the fact that video does not necessarily tell the entire story or ensure everyone will agree on the facts of an incident. No details about the evidence 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study presented to the grand jury are currently available and no presumptions are made here about the facts of that case; however this incident underscores several important factors about law enforcement and video. Law enforcement use-of-force LOOKS ugly, even if it is legally justified and appropriate. Even if the video is created by law enforcement using a system that can be verified to prove no tampering has occurred and the chain-of-evidence has been maintained, the investigation may ultimately reveal something different than the video alone would appear to suggest. Public outcry and outrage in the Staten Island case is seemingly heightened because the grand jury decision does not appear to match the of the officers’ actions as depicted on video and, as of this publication, no one has explained those discrepancies to the public. Overall, experts urge caution against overstating the importance of video during investigations and trials. Agencies using BWC to document law enforcement actions must take responsibility to educate those viewing video and using it to make legal determinations to ensure they are informed and give careful consideration to its limitations. Thorough and specific written documentation, especially information and descriptions of intangibles that can never be captured on film, becomes essential to accurately framing the situation and providing context. Additionally, presentation of video in court will require attorneys and judges to have a clear understanding of perceptual biases that every potential juror has, the fundamental limitations of 2-D video for capturing 4-D reality (three spatial + one time), and the increasing tendency for people to erroneously believe video captures the totality of a situation. A Force Science Video Advisory COPIED VERBATIM statement (see Appendix) is available and it or something similar could be distributed with any use-of-force video, or any video containing law enforcement activities, cautioning viewers about the potential hazards in regarding the video as the ultimate Truth. This advisory could be sent to media, attorneys, or individuals who request video via Open Records requests and/or through legal disclosure or discovery. Bottom Line: • Use of BWC by law enforcement is less than 10 years old, the technology is not currently used on a large scale in the United States, and its effects on law enforcement investigations are largely untested. 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study • There appears to be universal consensus among agencies using BWC that nuisance, frivolous, and fraudulent complaints against law enforcement are reduced when officers have the incident documented on video (e.g. Lapel cam captures woman trying to frame APD officer for sex, Albuquerque, NM 10/2014 &wpid=292) • The effect(s) of BWC video on the outcome of investigations or trials involving officer-involved critical incidents are less clear because there is currently no systematic tracking or documentation of these events. • BWC may be just as likely to create confusion and add to community tensions as it is to demonstrate officers are behaving appropriately if the video does not accurately capture the scene (e.g. the dash cam footage discussed earlier). • The notion that having video from officer-worn cameras will eliminate doubt or disagreements about incidents, specifically critical and emotionally-charged incidents, is an oversimplification of a complex issue. • Implementation of a BWC program must be accompanied by aggressive education campaign and outreach strategies to ensure the public and those involved in the criminal justice system understand both the benefits and limitations of video. 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Balancing Agency Transparency with Citizen and Officer Privacy A primary concern for BWC use by law enforcement is how such a program will intrude on citizen’s privacy. Law enforcement agencies have been using video technology such as stationary CCTV and in-vehicle systems for decades; however, these technologies do not follow officers into homes and generally have not had the capability to record individual’s faces with the same resolution and clarity that BWC do. There have been few court cases or laws designed to account for BWC-generated video and provide agencies guidance in this area because the technology and wide-spread use of it are relatively new. Some of the specific concerns that have been cited are discussed below. Officers using BWC during the course of their duties could use the video for systematic surveillance and tracking of the public. Concerns include, but are not limited to, infringement on civil liberties by recording citizens present at legally organized public events. Opponents of BWC use by law enforcement argue officers would be collecting information protected by the First Amendment such as public speech, assembly, and religious associations and are concerned about how that video could be used. Issues that must be addressed in policy and be consistent with overall agency goals for using BWC include whether officers should turn cameras on or off if they are present at such an event as a result of a call for service or during the course of their duties as well as how long any video of such an event should be retained. Incidents such as the Boston Marathon bombings clearly demonstrate how useful video collected from various sources was to documenting the crime scene and collecting evidence, but potential misuses of video data by the government are also valid concerns. Facial recognition and other biometric software is becoming more advanced and more available for use by law enforcement. This technology has always been seen as too intrusive for private citizens who are not involved in criminal activity and it is reasonable to expect that these concerns will grow apace with surveillance systems such as BWC programs. Each agency must decide how it will handle dissemination of BWC video. Opponents of BWC cite the potential for inappropriate collection, dissemination, and/or public release of embarrassing or titillating material. The ACLU has issued several inconsistent positions suggesting law enforcement should always have cameras on to ensure they are not hiding anything by turning cameras off, law enforcement should be held accountable by citizens by releasing all footage when requested, but yet it would be an unthinkable invasion of privacy if sensitive information such as the insides of homes were ever released. There have been no realistic or logical suggestions for how law 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study enforcement agencies could simultaneously conform to all of these incompatible demands. Inappropriate records releases due to employee misuse can be addressed by ensuring data security measures are in place and that policy clearly addresses who is authorized to release video information. A larger records release concern is whether video generated by law enforcement is subject to release to anyone who submits an Open Records request(s). An agency considering implementing a BWC program must consult with its legal advisors to ensure the policies put into place are aligned with current relevant Federal, State, and Local laws. The agency must also ensure the goals, objectives, and policies regarding officer use of BWC are consistent with the agency’s mission, policy, and overall philosophy regarding its relationship with the community. Agencies must consult with their legal counsel regarding the issue of responding to Open Records requests, but there are no clear guidelines on this matter and different agencies have taken different approaches. Greensboro Police Department, NC, does not release any video generated from BWC and justifies this policy by claiming the video is either part of an investigation or a personnel record (Gramm, 2014). Both designations are exemptions under North Carolina private records release requirements. Other agencies release video, but at the expense of many work hours to ensure no private information is mistakenly released. Other agencies release video un-redacted or have not received any requests to release video from the public yet and do not have a strategy in place defining how they will respond to future requests. It is reasonable to expect future legal challenges arguing some agencies are releasing too much protected information and others are not releasing enough information. An anonymous “activist” in Washington has filed open-ended public records requests for “all available footage” generated by body cameras worn by agencies throughout the state (Binion, 2014). The requester said he filed the requests to “force [agencies] to do better … to think about what they are doing … and big data requires (sic) big thinking.” Current WA state public record laws, written over four decades ago and meant to address written records, require footage be released unless it is part of an ongoing case. Poulsbo Police Department, Poulsbo, WA estimated it would take approximately four years to comply with the records request and other agencies reported they were considering halting or not implementing a BWC program in light of the possibility of the administrative burden of a similar request. 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study It is reasonable to expect the requests for BWC video release will increase as public awareness of this issue increases and agencies must have personnel and financial resources in place to manage these requests. Video that must be released must also be reviewed to ensure no sensitive information is released. Personnel and technological solutions must be in place to ensure sensitive data are redacted prior to release. Supervisor Access and Use While citizen groups are concerned about how video may be inappropriately used against individuals, law enforcement officers are also concerned about how video could be used by supervisors to discipline them for personal grievances, stylistic differences, and/or minor infractions. Regardless of a person’s job description, it is easy to imagine how stressful it would be to know your supervisor could scrutinize your every word and action with impunity. Supervisors viewing officer-generated video to “fish” for minor disciplinary infractions such as slight violations of uniform code or stylistic differences that do not rise to the level of policy violations, etc. are a concern for officers. Agencies using BWC implement various policies to address this issue, depending partly on the degree to which that agency uses video for officer training. Options for supervisor access to video range from a supervisor having unlimited access to videos, supervisors being allowed to review video only after a specific complaint or issue has been brought up by another party, to only allowing the agency’s Internal Affairs personnel to conduct video reviews for random performance evaluations or in response to a specific incident. Bottom Line: • BWC technology creates unique challenges for agencies trying to demonstrate officers are operating within the constitution in a transparent manner versus demonstrating citizen privacy concerns are taken seriously and are also an agency priority. • Little to no case law or statutory guidance exists to assist agencies trying to balance these competing priorities because the courts and lawmakers have not kept pace with advances in technology. 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study How to Implement a Body Worn Camera Program The following sections will provide information on the types of decisions that must be made if, after careful consideration, an agency decides to move forward with implementing a BWC program. Any new program such as BWC will affect personnel across multiple workgroups due to its complex nature. New equipment will be purchased and need to be maintained, BWC videos will become criminal justice records/evidence which must be managed and maintained, and personnel must be assigned to handle each portion of the program. The lifecycle of video generated by BWC (Figure requires investments in hardware and software which can be tailored according to agency financial and personnel resources and desired levels of automation. Figure 4. The lifecycle of video generated by body worn cameras. Law enforcement agencies considering implementing a body-worn camera program must have clearly defined and articulated purposes for incorporating this technology. The objectives set forth influence policy on a number of levels such as setting video retention times, establishing who can access and review video, and determining the amount of discretion officers are given in deciding when to turn the cameras on and off, what activities to record, and who might be allowed to request officers turn the cameras off. Clearly defined agency goals for why officers will wear cameras are the foundation from which all other decisions will flow. Defining what situations officers are expected to record and what purpose those images are meant to serve will dictate policy, technology, and personnel decisions. Budget decisions or proposed financial 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study commitments can occur early on (Figure or at the end of the decision flow (Figure based on agency-specific strategies. Figure 5. Agency goals must be clearly defined prior to making any other decisions because they will determine how implementing a Body Worn Camera program will affect all involved workgroups. Budgets may be considered in the top of the cascade if that is appropriate to achieving agency goals. 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 6. Budgets may be considered at the end of the decision cascade if tailoring the program to meet agency goals is a higher priority than allocating a certain dollar amount. Bottom Line: • An agency must have a clearly articulated and defined goal for using BWC prior to establishing policy, estimating costs, or purchasing technology solutions. • BWC programs are expensive. • Defining a budget for a BWC program can occur at the beginning of the decision cascade and can dictate the technology used as well as the effects on personnel workloads. • Alternatively, an agency can define how they want a BWC program to work within the agency and how they want different workgroups to be affected, then choose technology that best supports those goals, determine costs, and then submit budget proposals. 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 1. Define Agency Goals and Objectives for Implementing a Body Worn Camera Program Once an agency has decided to implement a BWC program, it is essential to begin by clearly and thoroughly define the goals for the program. While the initial reaction may be that the goals are to reap all of the perceived benefits mentioned in the previous section, it becomes clear after some research that this is not a pragmatic or practicable approach. Although it is likely an agency will realize multiple benefits from a BWC program, it must articulate limited and specific goals in order to be able to: 1) create and implement clearly understandable and explicit policies; 2) select and invest in technology solutions that will best ensure the agency can meet its goals; and 3) ensure adequate personnel resources are available and in place to ensure proper management of the program (Figure A mid-sized Colorado Police Department’s primary goals for their officers using BWC are “mutual accountability” between officers and citizens and evidence collection. These are succinct and comprehensive goals that allowed them to determine what policies and procedures were needed to best accomplish those goals, how they wanted to implement the program agency-wide, what technological strategies would support their program, and how video would be retained and used. This PD’s goals do not specifically mention using BWC video as a tool to reduce frivolous complaints against officers or time spent in municipal court, but these benefits are achieved and are also compatible with the policies based on their primary goals. Consideration should be given to questions such as what type of relationship the police department has with the community, how BWC would fit in with the city and the police department’s mission, what resources the agency is willing to commit to ensuring the success of a BWC program, what level of workflow disruption and obligation by current workgroups is acceptable to make the program a reality, and how the agency would handle situations where video images conflict with officer and/or witness testimony. This is by no means an exhaustive list of issues agencies should consider when solidifying their goals and objectives for starting introducing BWC, but agencies that have already gone through this process recommend giving serious consideration to these topics as a means to avoiding substantial complications down the road. 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 7. Issues that must be considered prior to defining agency goals and objectives (not necessarily an exhaustive list or in a linear hierarchical order). Different agencies will have different priorities leading to different goals for using BWC While a primary concern for all agencies using BWC technology is how to carefully balance demonstrating agency transparency with protecting citizen privacy, an agency under Federal oversight based on a history of excessive force complaints and civil rights violations will likely have a BWC program goal placing greater emphasis on providing “agency transparency and accountability” than agencies without similar problems in the community. Consider the difference in policy that would be required to support the primary goal of using BWC as an evidence-collection tool versus as a means to provide transparency and accountability to a community that deeply distrusts law enforcement. An agency with a reputation for routinely using excessive force needs to demonstrate officers are appropriately enforcing the law and will likely have strict policies requiring: officers to record all citizen encounters, longer video retention times regardless of the financial burden, and have relatively relaxed standards for releasing video to the public to assure transparency. An agency that has a positive relationship with citizens may decide officers should be allowed discretion in the types of citizen contacts they record so they remain approachable, foster community connections, and place greater 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study emphasis on respecting citizen privacy than on demonstrating agency transparency. This will result in fewer videos being generated (not every chat with a citizen will be recorded), require shorter video retention times, require different technology solutions to support and maintain the program, and ultimately necessitate a smaller financial burden. Bottom Line: • Every agency will define BWC program goals tailored to account for their relationship with the community, historical relationships between the agency and the community, total number of sworn officers, financial and personnel capabilities to support a BWC program, and other characteristics unique to that agency. • Those in charge of deciding to bring a BWC program to their agency must understand all of the relevant issues and give thoughtful consideration to how they envision a BWC program to function within their current organizational structure when drafting goals. • All logistical, personnel, and financial decisions are dictated by agency-defined goals for their BWC program. • Agency goals for a BWC program must be limited in scope, specific, clearly articulated, and easily interpreted. 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 2. Draft a Policy That Aligns Officer Actions with Agency-Defined Goals Once an agency has decided to implement a BWC program and has clearly articulated the goals for their program, there are many templates available to use when constructing BWC policies. A condensed list of PERF 2014 Body Worn Camera Program Recommendations is included in the Appendix of this document, Lexipol offers a policy template, and other agency’s policies are readily available when the time comes to put agency priorities and expectations in writing. While each agency’s specific goals will dictate the breadth and scope of their BWC policy, there are certain main issues that should be given careful consideration when crafting policy and are discussed below (Figure Figure 8. Issues that must be considered prior to developing policy or committing to a technology strategy (not necessarily an exhaustive list or in a linear hierarchical order). When are officers expected to turn their cameras on and how much officer discretion should be allowed regarding when to start / stop recording The types of encounters an agency expects its officers to record and how much discretion officers have regarding when they can start and stop recording will be determined by the stated goals for why the police agency is using BWC (e.g. evidence collection, agency transparency, or protecting officers from violent citizens). While the 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study magnitude of clearly defining agency goal(s) for a BWC program may not immediately be apparent, once the logistical details and associated costs are taken into account, it becomes clear that an agency cannot realistically design a BWC program without defining them. For example, one end of the BWC spectrum in favor of officers using BWC is proposed by (some sections) of the ACLU: “Purely from an accountability perspective, the ideal policy for body-worn cameras would be for continuous recording throughout a police officer’s shift, eliminating any possibility that an officer could evade the recording of abuses committed on duty (Stanley, 2013).” If agency transparency is the main goal for BWC, then this approach of starting to record at the start of shift and not stopping until the end of shift may appear favorable at first glance. The amount of video data generated by a department where every sworn officer is recording every minute of every shift (hopefully with the exception of restroom breaks), however, would be vast. In addition, this philosophy would necessitate retaining video indefinitely if the agency’s position is that transparency is not achievable without video documentation of every officer action. It becomes clear that the goal of absolute and unconditional agency transparency via video documentation simply cannot be achieved given the current technological environment, if only from a budgetary standpoint. The cost of storing and managing that amount of data is beyond any agency’s financial and technological capabilities, no matter how rudimentary their management strategies are and it would not make sense to state goals or set polices the department cannot financially or logistically support. The department’s budget and strategies for managing and storing video data will determine if goals and policy can be realistically achieved. Budget and technology limitations are not the only reality that must be considered when a strict policy of recording everything is considered. Law enforcement work, particularly under a Community Policing model, requires trusted partnerships between officers and citizens and recording every interaction may negatively affect those relationships. requiring officers to record every encounter with the public would sometimes undermine community members’ privacy rights and damage important police-community relationships. There are certain situations, such as interviews with crime victims and witnesses and informal, non-law enforcement interactions with members of the community, that call for affording officers some measure of discretion in determining whether to activate their cameras (Miller, Toliver, & PERF, 2014).” 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study There is anecdotal evidence that BWC do produce a dampening effect on officer-citizen interactions, with citizens in the UK reportedly refusing to speak with officers during stop-and-question if cameras were activated (Sherman, 2013), although no statistical analysis is available to determine if this is a significant effect. If an agency’s highest priority is to develop and maintain close partnerships with the community, implementing a BWC program requiring cameras to be recording at all times may be in direct conflict with that priority. If officers are not required to record every encounter with citizens and are given discretion to turn the camera on/off, agency policy must clearly define the circumstances where discretion is acceptable. If policy states officers must turn cameras on during “law enforcement-related encounters” for example, the agency must clearly define that term and ensure it is easily understood by officers. Allowing officer discretion also requires agencies to consider details such as whether supervisor approval must be obtained before turning a camera off, if covering a camera and allowing audio-only recording is allowed and under what circumstances (a reluctant victim, etc.), what to do if starting/stopping recording is unsafe, impractical, or impossible, what must be addressed in reports, and what must be documented in Records Management System (i.e. will there be a checkbox for “Video recorded”?). While the list of particulars an agency must consider when drafting policy seem daunting at first, if clearly defined goals are in place PRIOR to writing policy, it becomes easier to make decisions in line with those goals. No matter how carefully considered the goals and policy decisions are, it is likely a program of this magnitude will require constant updating and revising to keep up with changes in technology and legal requirements. It is important to note that representatives from both two agencies we spoke with agreed that officer “instincts” in recognizing situations that should be recorded are very good, even though the two departments’ written policies differ in the level of discretion they allow their officers (high level of discretion and moderate level of discretion). In their experience, officers have a good sense of events that should be recorded and those where recording may be inappropriate. 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Video downloading How and when officers are expected to transfer video files from the camera to long- term storage media should be addressed in policy with expectations similar to those for written reports and other pieces of evidence. Agency goals, video management strategies, and personnel issues will affect this policy component. For example, a strict policy of recording everything in a shift combined with a video management system requiring the officer to physically connect the camera to a department computer and manually rename and store each file would place a significant time and workload burden on the officers. Officers would have to come off the street earlier to ensure they are in compliance with this policy and that could adversely affect patrol staffing levels. Alternatively, a less strict recording policy combined with a system where officers can tag and upload files from mobile devices on the fly and simply have to dock the camera at the end of shift would reduce officer burden and should not adversely affect staffing levels on the street. Policy would also need to address the expectations for video transfer under ‘normal’ conditions vs. after a critical incident. Should a sergeant or other supervisor immediately become responsible for the camera of an officer involved in a critical incident on scene and manage the video download? What about the cameras/videos of officers who may have captured some of the incident on their cameras, but who were not directly involved? Video maintenance/storage Video data must be managed and maintained once it has been moved from the camera to the long-term media storage solution (DVD, on-site servers, third-party "cloud" servers). Policy and legal requirements will dictate issues such as: 1) classifications for video types; 2) retention times for each video type; 3) who will be allowed to access the video and for what purposes; 4) who is responsible for ensuring requests for copies of video are met; and 5) how chain of custody audit trails are maintained. A rudimentary system where BWC video is stored straight to DVD will require personnel to transfer files from the camera to DVD(s), securely store the physical DVDs, have a system for tracking the DVDs, retrieve DVDs when video needs to be reviewed, respond to requests for copies from District Attorney’s office, media, public, etc., and ensure DVDs are destroyed after retention time limits have been reached. 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study A system where BWC video is stored on servers with associated video management software (VMS) can reduce the number of people handling and responsible for maintaining the data by automating the steps listed above. VMS can be housed on in- house servers and maintained by agency personnel or housed on “cloud” servers located elsewhere and maintained by a third-party vendor. The chosen method would have to comply with all CJIS and other relevant and applicable information security practices. Video retention Video data created by a law enforcement officer becomes a Criminal Justice Record and must be treated accordingly. The agency must determine how long to retain videos depending on the type of information contained within. A video record of a citizen encounter where no law enforcement action was taken and nothing of evidentiary value is collected, e.g. a chat with a citizen at a coffee shop, should have a different retention requirement than video taken at a homicide scene. Aggressive purge policies can help agencies manage data storage costs, but must conform to all applicable laws, statutes, and policies. The agency should also have a plan in place to educate and inform the public about their retention schedule. This could involve publishing retention times for incident types online and/or having information printed on business cards and summonses clearly explaining retention times. Whether or not to announce officer is recording Agencies must determine how they will handle the issue of whether or not to verbally announce they are recording an event and whether or not they require officers to obtain consent under certain circumstances such as recording victims and the insides of people’s homes. There is no consensus on this issue among agencies currently using BWC: privacy and recording laws vary by state and individual agency goals once again are important when deciding policy in this area. If an agency implements BWC primarily to aid in evidence gathering, requiring consent to perform actions officers have a legal right to perform or to record in areas officers have a legal right to occupy may be in direct conflict with the evidence-gathering goal. Additionally, if agencies require officers to obtain consent to record victims, what is the protocol(s) when a victim initially consents to be recorded and video evidence is obtained, but the victim later withdraws their consent? Is the agency legally allowed/required to destroy that evidence to abide by the Victim Rights Act or is it legally compelled to directly violate the victim’s wishes to comply with legal requirements regarding preservation of evidence? 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study If policy requires homeowner/resident consent to record inside homes, does that extend to execution of search warrants or when police are called to the home by one occupant, such as in response to a 911 call? Requiring officers to gain consent under these circumstances and potentially losing video evidence may be a tradeoff if the agency’s main goal for using BWC is to provide agency transparency. On the other hand, an agency may face accusations the officers were hiding something or behaving badly when the cameras were turned off. If the agency has different goals for BWC, requiring officers to gain consent under circumstances where they are not already legally and/or ethically required to do so may not make sense. PERF policy recommendations (2014) suggest agencies should require consent; however, local agencies surveyed for this study do not notify people they are recording or require officers to obtain consent to record. Their position is that the requirement to ask for consent to record someone is more applicable to East coast agencies in states where “two-party consent” to record laws exist and/or where citizen-law enforcement relationships are historically strained. It is also important to note that not all states have legislation similar to Colorado’s Victim Rights Act and it is unclear how this Act may affect BWC policies. Thorough examination of the agency’s legal responsibilities must be considered prior to establishing policy on this topic. When/Who can access video and under what circumstances (supervisors, Open Records, etc.); what auditing system will be in place to record access Agencies must define who will be allowed to access BWC video under various circumstances and how to create an audit trail to document all access. Some cameras and Video Management Software/Systems (VMS) come with audit-trail features built-in to ensure evidence standards are met. Agencies must consider issues such as: officer ability to review their video prior to approving reports, officer ability to view video of their critical incident, officer ability to view video of incidents they were not involved in, and how to track all video access from the time it is created until it is destroyed. Some of these issues are discussed individually below. 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Whether officers will be allowed to view video of their incidents Once video of an event that results in written documentation is created, any discrepancies between images captured and written descriptions could raise officer credibility issues in court. Discrepancies could be as slight as inexact quotes attributed to a subject or as significant as video capturing images or sounds an officer did not perceive due to physiological and response to stress. Some concerns can be mitigated by training and policy such as teaching officers to use verbiage similar to ‘the subject made statements to the effect of’ rather than placing statements in quotation marks. More significant variance between written reports and video may need to be addressed by and use-of-force professionals. Policy should address when and under what circumstances officers would be allowed and/or required to review their BWC video. Whether officers will be allowed to review video of an incident they were involved in prior to testifying in court It is expected that video collected by officers wearing body cameras will be used as evidence in court. Agencies should address officer access to review that video as part of their preparation for court and what logistical resources are needed to access video. What agency personnel will have access to video of incidents they were not involved in An agency should define and control what personnel has access to video based on legitimate law enforcement functions and the content of the video. An audit system requiring users to log reasons for accessing videos can assist with policy-enforcement on this issue. Whether an officer involved in a critical incident, such as an officer-involved shooting, should be allowed to review BWC video prior to making a statement The increased attention BWC received by lawmakers, politicians, and media talking heads in 2014 was a direct result of an officer-involved shooting that resulted in death of a civilian. The direct connection between that incident and media hype implies there is a widespread belief that capturing such an incident with a BWC will quickly illuminate the events that took place, will eliminate arguments and discrepancies about what happened, allow everyone access to “the whole story,” and prevent social chaos. The shortcomings of video as evidence in a critical incident are discussed in detail in the 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks of Implementing BWC section of this study; however, a related issue not yet addressed is whether or not the officer involved should be allowed or required to view video of critical incident prior to making their initial statement. There are at least two schools of thought on this topic: the officer should be required to view the video prior to making any statements or creating documentation of any kind versus the officer should not be allowed to see the video prior to making their initial statement. For example, PERF (2014) recommends agencies require officers review available video prior to making a statement: “Real-time recording of the event is considered best evidence. It often provides a more accurate record than an officer’s recollection, which can be affected by stress and other factors. Research into eyewitness testimony demonstrates that stressful situations with many distractions are difficult even for trained observers to recall correctly. If a jury or administrative review body sees that the report says one thing and the video indicates another, this can create inconsistencies in the evidence that might damage a case or unfairly undermine the officer’s credibility.” The contrasting philosophy also recognizes that stressful situations will affect what the officer perceives during the incident, what the officer recalls about the incident, and that the officer’s experience will certainly be different than what the camera may record (see Figure The argument for not allowing the officer to review video of the incident prior to making an initial statement is based on that fact that investigators want the initial recounting to provide an untainted understanding of what happened from the officer’s point of view, their emotional state while the incident was unfolding, and their thought-process at the time. Officers must be able to testify to their experience without seeing the video which may show them things they didn’t see or didn’t process while they were in the middle of the incident. Showing officers video prior to getting their initial statement downplays the importance of how the officer perceived the incident, may cause the officer to second- guess themselves and their actions, may exacerbate any trauma/anxiety related to the incident, and may place too great a value on video rather than human testimony. (Force Science Institute, 2009; Miller, Toliver, & PERF, 2014) It is possible to create a policy that takes both the inevitability of discrepancies between officer perception and recorded video and the need to understand how events occurred from the officer’s point of view into account. One compromise would be to have the officer make an initial statement prior to viewing the video to preserve the integrity of 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study their recollections and perception of the event. The officer could then be allowed to review the video at a later time and address any inconsistencies in supplemental reports. This method would require commitment and effort to ensure investigators, prosecutors, judges, juries and anyone else involved in evaluating the case receive thorough education and training on how stress affects perception and memory in order to understand that a discrepancy does not automatically mean deception. Law enforcement agencies often have a professional relationship with police and public safety Given their expertise on this subject matter, agencies should consider consulting with them when drafting policy on this topic. How much access to videos supervisors are allowed to have and under what conditions Agencies that implemented in-vehicle dash camera programs shared valuable lessons for what works and what doesn’t when implementing new technologies (IACP, 2003). Clearly defining how supervisors can view and use officer-generated video is one lesson pertinent to agencies implementing a BWC program. Agencies where supervisors had unlimited access to in-vehicle footage and proceeded to use that video to punish officers for minor infractions (e.g. violations of the dress code), stylistic differences, or as a means to pursue personal grievances experienced much higher levels of officer dissatisfaction and overall difficulties with their program than agencies that placed restrictions on supervisor access. At the onset of their BWC program, a mid-sized Colorado PD recognized gaining officer support was essential to creating a successful BWC program. They made genuine efforts to assure officers that BWC were not being introduced because command staff did not trust officers. To ensure this point was clear, they emphasized in their policy that supervisors were strictly prohibited from viewing video without cause. In addition, when a supervisor observes behavior that could be used as a training tool, they speak with that officer privately and allow the officer to be involved in the decision about whether or not to share the video with other officers. This approach has helped to alleviate tension between command staff and patrol and, to date; there have been no issues with officers objecting to their video being used as an instructional resource. Agency policies vary widely on this issue and options include giving supervisors unlimited access, allowing only random viewing to review officer performance, allowing periodic viewing only under certain circumstances (e.g. in training, on probation, under review), and designating Internal Affairs as the only personnel who can review only unless supervisor review is specifically required. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Release video of sensitive nature(s) in response to Open Records request: juveniles, interiors of homes, video used to train/investigate officers (does this fall under personnel records?), etc. This topic is addressed in detail in the Balancing Agency Transparency with Citizen and Officer Privacy section. Staying current with CALEA CALEA is currently working to create a standard that addresses BWC and the proposed version, current to the time of this study, is listed below. In addition, accredited agencies using BWC may have to comply with standards addressing electronic data storage. Both CALEA standards are copied verbatim below: 41.3.8 (proposed revisions to include verbiage for BWC - sent to field for comment) (LE1) In-Car and Body-Worn Audio/Video If in-car or body-worn audio or video recording systems are used, a written directive establishes guidelines for the following: a. situations for use; b. data security and access; and c. data storage and retention schedule. Commentary The written directive should provide direction to field personnel for the use of this technology. The products of this technology could become an important piece of evidence in any type of case and should be maintained in a way to insure the integrity of contents. When tapes recordings become evidence, they should be treated as any other evidentiary items in accordance with standards in (Chapters 83 Collection and Preservation of Evidence and Chapter 84 Property and Evidence Control). 17.5.4 Electronic Data Storage If the agency uses a service provider for electronic data storage, a written agreement is established addressing: a. data ownership; b. data sharing, access and security; c. loss of data, irregularities and recovery; d. data retention and redundancy; e. required reports, if any; and 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study f. special logistical requirements and financial arrangements. Commentary Electronic data storage is an ever-evolving technology that can improve the administrative and operational efficiencies of public safety agencies. However, there are a number of issues that must be addressed when agencies elect to contract these services. Proper contractual agreements provide assurances that services will be provided in a manner that supports organizational needs in a manner that complements existing network infrastructures. Agreements for contracted electronic data storage must address legal ownership of data and which entity retains ownership in the event the applicable contracts are terminated. It is also important to address the transfer of data and how much data will be stored by the vendor. Agencies may wish to specifically ensure sufficient data is retained to allow complete database reconstruction.-- Security issues to address include defining the physical environment in which the data will reside and protections against natural and man-made disasters. Redundancy is a primary strategy to control for these issues and should be included in any data storage agreement. The loss of data occurring from criminal actions should be considered, as well as other issues that impact data integrity, such as unauthorized data access by contract personnel. Effective agreements for data storage should include protocol on the length of time data will be stored, as well as provisions for the destruction of data in accordance with applicable records retention laws.-- Because expenditures associated with data storage can vacillate significantly over time with the introduction of new technologies, agency representatives should consider the development of agreements that allow for market pricing adjustments. Additionally, scheduled reviews of data storage contracts or agreements ensure the most appropriate mediums are used to support business needs.-- An executed contract for services with a service vendor can be used to address the requirements of this standard. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Miscellaneous issues Miscellaneous issues such as restrictions on camera use near explosive devices (similar to phones, radios, etc.) should be addressed somewhere in agency documents. Existing policy should also be reviewed and updated where needed to ensure consistency with new policy. Bottom Line: • Every agency differs in the level of detail reflected in their policies and thus every agency’s BWC policies will be different. • A foundation of clearly defined goals for BWC will allow individual agency’s to create policies that align with agency mission, BWC program goals, not conflict with existing policies, and address agency-specific concerns. • Multiple policy templates are available and can reduce the total amount of work required to draft new policy. • CALEA is currently in the process of creating a standard to address BWC. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 3. Identify Logistical Solutions that Support Agency Body Worn Camera Goals and Policies Figure 9. Issues that must be considered prior to developing policy or committing to a technology strategy, not necessarily in a linear hierarchical order. Technology Hardware Cameras Recent attention by media and lawmakers on the issue of law enforcement agencies equipping officers with body worn cameras has led to explosive growth in the number of companies manufacturing this technology. The decision about which camera model to purchase depends on several issues including: department goals and purpose for equipping officers with BWC, department policy regarding how to use BWC, department technology requirements, and budget considerations. Each camera model varies in: • How they are mounted or carried on the officer • The resolution capability 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study • Recording speed and format (audio and video) • Field of view • Storage capability and recording time • Interoperability with other equipment (e.g. police radios, Bluetooth, wireless, etc.) • Capabilities to upload to long-term storage system (USB connection, Wi-Fi compatible, etc.) • Charge time and battery life • Low light recording capabilities • Playback capabilities (e.g. on the device, on a mobile device, etc.) • Levels of safeguards built-in to the camera to prevent altering/deleting video The specific capability(s) an agency wants their camera to have depends on their stated goals for outfitting officers with cameras. For example, an agency may prefer a camera with specific capabilities if evidence collection for trial is a primary goal, but a different camera may be given greater consideration if protecting officers by creating a ‘civilizing’ effect on the public is the agency’s main goal. In addition, an agency’s policies regarding when to start and stop recording will influence the battery life and recording time requirements for cameras. Despite the large number of camera models now available, choosing the camera is the simplest consideration when implementing a BWC program. What to do with the video once it has been captured, how to effectively and appropriately manage and store the video, and how to integrate the video into current systems such as CAD and/or Records Management System are matters that require greater consideration and input from various work groups within an agency to effectively implement a BWC program. Technology Software Digital data collected from BWC must be stored and managed according to existing law and agency policy; however, media generated by BWC is not the only digital media a law enforcement agency must manage. Careful consideration should be given to how the software utilized to manage a BWC camera program interacts with other agency workgroup’s existing components such as Digital Image Management Systems (DIMS) and current and future needs to ensure smooth operation agency-wide. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Video Management Download video – video must be downloaded from the camera to long-term storage, either to DVDs, a cloud-based server, or servers on site maintained by IT Personnel. Policy must address when video is downloaded (e.g. at the end of shift), what happens if video cannot be downloaded for technical or other reason(s), and downloads under exceptional circumstances such as a Use of Force incident. Video Transfer Options: • USB connection to physical computer; • Wireless or Bluetooth data transfer or; • Connection to a camera docking station that transfers video to storage Video management software (VMS) is an option to move the video from the camera to the storage solution. VMS can be purchased from the camera manufacturer or a la carte depending on agency requirements. Video Management Software options to transfer video files from camera to storage: • No specific VMS purchased. Plug-and-play connectivity using pre-existing computer operating system and programs utilized (i.e. once plugged in, the camera is discovered by the computer and a window opens with the raw video files, each file must be manually re-named and saved to correct location); • Wireless or other similar transfer of files through limited-capability VMS, files must be manually tagged/renamed appropriately for storage; • Officers connect to VMS via mobile device(s) and tag files with appropriate information wirelessly throughout their shift and upload videos when attached to docking station or; • VMS is fully integrated with other agency systems such as CAD or RMS and video is automatically associated with appropriate record (e.g. case report number) based on geocoding and time-stamping information, upload videos when attached to docking station. Store video – video must be stored for defined of time depending on legal requirements and internal policy. Agencies can choose to store video on DVD (or similar media), on internally-housed and managed server systems, or they can utilize servers and systems maintained by third-party vendors. Examples of third-party “cloud” storage and video management systems include Evidence.com© (Taser), 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study VeriPatrol (VIEVU), and VuVault (Digital Ally Inc.). These VMS systems utilize server systems maintained by companies such as Google, Amazon.com, and Microsoft. Video Storage Options: • Files copied directly to DVD, submitted to Evidence and not stored on any other media. • Files are stored on servers housed and maintained by agency personnel, files kept within existing directory system (e.g. on a folder on the drive) • Files are stored on servers housed and maintained by agency personnel, third-party VMS used to organize, view, and retrieve files • Files are stored on third-party “cloud” servers and organized, viewed, and retrieved using their (or another) VMS Retrieve/Copy/Redact video – agency policy must specifically address who can review video and when (further discussion in Policy Considerations section). Video management software (or other mechanism) must be able to document who has accessed video to maintain chain-of-custody. The agency must also have a system in place to make copies of video for DA, media, and in response to Open Records requests. Video collected from BWC must also be accessible for viewing, sharing, and distributing and a VMS must be available for those purposes. Video Retrieval Options: • Files are stored on agency-maintained servers and video editing software (e.g. Windows Media Player, Corel, Windows, or Adobe) not specifically designed for law enforcement is used to view, copy, and redact video (no chain of custody safeguards). Copies are manually made by agency personnel and disseminated via DVD (or other media). Redaction of sensitive information MUST protect original video file to maintain chain of custody. • Files are stored on agency-maintained servers and VMS specifically designed for law enforcement (either from the same vendor who provided the camera or other system) is used to view, copy, and redact video (chain of custody safeguards should be in place). Copies are manually made by agency personnel and disseminated via DVD (or other media). Redaction of sensitive information MUST protect original video file to maintain chain of custody. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study • Files are stored on “cloud” and that vendor’s VMS is used to view, copy, and redact video (chain of custody safeguards built-in). Copies can be made manually by agency personnel through the VMS or secure links to video can be sent to requesting parties. These links allow the requesting parties (e.g. media, DA) to have limited read-only access to that specific video file by logging into the VMS system. The sent link and subsequent access are automatically recorded in the chain of custody audit trail. Original video file cannot be altered accidentally or purposely as any redaction/editing is made to copies to maintain chain of custody. Remove video – retention times for video must be explicitly defined in policy in accordance with all relevant laws and agency policies. Depending on agency policies regarding what law enforcement activities are to be captured with BWC, officers can record many hours of video (=MB/GB/TB of data) per shift. Data storage considerations and privacy issues dictate that each video will be retained for different of time based on incident type. Video related to serious crimes such as homicide will need to be retained longer than video of casual officer-citizen contact that does not result in charges or information of evidentiary value. A system for ensuring proper data categorization, retention, and purging must be in place to be compliant with agency policy and law. Video retention / purging options: • Files are manually copied to DVD(s) and DVDs are stored in Evidence. DVDs must be manually tracked and destroyed. • Files are stored on servers housed and maintained by agency personnel, files kept within existing directory system (e.g. on a folder on the drive). Manual tagging system must clearly identify retention category of video and personnel will manually ensure retention compliance. • Files are stored on servers housed and maintained by agency personnel, third-party VMS used to organize, view, and retrieve files. VMS automatically deletes files based on agency specifications and file tagging system. • Files are stored on third-party “cloud” servers and organized, viewed, and retrieved using their (or another) VMS. VMS automatically deletes files based on agency specifications and file tagging system. Bottom Line: 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study • Logistical support for BWC includes hardware and software solutions that must be considered when designing a new program. • Many logistical support options exist and range from purchasing individual components stored and maintained on city property to subscribing to a full- service third-party vendor that manages all logistical solutions to any number of combinations of the two systems. • Logistical solutions for a BWC program must allow users to store video, allow easy viewing/retrieval of video by different workgroups within the agency, allow video editing such as redactions of sensitive or protected information, ensure the integrity of original files, maintain chain-of-custody audit trails, and remove files based on appropriate retention schedules. • Logistical solutions must comply with CJIS Security Policy, Federal, State, and local laws, agency policies, and any other applicable criminal justice data and evidence requirements. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Personnel Figure 10. How a BWC program will affect personnel and workgroups throughout the agency will be determined by the decisions made regarding goals, policy, and technological investment. Downloading Video According to the agencies responding to the PERF study, most require the officer to transfer the video files at the end of shift (Miller, Toliver, & PERF, 2014). Supervisors may take possession of a camera and be responsible for video transfer after critical incidents. The strategies used to manage and store video determine the impact of downloading videos on the officer’s time. Bare-bones strategies that require a hard connection to department computers and manually naming files are the most time-consuming for officers and anyone else involved in video maintenance and are also more prone to costly user errors. Arvada PD sergeants were responsible for transferring video files to in-house servers during camera trials and stated download times were quite long per camera, despite the small number and sizes of files. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study On the other hand, strategies that incorporate wireless connectivity and integration between VMS and CAD and/or RMS systems are the most time-efficient methods, allowing officers to tag and upload videos ‘on the fly’ from portable devices. The chances for mislabeling files would be reduced and the ease of access and automated destruction according to specified time limits would not significantly affect personnel workload. Managing Video “Many agencies appoint at least one full-time officer to manage the camera program (Miller, Toliver, & PERF, 2014).” “One of the major complaints we heard from officers was that they were spending so much time, after their shifts were over, downloading and tagging their videos,” said Commander Tony Filler from Mesa. The department explored several solutions to this problem, ultimately creating an automated process that linked videos to the department’s records management system (RMS). The department also purchased from the camera manufacturer electronic tablets that allow officers to view and tag videos while they are in the field. “The tablets were an additional cost, but they were worth it because they save officers a lot of time,” said Filler. (Miller, Toliver, & PERF, 2014).” Small Colorado PD has the most moderate standards and polices regarding what to record and what video to retain of any agency we spoke with or read about. They copy any video they choose to save directly to DVD and submit the discs via regular chain of evidence route and this method has not required additional personnel. The Department of Corrections of one of the fifth most populous counties in the nation employs two full-time patrol officers whose only jobs are to burn video captured by BWC to DVDs because they are not able to afford cloud storage or internally-managed servers for this function (personal communication 10/31/14). Mid-sized Colorado PD chose to invest in system integration and automation and did not lose officer time on the street or have to hire any additional personnel* to manage video files as this function is handled by a third-party vendor’s all-inclusive system. The added amount of video evidence that needed to be verified in the cloud to create a property record and ensure data accuracy did, however, create an extra burden for their Evidence group. *The District Attorney’s office refuses to use the secure links available through the third party vendor to view footage and continues to require a DVD for each video. Mid-sized PD had enough work to hire one full-time person to burn DVDs to accommodate the DA’s requirement, but were not able to secure funding. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Managing Software No agency responsibility if using a third-party VMS, unclear what responsibility agency would have if they did not use available VMS because it is dependent on many variables. Managing Hardware IT would be responsible for maintaining and updating servers if maintained on-site. These responsibilities would include scaling storage availability depending on agency needs and updating servers to be compatible with VMS (if used), ensuring redundancy, CJIS and other data security compliance, workflows, scalability, and updates to system. IT would have no added responsibilities if data are maintained on external cloud servers. Vendor would assure redundancy, security, workflows, scalability, and updates to system. Responding to Data Requests from the Public and District Attorney’s Office Reviewing video for release The agency must decide who must review video in response to Open Records requests. Some agencies require the officer who captured the video to view it and note information that should be redacted and then forward that information to the workgroup responsible for creating copies for distribution. These agencies reported an average cost of 10 work hours to fulfill each request (Miller, Toliver, & PERF, 2014). None of the agencies visited during site studies had experienced many requests for copies of video from individuals other than the DA to this point and did not have a set strategy for handling this issue. An employee in the records department at Small Colorado PD stated all requests were sent to the Chief of Police to review; however, there had only been one such request to date in 2014. All agencies surveyed agreed the low volume of records requests was likely due to lack of public awareness that videos can be requested and expect requests to increase over time. Redacting video for release Each agency’s video policy must address privacy issues to ensure the appropriate redaction of sensitive information. Information that obviously requires redaction includes CCIC/NCIC information obtained over police radio or in car computers, juvenile information, and personal identifying information. Policy must address less clear issues such as victim statements/identities, images of the insides of people’s homes or other areas where there is an expectation of privacy, and gruesome or emotionally-charged images such as victims of vehicle collisions or violent assaults. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study (Please see Balancing Agency Transparency with Citizen and Officer Privacy section for more information). It is important to consider that while it may be appropriate for officers to document and record any scene where they have a legal right to be present, the general public is not necessarily afforded the same legal access to that scene or to that information. Copying video for release The personnel required to produce copies of video generated by BWC depends on the strategy used to store and maintain BWC video, the volume of video generated and retained, the volume of Open Records requests, and the requirements of the District Attorney’s office. Some VMS systems such as Evidence.com© enable registered users, such as detectives and/or Records employees, to send a secure link for specific videos via email in response to requests. Utilizing this feature continues to update the audit trail every time the link is accessed and passed on (until someone makes a hard copy and distributes outside of Evidence.com©) and cancels the need to burn hard copies of the video. Mid-sized Colorado PD, however, had a large enough work load to hire a full-time Digital Evidence Technician to make physical copies of video at the behest of the District Attorney’s Office who did not want to use secure links provided by their third- party vendor to retrieve the video themselves. Funding did not come through to hire an additional technician and now their evidence unit is overwhelmed accommodating requests from the DA to make DVD copies of videos. Large Colorado PD’s Evidence unit is significantly burdened by their system of copying all video to DVD in response to internal requests and those from the DA’s office. Managing video and the associated requests for access to the video requires them to pull two to three people from other assignments to manage the data. They currently intend to hire only one more full time person to assist with these tasks as they realize a 300% increase the number of cameras in use. None of the agencies surveyed in this study had much experience with Open Records requests in terms of copying videos. When asked, the representatives we spoke with from these agencies admitted they do not think the general public is currently aware they can request video footage and once that information becomes common knowledge, handling Open Records requests will become a more pertinent issue for agencies to deal with. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study District Attorney Perspective A Senior Attorney (SA) with the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office provided the following perspectives on the perceived benefits and concerns of initiating a Body Worn Camera program from the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office point of view (personal communication, 11/2014). Benefits to initiating the use of Body Worn Cameras include: • The BWC’s will give officers and DA’s the ability to better capture the actions, statements and demeanor of defendants and victims, and the ability to paint “a true picture of the scene” for jurors on cases. • The video would enhance the ability to provide clear documentation and transparency of investigations “and would provide a visual portrayal of an officer’s viewpoint during an investigation.” While the District Attorney’s Office recognizes several perceived benefits of a body worn camera program, they also expressed several concerns or unknown elements of a BWC program that would need to be addressed. These include: • “The usage of a BWC requires that all LE personnel be continuously aware that all conversations and physical actions may be being fully or partially recorded that are occurring in the vicinity of the officer. This can include conversations that are not relevant to the investigation, conversations that are meant to be private that do not involve the citizen/ suspect and other matters not involving the investigation.” • Agencies would have to ensure that copies of BWC videos are sent up with all traffic cases where video exists, case filings at the time of a Felony case filing, and by the time of a pretrial conference on misdemeanor cases. The defense receives Discovery during the Pre-Trial conference on misdemeanor cases. These conferences generally occur approximately six weeks from the date of offense and usually just a couple weeks after the defendant’s arraignment. The SA suggested that the video be sent up with the summonses on all Misdemeanor cases. The SA raised concerns about the idea of having a District Attorney Office user login for our agency’s BWC video as a means to allow them to access and upload 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study videos from the system on their end. She expressed concern about the amount of time it would take them to access and upload the videos, as well as the difficulty with training their staff on additional software. “The District Attorney’s Office has a specific Discovery Unit that receives and processes discovery for all felony, juvenile, misdemeanor and traffic cases in the 1st JD. Over 23,000 cases were filed in the 1st JD in 2014. 18,000 of these were county court misdemeanor and traffic cases. Due to their enormous criminal caseloads, individual DDAs would not have the time to assume the responsibility of accessing a LE case management system to retrieve reports or videos on individual cases. The District Attorney’s Office does not directly or proactively access any evidence repository to obtain documents or evidence which is mandatory discovery pursuant to Colorado law. It is the LE agency’s responsibility to provide discovery to the DA’s office as part of a case filing or as a specific supplement to an individual case.” • The use of BWC’s could create a need for more transcription services, as this evidence may be the only statement ever received from victims or suspects and would be used for impeachment purposes during trials. This need for additional transcripts may also arise based on the quality of the video received for each particular investigation. While it varies from case to case as to whether the law enforcement agency or the District Attorney’s office would pay for these additional transcripts, the added cost could amount to hundreds or even thousands of dollars in some cases. • “The usage of BWC’s in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that these cameras have a limited vantage point and that important evidence may be outside the camera’s range or focus. Therefore, there is a possibility that an officer’s direct observation may not be recorded by the camera and could present a view that is actually contrary to an officer’s statement. Research of this phenomena would be helpful for court purposes.” The District Attorney’s office suggested the following be considered prior to initiating a BWC program: • Each agency’s policy must be made clear as to when officers can turn the camera on and off during investigations. Without clear guidance in policy for this, the concern would be that it “could give a false impression in court that when something is not recorded, that the agency is attempting to conceal 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study evidence.” The District Attorney’s office expressed concern about leaving decisions about when to turn cameras on and off solely to officer discretion. • Consideration must be given to ensuring the video is retained and available for cases that are filed months or longer after the date of occurrence. This is important as any video destroyed prior to case filing could produce a motion to dismiss by the defense based upon destruction of evidence. “Additionally, the retention of videos which will be required will also subject individual agencies to potentially large and time-consuming requests for videos by outside groups pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, etc.” • The District Attorney’s office would prefer that officers be required to review each video prior to completing their reports to ensure consistency, but they understand that this could cause issues for agencies by slowing the investigation and filing process down on larger cases. “Additionally, each agency must consider whether there are situations where a LE agency may choose to not have officers review BWC videos prior to being interviewed regarding a particular incident.” • Open communication would have to occur with the District Attorney’s Office as well as with their Discovery Unit to ensure that clear workflows are established and that all discoverable material is received in a suitable format within the Discovery deadlines. • “The DA’s office would like to be consulted regarding the storage timeline that agencies will utilize for retention of these videos. There are many factors to consider when determining when and whether a video can be destroyed including the nature of the conduct on the video, whether the video is evidence of a criminal case, the status of the case, etc.” The Senior Attorney advised that while she has heard other agencies within Jefferson County are discussing body worn cameras at this time, she is not currently aware of any Jefferson County agencies that have adopted the use of BWC’s at this time. A staff member of the Discovery Unit at the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office was also contacted. She advised that she is not aware of any agencies in Jefferson County that are currently deploying BWC’s, so she had no firsthand knowledge of how these videos should be delivered to their office. She also stated that the Colorado 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study District Attorney’s Council (CDAC) is in the process of developing a statewide database that will house Discovery for the entire state Court system. The CDAC was awarded $5.3 million dollars by the State Legislature to create the system, which is mandated to be up and running by November, 2016. The purpose behind the system is a new Legislative mandate that will require all case Discovery to be provided free of charge to Defendants and Defense attorneys effective November, 2016. This project is just now getting underway, so it is unknown how it will work, or if it will even have the capacity or capability of storing the BWC video that is submitted by agencies for discovery. As it currently stands, video would have to be provided to Discovery on DVD’s, as they currently do not even have the ability to use Blue Ray discs. Furthermore, the Discovery Unit requires three copies of every disc submitted. It is reasonable to assume that larger BWC files could take up several, even dozens of discs, and then three copies of each would still be necessary. Bottom Line: • Personnel from various workgroups throughout the agency will be affected by a BWC program, dependent on agency goals and logistical solutions. • The degree of automation and integration with current systems both within the agency and with other agencies, such as courts, will determine how many additional personnel will need to be hired to manage various aspects of a BWC program. • Personnel will be required to respond to requests for video from internal as well as external sources such as the District Attorney’s office, media, and citizen Open Records requests regardless of how advanced the BWC program is because a person must view all video released to ensure no private or protected data are released. • Agencies considering a BWC program should anticipate and have a response plan in place for how they will respond to broad Open Records requests. • New mandates for a statewide repository intended to house all Discoverable material is mandated to be in place and functional by November 2016. It is not 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study known how this repository would handle BWC video files or whether individual agencies will bear a financial burden to ensure compliance. • At this time, Jefferson County Courts are not prepared to utilize secure links to access video files, although it is not known if they are aware of how that technology works, and will still require 1-3 copies of all video files created on filed cases. • Casual conversation with the ADA regarding the perceived benefits of BWC illuminates the critical need to educate everyone involved in using criminal justice videos on the limitations to ensure videos are properly used in investigations and court cases. 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Financial Commitment Addressing budget concerns early in the decision process might occur if an agency decides a BWC program is essential, but can only spend X-amount of dollars/time period on that program. This strategy has the potential to significantly impact workloads of personnel across multiple work groups such as Evidence, Records, and Patrol. These effects could greatly influence issues such as officer time on the street and number of additional personnel required to manage the video generated from BWC and may cost the agency more in the long run if not addressed initially. Alternatively, an agency could define upfront how they want a BWC to integrate with personnel and select specific technological capabilities supporting that goal, and estimate those costs prior to submitting a budget proposal. The overall size and scope of the program could then be tailored to fit within budgetary limitations, but retain program elements the agency has determined are required to ensure minimal intrusiveness on personnel. These logistical issues will be explored in more detail in following sections. Based on the available research and our communication with other agencies, this is the best approach. This study clearly establishes the majority of the expense of a BWC program stems from costs associated with managing, storing, and manipulating (copying, maintaining security, etc.) the video collected. While an agency can choose to utilize bare-bones strategies such as burning video straight to DVD and avoiding the costs of setting up and maintaining servers or subscribing to cloud-based services, the trade-off is the need to hire personnel to physically accomplish that task. In addition, vital matters such as data redundancy, security, maintenance, and audit trails are left unaddressed using this strategy. A smaller financial investment, either up-front or over time, in the technology side necessarily dictates that the workload for personnel will increase (Figure 11.). Information from the literature as well as personal communication with agencies we spoke with regarding their BWC programs indicate that a smaller investment in technology will require hiring additional personnel to compensate or will simply be unworkable in the long term. Agencies that have employed strategies where the workload and demand on officers (or other work groups within the agency) markedly increased without a corresponding increase in resources available to manage the program generally have less officer support for using BWC and may fall short in areas such as data security. 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 11. Body Worn Camera programs can be implemented without (relatively) large monetary investment in the equipment; however this strategy places enormous burden on personnel in various workgroups and may ultimately be cost inefficient. In contrast, it is possible to invest in advanced technological solutions to reduce the amount of additional work a BWC program can require of different work groups (Figure 12.). This reduction in personnel workload requires a larger financial investment up front, although this may still be less expensive than the cost of hiring additional personnel and other costs associated with trying to support the program with small investments in infrastructure. Agencies can subscribe to an established cloud-based third-party services that require ongoing costs based on number of users and a greater monetary investment to purchase high-end technology such as automation with existing software (Records Management System or Computer Aided Dispatch). Agencies that were able to make larger financial investments in technology typically did not have to hire additional personnel, had greater officer support and enthusiasm for the program, and had a higher agency-wide overall satisfaction with the BWC program; however the costs may be prohibitive for some agencies. 51 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 12. Body Worn Camera technology is advanced enough to allow high levels of automation and increased burden on vendors to maintain hardware, ensure security, provide software for maintaining audit trails and editing (e.g. redacting) videos. Vendor options can also include integration between BWC software and current Records Management Software to reduce the time required to correctly label and store video. The increased vendor costs would be accompanied by a reduced burden on workgroups within the agency and may ultimately be less costly. The London Metropolitan Police Service and College of Policing began a pilot program in May 2014 that is expected to last one year. They will be conducting a cost-benefit analysis in conjunction with their pilot study. To date, no other standardized cost- benefit analysis is available. Recent summaries suggest agencies can overcome the massive expense of a BWC program by realizing savings from reduced litigation and settlements. This logic only makes sense for agencies for which lawsuits and payouts represent a significant portion of their budgets. Cost Comparison (for reference only!) Taser© posts prices for their Evidence.com© system online without requiring an official request for proposals or bid and this information is included here to provide a frame of reference for costs. (Note that these figures could change due to the somewhat informal nature of the quote). This is NOT meant to be an endorsement of Taser or Evidence.com Initial and replacement cameras, software upgrades, and technological support are included in the fixed-plan prices listed below. Integration with other systems such as CAD or RMS can be purchased for an additional cost; however, this fee includes support 52 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study for any system changes without additional fees. For example, they will integrate with Intergraph and then again with Niche if needed without charging the agency again. Evidence.com© is housed on Amazon S3 servers and is CJIS compliant. The prices described below include triple redundancy on servers geographically separated at undisclosed facilities across the US, highest levels of data and physical security for the data. An interesting note, NASDAQ uses this system to “provide its clients with efficient storage and management of financial data.” Cameras recharge and upload data when placed in a docking station. Cameras are assigned to specific users and data are uploaded to that user’s account on cloud servers when docked. Evidence.com© is a video management software system and allows users to view their video, redact sensitive information while ensuring the original files are never altered, provides a built-in audit system that tracks the life of a video from creation to deletion and all access in between. Video files are automatically purged according to agency-defined retention times for file types and there is a buffer system where video can be retrieved for a short window (days) of time if someone decides that video that was deleted should be retained longer. Taser© responds to their customer’s requests for changes and updates to their system and all users will automatically receive those software updates when available as a part of their contract (Table Cameras can be mounted in different locations on the officer’s uniform as is the case for most models of BWC currently available. Some users favor Taser’s cameras while others prefer different models, such as VIEVU’s cameras, and this issue appears to be a matter of personal preference. Data upload times are variable and appear to be mostly limited by the agency network capabilities. Large Colorado Police Department indicated they had trouble with long upload times to the cloud during a trial run with a third-party vendor, but admitted there were issues with their in-house IT capabilities at that time. Mid-sized Colorado PD has not experienced any issues with upload times, although they have purchased a high degree of system integration and updated their agency’s bandwidth capabilities which could assist with this issue. They originally described long upload times when multiple cameras were docked in one station using one port, but increasing the number of ports and placing docking stations throughout the department eliminated any upload timing issues. An Arvada PD officer has been using a BWC for several years and stores his data on a third-party vendor’s cloud servers as a result of a previous trial agreement. He estimates upload times are at most 10 minutes for a busy shift’s worth of video files. 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Table 1. Estimated costs per licensed user per camera) to subscribe to Evidence.com© and use cloud-based storage systems. Cost per user license per month Capabilities $45 Read-only, user has very limited access to video $70 Users have unlimited access to Evidence.com© (as defined by agency administrators) 100 GB cloud storage per license per year $79 Users have unlimited access to Evidence.com© (as defined by agency administrators) Unlimited cloud storage space per license per year $99 Users have unlimited access to Evidence.com© (as defined by agency administrators) Unlimited cloud storage space per license per year Includes Taser© replacement plans for licensed users An agency using a third-party system such as the one we have described should not have to purchase additional equipment or hire additional personnel to handle internal management of the BWC program. While the initial up-front costs may be greater than those quoted for other strategies, rigorous and honest analyses of long-term and hidden costs should be performed to determine the best strategy for the agency over time. Taser© and Evidence.com© are by no means the only third-party vendor providing BWC solutions, but we did not speak with any agency that had purchased a different full- service third-party system and we do not have solid figures for other systems to present here as a comparison. Large Colorado PD had been using a video management system to manage dash-camera footage and continued to use this system when they integrated VIEVU BWCs. At the time of our site visit, this PD stated they were open to considering moving to different vendors and logistical solution configurations based on how costs and capabilities aligned with their program. 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Bottom Line: • A BWC program is expensive. • Financial investments in technological solutions will reduce personnel costs associated with BWC program management. Conversely, reduced investment in technological solutions will increase personnel costs and burdens. • Agencies must thoroughly investigate the up-front, on-going, and intangible costs associated with a BWC program and incorporate solutions that best support agency goals, policies, and financial resources. • Personnel from workgroups such as Patrol, Evidence, Records, Legal, and Data Security should be considered when designing a BWC program to determine what financial resources are required to design a program that best meets agency-specific goals. 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study IT Perspective (written by A. Storrs) Body Worn Camera’s & Digital Management Systems for Body Worn Camera’s Below is a brief outline of some of the options that are available to us. The best camera and management system may not both come from the same vendor. In addition the best camera and management system will depend greatly on what our goal is for the cameras. For example, if we are using the cameras for transparency and have an aggressive retention policy, then we may not need as much storage capacity, versus if we are using the cameras for evidence collection and have a retention policy that requires we keep all video for a minimum of 90 days. In speaking with the different vendors and seeing the different technology that is available I would not currently suggest a specific camera or management system, I would suggest we define our goals for our use of the camera’s and find the best camera and management system to fit that goal. As you can see below, the cost can vary greatly depending on the technology that we select. Cameras All-In-One Units - These cameras can vary in size and weight, but all have the recording (video and audio), battery, and in some models a play back screen all contained in one unit. 1. Multiple Piece Units - These cameras are typically smaller, but have the camera/microphone and battery pack as two separate units. 2. Multi-Functional Units - These cameras are typically larger, but are built into a device the officer is already using so that they have one less device to carry. Examples: The camera is built-in to a shoulder radio mic, or the camera used is the one on their smartphone Management Systems 1. All the management systems have the same basic function, that of being the interface for all the stored video’s and, in some cases, for pictures as well. Each management system has different interfaces and options, such as; redaction, adding of addition video’s or pictures from another source (cell phone, YouTube, etc.), metadata options, viewing of streaming video, permission levels, etc. 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Storage 1. On Premise - With this option all the videos would be housed on site. This option also requires a secondary server for back-up of all the videos. This option is the most secure, allows for faster uploads, and access to the video’s is not dependent on the internet. This option is usually the most cost effective, as the after the equipment purchase, the hardware is owned and the storage does not have to be paid for on a basis for as long as it is needed. 2. Cloud - With this option all the videos are stored in the cloud. Depending on the vendor and the storage facility this option can also be CJIS compliant. The upload times of the videos can vary, and can use a lot of the internet bandwidth within the building (how much bandwidth would be based on how many videos were being uploaded and how large the file sizes were). Decreased bandwidth can cause issues with other applications that would normally be utilizing that same bandwidth. This is the most expensive option, and is paid for as long as you use the product. 3. Hybrid - This is a new option for video management systems. This option allows you to store videos in two locations. You can chose to have the video automatically be stored in a location based on the type of incident. Example, a felony can automatically be stored in cloud, and a routine traffic stop can be stored on premise. This option is very flexible, but would have a higher cost since some of the storage is cloud based. Example Configurations & Cost Models 1. WolfCom http://policebodycameras.com/ - Provides a variety of camera options, offers their own management software, but can also integrate with other management software. 2. Camera’s i. Wolfcom Vision (all-in one unit) $185-$200/per camera. - Small 2.9”x1.5”.0.6” at 2.2oz, battery life of 2.5 hours of continuous recording without extended battery, 120 degree angle lens, with 32GB of internal storage (up to 18 hours of video), can do pre-recording, can take a picture, built in mic for the audio recorder, one touch record, programmable public awareness light, LED flash light, date/time stamp, badge number stamped into video option, can add GPS option. Live streaming coming soon. j. Wolfcom 3rd Eye (multi-functional unit) $185-$200/per camera - Size 3.75”x2.35”.1.25” at 5.5oz, battery life of 5.5-6 hours of 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study continuous recording, with 32GB of internal storage (up to 17 hours of video), also acts as the two way radio shoulder mic, can take a picture, built in audio recorder, one touch record, date/time stamp, GPS coordinates stamped onto video file, night vision, playback screen, HDMI output i. Additional Camera’s available: 1. Eye Vision Camera $149.99 - Point of View recording, plugs into the WolfCom Vision camera and clips to sunglasses, baseball cap, collar, etc. 2. Head Vision camera $149.99- Point of View recording, fits over your ears. 3. Night Vision camera $149.99- Plugs into the Wolfcom Vision camera, and clips onto the pen pocket, or can be mounted on a vest, epaulette, etc. Up to 20 feet in pitch black darkness. 4. Covert Pinhole Button Camera $149.99- Plugs into the Wolfcom Vision camera for detectives or investigators. ii. Optional Equipment: 1. Extended 4 hour battery pack $149.99 2. Extended 1.5 hour battery back w/ GPS module $149.99 3. Docking Station $249.99 - up to 3 Wolfcom Vision camera’s simultaneously, and can link up to 12 docks 4. Extended 15 hour super battery pack $199.99 b. WolfCom Management System $200/per camera license, $40/per camera for 2nd year and forward for maintenance contract i. Software for managing all videos (can do photo’s, audio files, and documents as well). Includes, but not limited to the following features; 1. Find a file easily with multiple search options 2. View a map showing the location the video was taken 3. Evidence is organized by case number 4. Define levels of permission for each type of user 5. Define access to evidence 6. Send secure links to video’s to both internal and external users 7. Chain of Custody reports 8. Configurable retention periods by type of evidence 9. Automated DVD burning 58 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study ii. Coban DVMS (Digital Video Management System) http://www.cobantech.com 1. Software for Server, workstations, and MDT’s 2. Find a file easily with multiple search options 3. Define access to evidence 4. Unlimited tape library storage solution (on premise solution) iii. Coban Digital Property Manager http://www.cobantech.com 1. Integrates with Coban’s DVMS 2. Can export a “case package” to CD/DVD w/ option to include metadata and audit trail 3. Users can check files in and out for analysis c. Storage i. On Premise $40,000- all videos would be stored on a local server at the city. Going with the model of about 10 hours of video will create about 28GB of data we will start with 100TB of storage. 1. Backup server $40,000 ii. Cloud $44,400 per year for 100TB - all videos would be stored in the cloud. Each camera would upload all files into the cloud, either through the car cellular connection (for those with mobile hotspots), or from a station. This is a reoccurring cost. iii. Hybrid - We can define how much storage we want on site and in the cloud. The software will allow us to specify which type of event is stored in which location. d. Example Cost Matrix: i. Per Camera 1. Camera: Wolfcom Vision / pre-record $250 2. Optional Equipment: a. Extended 1.5 hour battery pack w/ GPS $149.99 b. Docking Station $249.99 3. WolfCom Management System $200 4. Storage - On Prem $40,000 a. Backup Server $40,000 5. Total Cost: a. Camera Equipment $650 b. Management Server $200 c. On Premise Storage w/ backup server $80,000 d. Total $80,850 ii. For 50 Camera’s 1. Camera: Wolfcom Vision w/ pre-record $235 x 50 =$11,750 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 2. Optional Equipment: a. Extended 1.5 hour battery pack w/ GPS $149.99 x50=$7,500 b. Docking Station $249.99 x12 (3 per station)=$3000 3. WolfCom Management System $200 x 50 = $10,000 4. Storage - On Prem $40,000 a. Backup Server $40,000 5. Total Cost: a. Camera Equipment $22,250 b. Management Server $10,000 c. On Premise Storage w/ backup server $80,000 d. Total $112,250 3. Taser www.evidence.com - Provides two different types of camera options and offers their own cloud based management software. a. Camera’s i. Axon body (all-in-one unit) - $399 per camera - 3.3”x2.6”x0.8” at 3.5oz with one button recording, pre-recording, 130 degree wide angle lens, Bluetooth, GPS tagging and streaming ability available through separate Android or iOS mobile app, can do photo’s, can playback on camera j. Axon flex (multiple piece unit) - 3.3”x2.6”x0.8” at 3.3oz for controller, along with a POV (Point of View camera that attach to Oakley sunglasses) at 0.8”x0.7”x3.2” at 0.5 oz., 8with 12 hour battery, pre-record, retina low-light capture, 75 degree wide angle lens, Bluetooth, GB storage, GPS tagging and streaming ability available through separate Android or iOS mobile app i. Evidence Mobile - use your Android or iOS device to capture the video, audio, and picture files, add meta data, and upload to Evidence.com© ii. Optional Equipment/Services 1. Evidence Dock - For charging and uploading of videos 2. Axon Mobile - Pairs with the Axon camera for GPS information, add meta-data, and view video. 3. Evidence Sync - Desktop control allows you to upload video’s through the MDT in the car, allows admins to schedule automatic uploads from specific folders, allows you to annotate video with meta data 4. RMS Integration - for incident ID, category, and location b. Management System 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study i. Software for managing all videos (can do photo’s, audio files, and documents as well). Includes, but not limited to the following features; 1. Find a file easily with multiple search options 2. Define levels of permission for each type of user 3. Define access to evidence 4. Send secure links to video’s to both internal and external users 5. Chain of Custody reports 6. Configurable retention periods by type of evidence c. Storage i. Cloud $99 per year per camera for unlimited storage - all videos would be stored in the cloud. Each camera would upload all files into the cloud, either through the car cellular connection (for those with mobile hotspots, or laptops), or from a station. This is a reoccurring cost. d. Example Cost Matrix: i. Per Camera 1. Camera: Axon Body $399 a. Warranty $200 2. Optional Equipment: a. Docking Station 3. Management System a. License $15 b. RMS Integration $20 4. Storage - Cloud $10 5. Total Cost: a. Camera Equipment $599 b. Management Server $35 c. Cloud Storage $10 d. Total Upfront $599 e. Total $45 f. package deal $85 (includes camera, warranty, management server, storage, & RMS integration) ii. For 50 Camera’s 1. Camera: Axon Body $399 x50 = $19,950 a. Warranty $200 x50 = $10,000 2. Optional Equipment: 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study a. Docking Station 3. Management System a. License $15 x 50 = $750 b. RMS Integration $20 x 50 =$1,000 4. Storage - Cloud $10 x 50 = $500 5. Total Cost: a. Camera Equipment $29,950 b. Management Server $1,750 c. Cloud Storage $500 d. Total Upfront $31,700 e. Total $500 ($6,000) f. package deal $85 x 50 =$4,250 ($51,000/yr reoccurring) (includes camera, warranty, management server, storage, & RMS integration) 4. Utility http://utility.com/products/ - utilizes the current Moto X mobile phone to act as a body worn camera, using a specialized holster. All videos are uploaded to the cloud based management system using the phones cellular connection. a. Camera’s - Body Worn i. Moto X - can be configured to activate via a voice command by the assigned officer or from a command center, can stream live video, offloads videos immediately via the cellular connection j. Additional Motorola phones with this ability coming soon b. Management System - Evidence EcoSystem i. Software for managing all videos (can do photo’s, audio files, documents, in-car video, gunshot audio analysis, LPR, etc.). Includes, but not limited to the following features; 1. Find a file easily with multiple search options 2. Define levels of permission for each type of user 3. Define access to evidence 4. Chain of Custody reports 5. Configurable retention periods by type of evidence c. Storage i. Cloud per year per camera for unlimited storage - all videos would be stored in the cloud. Each camera would upload all files into the cloud, either through the phone’s cellular connection. This is a reoccurring cost. d. Example Cost Matrix: i. Per Camera 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 1. Camera: Motorola Phone (Currently does not support any other manufacturer) 2. Holster for phone to clip to uniform 3. Management System a. License 4. Storage - Cloud 5. Total Cost: a. Camera Equipment b. Management Server c. Cloud Storage d. Total Upfront e. Total 5. Coban/VieVu http://www.cobantech.com http://www.vievu.com/ a. Camera’s i. VieVu LE3 (all-in-one unit) - 3.”x2.1”x0.85” at 2.8oz with 16GB storage, with 5 hour record time, with one button recording, 68 degree lens, GPS tagging and streaming ability available through separate Android or iOS mobile app, time and date stamped j. VieVu^2 (all-in-one unit) - 1.9”x1.9”x0.75” at 2.4oz with 16GB storage, with 1.5-2 hours streaming/recording, one button recording, 95 degree angle, built-in Wi-Fi for streaming, NO date/time stamp or digital signature i. Optional Equipment/Services 1. Camera Dock - For charging and uploading of videos 2. VeriPatrol Mobile + - Software for the patrol cars so they can, download video’s in the car, make a copy of the video, upload video’s from the car, etc. 3. VeriPatrol Mobile - Included with VeriPatrol Mobile + - review video, add metadata b. Management System i. VeriPatrol - Software 1. Find a file easily with multiple search options 2. Define levels of permission for each type of user 3. Define access to evidence 4. Chain of Custody reports 5. Configurable retention periods by type of evidence ii. Coban DVMS (Digital Video Management System) 1. Software for Server, workstations, and MDT’s 63 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 2. Find a file easily with multiple search options 3. Define access to evidence 4. Unlimited tape library storage solution (on premise solution) iii. Coban Digital Property Manager 1. Integrates with Coban’s DVMS 2. Can export a “case package” to CD/DVD w/ option to include metadata and audit trail 3. Users can check files in and out for analysis c. Storage i. On Premise Server $40,000- all videos would be stored on a local server at the city. Going with the model of about 10 hours of video will create about 28GB of data we will start with 100TB of storage. 1. Backup server $40,000 ii. Cloud - per year per camera for storage - all videos would be stored in the cloud. Each camera would upload all files into the cloud, either through the car cellular connection (for those with mobile hotspots, or laptops), or from a station. This is a reoccurring cost. iii. Hybrid - Allows for copying the video to a local server for faster copying then is copied into the cloud d. Example Cost Matrix: i. Per Camera 1. Camera: VieVu LE3 a. Warranty 2. Optional Equipment: a. Docking Station 3. Management System a. License 4. Storage - 5. Total Cost: a. Camera Equipment b. Management Server c. Cloud Storage d. Total Upfront e. Total f. package deal $ (includes LE3 camera, warranty, management server, cloud storage) 6. Digital Ally www.digitalallyinc.com/ 64 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study a. Camera’s i. FirstVu (all-in-one unit)$795 - 2.7”x4.3”x1” with 133 degree lens, can take pictures, automatically saves metadata, up to 30 second pre-record, covert mode, remembers previous officer logged in, 2” viewable screen on back of camera, download videos via USB or SD card j. FirstVu HD (Multi-Piece Unit) $795 - 130 degree lens, 4.5 hours recording battery time, enhanced low light sensitivity, mounts anywhere, up to 60 second pre-record, saves data/time stamp 1. Dimensions: Recorder/Battery pack 2.5”x4’x0.625” at 3.1oz, Camera 1.125”x1.5”x1” at 0.8oz 2. Coming soon: glasses-mounted bullet amera, live streaming management mobile app, one-touch instant login, etc. ii. Optional Equipment/Services 1. Camera Dock $2,995 - For charging up to 12 and uploading of videos 2. VuLink - Software for linking the body worn camera and in car camera 3. Live Remote Streaming Option b. Management System i. Video Management - Software 1. Find a file easily with multiple search options 2. Define levels of permission for each type of user 3. Define access to evidence 4. Chain of Custody reports 5. Configurable retention periods by type of evidence 6. GPS Mapping 7. Annotate Videos c. Storage i. On Premise Server $40,000- all videos would be stored on a local server at the city. Going with the model of about 10 hours of video will create about 28GB of data we will start with 100TB of storage. 1. Backup server $40,000 ii. Cloud - per year per camera for storage - all videos would be stored in the cloud. Each camera would upload all files into the cloud, either through the car cellular connection (for those with mobile hotspots, or laptops), or from a station. This is a reoccurring cost. 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study iii. Hybrid - Allows for copying the video to a local server for faster copying then is copied into the cloud d. Example Cost Matrix: i. Per Camera 1. Camera: FirstVu HD $795 a. Warranty 2. Optional Equipment: a. Docking Station $2,995 3. Management System a. License 4. Storage - 5. Total Cost: a. Camera Equipment b. Management Server c. Cloud Storage d. Total Upfront e. Total 66 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 4. Put it all together The previous sections highlighted some of the strategies available to manage a BWC program and hopefully illustrated the issues that an agency must consider prior to implementation and how changes in one decision necessarily affect every other component of this program. Once agencies understand the BWC issue and have carefully considered the legal, technological, constitutional, and personnel implications, they must decide whether or not a BWC program is right or doable for their agency (Figure 13). An aggressive education and public outreach campaign to educate citizens about issues raised in this document as well as law enforcement behaviors and activities in general would be appropriate regardless of an agency’s decision to implement a BWC program or not. If the agency determines they are not able to support a BWC, they must be prepared to publicly explain and substantiate this decision and how they arrived at it and disseminate that information appropriately. If the agency decides to move forward with implementation of a BWC program and they follow the recommendations given in this study, they will need to organize how they will move forward, who will be involved in that process, and how they will disseminate information regarding their decision. 67 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 13. Agencies must understand and carefully consider issues relevant to body worn cameras and then decide whether or not they will implement a program. Agency goals and financial capabilities will dictate all decisions and effects and therefore should be analyzed before purchasing any equipment (see Figure 14. and Figure 15. for illustrative examples). An agency should be prepared to remain flexible and accept that it may have to alter the BWC program after it has been implemented to address unforeseen issues or to correct polices that are not working as expected. 68 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 14. Example of decision tree for implementing a Body Worn Camera program where budget issues are defined early in the process and a bare-bones technology strategy combined with strict recording requirements are in place. A smaller investment in technology will lead to increased work burden and personnel costs for workgroups involved in managing and maintaining video. A Corrections Division within a mid-west Sheriff’s Office, employing 3800 personnel, used a third-party vendor’s cloud service and VMS on a 90-day trial basis for their 250 jail cameras. We spoke with one of their command officers who is also an IT professional. He said their agency would have continued to use a third-party vendor system “if money were no object” and that in his experience as an IT professional “it is not possible for an agency to compete with the technological capabilities a third-party vendor can provide (personal communication, 10/31/14)”. Budget requirements forced their department to change to a strategy of burning videos to DVD instead of using a third-party cloud system. As a result, they had to hire two full time sworn personnel just to copy files to DVD and they spend approximately $10,000 per year on DVD media. He stated data management and retention are the main problems under their current system and the rudimentary technological system utilized have placed more responsibility on fewer people. 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Figure 15. Example of decision tree for implementing a Body Worn Camera program where recording requirements are moderate, a decision has been made to reduce the work burden on agency personnel, and budget issues are decided at the end of the process. A decision to invest in features such as integration and utilizing vendor software to manage and maintain video data will reduce agency personnel work load, but it requires a larger financial investment in the technology. A command officer of one of the 10 busiest airport police departments, employing approximately 200 sworn personnel, also spoke with us and stated his agency initially bought their own servers to store and maintain their BWC data. That agency initially purchased 100 cameras and by the time they had deployed 60 cameras, they quickly found their system to be “unworkable” due to issues with data management and retrieval. Based on their experiences, this agency changed their strategy and began using a third- party vendor’s cloud storage and VMS. Their experience with cloud-based technology has been positive in terms of data management, personnel work load, and upload speeds. They had one docking station that had connectivity issues with their internal network which caused upload-time issues. Once the network issue was resolved on 70 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study that docking station, they had no other issues or complications with long upload times (personal communication, 11/12/14). Bottom Line: • This study is meant to assist those who will decide whether or not to bring BWC to their agency • After learning about the issues inherent to BWC programs and careful consideration, a decision has to be made to move forward with a program or not (for various reasons) • Agencies must be prepared to document and explain whatever decision they make in a manner appropriate to their policies and procedures • Most agencies will have to revise various aspects of a BWC over time as issues are experienced and resolved 71 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Site Surveys Three local agencies graciously hosted site visits and demonstrated how their BWC programs function from the time the officer transfers video until video is purged from the system. A table summarizing each agency’s program follows this brief introduction (Table Small Colorado Police Department (~50 sworn officers) Small PD began looking into BWC in 2008-2009 and have a policy that allows for high levels of officer discretion from whether to wear a camera, what camera to wear (officers purchase their own BWC), when to record, and what recordings to save. There is no additional work burden on any other workgroup such as Records or Evidence and the additional cost is limited to the DVD media used to save video files they choose to keep. Mid-sized Police Department 200 sworn officers) Mid-sized PD began a pilot study in 2012, providing BWC to officers who patrol their busy and often rowdy downtown bar district. Later, BWC were provided to 10 hand-picked patrol officers. Later, approximately 25% of officers from each watch on a semi-voluntary basis were assigned cameras, outfitting approximately 60% of their sworn officers with cameras. Mid-sized PD engaged patrol in every step of the process and implemented their program slowly in stages. The special squad patrolling the bar district downtown “became ambassadors” for the BWC program, particularly because this agency had experience with incidents being recorded by civilians, selectively edited, and released on the internet. The videos received national attention and officers were frustrated they did not have their own video to show what really happened. While they have not kept track of numbers, there have been multiple incidents where people come in to the PD wanting to file a complaint, but “get up and walk out” once they have reviewed the BWC video. The department has pressed charges for False Reporting based on video footage. Officers have come to appreciate the value of being able to review video in real-time in the field to collect evidence the officer’s eyes did not catch, but the camera recorded. Evidence collection has become the main function for their cameras. Additionally, they have noted reduced time in municipal court as a result of being able to present BWC video. 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Large Police Department (~700 sworn officers) Large Police Department began a pilot BWC program in 2011 with 11 cameras issued to motor officers. They slowly added cameras to the rest of their traffic unit and then to a limited number of patrol officers in each district. They currently have 50-75 active cameras and plan to have 200 in 2015 and 400 by 2016. The city-wide IT department maintains police data on in-house servers paid for with the IT budget rather than the police department’s budget. There is currently no redundancy or backup system for the BWC video data and all video management is the Evidence unit’s responsibility. Large PD used in-vehicle cameras prior to introducing BWC and integrated their existing Coban video management system to accommodate management of BWC video as well as dash-cam video. Officers are responsible for manually entering video data into the VMS interface and the department has had one serious incident where video of a homicide scene was mislabeled and deleted from the system based on the erroneously assigned retention schedule. Other user error concerns include entering incorrect dates or summons numbers which makes searching for specific files time consuming for Evidence personnel. Evidence personnel receive approximately 15-20 requests for copies of video per day from internal sources and the District Attorney’s office alone. Each request requires a minimum of 15-20 minutes to fulfill and sometimes much more time if the file has been incorrectly tagged or requires additional effort to retrieve. Between 1-3 additional personnel have been hired or moved from other positions to manage the video generated by BWC and are overwhelmed by the workload required to keep up with video management. Large PD has also not experienced many requests for video under the Open Records act, but currently any requests must be approved by the Chief or are released only under Court Order. 73 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Table 2. Comparison between local law enforcement agency’s body worn camera programs. Small PD Mid-sized PD Large PD Main goal for BWV No stated departmental goals; officer choice to use BWC “Mutual accountability” between police and public and evidence collection Evidence collection, training, investigative- aid Camera Model Officer’s choice Taser Axon Flex VIEVU Storage solution DVD Cloud City maintained servers Shared or dedicated cameras Personally owned Dedicated Dedicated (Detectives will share cameras) BWC program began ~2010 Late 2012 / early 2013 as pilot program 2011 Who is wearing BWC Officers who choose to use them are allowed to buy their own • Downtown bar-district squads • All K-9 officers • ~60% of all officers • Started with motors • All traffic • 4-5 officers/district • Total of 49-60 cameras Uploading /Downloading video Burn directly to DVD • Docking/charging stations located throughout PD • Officers are tagging video in the field on mobile devices on the fly Upload to in-house server via dedicated proprietary USB cords Level of Officer Discretion Allowed in Deciding What/When to Record • Complete • “Officer instincts” regarding when to use are enough (don’t need to mandate in policy) • Medium- High, but policy does address circumstances where officers are expected to record • “Officer instincts” regarding when to use work well • Medium-Low • To be activated during citizen contacts Requirements from DA Office Nothing other than what is required for all other evidence Require DVD at time of filing; won’t use secure links provided by third- party vendor Nothing other than what is required for all other evidence 74 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Small PD Mid-sized PD Large PD Video management internally Officer burns/downloads the file in accordance with the Computers and Digital Evidence Policy; managed and submitted to Evidence like digital still photographs, document scans, etc. • Officers tag video on mobile devices in field, upload on docking stations ‘as soon as practicable unless critical incident’ • Do not make officers return to PD to dock cameras (their patrol model allows officers to go EOW without coming into PD) if they obtain supervisor approval and do not have critical incident footage to transfer off cameras • Officers tag videos and upload • No other officer responsibility • Limited officer access to view after video has been transferred Implementation Process • Had in-car cameras, but stopped using those because they “didn’t work well” • Tested iKAM system, didn’t work well (glasses broke easily) • Allowed officers to purchase their own cameras • Adjusted video/audio policy to accommodate BWC • Downtown bar-district squads first officers to wear, became ambassadors for BWV for other officers • Held community meetings to inform and involve citizens • Followed downtown squad cameras with small % of patrol officers hand-picked by Lt. (respected by peers, “solid” officers) • Added another small group from patrol • Pilot program began with Motors unit • Followed by the rest of Traffic squad • Sergeants assigned cameras to 4-5 people in each district • Proposed budget plans to outfit every patrol officer with a camera by 2016 75 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Small PD Mid-sized PD Large PD Records role Send Open Records requests to Chief • Responds to video requests as they respond to requests for reports • Forwarded to Evidence to fulfill • Officer reviews video to determine if there is any sensitive/protected information that must be redacted None IT role No additional responsibilities as a result of BWC No additional responsibilities as a result of BWC once data ports were installed Maintains servers off site from PD Evidence role Store and process DVDs/CDs as they do all other evidence • Have to verify data uploaded to cloud storage • Workgroup that has been most affected by BWV program • Workgroup that has been most affected by BWV program • Burn all video to DVDs in response to DA requests • Average 15-20 video- to-DVD requests per day • Each request requires a minimum of 15-20 minutes to complete • Minimum 4 hrs./day spent burning DVDs alone Chain of custody / audit trail management Managed by Evidence department in the same manner as other types of evidence • Managed by third- party vendor on cloud servers • Automatic purge/retention Managed by Coban system currently 76 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Small PD Mid-sized PD Large PD Workflow / ease of dissemination to DA, Open Records requests, media, etc. • Open Records requests theoretically sent to Chief to vet, has not been an issue since they have not had many requests • Do not release video of any active cases Have not experienced any problems other than DA still requiring DVD at time of filing (they also have face-to- face filing system) Have not received Open Records requests for BWC video Added costs/year as a result of BWC program Costs of DVDs (unknown dollar amount) Minimal with exception of Digital Evidence Tech to comply with DA refusal to use secure links to access video Unknown because IT is a city-wide department and have their own budget Additional employees hired as a result of BWC program 0 • Tried to hire a full- time Digital Evidence Technician to burn DVDs because DA office does not want to use secure links to access video • Funding did not come through • Evidence unit is currently overwhelmed responding to DA requests for copies on DVD • 2-3 evidence and tech personnel involved in BWC video management • Positions are not specifically budgeted for this work and have to be pulled from other duties Training N/A • In-house, designed by Lt. and Patrol workgroup • 4 hr. training, +1 hr. for Sgts. In house training 77 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Small PD Mid-sized PD Large PD Additional equipment purchased as a result of BWC program None by PD • Glasses: Axon Flex currently only mounts to Oakley frames, Taser© is reportedly in process of updating • Hats: update and improve ball cap design so officers could attach cameras to hat • RMS integration: investigating this option now • Camera hardware and servers • Integration with Coban to handle BWC video in addition to dash-cam video Storage space needed per year for video from BWC DVDs only, nothing maintained on server system Unknown • Estimate they are generating 9GB/officer/month • Currently have 93% of 10TB filled with video 78 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Small PD Mid-sized PD Large PD Critical incidents / Use of Force Investigations / Citizen complaints resolved as a result of BWC Anecdotal information about reduced complaints against officers • Multiple incidents of citizens wanting to file complaints with IA, once given the opportunity to watch the video ultimately decline to pursue complaint • Do NOT want officers viewing video prior to making first statement following a critical incident because they place most importance on what officer perceived at the time, do not want second- guessing based on what video may have captured that officer did not • Multiple incidents of citizens wanting to file complaints with IA, once given the opportunity to watch the video ultimately decline to pursue complaint System used to store still photos / surveillance footage from stores, etc. (DIMS) N/A • Starting to use third- party vendor that hosts BWC data • Prior system was in- house on PD drives • Foray systems • Currently use separate storage and backup system from BWC and dash-camera video Unexpected benefits / lessons learned N/A • Real-time video review for evidence collection in field; evidence collection has become primary function for most patrol officers • Have pressed charges for False Reporting when people sign complaints clearly refuted by video footage Fish eye video lenses distort street views and are disliked by traffic units for showing evidence 79 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Small PD Mid-sized PD Large PD Policy • Foundation built on existing video policies • Adjusted as BWC pilot program progressed • Foundation based on existing dash-cam Mobile Audio/Video Policy • Draft policy was collaboration between Lt. and workgroup of Patrol officers • Requested input from Evidence and Traffic supervisors regarding retention times • Requested input from DA and FOP PRIOR to finalizing policy • Negotiated with Command Staff (not many changes required from either side to agree on final draft) • Does NOT follow all PERF recommendations (purposely) • Flexible about adjusting policy as they move forward with the program • Foundation built on existing video policies • Adjusted as BWC pilot program progressed 80 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Small PD Mid-sized PD Large PD Advice to agencies considering BWV N/A • Implement program slowly • Choose systems that have the least impact on personnel workloads • Keep officers involved in process from start to finish • Carefully choose first officers to wear – those who are respected and liked by peers and can be legitimate ambassadors for program • Give officers discretion when to turn on and off within reason • Keep officers involved in decisions to use any of their video for viewing and/or training • Specifically state in policy that supervisors CANNOT troll video looking for minor infractions etc. • Implement program slowly • Expect a lot of logistical issues at start-up and have staff on hand to deal with those issues 81 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study PowerDMS Survey Queries Current Arvada Police Department Sworn Officer’s Perceptions about Body Worn Cameras A survey was sent to Arvada PD patrol officers to gauge their perceptions regarding BWC and law enforcement in general. Participants were asked the following questions: Did you wear/use any of the Body Worn Cameras (BWC) that the Arvada Police Department has tested? If you answered yes to Question please advise of what you liked and disliked about wearing the camera What do you perceive as possible benefits of officers wearing BWC's during their daily duties? What do you perceive as possible disadvantages of officers wearing BWC's during their daily duties? If BWC's were implemented, what considerations do you feel the most important to be considered prior to implementation? Would you support the idea of Arvada PD implementing BWC's for officers? (Please elaborate why or why not) The maximum number of responses for a single question was 84 officers and the number of responses received varied among the questions. The responses were thoughtful and demonstrated genuine interest/concern on this matter (see summary of responses Table 5. in Appendix). While not every answer was a clear yes or no response to whether officers would support implementation of a BWC program, approximately 43% were generally in favor of BWC, 30% do not want BWC, 16% are unsure, and 10% may support BWC if certain criteria are met. Officers’ comments demonstrated they are well-informed and conversant on the issues and concerns listed in this study. The survey results solidify the need to ensure those making decisions about a BWC program: carefully consider the pros and cons, clearly define and be able to explain the goals and rationale for using BWC, genuinely engage officers in the entire process, and implement the program slowly. 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Arvada Police Department Body Worn Camera Pilot Data In 2014, seven day shift officers, seven swing shift officers, and one graveyard shift officer tested a BWC for one shift. Sergeants were responsible for transferring video files to computers via USB and stated the process took a long time, despite small file sizes and numbers, and did not include re-labeling or tagging files. An estimate of the amount of video collected per officer was generated based on the video collected from those tests (Table Note there were a very small sampling of events recorded, likely due in large part to officer unfamiliarity with the equipment and forgetfulness to turn the camera on and these estimates should be considered the extreme low end of the amount of data expected to be generated once a program has been implemented. Despite the low number of videos made and the (relatively) small file sizes, these data suggest patrol would consume a MINIMUM of 1 TB of server space every two weeks if every officer used a BWC. Table 3. Summary of BWV generated during Arvada PD camera tests, 2014. Ave Minutes/Shift Minimum Officers/work week Minimum expected minutes/wk Ave MB Minimum expected MB/wk Days 47 53 2468 2353 124687 Swings 74 57 4218 3780 215458 Graves 61 57 3477 3084 175772 Total = 515,918 An Arvada PD traffic officer has been using his own BWC for years and a third-party vendor has allowed him to store his video on their system based on a previous trial evaluation conducted by the department. Although data collected from this officer represents a sample size of n=1, his data are more accurate than the pilot data above in terms of recording consistency over time. He generated approximately 164 files amounting to 21.13 GB of video data in one 30 day period and 8.4GB from 109 files in a different 30 day period. Note these file sizes reflect the compression rate used to store data on this specific system. Extrapolating from his data suggests 45 officers would generate a minimum of 1TB of data in one month. There appears to be an assumption in the literature that traffic officers will generally create more files, and therefore more bytes of video, than patrol officers due to the 83 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study number of contacts they have over the course of a shift. To test this assumption, a senior sergeant was asked to select officers from day swing grave and traffic (n=3) shifts that were representative of officers involved in a lot of self- initiated activities and who remain active throughout their shifts. I/Leads records management system was used to collect the total time these officers spent on calls from January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014. No effort was made to account for vacation or sick days etc. or total days each officer worked during that period because this was meant to be a random sampling of data. Call types that clearly did not include citizen contacts were not included in the time tallies. The call types excluded from this analysis were: Briefing, Meal breaks (Code Court, DMV, Equipment, Holding (stray animal), Meeting, Reports, Traffic Enforcement, Training, and Vehicle Maintenance. Other call types that were excluded, but may involve contacts with citizens (and therefore generate video) include Directed Patrol, Foot Patrol, Park Check, Premise Check, and Phone calls. Based on the officer data sampled, swing shift officers spent more time on calls on average than any other shift sampled, followed by grave shift, and day shift and traffic officers (Table These data enable the agency to estimate how many bytes of data would be created depending on how the recording policy was structured and file sizes for each camera (Digital Ally cameras 1 min = 50 MB; VIEVU cameras 1 min = 80 MB). If all contacts with citizens are recorded, the agency should estimate a minimum of 1.5 TB of video per officer per year will be created. (164 sworn officers * 1.5 TB/year = 240 TB/year). Table 4. Average time officers from different shifts spent on calls likely to involve citizen contact over six months. Time spent on calls 1/1/14- 6/30-14 Day shift Swing shift Grave shift Traffic shift Average Minutes 14478 18673 12848 14525 Median Minutes 15865 17840 12400 14320 Average Hours 241 311 214 242 Median Hours 264 297 207 239 *DVDs can currently store ~700MB of data per disc; if all video created was saved to DVD, each officer would generate over 1,000 DVDs per year. 84 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study These data illustrate the need to judiciously consider the types of contacts that must be recorded and the retention schedules for each incident type in order to have manageable amounts of data storage. 85 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Conclusion The August 2014 officer-involved shooting in Ferguson, MO catapulted the issue of BWC use by law enforcement to the forefront of national attention. Diverse groups from the White House to the ACLU began demanding every officer wear a BWC in the commission of their duties. A technology that may eventually have been embraced by most police departments is now a top-priority for many agencies. In December 2014, President Obama proposed: a three-year, $263 million investment package that will: • Increase police officers’ use of body worn cameras • Expand training for law enforcement agencies (LEAs) • Add more resources for police department reform • Multiply the number of cities where the Department of Justice facilitates community and local LEA engagement Part of the proposal is a new Body Worn Camera Partnership Program, which would provide a 50 percent match to states and localities that purchase body worn cameras and requisite storage. In fact, the proposed $75 million, three-year investment could help purchase 50,000 body worn cameras”. (www.whitehouse.gov, 12/04/14) At this time, it is unclear a) when Congress will address this issue, b) how much of this funding will be made available to match funds for equipment and backend costs versus training and other costs, and c) and if/how the Federal Government will address funding after the proposed three year period is over. Given the research summarized in this document, $75 million over three years is a relatively small amount of money given the overall costs of BWC programs. It is also difficult to imagine outcompeting agencies such as Chicago PD or Philadelphia PD for these limited funds. Despite proposing this funding initiative, no one has mentioned addressing the legal issues BWC programs raise. Giving law enforcement a tool to capture their actions can provide great benefits to the officers and to their communities. It would give agencies the opportunity to show that the majority of officers behave appropriately and give the public a better understanding of the nature of police work. It can also protect officers and agencies against malicious, frivolous accusations of misconduct and document evidence for use in court. While it is unlikely anyone would argue that these pros would benefit officers and agencies, there 86 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study are many other complicated and unresolved issues associated with BWC that must be taken into account. Based on the research conducted for this study, selecting and using a camera are the simplest parts of implementing a BWC program. Serious and thoughtful consideration must be given to more complex issues such as how the agency plans to balance respecting constitutionally protected information against demonstrating agency transparency as well as the financial implications and technological logistics of data storage and management. The lack of any case law addressing these issues further necessitates a reasoned and diligent approach to implementing a BWC program. Open- ended public records requests must be anticipated and accounted for because current laws have not kept pace with advances in technology. It is clear that the officer who is falsely accused of serious misconduct such as sexual assault and can clearly demonstrate via BWC video the accusation is unfounded benefits greatly. However, agencies must understand the emotionally-charged, highly contested officer-involved critical incidents that are driving public and agency interest in BWC may or may not benefit from officer-worn cameras. It is possible that for every incident where video clearly captures the scene, there could be an incident where the camera captures the incident from a poor angle or under poor lighting and could fuel controversy rather than quench it. While this alone is not a sufficient reason to avoid BWC, it does indicate that agencies have to be aware of these issues and have a framework in place to aggressively educate the public on these matters. If an agency decides the benefits of BWC outweigh the weaknesses, other agencies with experience starting a BWC program (and in-car camera systems) have identified several factors that are vital to successful implementation of an on officer-camera program (at least within the department): • Involve officers who are respected by command staff AND their peers and representatives from other workgroups who will be using, managing, and supporting the program in the process from the beginning. • Involve and educate the community by openly communicating with them about the pros and cons of a BWC program as the process moves forward. • Have a carefully considered, unambiguous, and detailed department policy in effect PRIOR to implementation (written policies should be in place prior to starting any pilot studies as well). 87 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study • Choose cameras and supporting systems based on well-defined agency-identified goals for implementing a BWC program. • Carefully consider and plan out backend issues such as ongoing costs, video management systems, video storage, and video editing from the perspective of all workgroups involved PRIOR to implementation. • Consider phasing in BWC by identifying specific groups who will be the first officers to utilize this technology, possibly in a pilot-study capacity (motors is often the first group within departments to use BWC). Their input and support have been demonstrated to smooth the way for larger groups such as patrol as well as more reluctant officers. In addition, starting out with a small test group allows the agency to make changes where necessary and accurately calculate the costs associated with increasing the number of cameras. While not specifically mentioned by the agencies we spoke with, information gathered for this study suggests an agency should develop a robust plan for how they will respond to Open Records requests. If a Law Enforcement Agency plans to move forward with a BWC program, the comprehensive reports referred to in this study provide detailed recommendations and exhaustive templates for creating policy that can greatly reduce the initial workload when implementing a BWC program. Agency-specific issues such as budgets, cost- benefit analyses, interoperability between different workgroups within the agency, and policy directions will dictate the minutiae of any BWC program. Bottom Line: • There are logical and thoughtful interpretations for both the benefits and the drawbacks inherent to law enforcement agencies using body worn cameras • The use of this technology in a criminal justice arena is new and therefore its influence is largely untested and there is no explicit legal framework to provide guidance for agencies considering using BWC • The primary costs associated with a BWC program stem from storing, maintaining, and managing the video data generated • The agency considering BWC must give serious consideration to the issues raised in this study (and other available literature) to determine if BWCs are a good fit 88 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study for the agency and if the agency can legitimately afford to support such a program in a reasonable manner BEFORE any other planning takes place • Other agencies that have started BWC programs have valuable insights and are willing to assist other agencies – they should be used as a resource when needed • What constitutes “good policy” will vary among agencies depending on their individual characteristics and each agency should take the time to tailor a BWC to accommodate their needs rather than trying to conform to standards set by others • Attempting to compensate for the huge costs associated with BWC by implementing makeshift backend solutions does not work and may cost more in the long run when personnel costs, overtime expenses, and other unspecifiable costs are realized 89 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Acknowledgements The Arvada Police Department would like to acknowledge and give our sincere thanks to the agencies and staff that let us ask as many questions as we could think of and see their operations first hand. 90 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Bibliography Hong Kong Police. (2014, July). Retrieved October 7, 2014, from Hong Kong Police: http://www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/11_useful_info/bwvc.html Binion, A. (2014, November 16). Request for police camera footage has departments rethinking use of cameras. Kitsap Sun. Kitsap, WA, US. Blair, J. (2012-2013). Law Enforcement's Unfettered Use of Video Technology is Strangling the Fourth Amendment's Right to Privacy. Kentucky Law Journal Online, 16-32. British APCO Journal. (2007). A watching brief with body-worn video devices. British APCO Journal. British APCO Journal. (2007). Keeping a head in technology. British APCO Journal. Daigle Law Group, LLC. (2014). Wearing a Badge, and a Video Camera. Southington, CT, USA: Daigle Law Group, LLC. Force Science Institute. (2009, January 19). Should Officers See Video of Their Encounters? Force Science States its Case. Force Science News, pp. 1-5. Force Science Institute. (2010, March 12). Do head cameras always see what you see in a force encounter? Force Science Newsletter(#145). Force Science Institute Special Report. (2014). 10 Limitations of Body Cams You Need to Know for Your Protection. Mankato: Force Science Institue. Geis, C. E. (2014). Efficacy of Police Body Cameras for Evidentiary Purposes: Fact or Fallacy? St. Helena, CA. Goodall, M. (2007). Guidance for the police use of body-worn video devices. London: Home Office. Gramm, J. (2014, October Video: Panel debates access to body-camera videos. News & Record. Greensboro, North Carolina, US. IACP. (2003). The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Policing: Research and Best Practices from the IACP Study on In-Car Cameras. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police. 91 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Kahan, D. Hoffman, D. & and Braman, D. (2009). Whose eyes are you going to believe? Scott V. Harris and the perils of cognitive illiberalism. Harvard Law Review, 122(3), 837-906. ManTech International Corporation. (2012). A Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement. Fairmont, WV: ManTech International Corporation. ManTech International Corporation. (2014). Body-Worn Cameras for Criminal Justice: Market Survey Fairmont, WV: ManTech International Corporation. Miller, Toliver, & PERF. (2014). Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Sherman, L. W. (2013). The Rise of Evidence-Based Policing: Targeting, Testing, and Tracking. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Stanley, J. (2013, October Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All. New York, New York, USA. TechBeat. (2010, Fall). Officer-worn cameras expand point of view. TechBeat, pp. 6-7. White, M. D. (2014). Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 92 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Appendix 93 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study PERF 2014 Body Worn Camera Program Recommendations COPIED VERBATIM FROM: Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program Recommendations and Lessons Learned (Miller, Toliver, & PERF, 2014) General Recommendations: 1. Policies should clearly state which personnel are assigned or permitted to wear body- worn cameras and under which circumstances. 2. If an agency assigns cameras to officers on a voluntary basis, policies should stipulate any specific conditions under which an officer might be required to wear one. 3. Agencies should not permit personnel to use privately-owned body-worn cameras while on duty. 4. Policies should specify the location on the body on which cameras should be worn. 5. Officers who activate the body-worn camera while on duty should be required to note the existence of the recording in the official incident report. 6. Officers who wear body-worn cameras should be required to articulate on camera or in writing their reasoning if they fail to record an activity that is required by department policy to be recorded. (See recommendations 7–13 for recording protocols.) 7. As a general recording policy, officers should be required to activate their body-worn cameras when responding to all calls for service and during all law enforcement-related encounters and activities that occur while the officer is on duty. Exceptions include recommendations 10 and 11 below or other situations in which activating cameras would be unsafe, impossible, or impractical. 8. Officers should be required to inform subjects when they are being recorded unless doing so would be unsafe, impractical, or impossible. 9. Once activated, the body-worn camera should remain in recording mode until the conclusion of an incident/encounter, the officer has left the scene, or a supervisor has authorized (on camera) that a recording may cease. 10. Regardless of the general recording policy contained in recommendation 7, officers should be required to obtain consent prior to recording interviews with crime victims. 11. Regardless of the general recording policy contained in recommendation 7, officers should have the discretion to keep their cameras turned off during conversations with 94 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study crime witnesses and members of the community who wish to report or discuss criminal activity in their neighborhood. 12. Agencies should prohibit recording other agency personnel during routine, non- enforcement related activities unless recording is required by a court order or is authorized as part of an administrative or criminal investigation. 13. Policies should clearly state any other types of recordings that are prohibited by the agency. Download and storage policies: 14. Policies should designate the officer as the person responsible for downloading recorded data from his or her body-worn camera. However, in certain clearly identified circumstances officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, or other incidents involving the officer that result in a person’s bodily harm or death), the officer’s supervisor should immediately take physical custody of the camera and should be responsible for downloading the data. 15. Policies should include specific measures to prevent data tampering, deleting, and copying. 16. Data should be downloaded from the body-worn camera by the end of each shift in which the camera was used. 17. Officers should properly categorize and tag body-worn camera videos at the time they are downloaded. Videos should be classified according to the type of event or incident captured in the footage. 18. Policies should specifically state the length of time that recorded data must be retained. For example, many agencies provide 60-day or 90-day retention times for non- evidentiary data. 19. Policies should clearly state where body-worn camera videos are to be stored. Recorded data access and review: 20. Officers should be permitted to review video footage of an incident in which they were involved, prior to making a statement about the incident. 21. Written policies should clearly describe the circumstances in which supervisors will be authorized to review an officer’s body-worn camera footage. 95 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 22. An agency’s internal audit unit, rather than the officer’s direct chain of command, should periodically conduct a random review of body-worn camera footage to monitor compliance with the program and assess overall officer performance. 23. Policies should explicitly forbid agency personnel from accessing recorded data for personal use and from uploading recorded data onto public and social media websites. 24. Policies should include specific measures for preventing unauthorized access or release of recorded data. 25. Agencies should have clear and consistent protocols for releasing recorded data externally to the public and the news media (a.k.a. Public Disclosure Policies). Each agency’s policy must be in compliance with the state’s public disclosure laws (often known as Freedom of Information Acts). Training policies: 26. Body-worn camera training should be required for all agency personnel who may use or otherwise be involved with body-worn cameras. 27. Before agency personnel are equipped with body-worn cameras, they must receive all mandated training. 28. Body-worn camera training should include the following: 29. A body-worn camera training manual should be created in both digital and hard-copy form and should be readily available at all times to agency personnel. 30. Agencies should require refresher courses on body-worn camera usage and protocols at least once per year. Policy and program evaluation: 31. Agencies should collect statistical data concerning body-worn camera usage, including when video footage is used in criminal prosecutions and internal affairs matters. 32. Agencies should conduct evaluations to analyze the financial impact of implementing a body-worn camera program. 33. Agencies should conduct periodic reviews of their body-worn camera policies and protocols. 96 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study 10 limitations of body cams you need to know for your protection COPIED VERBATIM A special report from the Force Science Institute The idea is building that once every cop is equipped with a body camera, the controversy will be taken out of police shootings and other uses of force because “what really happened” will be captured on video for all to see. Well, to borrow the title from an old Gershwin tune, “It Ain’t Necessarily So.” There’s no doubt that body cameras—like dash cams, cell phone cams, and surveillance cams— can provide a unique perspective on police encounters and, in most cases, are likely to help officers. But like those other devices, a camera mounted on your uniform or on your head has limitations that need to be understood and considered when evaluating the images they record. “Rushing to condemn an officer for inappropriate behavior based solely on body-camera evidence can be a dicey proposition,” cautions Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. “Certainly, a camera can provide more information about what happened on the street. But it can’t necessarily provide all the information needed to make a fair and impartial final judgment. There still may be influential human factors involved, apart from what the camera sees.” In a recent conversation with Force Science News, Lewinski enumerated 10 limitations that are important to keep in mind regarding body-camera evidence (and, for the most part, recordings from other cameras as well) if you are an investigator, a police attorney, a force reviewer, or an involved officer. This information may also be helpful in efforts to educate your community. (Some of these points are elaborated on in greater depth during the Force Science Certification Course. Visit www.forcescience.org for information on the course. An earlier report on body cam limitations appeared in Force Science News #145, sent 3/12/10. You will find online it at: www.forcescience.org/fsnews/145.html) 1. A camera doesn’t follow your eyes or see as they see. At the current level of development, a body camera is not an eye-tracker like FSI has used in some of its studies of officer attention. That complex apparatus can follow the movement of your eyes and superimpose on video small red circles that mark precisely where you are looking from one microsecond to the next. 97 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study “A body camera photographs a broad scene but it can’t document where within that scene you are looking at any given instant,” Lewinski says. “If you glance away from where the camera is concentrating, you may not see action within the camera frame that appears to be occurring ‘right before your eyes.’ “Likewise, the camera can’t acknowledge physiological and phenomena that you may experience under high stress. As a survival mechanism, your brain may suppress some incoming visual images that seem unimportant in a life-threatening situation so you can completely focus very narrowly on the threat. You won’t be aware of what your brain is screening out. “Your brain may also play visual tricks on you that the camera can’t match. If a suspect is driving a vehicle toward you, for example, it will seem to be closer, larger, and faster than it really is because of a phenomenon called ‘looming.’ Camera footage may not convey the same sense of threat that you experienced. “In short, there can be a huge disconnect between your field of view and your visual perception and the camera’s. Later, someone reviewing what’s caught on camera and judging your actions could have a profoundly different sense of what happened than you had at the time it was occurring.” 2. Some important danger cues can’t be recorded. “Tactile cues that are often important to officers in deciding to use force are difficult for cameras to capture,” Lewinski says. “Resistive tension is a prime example. “You can usually tell when you touch a suspect whether he or she is going to resist. You may quickly apply force as a preemptive measure, but on camera it may look like you made an unprovoked attack, because the sensory cue you felt doesn’t record visually.” And, of course, the camera can’t record the history and experience you bring to an encounter. “Suspect behavior that may appear innocuous on film to a naïve civilian can convey the risk of mortal danger to you as a streetwise officer,” Lewinski says. “For instance, an assaultive subject who brings his hands up may look to a civilian like he’s surrendering, but to you, based on past experience, that can be a very intimidating and combative movement, signaling his preparation for a fighting attack. The camera just captures the action, not your interpretation.” 3. Camera speed differs from the speed of life. Because body cameras record at much higher speeds than typical convenience store or correctional facility security cameras, it’s less likely that important details will be lost in the millisecond gaps between frames, as sometimes happens with those cruder devices. 98 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study “But it’s still theoretically possible that something as brief as a muzzle flash or the glint of a knife blade that may become a factor in a use-of-force case could still fail to be recorded,” Lewinski says. Of greater consequence, he believes, is the body camera’s depiction of action and reaction times. “Because of the reactionary curve, an officer can be half a second or more behind the action as it unfolds on the screen,” Lewinski explains. “Whether he’s shooting or stopping shooting, his recognition, decision-making, and physical activation all take time—but obviously can’t be shown on camera. “People who don’t understand this reactionary process won’t factor it in when viewing the footage. They’ll think the officer is keeping pace with the speed of the action as the camera records it. So without knowledgeable input, they aren’t likely to understand how an officer can unintentionally end up placing rounds in a suspect’s back or firing additional shots after a threat has ended.” 4. A camera may see better than you do in low light. “The high-tech imaging of body cameras allows them to record with clarity in many low-light settings,” Lewinski says. “When footage is screened later, it may actually be possible to see elements of the scene in sharper detail than you could at the time the camera was activated. “If you are receiving less visual information than the camera is recording under time-pressured circumstances, you are going to be more dependent on context and movement in assessing and reacting to potential threats. In dim light, a suspect’s posturing will likely mean more to you immediately than some object he’s holding. When footage is reviewed later, it may be evident that the object in his hand was a cell phone, say, rather than a gun. If you’re expected to have seen that as clearly as the camera did, your reaction might seem highly inappropriate.” On the other hand, he notes, cameras do not always deal well with lighting transitions. “Going suddenly from bright to dim light or vice versa, a camera may briefly blank out images altogether,” he says. 5. Your body may block the view. “How much of a scene a camera captures is highly dependent on where it’s positioned and where the action takes place,” Lewinski notes. “Depending on location and angle, a picture may be blocked by your own body parts, from your nose to your hands. “If you’re firing a gun or a Taser, for example, a camera on your chest may not record much more than your extended arms and hands. Or just blading your stance may obscure the camera’s view. Critical moments within a scenario that you can see may be missed entirely by your body 99 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study cam because of these dynamics, ultimately masking what a reviewer may need to see to make a fair judgment.” 6. A camera only records in 2-D. Because cameras don’t record depth of field—the third dimension that’s perceived by the human eye—accurately judging distances on their footage can be difficult. “Depending on the lens involved, cameras may compress distances between objects or make them appear closer than they really are,” Lewinski says. “Without a proper sense of distance, a reviewer may misinterpret the level of threat an officer was facing.” In the Force Science Certification Course, he critiques several camera images in which distance distortion became problematic. In one, an officer’s use of force seemed inappropriate because the suspect appears to be too far away to pose an immediate threat. In another, an officer appears to strike a suspect’s head with a flashlight when, in fact, the blow was directed at a hand and never touched the head. “There are technical means for determining distances on 2-D recordings,” Lewinski says, “but these are not commonly known or accessed by most investigators.” 7. The absence of sophisticated time-stamping may prove critical. The time-stamping that is automatically imposed on camera footage is a gross number, generally measuring the action minute by minute. “In some high-profile, controversial shooting cases that is not sophisticated enough,” Lewinski says. “To fully analyze and explain an officer’s perceptions, reaction time, judgment, and decision-making it may be critical to break the action down to units of one-hundredths of a second or even less. “There are post-production computer programs that can electronically encode footage to those specifications, and the Force Science Institute strongly recommends that these be employed. When reviewers see precisely how quickly suspects can move and how fast the various elements of a use-of-force event unfold, it can radically change their perception of what happened and the pressure involved officers were under to act.” 8. One camera may not be enough. “The more cameras there are recording a force event, the more opportunities there are likely to be to clarify uncertainties,” Lewinski says. “The angle, the ambient lighting, and other elements will almost certainly vary from one officer’s perspective to another’s, and syncing the footage up will provide broader information for understanding the dynamics of what happened. What looks like an egregious action from one angle may seem perfectly justified from another. 100 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study “Think of the analysis of plays in a football game. In resolving close calls, referees want to view the action from as many cameras as possible to fully understand what they’re seeing. Ideally, officers deserve the same consideration. The problem is that many times there is only one camera involved, compared to a dozen that may be consulted in a sporting event, and in that case the limitations must be kept even firmer in mind. 9. A camera encourages second-guessing. “According to the U. S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, an officer’s decisions intense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations are not to be judged with the ‘20/20 vision of hindsight,’ ” Lewinski notes. “But in the real-world aftermath of a shooting, camera footage provides an almost irresistible temptation for reviewers to play the coulda-shoulda game. “Under calm and comfortable conditions, they can infinitely replay the action, scrutinize it for hard-to-see detail, slow it down, freeze it. The officer had to assess what he was experiencing while it was happening and under the stress of his life potentially being on the line. That disparity can lead to far different conclusions. “As part of the incident investigation, we recommend that an officer be permitted to see what his body camera and other cameras recorded. He should be cautioned, however, to regard the footage only as informational. He should not allow it to supplant his first-hand memory of the incident. Justification for a shooting or other use of force will come from what an officer reasonably perceived, not necessarily from what a camera saw.” [For more details about FSI’s position on whether officers should be allowed to view video of their incidents, see Force Science News #114 (1/17/09). You will find online it at: www.forcescience.org/fsnews/114.html] 10. A camera can never replace a thorough investigation. When officers oppose wearing cameras, civilians sometimes assume they fear “transparency.” But more often, Lewinski believes, they are concerned that camera recordings will be given undue, if not exclusive, weight in judging their actions. “A camera’s recording should never be regarded solely as the Truth about a controversial incident,” Lewinski declares. “It needs to be weighed and tested against witness testimony, forensics, the involved officer’s statement, and other elements of a fair, thorough, and impartial investigation that takes human factors into consideration. “This is in no way intended to belittle the merits of body cameras. Early testing has shown that they tend to reduce the frequency of force encounters as well as complaints against officers. 101 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study “But a well-known police defense attorney is not far wrong when he calls cameras ‘the best evidence and the worst evidence.’ The limitations of body cams and others need to be fully understood and evaluated to maximize their effectiveness and to assure that they are not regarded as infallible ‘magic bullets’ by people who do not fully grasp the realities of force dynamics.” Our thanks to Parris Ward, director and litigation graphics consultant with Biodynamics Engineering, Inc., for his help in facilitating this report. For more information on the work of the Force Science Institute, visit www.forcescience.org. To reach the Force Science News editorial staff please e-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED]. 102 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Force Science Video Advisory COPIED VERBATIM You are about to view a camera recording of a use-of-force event. Understand that while this recording depicts visual information from the scene, the human eye and brain are highly likely to perceive some things in stressful situations differently than a camera records them, so this photographic record may not reflect how the involved officer actually perceived the event. The recording may depict things that the officer did not see or hear. The officer may have seen or heard things that were not recorded by the camera. Depending on the speed of the camera, some action elements may not have been recorded or may have happened faster than the officer could perceive and absorb them. The camera has captured a 2-dimensional image, which may be different from an officer’s 3-dimensional observations. Lighting and angles may also have contributed to different perceptions. And, of course, the camera did not view the scene with the officer’s unique experience and training. Hopefully, this recording will enhance your understanding of the incident. Keep in mind, though, that these video images are only one piece of evidence to be considered in reconstructing and evaluating the totality of the circumstances. Some elements may require further exploration and explanation before the investigation is concluded. Provided by: The Force Science Institute www.forcescience. 103 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Table 5. Summary of officer responses to PowerDMS survey regarding Body Worn Cameras that was distributed in September 2014. Advantages Disadvantages Misconceptions or Contested Views Body Camera Program must have Refute False Claims /reduce complaints Remembering to turn off (e.g. when going into bathroom) Video will replace reports or should be transcribed in lieu of reports Good, clear, specific policies; "policy will make or break the system" Unbiased documentation of what took place Cumbersome hardware "More effective" in court (based on prior experience with video testimony) Rebuttal: juries don't understand use of force continuum, officers still look violent when using lawful and appropriate force Strictly defined terms of when supervisors can review video and how it can be used against officers; no distinction between how policy is written and how it is implemented (i.e. GPS/AVL 'snooping' by sergeants and used as disciplinary tool against officers) Support officer's version/statement Uploading and storage issues Good documentation for DUIs in court Rebuttal: previous use of dash cams in other agency demonstrated that juries cannot detect subtlety of impairment and DUI cases were lost; DAs then wanted everything on video Must use a system that does not add to officer's daily time requirements (downloading, storing, etc.) Record bad citizen behavior Use by defense attorneys to discredit officers if verbal or written reports do not exactly match video Must use small, light equipment 104 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Advantages Disadvantages Misconceptions or Contested Views Body Camera Program must have Document intoxication Wear ability/weight/location on uniform Need a "true evaluation of why we would implement BWC" Increased report accuracy (if allowed to review video prior to approving reports) Distraction to officer Must have the ability to review video for accurate report writing AND after critical incidents Improve citizen behavior / deter aggression Misuse by supervisors to second guess officers and/or to hunt for stylistic issues/minor infractions Ensure "everyone understands the reason and reasoning" for BWC Can be used as a training tool Logistical / time considerations of downloading video every shift Clear message … organizational goals [for implementing BWC program] Can provide evidence for court DUI would be picked apart by defense attorneys if everything is not perfect / camera wouldn't catch subtleties of intoxication Explain "why do we need them and why do we need them now" Keep officers mindful of their actions More equipment to turn on, maintain, worry about if it is working Explain how this expense is justifiable instead of spending money elsewhere "More effective" [than written report alone] in court Consequences (court, agency, supervisors) if camera malfunctions, officer forgets to or can't turn on Document chaotic scenes Camera doesn't capture what officer sees, perceives, feels; don't capture everything at a scene 105 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study Advantages Disadvantages Misconceptions or Contested Views Body Camera Program must have People viewing video don't understand law enforcement (appropriate use of force) Camera captures one view, different depths, different low-light capture than eyes Video will make report writing take longer since officer will have to review every video to ensure report matches so they are not characterized as lying in court Officers may hesitate on a critical incident because they are concerned about how the video will be perceived Will restrict officer's normal interactions with each other and with the public Dampen witness or victim likelihood of speaking with officers Data storage and security issues Privacy concerns related to Open Records requests (e.g. HIPPA, custody cases where ex wants video of their former spouse) Not needed at Arvada, knee-jerk reaction to current sentiment/press coverage 106 ---PAGE BREAK--- Body Worn Camera Staff Study End Report 107