Video and law enforcement: during the last 24 months it has emerged as an uneasy relationship at best, and at its worst, a screaming indictment of policing gone bad according to some in the general public. From the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., to the death of Eric Gardner in New York City from a police chokehold, and that of Freddie Gray while in the custody of Baltimore police, bits and pieces of mobile phone video captured by civilian passersby have provided incriminating evidence against police.
For many law enforcement officials around the country, such encounters and their subsequent volatile public reactions backlash could have been reduced or even avoided entirely if body-worn video camera technology had been employed. Experts say that those departments implementing body-worn cameras over the past several years have seen a substantial reduction in the use of officer force, along with a reduced number of citizen complaints against officers. Statistics also highlight that when prosecutors are able to show defense attorneys video evidence of their client’s criminal activities, the number of guilty pleas and plea bargaining agreements increase.
But according to Ben Bolton, who is the Outreach & Technical Services Coordinator for the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), while the benefits of body-worn video can be dramatic, he warns there are concerns that also must be addressed by law enforcement agencies as they roll out the technology.
Perhaps the most obvious issue is that of privacy. Bolton says in a recent article for Law Enforcement Technology magazine that privacy concerns are a major issue with the deployment of body-worn cameras. Citizens have no reasonable expectation of privacy when in a public place. The video recording of citizen contacts in public does not require the consent of the person being recorded. However, that changes when an officer wearing a camera enters a home to investigate a possible criminal offense. He added that although it is legal to record people in public using video, the audio recording of citizen encounters varies by state. There are 12 states that require two-party consent to make an audio recording of a conversation between two people,
The question of where, how much and for how long should data be stored is another critical issue agencies face. Bolton says data retention policies must be made on a department-by-department basis. Policies should be based on current state laws and policies related to evidence and data retention. Each agency should consult with its respective prosecutor’s office for direction. Agencies should also consider which videos to store and how long to store them.
Finally Bolton warns that once privacy and storage issues have been addressed, agencies still must settle on what body-worn camera technology best suits their department’s needs. Camera options a varied when it comes to where an officer can wear the device – on the lapel, the epaulette, the shirt front or even on eyewear. What type of lens and camera weight do you choose, and do you go for the video/audio combination?
But once an agency has done its homework researching the ramifications and benefits of adopting body-worn camera technology, there are no shortage of products on the market to choose from and potential funding to purchase them. In fact, the Department of Justice recently announced the establishment of a $20 million Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Pilot Partnership Program to respond the immediate needs of local and tribal law enforcement agencies. Included in the investment program are $17 million in competitive grants for purchasing body-worn cameras, another $2 million for training and technical assistance and $1 million for the development of metric and evaluation tools to create a baseline of best practices.
In a memorandum released by the DOJ, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says, “This body-worn camera pilot program is a vital part of the Justice Department’s comprehensive efforts to equip law enforcement agencies throughout the country with the tools, support, and training they need to tackle the 21st century challenges we face. Body-worn cameras hold tremendous promise for enhancing transparency, promoting accountability, and advancing public safety for law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.”
For body-worn camera manufacturers, recent national headlines have fueled the debate for the technology and have helped fast-track government interest in creating additional funding for it.
“We see widespread adoption of body worn cameras in the next five to 10 years, especially now that public opinion is shifting, federal grant money is opening up, and more agencies are recognizing the value BWC bring,” says VieVu Products CEO Steve Ward, whose company provides a total solutions approach to BWC. “In order for this to work, we believe cloud storage will also become mainstream in law enforcement (as it already is in the civilian market). Body cameras collect a lot of footage, and this means the need for a lot of storage. One route is to build a local server, hire a dedicated IT team, and store your footage this way. However, cloud storage offers long-range scalability and flexibility as agencies and evidence collection continues to grow. With advancements to security/encryption as well as CJIS-compatibility, we see this as the next logical step for law enforcement and public safety agencies.
“In addition to this, cameras will continue to get less obtrusive and cheaper, allowing more agencies to adopt the technology. We do not believe cameras will gain features like night vision, infrared, etc. as this evidence may not hold up in court, as the camera should not collect more information than the officer’s own eyes could,” Ward adds.
Rick Smith, President and CEO of Taser International has also seen tangible evidence of the increased interest for body-worn cameras in the public safety sector. He reveals that the sales bookings for the company’s Axon body camera business unit were up by more than 250 percent last quarter compared to this same time last year.
“As of today, 24 of the 65 major cities are deploying our body cameras or our other digital evidence systems, and another 28 are in some form of field trial. We have seen a sea change over the past year. The vast majority of police executives are saying they see body cameras as standard issue police equipment within the next three to five years,” Smith says, echoing fellow vendors. “The data is showing that body cameras actually save far more money than they cost -- yielding a net budget surplus in year one. The city of Rialto estimated that their Axon body camera program generated over $7 in the first year for every $1 they spent. The financial impact is super compelling -- it creates dramatic cost savings almost immediately.”
The DOJ’s new partnership program has given city and municipal governments a greenlight to promote new streams of funding for the BWC technology according to VieVu’s Ward. He cites a 2014 survey by the Wynyard Group, which polled more than 300 police chiefs, federal investigators and analysts. More than 90 percent of those surveyed said they believe crime-fighting software and “advanced crime analytics” will become the industry norm in the future. Slightly more than half are already making plans to incorporate such technology into their local police departments. If given the choice of where to allocate available funds, 37 percent said they would use it for crime-fighting software, while only nine percent said they would use it for new weapons.
“Balancing public budgets is always a tricky task and public safety is always asked to do ‘more with less’ but we do not see investment in body worn video technology as detrimental to other public safety programs,” adds Ward. “To illustrate this, a recent IACP survey showed that 93 percent of police-misconduct cases in which video is available result in the officer's exoneration and 50 percent of complaints are immediately withdrawn. Clearing up these cases without litigation (or preventing them in the first place) frees up a ton of time/money for departments to spend on other important programs.”
While current events have certainly aided the momentum of BWC implementation, Assistant Chief Karl Durr and the Eugene, Ore. Police Department were among the early adopters of the technology. Though Chief Durr does believe recent incidents involving police and unarmed suspects have accelerated the conversation regarding its use, he is not surprised to see municipalities jump on board.
“I think law enforcement has been on the trajectory of body worn video (BWV) systems for some time now. Companies were in production of BWV prior to these recent events due to a growing demand in the field. Our agency has had BWV systems for the past 2 ½ years as we have been testing the systems out and developing a systematic approach to a full agency deployment. We have seen a reluctance of jury’s convicting a defendant based upon eye-witness testimony, as they are expecting DNA and video evidence, which some blame upon criminal justice television shows and label it the ‘CSI Effect’”, says Chief Durr, who has been has been in law enforcement for the past 30 years. “Law enforcement has experienced traffic cases being dismissed because the officer had In Car Video (ICV) but failed to turn it on. Also, BWV systems are a natural spin off from In Car Video Systems which were developed as a result of allegations of race-based traffic stops in the 1990’s. As a result of recent high profile events within the U.S., money is being allocated for BWV systems which will eventually be a common piece of technology for law enforcement officers in the near future.”
