Body worn video

A computer generated rendering of a typical body-worn camera

Body worn video (BWV), also known as body cameras, is a video recording system that is typically utilized by law enforcement to record their interactions with the public or gather video evidence at crime scenes, and has been known to increase both officer and citizen accountability. Although arguments have been made that BWC's primarily protect police.^[1] BWCs are notable because their placement, often on the front of a shirt, provides for first-person perspective and a more complete chain of evidence. BWV is a form of closed-circuit television.

History

United Kingdom

VideoBadge in use by a West Midlands Police officer

Body worn video cameras were first adopted by Danish Police.^[2] In 2005, the first testing of body worn cameras in the UK began on a small-scale by Devon and Cornwall Police.^[2]

In 2006, the first significant deployments of BWV were undertaken by the Police Standards Unit (PSU) as part of the Domestic Violence Enforcement Campaign (DVEC). The basic command units equipped with the head cameras recorded everything that happened during an incident from the time of arrival which led to the “preservation of good-quality first disclosure evidence from the victim”.

The evidence gathered was deemed especially useful in the way of supporting prosecutions if the victim was reluctant to give evidence or press charges. This led the Home Office to publish a report stating that “evidence gathering utilising this equipment has the potential radically to enhance the police performance at the scene of a wide range of incidents”.^[3]

In the same report, the Home Office concluded that the body worn camera system used by Devon and Cornwall Constabulary had “the ability to significantly improve the quality of the evidence provided by police officers at incidents”. However, due to the early stage that BWV was in at this point, in particular in regards to the limitations of the technology, it was also recommended that police forces should await the completion of successful trials and projects to re-evaluate the technology before investing in cameras.

By July 2007, the Home Office was beginning to encourage the emerging industry and published another document entitled “Guidance for the Police use of Body Worn Cameras”. The report was based on the first national pilot of BWV conducted in Plymouth. Tony McNulty MP, Minister of State for Security, Counter Terrorism and Police wrote a foreword that held BWV in a promising light: “The use of body-worn video has the potential to improve significantly the quality of evidence provided by police officers…video recording from the scene of an incident will capture compelling evidence…that could never be captured in written statements.”

Despite being hailed as a tool to enhance the quality of evidence, the focus was beginning to shift away from exclusively benefitting prosecutions. The Home Office highlighted that BWV also had the significant potential to “prevent and deter crime”. In addition, the final report on the National Pilot for BWV announced that complaints against the officers wearing the cameras had been reduced to zero and time spent on paperwork had been reduced by 22.4%, which led to a 9.2% increase in officer time spent on patrol (“50 minutes of a 9-hour shift”).

Following the national pilot BWV began to gain some traction in the UK and, by 2008, Hampshire Police began to use the technology in parts of the Isle of Wight and the main land. These were the first steps that paved the way for Chief Constable Andy Marsh becoming the national lead for BWV.

Pioneers of BWV in the UK began to drive the need to review the legislation surrounding the use of the equipment. In 2009 the Security Industry Authority concluded that a CCTV licence could be extended to cover the use of a body camera. The summary stated that a CCTV licence was required to review footage from a body camera and that a door supervision or security guard licence was required to operate a body camera if security activities were also being performed.

In 2010, 5 years after the first BWV venture, over 40 UK police areas were using body cameras to varying degrees. Grampian Police were one such force that initiated a trial in July 2010 which paved the way for the Paisley and Aberdeen body worn video project in 2011.

The project was a huge success and it was identified that the benefits saved an estimated minimum of £400,000 per year due to the following:

• Increase public reassurance;
• Reduce fear of crime in local communities;
• Increase early guilty pleas;
• Resolve complaints about the police or wardens more quickly;
• Reduce assaults on officers;

The concluding sections of the report on the Paisley and Aberdeen project turned the attention to the digital, back end solutions for BWV. Now that the benefits of using body cameras were being realised, the implications on the digital infrastructure were being called into question. The report suggested providing “robust central IT support” to have established the processes behind information gathering and monitoring.

Whilst the BWV industry had been steadily growing in the UK, other countries around the world had been adopting the technology and conducting research themselves. 2012 saw the start of the year-long Rialto study in the United States, which would continue into early 2013. Amongst the conclusions made from the study were a reduction in the use-of-force and complaints against officers. The report states “the findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens’ complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment”.

In 2013 the Home Office released an updated code of practice for surveillance cameras, in which Principle 8 included the use of body cameras, stating: “Surveillance camera system operators should consider any approved operational, technical and competency standards relevant to a system and its purpose and work to meet and maintain those standards”.

2013 also saw the start of Operation Hyperion, a Hampshire Police initiative on the Isle of Wight that equipped every frontline police officer with a personal issue body worn camera, the biggest project of its kind at the time. Sergeant Steve Goodier oversaw the project and was adamant that the project would drive legislative changes to free up further uses for body worn cameras.

He said “I strongly believe we could make some small changes to legislation that can have a big impact on officers.

“PACE was written in 1984 at a time when BWV was not around…We want to get the legislation changed so that BWV could replace the need for hand written statements from officers when it is likely that an early guilty plea would be entered at court or that the incident could be dealt with a caution or community resolution."

United States

In the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown and the death of Eric Garner, police use of body camera technology has become a topic of national debate. In fact, on December 1, 2014, President Barack Obama "proposed reimbursing communities half the cost of buying cameras and storing video—a plan that would require Congress to authorize $75 million over three years to help purchase 50,000 recording devices".^[4] A November 2014 survey of police departments serving the 100 most populous U.S. cities, Vocativ found that "41 cities use body cams on some of their officers, 25 have plans to implement body cams and 30 cities do not use or plan to use cams at this time". The following cities have body cam technology in place: Oakland and San Diego, California; Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado; Mesa, Arizona; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Omaha, Nebraska; Dallas, Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Houston, Texas; Indianapolis, Indiana; Detroit, Michigan; Columbus, Ohio; Washington, D.C.; Atlanta, Georgia; and Miami, Florida.^[5]

Police unions in several U.S. cities, such as New York City (the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which represents the NYPD),^[6] Las Vegas,^[7] and Jersey City, New Jersey.^[8] St. Louis, Missouri,^[9] expressed doubts and/or opposition to BMVs. Specifically, union officials expressed concerns about possible distraction and safety issues, and questioned "whether all the footage filmed by body cameras will be accessible via public-records requests, whether victims of domestic violence will be hesitant to call police if they know they will be filmed and whether paying for the cameras and maintenance will lead to cuts elsewhere in the police budget".^[8] Others have worried about a "gotcha discipline".^[9] Some unions have argued that it was "mandatory" for police departments to include provisions about BMVs cameras in union contracts because it would be a "clear change in working conditions" as well as something that could "impact an officer’s safety".^[7]

The American Civil Liberties Union has advocated body camera use for both police departments and U.S. Customs and Border Protection,^[10] granted that safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of both officers and civilians.^[11] However, they have opposed the use of such systems for parking enforcement officers, fire marshals, building inspectors, or other code enforcement officers.^[12] Some police departments in the United States, such as the Albuquerque Police Department and Rialto Police Department, have experimented with or deployed body-worn camera systems.

In 2012, the National Institute of Justice at the United States Department of Justice issued a primer regarding laws, policies, practices, and technology for local police departments to consider.^[13]

Canada

Some police services in Canada such as the Calgary Police Service have trialed body-worn video systems since 2012, and have recently adopted body-cameras for deployment by all officers beginning in 2017.^[14] Police unions in Canada have been opposed to body-worn video systems, citing privacy and cost concerns.^[15] In 2015, several city police units including those in Winnipeg and Montreal announced plans to experiment with the technology.^[14] The Toronto Police Service is in the midst of a year-long pilot study of body-worn cameras with 100 officers using the technology. The service will decide after May, 2016 if they will fully adopt the technology.^[16]

Germany

In some parts of Germany, police services have used body-worn video systems since 2013.^[17]

Increased police accountability

A 2015 poll by Reuters found that 31% of Americans believe that police lie regularly.^[18] In addition to documenting and reducing crime, body cameras worn by police have been shown to increase accountability of police in some instances. For example, in June 2013, two Daytona Beach police officers approached 37-year-old Christine Chippewa in a parking lot under Seabreeze Bridge. The officers subsequently arrested her, after one turned off his camera. After Chippewa's arrest, she filed a complaint of excessive force and the department investigated. Officer Justin Ranum resigned, and Officer Matthew Booth was reportedly fired. The complainant received a $20,000 settlement with the city of Daytona Beach and all charges against her were dropped.^[19] A University of Cambridge study found that there was a 59% reduction in use of force by officers in Rialto, California after the police department began issuing body-worn cameras to officers, and that complaints fell by 87% compared to the previous year.^[20] Another study found that police officers assigned to wear body-worn cameras in Mesa, Arizona were less likely to stop-and-frisk or arrest people, but "were more likely to give citations and initiate encounters." The authors concluded that the officers are more proactive with the use of these cameras, but that they are not more likely to use invasive strategies "that may threaten the legitimacy of the organization."^[21]

See also

• Helmet camera
• Sousveillance

References