Police body camera: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 3:

[[File:Police body cam.png|thumb|A police officer wearing a body camera on his uniform.]]

In policing equipment, a '''police body camera''' or '''wearable camera''', also known as '''body worn video''' ('''BWV'''), '''body-worn camera''' ('''BWC'''), or [[body camera]], is a [[Wearable technology|wearable]] audio, video, or photographic recording system used by [[police]] to record events in which [[law enforcement officer]]s are involved, from the perspective of the officer wearing it. They are typically worn on the torso of the body, pinned on the officer's [[uniform]]. Police body cameras are often similar to body cameras used by civilians, [[firefighter]]s, or the [[military]], but are designed to address specific requirements related to law enforcement. Body cameras were first worn by police in the [[United Kingdom]] in 2005, and have since been adopted by numerous police departments and forces worldwide.

== Definition==

=== Device ===

[[File:~~VisioLogix~~Axon ~~Dual~~body ~~Lens Body Worn Camera~~3.png|~~alt=~~thumb|~~thumb~~right|An example of a modern body camera designed for police use]]

Body cameras are used by law enforcement to record their interactions with the public, or gather [[Digital evidence|video evidence]] at crime scenes. Current body cameras are much lighter and smaller than the first experiments with wearable cameras in the late 1990s. There are several types of body cameras made by different manufacturers. Each camera serves the same purpose, yet some function in slightly different ways or have to be worn in a specific way. Some are meant to be mounted on the chest or shoulder, while others are attached to glasses or may be worn like a headband or on a [[Helmet camera|helmet]].

Line 47:

====First tests 2005====

[[File:Bodycam-west-midlands-police.jpg|thumb|Body worn cameras being trialled by officers in Wolverhampton and Birmingham]]

Body-worn video cameras received wide media coverage because of the first testing of body-worn cameras in the United Kingdom in 2005. The test was begun on a small-scale by [[Devon and Cornwall Police]].<ref name="Associated Press">{{cite news |agency=Associated Press |title=Britain straps video cameras to police helmets |url=~~http~~https://www.nbcnews.com/id/~~19750278/ns/world_news-europe/t/britain-straps-video-cameras-police-helmets/#.VN-wl_nF8y4~~wbna19750278 |work=NBC News |date=13 July 2007}}</ref> In 2006, the first significant deployments of BWV at the national level 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.

====Plymouth study 2007====

Line 83:

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.<ref name="nij"/>

Following The Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (~~eff.~~effective January 1~~-1-16~~, 2016), the state of [[Illinois]] became one of the first states to have a comprehensive set of rules for police departments in regards to body camera usage.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=3662&ChapterID=11&SeqStart=100000&SeqEnd=1000000|title=50 ILCS 706/ Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act.|website=www.ilga.gov|access-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref> The [[Chicago Police Department]] as well as the mayor of the city, [[Rahm Emanuel]], have been vocal about their plan to enact a body-worn camera expansion that would equip police officers by the end of 2017. The goal of this plan, as well as the hiring of more officers, is to improve public trust in the law, expand transparency, and halt the climbing number of homicides.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://home.chicagopolice.org/mayor-emanuel-and-police-superintendent-escalante-announce-districts-for-body-worn-camera-expansion-2/|title=Mayor Emanuel and Police Superintendent Escalante Announce Districts for Body-Worn Camera Expansion {{!}} Chicago Police Department|website=home.chicagopolice.org|access-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-body-cameras-chicago-police-20161228-story.html|title=Police body cameras to be implemented citywide a year early: officials|last=Lee|first=William|work=ChicagoTribune.com|access-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref> [[Springfield Police Department (Illinois)]] has also been among the local departments that have expanded the use of body worn cameras despite the Springfield Police Chief Kenny Winslow stating that "there are still problems with the state body camera law, and many departments in Illinois aren’t adopting the cameras as a result".<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://illinoistimes.com/article-17535-police-body-cameras-hit-springfield-streets.html|title=Police body cameras hit Springfield streets|access-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref> One of those departments is the Minooka Police Department that discontinued the use of body cameras because they felt overburdened by administrative responsibilities.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/illinois-law-discourages-police-body-cameras-article-1.2598213|title=Illinois law discourages police from using body cameras|work=NY Daily News|access-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=April 8, 2016|url=http://www.morrisherald-news.com/2016/04/08/minooka-police-discontinue-body-camera-use/ahb4r5n/|title=Minooka police discontinue body camera use|website=Morris Herald-News|access-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref> The considerable cost of cameras and the support of related technology is another factor limiting the speed of their adoption. In New York City, for example, initial purchase of body-worn cameras could cost up to $31 million. However, proponents hypothesized that body-worn cameras would save money by reducing lawsuits targeted towards the police force and by aiding in the dismissal of court cases with digital evidence provided by the recorded footage of the body-worn cameras.<ref name=":3" />

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".<ref>{{Cite news|date=December 2, 2014|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/issues-over-police-shooting-in-ferguson-lead-push-for-officers-and-body-cameras/2014/12/02/dedcb2d8-7a58-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html|title=Issues over police shooting in Ferguson lead push for officers and body cameras|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref> He also asked Congress for a $263 million package overall to deal with community policing initiatives that would provide a 50 percent federal match for local police departments to purchase body cameras and to store them.<ref>{{Cite news|date=December 1, 2014|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/12/01/367721705/obama-to-meet-civil-rights-leader-to-talk-about-mistrust-of-police|title=Obama To Ask For $263 Million For Police Body Cameras, Training|work=NPR.org|access-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref> With the push from then President Barack Obama to “expand funding and training to law enforcement agencies through community policing initiatives”, the [[United States Department of Justice]] announced in May 2015 that they would grant 73 out of the 285 awards requested for a total of 20 million dollars.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/body-worn-cameras-interactive-graphic.aspx|title=Body-Worn Camera Laws Database|last=Williams|first=Rich|date=January 4, 2017|website=National Conference of State Legislatures}}</ref> This allowed for the purchase and distribution of 21,000 cameras to be placed in active duty. A National Institute of Justice report found this in regards to responding police agencies: "In a sample of police departments surveyed in 2013, approximately 75 percent of them reported that they did not use body-worn cameras".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/technology/pages/body-worn-cameras.aspx|title=Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement|website=National Institute of Justice|access-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref> A November 2014 survey of police departments serving the 100 [[List of United States cities by population|most populous 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".<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |url=http://www.vocativ.com/usa/justice-usa/police-force-wearing-body-cameras/ |title=Are Cops in Your City Wearing Body Cameras? |date=15 November 2014 |work=Vocativ |access-date=16 March 2017}}</ref>

Line 120:

=== Denmark ===

The police in Denmark has been credited in English media as the first police force to use body cameras, even before the English pilots of 2007 were initiated.<ref>{{Cite news |url=~~http~~https://www.nbcnews.com/id/~~19750278/ns/world_news-europe/t/britain-straps-video-cameras-police-helmets/#.We-NKEyiE_U~~wbna19750278 |title=Britain straps video cameras to police helmets |date=13 July 2007 |work=msnbc.com |access-date=24 October 2017 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029404-400-body-worn-cameras-put-police-evidence-beyond-doubt/ |title=Body-worn cameras put police evidence beyond doubt |date=23 October 2013 |work=New Scientist |access-date=24 October 2017 |language=en-US}}</ref> In 2017, the Minister of Justice has equipped security personnel in detention centers with body cameras.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2017-10-23-kan-du-spotte-det-nu-faar-faengselsbetjente-kameraer-paa-skjorten?cid=_soco:tw:4:news::: |title=Kan du spotte det? Nu får fængselsbetjente kameraer på skjorten |date=23 October 2017 |work=nyheder.tv2.dk |access-date=24 October 2017 |language=da-DK}}</ref>

=== Finland ===

Line 127:

==== Results ====

According to a report from 2017 by a working-group, the pilot justified the national roll-out of bodycams in Finland. The report concluded that police officers' safety improved, reduced resistance to the police and better protected police. During the experiment in Helsinki, the report noted, behaviour of citizens improved when people see that the situation is being recorded. The introduction could be based on current legislation, but an additional legal framework would be needed regulating recording and storage of recordings. Filming inside homes is not generally allowed. The cameras could be available at the end of 2018, after the necessary training and purchases. The Federation of Police Officers wants provisions to make sure that human errors will not be problematic for officers wearing cameras. The question is whether police can erase recordings when they want to. According to the working group, this is no different from the handling of other police documentation. During the pilot, the recordings were stored for 24 hours and then wiped, unless a criminal offence was recorded. The working group recommended to extend that period to 96 hours.<ref>{{Cite news|url=~~http~~https://www.ts.fi/uutiset~~/kotimaa~~/3486995~~/Haalarikamerat+tulevat++poliisit+haluavat+oikeuden+poistaa+nauhoilta+todisteet+virkavirheistaan~~|title=Haalarikamerat tulevat – poliisit haluavat oikeuden poistaa nauhoilta todisteet virkavirheistään|date=April 25, 2017|work=Turun Sanomat|access-date=October 24, 2017|language=fi-FI|trans-title=Bodycameras are coming; police want the right to remove the video recordings}}</ref>

==== Plans for national roll-out in 2018 ====

Line 200:

According to the NPA, a total of 102 wearable cameras are to be purchased, including 65 for local areas, 19 for crowd control, and 18 for traffic divisions. In the case of the crowd control officers, the cameras will capture video of situations with many people coming and going, and the feeds will be monitored remotely in real time. For traffic, the video will be used to educate drivers on road violations. In principle, police officers will still watch for traffic offenses on-site, with the bodycam footage expected to play a supporting role.

There are several types of wearable cameras that attach to different parts of the body, such as the head and chest. Which type will be used has not yet been decided. Data storage periods and other operational practices will also be considered later.<ref>{{cite ~~web~~news|title=Japan police to try body cameras in FY 2024, consider full-scale introduction|newspaper=Mainichi Daily News |url=https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230831/p2a/00m/0na/008000c|date=Sep 1, 2023|access-date=Jan 2, 2024}}</ref>

==== Other organisations ====

Line 225:

====Police====

[[File:Дозор-77.jpg|thumb|aA "DOZOR" body cam used by the Russian police officers|alt=]]

According to [[Ministry of Internal Affairs (Russia)|Russian Internal Affairs Ministry]] the end of the 2016 all traffic police officers in Moscow will receive body cameras, which are attached to their clothes and work continuously. In some regions, such devices designed to eradicate corruption in the ranks of traffic police officers, are also purchased by other law enforcement agencies, but in limited quantities - for testing. Total equipping to all Russian police officers with body cameras was scheduled to completed by 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gazeta.ru/auto/2016/12/08_a_10412891.shtml|title=За гаишниками присмотрит "Дозор"|date=Dec 9, 2016|language=ru|trans-title= A "Watch" Body Camera will Monitor the Traffic Police|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230213094944/https://www.gazeta.ru/auto/2016/12/08_a_10412891.shtml|archive-date= February 13, 2023}}</ref>

Line 248:

== Impact studies ==

In 2019, a team of researchers published the most comprehensive overview to date of the impact of BWCs. They based their overview on seventy empirical studies, most from U.S. jurisdictions (74%). The study reports on officer behavior, officer perceptions, citizen behavior, citizen perceptions, police investigations, and police organizations.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lum|first1=Cynthia|last2=Stoltz|first2=Megan|last3=Koper|first3=Christopher S.|last4=Scherer|first4=J. Amber|date=2019|title=Research on body-worn cameras|journal=Criminology & Public Policy|language=en|volume=18|issue=1|pages=93–118|doi=10.1111/1745-9133.12412|s2cid=169616201 |issn=1745-9133|doi-access=}}</ref>

Subsequent analysis of the research affirms their mixed findings about BWCs' effectiveness and draws attention to how the design of many evaluations fails to account for local contextual considerations or citizen perspectives, particularly among groups that disproportionately experience police violence.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Henne |first1=Kathryn |last2=Shore |first2=Krystle |last3=Harb |first3=Jenna Imad |title=Body-worn cameras, police violence and the politics of evidence: A case of ontological gerrymandering |journal=Critical Social Policy |date=August 4, 2021 |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=388–407 |doi=10.1177/02610183211033923|s2cid=238850694 |hdl=1885/311177 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

=== Officer behavior ===

Line 262:

=== Civilian perceptions ===

One study found that when looking at support for BWCs race, ethnicity, differing neighborhoods, and other demographics had an effect on support for BWCs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Williams |first=Monica |date=2021-03-29 |title=Explaining public support for body-worn cameras in law enforcement |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2021.1905529 |journal=Police Practice and Research |volume=22 |issue=6 |pages=1603–1617 |doi=10.1080/15614263.2021.1905529 |issn=1561-4263}}</ref> Most likely due to the goal of transparency and trust in police that are often linked to BWCs. On the topic of public view of the footage release aspect of BWCs, another study found that race, gender, and police accountability had a significant impact on the concerns of citizens opinions of the release of BWC footage.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Todak |first1=Natalie |last2=Leban |first2=Lindsay |last3=James |first3=Lois |date=2021-09-01 |title=Citizen attitudes towards the public release of police body-worn camera video footage |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2021.1969929 |journal=Police Practice and Research |volume=22 |issue=7 |pages=1760–1776 |doi=10.1080/15614263.2021.1969929 |issn=1561-4263}}</ref> Another factor of citizen support is transparency of police work which is one of the main points brought up by citizens when discussing BWCs. A nationwide study found that the public is enthused by the thought of BWCs to improve transparency in police work.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sousa |first1=William H. |last2=Miethe |first2=Terance D. |last3=Sakiyama |first3=Mari |date=2017-03-21 |title=Inconsistencies in Public Opinion of Body-Worn Cameras on Police: Transparency, Trust, and Improved Police–Citizen Relationships |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/police/pax015 |journal=Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=100–108 |doi=10.1093/police/pax015 |issn=1752-4512}}</ref> However, within the same study it was found that there was less agreement on two factors: trust in policing and the ability of BWCs to improve police-citizen relationships. It appears that throughout studies there are different reasons behind why the public would feel approving or disapproving of the main issues such as trust in police legitimacy, transparency, release of BWC footage, officer accountability, etc. The public in general has differing attitudes in how and if BWCs are fixing the issues that they are supposed to target. BWCs have shown effect on how people feel about these main issues with the most consistent category being that they do gain a sense of transparency when viewing law enforcement.

Sixteen studies looked at civilian attitudes about BWCs. This can be measured by looking at satisfaction with specific officer encounters or satisfaction with police more broadly, attitudes related to privacy and impact on fear of crime and safety. Civilians often have high expectations: police will be more accountable and civilian confidence in the police will increase. This can depend however on certain backgrounds (age, race, prior experiences). BWCs seem not to remedy the disparates between the legitimacy afforded to the police by various groups. Results from studies looking at broad satisfaction and privacy concerns are unclear. The few studies that looked at fear showed that civilians who know they are being recorded express strong agreement that BWCs make them feel safer and more confident in the police.

=== Police investigations ===

Line 271:

==Footage access==

According to Harlan Yu, executive director from Upturn, police body cameras are best embedded in a broader change in culture and legal framework. In particular, the [[Open access|public's ability to access the body camera footage]] is currently still an issue which affects usefulness of police body camera's against [[police brutality]].<ref>{{Cite ~~web~~magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/story/body-cameras-stopped-police-brutality-george-floyd/|title=Body Cameras Haven't Stopped Police Brutality. Here's Why|first=Louise|last=Matsakis|magazine=Wired |via=www.wired.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://progressive.org/api/content/f8f69360-0ce1-11eb-948e-1244d5f7c7c6/|title=Why Police Body Cameras Haven't Stopped Police Brutality|first=Andrew|last=Lee|date=October 13, 2020|website=Progressive.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/21378159/police-brutality-protests-body-cameras-video-surveillance-black-lives-matter|title=Police body cameras don't tell the whole story. This experiment shows it.|first=William|last=Poor|date=August 31, 2020|website=The Verge}}</ref>

=== Body ~~Camera~~camera ~~Footage~~footage and the Black ~~Community~~community ===

Body camera footage has become more visible within the past few years due to media coverage. Whether it be news publications or posts on social media, everyone has access. A common theme presented within the videos is the harsh linguistic and physical approaches used by law enforcement. When talking to police officers, on average the African American community experiences 61% more negative conversations with law enforcement. Understanding verbal discrepancies presented in video footage can help educate and create police-community trust programs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Voigt |first1=Rob |last2=Camp |first2=Nicholas P. |last3=Prabhakaran |first3=Vinodkumar |last4=Hamilton |first4=William L. |last5=Hetey |first5=Rebecca C. |last6=Griffiths |first6=Camilla M. |last7=Jurgens |first7=David |last8=Jurafsky |first8=Dan |last9=Eberhardt |first9=Jennifer L. |date=2017-06-20 |title=Language from police body camera footage shows racial disparities in officer respect |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=114 |issue=25 |pages=6521–6526 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1702413114 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=5488942 |pmid=28584085 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Watching these experiences throughout the media can be disheartening and intimidating to the Black community. For example, a twenty-five-year-old Black school teacher, Kenya Davis, reflects on her feelings towards police violence. A video was released in 2014 of the murder of Laquan McDonald, who was shot and killed by a police officer while his girlfriend was recording. Davis vividly describes what she saw and felt while watching the video. She explains the officer's body language, shaking while he shot McDonald, and McDonald's behavior, he was cooperating and of no threat. The background of the video was filled with his girlfriend's screams. Even though McDonald was not acting aggressive or confrontational, the officer was still scared. She describes feeling disheartened knowing that just being Black triggers fear and violent tendencies in police's minds.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ralph |first=Laurence |date=2019-10-29 |title=The logic of the slave patrol: the fantasy of black predatory violence and the use of force by the police |journal=Palgrave Communications |language=en |volume=5 |issue=1 |doi=10.1057/s41599-019-0333-7 |issn=2055-1045|doi-access=free }}</ref> There is more than just this one incident of police brutality being filmed. The list continues with George Floyd, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and many more. The overall feeling from the Black communities after watching footage of police brutality varies in negativity and mental health effects. About 60% of African Americans have a negative outlook on police officers while 48% said they felt unsafe and 45% referenced a decrease in mental health.<ref>{{Citation |title=4. Police Violence against Black People |date=2023-12-31 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479814930.003.0007 |work=The Violent Underpinnings of American Life |pages=137–186 |access-date=2023-11-15 |publisher=New York University Press |doi=10.18574/nyu/9781479814930.003.0007 |isbn=978-1-4798-1493-0}}</ref>

== Inconsistency of body cameras in police departments ==

Throughout police departments in the United States or even ~~world wide~~worldwide there is an inconsistency from one police department to the next, some have body cameras while others may not which makes the use of body cameras difficult. Using data from the 2013 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Survey (LEMAS). After the increase in high -profile lethal incidents throughout the ~~united~~United ~~states~~States, more police agencies have mandated that officers have to wear body cameras. According to the research they found that agencies with large operating budgets and agencies with collective bargaining units are less likely to use body cameras in their police force. Body cameras are helpful to have extra eyes at the scene and ~~too~~to see what is happening from another point of view, however if not all police departments are using them then they are not holding officers accountable or helping victims of police brutality show the true story of what happened. Body cameras could be more beneficial and useful if they were mandatory over all police departments.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10439463.2016.1267175 | doi=10.1080/10439463.2016.1267175 | title=Adoption of body cameras by United States police agencies: An organisational analysis | year=2018 | last1=Nowacki | first1=Jeffrey S. | last2=Willits | first2=Dale | journal=Policing and Society | volume=28 | issue=7 | pages=841–853 | s2cid=151695815 }}</ref>

== Body ~~Cameras~~cameras in the court room ==

~~The~~It ~~way~~has ~~that~~been ~~body cameras are presented in the court room can actually cause more harm than good and be a tool~~argued that ~~causes~~while ~~harm~~useful ~~against victims and offenders. After the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson~~evidence, ~~Missouri many people advocated and wanted~~ body ~~cameras~~camera ~~hoping~~footage ~~this would be~~in the ~~change that people are looking for. Jurors and the public view body cameras by advocating for their pros that they can have including how they~~courtroom should be ~~beneficial~~presented ~~and~~with ~~hold police accountable especially in cases revolving around police brutality and~~great ~~racism~~caution. ~~However~~As ~~people~~such, ~~are not looking at body cameras from the point of a lawyer. How lawyers and judges present the information of body cameras to jurors~~juries should be inmade aaware ~~very~~of ~~important~~their ~~way and not have any~~implicit ~~bias~~biases while ~~doing~~viewing sofootage, ~~otherwise this is where issues come from because they could present it in a way that could make~~ the ~~offender~~objectivity ~~seem~~of ~~like~~which ~~they~~is ~~did~~incomplete ~~wrong or that the officer did something wrong,~~as it ~~needs~~does tonot becover ~~presented~~all inaspects aand ~~neutral tone. There is implicit bias with the jurors that can create problems with the video footage. Body cameras do not hold police accountable because~~context of the ~~way~~situations ~~it is presented in~~being ~~court~~filmed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Birck |first1=Morgan |title=Do You See What I See? Problems with Juror Bias in Viewing Body-Camera Video Evidence |journal=[[Michigan Journal of Race & Law]] |date=2018 |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=153–176 |doi=10.36643/mjrl.24.1.do |url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol24/iss1/6/ |language=en|doi-access=free }}</ref>

== Privacy concerns ==