Law and (rec)order: Updating memory for criminal events with body-worn cameras

Abstract

Body-worn video is increasingly relied upon in the criminal justice system, however it is unclear how viewing chest-mounted video may affect a police officer’s statement about an event. In the present study, we asked whether reviewing footage from an experienced event could shape an individual’s statement, and if so, whether reporting before reviewing may preserve an officer’s original experience. Student participants (n = 97) were equipped with chest-mounted cameras as they viewed a simulated theft in virtual reality. One week later, half of the participants recalled the event in an initial statement while the other half did not. Participants then viewed either their body-worn video or a control video. Finally, participants provided their statement (no initial statement condition) or were given the opportunity to amend their original account (initial statement condition). Results revealed that viewing body-worn video enhanced the completeness and accuracy of individuals’ free recall statements. However, whilst reviewing footage enabled individuals to exclude errors they had written in their initial statements, they also excluded true details that were uncorroborated by the camera footage (i.e., details which individuals experienced, but that their camera did not record). Such camera conformity is discussed in light of the debate on when an officer should access their body-worn video during an investigation and the influence of post-event information on memory.

To watch or not to watch: When reviewing body-worn camera footage improves police reports.

“…The predicted increase in accuracy in the watch first condition (H3) also did not transpire. This contrasts with Adams et al’s (2020) findings that students who had reviewed BWC footage provided significantly more complete and accurate reports of a virtual-reality crime, but with fewer off-camera details, than students who had not reviewed the footage. Potential explanations for the lack of statistically significant between-participants differences in the present study may be found in methodological features, such as the variation in incident duration or the short delay between the incident and footage review, which we address in the “Limitations” section.…”

Interpreting Police Video: A Pilot Study

“…The notion that “video ‘tells us exactly what happened’ [is] an ideology which extends throughout the justice system” (Adams et al, 2020, p. 2). Indeed, the “new transparency encourages beliefs in images speaking for themselves, in cameras as mechanically objective witnesses, and in information as self‐evident” (Brucato 2015, p. 44), a view adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case involving dashboard camera video of a high‐speed chase (Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 [2007]; see Kahan et al, 2009) and in other federal courts (see, e.g., Fields v. Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, p. 359 [3rd Cir.…”

“…8–9). In the current moment, “the only evidence more powerful than ‘I saw it with my own eyes’ is ‘I have it recorded on camera’” (Adams et al, 2020, p. 1). As the famous Rodney King trial (in which defense attorneys successfully re‐framed the narrative surrounding the beating of a black man by several Los Angeles police officers by playing the video in slow motion and offering officer‐friendly explanations of the depicted events [Brayne et al, 2018; Goodwin, 1994; Stuart, 2011]) demonstrated, the interpretation of video evidence is not always a straightforward, objective task.…”

“…Research from a variety of disciplines has started to examine the use and interpretation of BWC footage as visual evidence (see, e.g., Bailey et al, 2021; Adams et al, 2020; Gates, 2020; Ristovska, 2020; Kalle & Hammock, 2019; Birck, 2018; Fan, 2017; Culhane et al, 2016; Boivin et al, 2016; Blanchette & Becker, 2018). Some of this research suggests the presence of bias in the interpretation of video evidence in a variety of contexts (Granot et al 2017), including with BWCs (Culhane et al, 2016) and videotaped police interrogations (see e.g., Lassiter & Irvine, 1986).…”

“…Some of this research suggests the presence of bias in the interpretation of video evidence in a variety of contexts (Granot et al 2017), including with BWCs (Culhane et al, 2016) and videotaped police interrogations (see e.g., Lassiter & Irvine, 1986). The meaning of these records—what information they communicate—is often highly dependent on contextual factors such as perspective, placement, or field of view (Kahan et al, 2009; Taylor & Lee 2019; Smith et al, 2019; Kalle & Hammock, 2019; Birck, 2018; Boivin et al, 2017; Adams et al, 2020). Importantly, misconceptions about the objectivity and self‐evident nature of video evidence has the potential to impact judges, juries, and other groups of individuals tasked with interpreting video evidence of crime or police (mis)conduct, and likely also impacts public perceptions of policing within communities after instances of on‐camera police‐involved violence (see, for example, work on cultural cognition and cognitive bias by Kahan et al, 2012; Kahan, 2009, 2013).…”