Police Body-Worn Cameras

Abstract

In the wake of the police shooting of Michael Brown in August 2014, as well as the subsequent protests in Ferguson, Missouri and around the country, there has been a call to mandate the use of body-worn cameras to promote accountability and transparency in police- civilian interactions. Body-worn cameras have received positive appraisal from the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The latter has stated that their widespread use “[has] the potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect police against false accusations of abuse.” In 2013, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) sent surveys to 500 of the 12,501 police departments in the U.S, and of the 254 who completed the survey only 63 of the departments reported using body-worn cameras. However, law enforcement agencies throughout the country are now rapidly adopting the cameras. In December 2014, President Obama proposed the Body-Worn Camera Partnership Program, which aims to invest $75 million through a 50% investment matching arrangement with states and localities to cover video storage and equipment expenses, with the goal of underwriting the costs of 50,000 body-worn cameras. The program is part of a broader three-year, $263 million initiative to strengthen community policing, and the funding plan is part of President Obama’s proposed FY2016 budget.

Becoming the Camera: Body Worn Video and Shifting Expectations of Police Work

“…To date, critical research regarding the use of BWV by police has been limited to questions of implementation, effectiveness, or privacy and the pragmatic policy solutions that will resolve these kinds of concerns (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland 2015;Drover & Ariel 2015;Jennings, Fridell & Lynch 2014;Mateescu et al, 2015;White 2014).…”

“…In contrast, those specifically discussing the use of BWV by police forces have offered extensive criticism regarding the implementation and regulation of wearables (Jennings et al 2014;Mateescu et al 2015;Pentland 2000;White 2014). BWV has become an increasingly popular tool for police departments -particularly, as noted above, those that have been on the receiving end of public criticism concerning inappropriate use of force and/or search and seizure.…”

“…BWV has become an increasingly popular tool for police departments -particularly, as noted above, those that have been on the receiving end of public criticism concerning inappropriate use of force and/or search and seizure. As BWV is predominantly being adopted by police departments with the intention of monitoring interactions between police and the public, a research emphasis on the potential for these technologies to modify behaviour is not a surprise Mann et al 2003;Mateescu et al 2015;Nasiopoulos, Risko, Foulsham and Kingstone 2015;White 2014). In addition to the panoptic potential of BWV technologies, those discussing their use in policing contexts have also raised questions regarding the prevailing impression that video footage is superior to other forms of documentation (Mateescu et al, 2015).…”

“…Much of the research in this field has added to the conversation regarding the legal and ethical implications of wearable technologies -particularly those with recording capacity as they present significant challenges to traditional conceptions of privacy (Intille 1999;Jennings et al 2014;Mann 2001;Mann et al 2003;Nasiopoulos et al 2015;Mateescu et al 2015;Pentland 2000;White 2014). Although video surveillance technologies have become a ubiquitous part of our everyday experience, there is something that sets BWV technologies apart from other video surveillance.…”

“…Although video surveillance technologies have become a ubiquitous part of our everyday experience, there is something that sets BWV technologies apart from other video surveillance. Those discussing the legal and ethical implications of BWV have made it clear that the fact that these technologies follow the wearer makes them much more invasive than cameras that are limited to public areas, such as CCTV (Mateescu et al, 2015). As BWV accompanies the wearer and records their interactions, these technologies can enter homes or record seemingly private conversations.…”