Body-Worn Cameras: Understanding Legal Implications And Applications

Body-worn cameras are widely used by law enforcement agencies, with 47% of general-purpose agencies and 80% of large police departments having acquired them. Despite their growing adoption, the evidence regarding their effectiveness is mixed, and further research is needed. While some studies suggest potential benefits, such as improved officer safety, increased evidence quality, and reduced civilian complaints, others show no significant impact or possible negative effects. The law surrounding body-worn cameras varies across different states and countries, with California, Florida, and North Dakota having specific laws regarding the disclosure of body-camera footage. In California, body-camera videos are considered public records, while Florida and North Dakota have passed laws exempting certain footage from public records requests. Additionally, while it is not illegal for civilians to use body-worn cameras, there are laws and restrictions regarding the recording of other individuals, with consent often being required for both audio and video recordings.

Body-worn camera footage as evidence

Body-worn camera footage is increasingly being used as evidence in courtrooms. The footage can be used to corroborate evidence presented by prosecutors and can lead to quicker resolutions of citizen complaints and lawsuits. It can also help improve the overall strength of prosecution cases, particularly those involving domestic violence, by documenting the victims' demeanour and language and recording the crime scenes and overall emotional effects on the victims.

Body-worn camera footage can also be used to clear up events quickly, especially when there is already a written report by an officer. However, there is a risk that the footage can be misleading, especially when combined with a compelling story. Courts have recognised this and have implemented several methods to control the impact of body-worn camera footage in trials:

• All evidence in a trial should be weighed equally.
• Camera footage evidence should not be repeatedly viewed.
• Recognise the limitations of body-worn camera footage.

Despite the benefits of body-worn camera footage, there are still concerns about privacy and the potential for misuse in court. Additional research is needed to fully understand the value of this technology and how it can be used effectively by law enforcement agencies.

The impact of body-worn cameras on police behaviour

Body-worn cameras are increasingly used by state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. They are principally worn by officers who are in direct contact with the public.

Proponents of body-worn cameras point to several potential advantages. Firstly, they may result in better transparency and accountability, thus improving the legitimacy of law enforcement. This increased transparency can help address the lack of trust and confidence in law enforcement in many communities, particularly in the context of encounters involving the use of force. Body-worn cameras can provide valuable real-time information and serve as a surveillance tool to promote officer safety and efficiency, as well as prevent crime. Additionally, they may lead to higher rates of citizen compliance with officer commands and fewer complaints against law enforcement. This "civilizing effect" can help prevent situations from escalating to the use of force and improve interactions between officers and citizens.

However, it is important to note that the impact of body-worn cameras may vary depending on how they are used. For example, a 2016 global randomized controlled trial found that use-of-force incidents were related to the officer's discretion in activating the body-worn camera during citizen interactions. When officers had the discretion to activate their cameras, use-of-force incidents increased. In contrast, when officers activated their cameras upon arrival at the scene, use-of-force incidents decreased.

Furthermore, some studies have found that body-worn cameras may have limited or negative effects. For instance, a comprehensive review of 70 studies on body-worn camera use found no consistent or statistically significant effects on the use of force, assaults on officers, officer-initiated calls for service, arrests, traffic stops, and field interviews. Similarly, a multi-site evaluation of eight police departments in the US and the UK found no statistically significant differences in the use of force, citizen complaints, or arrests for disorderly conduct when comparing officers wearing body-worn cameras to those who did not.

While body-worn cameras have been touted as a way to improve police behaviour and accountability, the existing research suggests that their impact is nuanced and context-dependent. Therefore, further rigorous research is needed to fully understand the benefits and limitations of this technology and to inform law enforcement agencies' decisions about their adoption and implementation.

Public access to body-worn camera recordings

In California, the Public Records Act and Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(A)-(C) allow for the public release of body-worn camera footage unless a legal exemption applies. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must respond to a request within 10 calendar days and can redact exempt information before releasing the footage. Assembly Bill 748, enacted in 2018, requires police departments to release "critical incident" body-worn camera recordings within 45 days of the incident.

Other states with laws mandating the release of body-worn camera footage include Utah, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Colorado. In Utah, all police body-worn camera recordings are subject to the state's open records law. Wisconsin's 2019 S.B. 50 mandates that recordings be retained for a minimum of 120 days and released under the state's open records act. Connecticut's Executive Order No. 8, signed in June 2020, requires state police to release body-worn camera footage within four days of an incident. Colorado's Senate Bill 217, enacted in 2020, mandates the release of unedited recordings of police interactions with the public within 21 days of a complaint being filed.

In contrast, some states have restricted public access to body-worn camera recordings, citing concerns for civilians' privacy rights and the potential interference with ongoing criminal investigations. As of 2016, states with laws restricting access to body-worn camera footage included Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, and Texas.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press maintains a map showing the current status of state legislation and police department policies regarding public access to body-worn camera footage in the United States. This map provides a useful resource for understanding the varying levels of public access to body-worn camera recordings across the country.

Consent requirements for body-worn camera recordings

While body-worn cameras are typically associated with law enforcement officers, civilians can also use them. However, there are rules, restrictions, and protocols regarding their use. For instance, in the United States, it is not illegal for a civilian to purchase and wear a body-worn camera. Still, there are laws and restrictions on recording other individuals without their consent. The consent requirements can vary depending on the state and the nature of the conversation being recorded.

In a one-party consent jurisdiction, an individual can record a conversation without the other person's consent if they are part of the conversation. However, if an individual is not a participant in the conversation, they generally need the consent of all participating parties, regardless of whether it occurs in a private or public space. Additionally, wearing a body-worn camera and recording in a store or commercial establishment may not be allowed and is usually up to the owner's discretion.

The state of California has specific laws regarding the capture of audio and video recordings of people in public places. For example, it is illegal to capture photos, videos, or audio recordings of individuals engaging in "private, personal, or familial activity" without their consent. It is also a misdemeanor in California to capture images, sounds, or videos for any commercial purpose without the necessary consent and contracts.

To protect the privacy of individuals and law enforcement officers, legislative bodies may enact laws governing the disclosure of body-worn camera recordings. For instance, the California Public Records Act allows the withholding of video or audio recordings related to critical incidents, such as officer-involved shootings or the use of force, to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.

Body-worn camera data storage solutions

Body-worn cameras (BWCs) have become an integral part of law enforcement, with many police departments adopting their use. However, the vast amounts of data generated by these cameras present significant storage challenges. Effective digital evidence management is critical, and law enforcement agencies must navigate various technical standards and protocols to ensure efficient storage and retrieval of video data.

On-Premise Storage vs. Cloud Storage

Law enforcement agencies have several options for storing body-worn camera data. They can choose to store data internally or use on-premise or cloud-based storage solutions. On-premise storage involves managing the hardware and software needed to store digital data or creating a system to copy videos onto physical media such as DVDs or flash drives and storing them securely. However, internal storage can be costly and burdensome to manage.

Cloud storage, on the other hand, offers several advantages. It can reduce costs, enhance data security through encryption, and provide better data backup solutions. Most cloud storage providers conduct regular backups to ensure data availability. Additionally, cloud storage offloads the burden of managing a storage location, making it a more attractive option for agencies looking to save time and resources.

Best Practices for Body-Worn Camera Data Storage

When implementing a body-worn camera data storage solution, several best practices should be considered:

• Work with a trusted vendor: Choose a vendor with technical capabilities that meet law enforcement requirements, such as the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) standards.
• Ensure reliable backup procedures: Implement manual or automatic backup procedures to protect data from loss or corruption.
• Prevent data tampering: Implement measures to prevent unauthorised access, tampering, editing, or copying of data.
• Create an auditing system: Keep records of who accesses the data and why to maintain a chain of custody.
• Specify data access authorisation: Clearly define who is authorised to access the data and ensure it is restricted to authorised personnel only.
• Consult with legal advisers: Seek legal advice to ensure compliance with privacy laws and to establish policies for data retention and handling.
• Consider integration: Integrate different video sources, such as interview room cameras, dash cams, and BWCs, to create a unified repository for efficient data retrieval.
• Choose a flexible and scalable platform: Opt for a data storage platform that can adapt to changing needs and keep up with technological advancements.

Retention Policies and Costs

Retention policies play a crucial role in body-worn camera data storage. The length of time data needs to be stored depends on whether it is evidentiary or non-evidentiary. Non-evidentiary data may only be required to be kept for 60 to 90 days, while evidentiary data may need to be stored for much longer, depending on the investigation and potential future appeals. The storage requirements for evidentiary data can significantly impact the storage capacity and costs for law enforcement agencies.

The cost of data storage systems can be substantial, with a single midsized police department spending up to $2 million annually on storage alone. Additionally, the time required to search for and retrieve specific video clips can be costly in terms of staff resources. Therefore, it is essential to carefully consider the financial and operational implications of body-worn camera data storage solutions.

Frequently asked questions