Body worn cameras are often regarded as the solution to improving strained police-community relationships and increasing police accountability and transparency. While BWCs play an important part in police reform efforts, they are just one piece to the puzzle. Implementing BWCs within a law enforcement agency is a complex endeavor with many different facets that agencies must take into consideration to ensure that the desired outcomes are achieved.
The IACPs, National Forum on Body-Worn Cameras and Violence Against Women Victim Impact, was designed to identify the considerations law enforcement agencies should take into account specifically regarding domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking as they develop body-worn camera policies and programs. The forum created a dialogue between a multidisciplinary group of subject matter experts including law enforcement, prosecutors, victim advocates, medical personnel, and others.
The ACLU has issued an updated Police Body Camers Model Legislation. The version 2.0, is a more detailed model legislation, incorporating a number of tweaks that we have been persuaded will improve the way implementing agencies deploy body cameras. One of the more significant changes involves what kind of video is subject to public release and what kind is not.
This webinar discusses different approaches to how police agencies monitor compliance to body worn camera (BWC) policy, and how they manage non-compliance to BWC policy. Representatives from Corpus Christi Police Department, New Orleans Police Department, San Antonio Police Department and Las Vegas Metropolitain Police Department discussed important issues as: how to audit and monitor compliance to BWC policy, adjustments to monitoring over time, variations in responses to officer non-compliance, and constraints due to vendor provisions for monitoring data.
The federal government is subsidizing dash-cams and body-cams for local police in response to high-publicized incidents of police misconduct. What does the footage really show? Should the public be able to see it all? We hear about the need for balance between privacy and so-called "transparency."
Click here to listen.
A recent survey shows almost all large police agencies in the United States are either using body-worn cameras (BWCs) or in the process of implementing the technology).i Many of these agencies give similar explanations for why they have chosen to embrace this new law enforcement tool—“… to gather evidence, increase transparency, and bolster public confidence,” according to Washington County (Oregon) Sheriff Pat Garrett,ii for example. These sentiments align with the U.S.
The CNA Corporation, Arizona State University (ASU), and Justice and Security Strategies (JSS) provide training and technical assistance (TTA) to law enforcement agencies who have received funding for body-worn cameras (BWCs) through the US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) BWC Policy and Implementation Program (PIP). Administrative policy review is a central feature of TTA. The TTA team developed a BWC policy review process to assess the comprehensiveness of BWC policies, which is assessed through a BWC Policy Review Scorecard.
The San Francisco Police Department has made their BWC policy available on their website, along with information about the progression of the policy over time, including previous drafts and work group meeting minutes.
We are learning that the implementation of body worn camera (BWC) technology involves more than the introduction of new technology into law enforcement. Full implementation of BWCs in a police agency affects key areas of operations and administration, as well as internal and external stakeholders, in significant ways. For many departments, the implementation of BWCs is in direct response to community and stakeholder concerns about police use of force and the desire for transparency in how these incidents are investigated, reviewed, and managed.
This webinar discusses how agencies can best manage and respond to the media and community after a crisis or high profile event that involves deliberate or inadvertent release of video footage. Without pre-thought and pre-planning regarding how to manage the release of video footage, a police agency can experience erosion of public community relations and perhaps violence.