Officer-involved critical incidents often lead to turmoil and chaos for a community. They can leave officers feeling frustrated and even resentful of the perceived lack of support and leave citizens feeling angry and suspicious of their police department. While there is no easy fix for this type of divide, there are steps an agency can take to heal after such an ordeal or to prevent the conflict altogether. The foundation is holding good communication as a core value of your organization. Of course, good communication involves listening as well as messaging.
ICMA released a fact sheet highlighting best practices for implementing body-worn cameras in local police departments, from the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice. The development of the fact sheet was supported by a grant awarded by BJA and implemented by CNA and ICMA. For more resources developed by ICMA and BWC TTA, please visit the ICMA BWC project page.
Author (s) Abstract: In 2016, nearly half (47%) of the 15,328 general-purpose law enforcement agencies in the United States had acquired body-worn cameras (BWCs) (figure 1). By comparison, 69% had dashboard cameras and 38% had personal audio recorders. Findings are based on the 2016 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics - Body-Worn Camera Supplement (LEMAS-BWCS) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The LEMAS-BWCS was administered for the first time in 2016.
Police legitimacy is generally regarded as a view among community members that police departments play an appropriate role in implementing rules governing public conduct. Placing body-worn cameras (BWCs) on police officers has been suggested as a potentially
In late August, a Texas jury convicted former Balch Springs police officer Roy Oliver of the murder of 15-year-old Jordan Edwards. The uncommon verdict largely rested on footage of the incident captured on Oliver’s body camera, technology the city’s police department implemented in 2015. As more law enforcement agencies nationwide use police body-worn cameras, states are developing and refining policy guidance.
Each jurisdiction and law enforcement agency that deploys body-worn cameras (BWCs) has a unique history, police culture, and circumstances. Community voices, like advocacy and faith-based organizations, police advisory groups, the media, social service organizations, and other community stakeholders, are important to consider when deploying BWCs. In some jurisdictions, these voices have provided the impetus for a program, scrutinized operations, and moved BWC policies in the direction of greater transparency.
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
In 2009, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) faced increased public scrutiny after a series of police shootings, many of which involved unarmed suspects. This concern led LVMPD to seek out US Department of Justice (DOJ) support to enact change. DOJ supported LVMPD in updating their policies, procedures, and training to better prepare officers to make decisions about the application of deadly force. Many members of the public were skeptical about LVMPD’s reporting of the facts about critical incidents that resulted in death. Many believed that incident descriptions written by police would nearly always justify the deadly force application. So, local advocacy groups recommended that, in addition to changing the agency’s use of force policy and training, LVMPD adopt BWCs. Consistent with recommendations that BWC programs be carefully implemented though pilot programs, an approach then being promoted by police organizations and DOJ, LVMPD elected to deploy BWCs in a limited manner to first test feasibility and effects before moving forward with wider deployment.
DOJ subsequently funded research by CNA, which incorporated a randomized experimental design, to assess the effects of BWCs on the number of citizen complaints and use of force incidents by officers. The research also addressed cost-benefit analysis. In 2017, CNA reported its findings, which revealed significant reductions in complaints against officers and use of force incidents. The study also pointed to reductions in the time and resources required to investigate and resolve complaints and use of force incidents for the officers wearing cameras. These reductions produced substantial cost savings for LVMPD.
While community members found some comfort in these findings, many citizens still raised concerns about whether LVMPD sufficiently enforced camera activation during citizen encounters, especially those involving use of force. Gary Peck, representing the local chapter of the NAACP, praised LVMPD for its deployment and participation in the study but expressed specific concerns about how LVMPD was ensuring compliance with camera activation requirements.
In response to these concerns, LVMPD has aggressively addressed transparency concerns in its handling and release of videos. For example, LVMPD moves swiftly after a critical incident, often making video footage of a critical incident resulting in death available within 72 hours. A senior official, sometimes the sheriff, narrates the public release of the footage at a press conference, explaining the situation and providing context. This practice has some exceptions, but it is generally followed and is now a community expectation. This practice not only provides more transparency; it builds community trust. LVMPD officials believe this approach often provides the department the benefit of the doubt when questionable or controversial shootings occur. These steps have quieted community concerns and changed public expectations.
Albuquerque Police Department
The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) began using BWCs in 2010, encouraged in part by community voices advocating for police reform. Chief among community concerns were perceptions of inappropriate use of force, especially toward mentally unstable and homeless populations. APD became one of the first major police departments to deploy BWC technology. In 2012, the department issued special orders requiring all officers to activate their BWCs during citizen encounters. In early 2015, local advocates continued to raise concerns about the consistency of BWC use by officers. That same year, researchers from the University of New Mexico studied the program’s implementation. They concluded that officers were confused by the BWC policy and that there were uneven patterns in camera activations for citizen encounters.
In September 2015, the Bureau of Justice Assistance awarded APD a $250,000 BWC grant, which allowed the department to update its technology and revise its BWC policy.
In 2016, media reports suggested that APD staff tampered with video footage, raising concerns about the integrity of APD-provided video footage. APD later issued a report indicating that there was no evidence that original footage of any critical incident was altered, but it was inconclusive as to whether copies distributed to others were altered. This report did little to restore community confidence.
Following a change in administration and the appointment of a new chief of police, the department renewed efforts to enhance community engagement. Today, APD is revisiting its BWC policies to expedite video release when possible. Albuquerque’s six Community Policing Councils, covering each of APD’s command areas, are being encouraged to provide input to these revised policies as well.
Chris Sylvan, who coordinates community outreach efforts for APD, said, “Most residents are now very supportive of the body-worn camera program and question more and more why the local sheriff’s department and suburban jurisdictions don’t require their officers to wear them.”
Community voices in Albuquerque will likely continue to serve in a “watch dog” role in the APD’s BWC program and will help shape future policy to enhance transparency.
The examples presented here illustrate the journeys of two departments with BWCs. Every department’s journey is different, but there are some commonalities. Community concerns usually focus on compliance with activation requirements, timing of the release of video footage for critical incidents, and the overall integrity of the program operations. Studies in these and other jurisdictions suggest that communities tend to support BWC deployment and expansion, particularly when community input is sought and considered. Insights from the APD and LVMPD deployments, findings from the 2017 Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) study on community perceptions of BWCs, and other works suggest the following:
- Community voices often play a major role in the impetus for BWC programs and often provide continued support during ongoing operations.
- Community voices can play a “watch dog” role and sound alarms when the BWC program implementation is out of alignment with program goals and community considerations.
- Community voices can play a meaningful role in shaping BWC policy by offering citizen perspectives and building public support.
- Community voices can be called upon for specific input on privacy parameters, guidance for video release, and the policies and rules for emerging related technologies (e.g., drones).
- Community voices generally support BWC programs, but they do not view these programs as panaceas for broader police performance and trust issues.
- Police should embrace the community as a valued partner in the planning, implementation, and ongoing management of BWC programs.
The Milwaukee Police Department’s body-worn camera (BWC) program began in October 2015 as a response to strained police relations in the city’s communities of color that were exacerbated by several highly public police shootings of black men in Milwaukee and across the country. The Urban Institute surveyed Milwaukee community members in April 2016, September 2017, and July 2018 about their attitudes toward the police department and its BWC program, as part of a rigorous, independent evaluation.
This webinar examined several issues related to regional approaches to BWC program design and implementation, including the benefits from a regional approach, compromises that will likely need to be made, and planning considerations. The webinar featured a brief presentation on general issues regarding regional models in law enforcement, presentations from several BWC PIP sites that have successfully implemented regional BWC programs, and provided an overview of the key considerations that agencies should attend to during the planning phase of a regional BWC implementation.
The purpose of this paper is to review the extant of the published literature on body-worn cameras (BWCs) in policing, specifically in the context of how BWCs affect both citizens and officers.The current study is a narrative review of the impact of BWCs on police and citizens generated through a search of four repositories (Google Scholar, Criminal Justice Abstracts, EBSCO Host, PsychInfo). The current narrative review identified 21 articles that matched the selection criteria.