BODY-WORN CAMERAS 21
Running head: BODY-WORN CAMERAS 1
Body Worn Cameras
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Body Worn Cameras
Background
Many policy-makers, community stakeholders, and leaders in the criminal justice system have advocated for the use of body-worn cameras by the police officers to improve their civility, transparency, and legitimacy during their interaction with citizens. In response, most police departments have embraced technology to improve their policing experience in their line of duty (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018). Body-worn cameras (BWCs) come with different consequences both intended and unintended. The issues surround the number of complaints against the police like the use of too much force and control of the officers without the cameras (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018).
Also, the use of the technology has significantly increased the number of arrests and reduction of the time required to settle complaints, owing to the readily available evidence in most occasions (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018). For that, BWCs have been attributed to high savings for the police departments and the criminal justice system at large. This paper will discuss the BWCs and their impact on police conduct and efficiency. The pros and cons will also be discussed in detail.
Introduction
Public approval of the existence of police departments and behaving in a manner that attracts public respect is an essential principle of law enforcement (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018). The public perception of the legitimacy of the policy remains a determinant of the efficiency of law enforcement efforts by the police. For that, lethal use of force by the police across the United States has come as a major concern because of its impact on public collaboration with and perception of the cops, especially regarding the use of force (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2015).
Body-worn cameras are one of how the challenges facing the police can be addressed while improving their general policing experience (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018). The technology, in which cameras are mounted on the eyeglasses or the chests of police officers enables cops to gather real-time information of their daily experiences in their line of duty. BWCs also act as tools of crime prevention and promote the safety of police officers at work. For that reason, the technology has rapidly diffused through the United States police departments after being implemented by more than a third of municipal police departments in the US (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018). Research states that BWCs offer benefits to law enforcement, but more research would be required to fully comprehend the value of technology in security in the criminal justice field.
BWCs are small cameras that are mounted on the uniforms of police officers and as a headset while in video recording mode. The cameras record video footages and audio files for police interactions with different people throughout the day (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018). With time, the videos are transferred to cloud storage and labeled with GPS coordinates and dates within which the video was recorded. There are some BWCs which offer officers an option of live streaming of videos while others have video-recording triggers that which on the camera (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018). For instance, cameras can be activated with crash sensors, gunshots, sirens, increase in the cruising speed of a can beyond a certain limit, and when a gun is drawn. When the camera starts recording, the video is uploaded in external storage and made available for other parties of interest to watch and interfere if possible. The police may collect videos when they stop and frisk a suspect, slow down a car, conduct an interview, summon an individual, or make an arrest. Since the videos are of high clarity and consist of the audio detail thus can be digitized and used in the future for facial recognition (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018).
The development of technology has ushered in an era of fast information transfer and distribution in different social platforms (Huff, Katz & Webb, 2018). For instance, sharing of videos of police impunity towards the public on social media has caused law-enforcement agencies, human rights, the government, and even the public to push for the adoption of BWCs by the police unanimously. The demand has made the government invest more than $20 million on the purchase and technical assistance for BWCs. As the adoption of the technology continues to increase among police departments over time, scholars and researchers have also collected information on their advantages and effects on the public and conduct of law enforcers. In this paper, I will discuss Body Worn Cameras, their advantages and disadvantages, and impact on the police, the public, and the criminal justice system in general based on the available literature. Gaps for future research will also be identified.
Why BWCs are Important
Agencies that push for the implementation of BWCs purpose to benefit from them in some ways if their use if done properly (Braga et al., 2017). First, the use of BWCs would have a significant impact on the court system. About ninety-one percent of the evidence presented in court is based on videos recorded by in-car cameras. Videos increase increases guilty pleas by defendants of different cases and reduce the time spent handling cases in court.
Secondly, BWCs are believed to improve the safety of law enforcers while on duty. There are numerous cases of perpetration of violence towards the police, especially those of the traffic department (Braga et al., 2017). The use of cameras would deter potential attackers and serve as concrete evidence for individuals who chose to assault a police officer. They provide an accurate account of events in and provides the details which would not be recorded by the police. For that BWCs would improve their safety while in the line of duty because the knowledge of video recording by potential assaulters deters them from abusing officers.
Thirdly, BWCs improve the professionalism of police officers at work. The technology makes police officers accountable for their conduct on duty, especially when they are faced with complaints of misconduct (Braga et al., 2017). Videos recorded by the BWCs are used to clear officers from allegations of wrongdoings. Also, the knowledge that one is recording a video that may be available for viewing by superiors makes officers adhere to their code of conduct when interacting with the public day-by-day.
Cameras are used by police officers of different departments to collect evidence. It is an essential tool for SWAT, patrol police, searches, detectives, corrections, and emergency responses. BWCs enable them to spend less time collecting written evidence, taking pictures, and communicating with their colleagues because they can record as events unfold in their fields of practice and some cases, transfer the information to the office through live streaming for colleagues to see (Braga et al., 2017). For that, BWCs provide accurate first-hand information to the criminal justice department, giving all the details including those that would not be accounted for in a written record or description by a witness.
BWC improve the transparency of police officers when they are on duty. Over time, the public has registered distrust and lack of confidence in the mainstreaming of police operations. For instance accusations of the police using lethal force on the public have caused mixed feelings among the public and police departments (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2015). For that reason, video footages can provide an accurate account of events that happen when police officers interact with civilians. They can also serve and supporting evidence for the accounts and claims given by civilians and police offices over their professional conduct.
BWCs increase the civility of individuals by making the public more cooperative and willing to comply with the orders of the police (Braga et al., 2017). For instance, recording the events of the police encounter with civilians makes them aware of the possibility of the recorded event having to be used as evidence for violation of their expectations. For that, most individuals become more cooperative, including when making arrests. As such, the interaction between the police and the civilians have been improved significantly.
BWCs make resolutions by the criminal justice system faster (Braga et al., 2017). While numerous cases involving the police are closed down due to lack of adequate evidence to prove the claims, the recorded footage readily provides evidence for or against the footage, making resolutions to be arrived at more easily. For example, it is difficult for a police officer to be convicted of abuse when there is not adequate evidence by the victim to prove the claim. However, matching the available video footage and the written account of the victim makes it easier to make criminal justice decisions easily.
BWCs also provide a window of opportunity for further training of police officers (Braga et al., 2017). Assessment of the police actions as recorded in the video footage can be used to advance the professionalism of the police. Through the footage, police officers can identify the mistakes made in a police operation and build on the strengths derived for improved police service. For that, BWCs provides law enforcement executives an opportunity to implement new strategies and assess their efficiency when officers are carrying out their duties.
Cameras can enable the police to record evidence even in low light conditions. There are high tech cameras which give a detailed and clear video of the scene than even the police officer’s observation. For instance, a suspect may pose like one with a gun in low light condition and scare the police office. However, a closer look at the video footage of the same would reveal what the suspect was holding. For that reason, it is an effective way of collecting evidence in time-pressured low light conditions, such as at night. However, some cameras do not deal appropriately with light transitions between the scenes. For that, some of them blank out the images in extremely high or low light conditions.
When BMCs are used
While videos taken by in-car cameras were the second generation of camera use by law enforcers after closed-circuit television cameras, they suffer a limitation of recording only front videos of what is visible from the car’s dashboard (Jennings, Fridell, & Lynch, 2014). BWCs tend to solve the problem because they present a full view of the scene from the beginning. Through body movements, police officers can easily record what they deem important. Also, BWCs, especially those worn on the chest is removable and can be used as in-car cameras when officers are driving (Jennings, Fridell, & Lynch, 2014). Their portability and cost-effectiveness as compared to in-car cameras make them even better for use.
Data Storage and Management
BMCs are used for data collection, retention, and management. Different states have established restrictions of the length of time police officers should keep their video records to allow for their presentation and use in court if the need arises. Data collected by police officers requires to be stored and backed up regularly (Jennings, Fridell, & Lynch, 2014). It must also be made available for all involved parties after which some are retained forever while others are deleted. Policies also regulate the handling and use of crime recordings. Videos that may raise performance complaints are retained for future use. The technology, therefore, requires enormous storage spaces and a management service that controls the handling, storage, and disposal of live recordings (Jennings, Fridell, & Lynch, 2014).
Unlike other policing technologies, Body worn Cameras act as both a law enforcement approach and a form of accountability of police officers, especially regarding their conduct on the workplace. BWCs collect evidence about the interaction between police officers and civilians (Jennings, Fridell, & Lynch, 2014). Sometimes, police officers and the people they interact with sometimes do not realize that they are being filmed. Hence their interaction can be taken directly from the field rather than reported speech. Also, it details the location, details, words, and attracts significant concerns about the first and fourth amendments.
There is a wide variation between the practices of different police practices regarding the BWCs. While others allow the video footages to be accessed easily, some departments limit the discretion of the officers to record video footages (Jennings, Fridell, & Lynch, 2014). Some police departments regulate the personal boundaries within which the videos cannot be recorded. However, security of the video footages is an essential feature that governs the handling and use of the video footages, controlling their misuse and disclosure.
Statistics reveal that 43 of 68 police departments in major cities across the United States have body-worn cameras with about half of them disclosing their recorded footage on the websites of their departments. The police departments of Chicago, Washington DC, Colorado, Las Vegas, and Cincinnati allow people who have been recorded to access the video footage. More than six police departments require police officers to file initial reports such as officer shootings before accessing the video footages. In some cities, BWCs are safeguarded with biometric technologies to control the access and manipulation of recorded videos
Threats Posed by Body-Worn Cameras
Use of BWCs makes officers collect video footage of the domestic lifestyle of the people they interact with. For example, it may capture domestic violence, children in situations of undress and other things that are personal, and which should not be seen in public. Recording an individual requires informed consent of the person being recorded without which it can amount to a violation of personal privacy rights. Therefore, BWCs can violate the privacy issues of citizens if they are not used well.
Even if BWCs are said to be protected from edition to and relied on to provide an account of events, the technology can surveil people when they are engaging in protected speech. Most likely, the cameras have the possibility of facial recognition and biometric analysis which serve to protect the originality of the videos that re captured. However, different vendors are coming up with technologies to fine-tune the technology.
The technology requires the law enforcement departments to store the videos over a significant length of time. Savings of the videos taken each day requires a significantly high amount of storage spaces. Also, the videos require to be saved so that they would be available for the public when they are needed. Due to the high number of footage, the recorded individuals may find it difficult to see their video footage at will as opposed to the police which can access it whenever they want. For example, in a landmark case State v. Robinson, the court maintained that the BWC video that was primary evidence would not be available for viewing in the pre-trial.
BWCs do not record all the details that an individual sees. They cannot record all the details of a scene at a given time. Even for the cameras that are attached to the eyeglasses, the recording of events occurring right before the eyes of a cop is disrupted when he glances away. The camera does not acknowledge the psychological and physiological phenomena associated with the response of officers when they are dealing with life-threatening situations. For instance, when an individual is faced with an emergency which requires attention, other incoming visual images are suppressed.
In some cases, an officer may not realize that he has narrowly focused on the right details of the scene because their safety comes before their objective of collecting evidence. The brain perceives things differently from the way they appear in the camera. For example, if a suspect is driving towards an officer, the brain makes the vehicle seem to be approaching faster and to be closer than how the camera footage will show it, as a result of looming. Therefore, the video record gives an overview of the events that transpired but did not accurately show what was experienced. Therefore, there is a high discrepancy between the field of view of an individual and the visual perception.
Cameras do not record important cues that may be dangerous to the police officers. A police officer may not record the tactile cues such as those that would show their excessive use of force. Officers have an exclusive authority to decide what the world should see and what cannot be seen and can do so to protect their actions. Some cases when an officer is accused of using a lot of force occur without prior planning of the same in a situation in which touching a suspect makes them resist (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2015). Applying force would be preemptive, but in the recorded video, it can appear and an unprovoked attack. BWCs does not contain the feeling and factors surrounding the situation, which can significantly impact on the form of conduct.
Also, there is a story behind each encounter, which may not be recorded by the same video. For a street-patrolling officer, civilians who pose a danger to his safety may pretend to be naïve and harmless in front of the camera, especially when they know they are being recorded. For instance, suspects may take their hands up like they are surrendering as will be seen in the video but based on the officer’s experience, it can be a combative movement. Therefore, the BWC would only capture the action and use it to judge the response of the officer but not the interpretation of the officer.
The speed of recording information by the BWCs differs with the speed at which they occur in real life. In a second, important details can be lost due to the crudeness of it is difficult to record each detail of the daily happenings because the mainstreaming of the events and the reaction times is a major drawback associated with cameras. Cameras take some time to record what has happened, and it is an important detail to understand before analyzing the events recorded by the BWCs. The speed at which actions occur in real life differs from that in which they are recorded. For instance, in a police encounter, the camera can make an office seem to be firing at a suspect even after the threat has been eliminated.
Depending on the position of mounting BWCs, their view can be blocked by the body of the police officer such as hands or nose. For example, the extension of hands when firing may shield the camera if it is mounted on the chest. Critical moments of an encounter are often missed due to blocking and other dynamics of the time. Such blocking may not be known to the officer until the video footage is seen and in most cases, it can shield essential details of the footage that would be essential in making court decisions.
Furthermore, BWCs often record information in two-dimensional. The other dimension, which can only be seen by the human eye is eliminated from the scene. Judging based on such footage is sometimes difficult because there are other details which are hidden behind the third dimension and cannot be revealed by the Cam. Image distortion and distance distortion of images is another setback associated with video footages. Sometimes, suspects can appear to be too far from the police officer, in a manner that they should not trigger immediate reactions. Therefore, such videos need to be subjected to a critical analysis by investigators to understand the situation.
One camera may not be sufficient in recording force events. Two or more cameras should be used to clear uncertainties by showing the same detail in different dimensions and ambient lighting (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2015). Synching the footages taken from different dimensions would increase the detail of the information recorded. The footage requires a multidimensional approach to analysis such as in a football game in which different cameras show the same scene for clarity purposes. Therefore, the use of a single BWC would not collect as detailed information as expected.
Recording events by BWCs make the footage available for viewing. When the footage is presented for scrutiny, different people slow, zoom out, freeze, and examine the video in a manner may lead to diverse conclusions. Most things that happen when an officer is in a tense situation such as a life-threatening scene should not be expected to be a perfect match of professional ethics and expectations. Therefore, subjecting the footage to such scrutiny without considering the experience of the office that is not part of the footage results in incomplete comparison of parameters.
Cameras cannot replace a thorough investigation. Officers that often oppose wearing cameras are perceived as those that fear transparency. However, the reason behind that is the exclusive weight that the footage would be given in judging the conduct in the field. Therefore, recording by camera should not be regarded as the only truth surrounding any controversial incident. A thorough investigation is necessary, including human factors in the analysis. The effectiveness of the BWCs should, therefore, be understood to improve the effectiveness of the technology.
Current Research Findings
Despite the few setbacks that have been identified above, the use of BWCs has significantly increased across different police departments in the United States today. A study carried out by the Justice Programs Diagnostic Center in 2014 revealed that BWCs have significantly improved the general efficiency of law enforcement agencies. It has fostered positive interactions between the police and the civilians, reducing the complaints of excessive use of force by citizens. The study realized that the records increased the rate of arrests and most suspects to plead guilty. For that, it has increased the speed of dealing with prosecutions and the efficiency of establishing standpoints. Resolving criminal cases has never been easy and quicker than when technology incorporated in the criminal justice processes.
In a study comparing the conduct of police officers wearing BWCs and those without, it was discovered that cameras made officers conscious of what they would say and do in the course of their interaction with the public. Use of body-worn cameras was found to make law enforcement officers more productive in their workplace, such as through arresting suspects, having fewer complaints against them, and getting fewer complaints from the public. When complaints are reported against them, the criminal justice process is more likely to rule in their favor. Cameras make officers aware and sensational towards their behavior while maintaining because of the thought that superiors will scrutinize the video. Also, officers that wore cameras were more likely to make self-initiated contacts with the community as compared to those that did not wear cameras.
Discussion
With the use of body-worn cameras has been embraced as a way in which police officers can document their interaction with witnesses, victims, and other interactions with citizens. In many instances, the police found the technology to be useful in resolving administrative and criminal complaints and as a form of defense against civil liability cases (Merola et al., 2016). When an officer uses the approach, they have a clear and objective account of what they said or did and the reason behind it. Use of the BWCs was found to provide courts with the actual statements made by suspects and officers in an encounter. Such an account cannot be easily disputed and thus is taken with sufficient consideration in the case of conflicting accounts of memories. Also, recordings made on crime scenes can provide investigators with details which might have been removed, compelling and accurate evidence (Merola, et al., 2016).
The use of BWCs provides officers with an additional way of justifying their conduct and activities when they are faced with civil litigation (Merola et al., 2016). The underlying objective of the interactions between police and the citizens is collaboration. When allegation arises out of the collaborations, most people are willing to resolve the matter out of the courtroom by paying minor damages rather than spending a lot of time and resources on the criminal justice process. However, for officers with BWCs, the footage acts as a partial witness of what happened in the interactions and whenever the allegations are false, police officers are easily exonerated (Merola et al., 2016). Statistics have indicated that footages have exonerated about 93 percent of accused police officers by proving the sustained complaints. It was discovered that most people stopped filing complaints against police officers when they learned that their interaction with the police was recorded.
Additionally, videos recorded in the workplace were found to assist in analyzing the conduct and performance of law enforcement officers on duty. Reviewing the policy would show whether the police acted according to the policy of the department. Also, the opportunities for training and guidance of law enforcement officers can also be identified (Merola et al., 2016).
The introduction and subsequent acceptance of the in-car surveillance cameras proved the effectiveness of camera technology in law enforcement. However, the setbacks associated with in-car cameras such as lack of assistance when the police opt for foot patrol ushered portable body-worn cameras which would enable the police to record whatever they experienced in the field, with or without their patrol cars (Merola et al., 2016). Also, it was discovered that in-car cameras were relatively expensive. For that, BWCs is a cheaper alternative of documenting their contacts and interactions with civilians in the line of duty. It can be perceived as a reliable and compact tool that can act as an automatic recording tool for observations in the field and encounters.
However, BWCs should not be perceived as a replacement of the in-car cameras but as a complementary technology. There are other forms of technology available in the in-car cameras but presently not available in the smaller and more portable body-worn cameras (Merola et al., 2016). For example, they give information about the location of the police car, cruising speed, activation of sirens, and application of brakes among other operations carried out in police cars. Such information is essential to the department and other law enforcement officers at large, especially when back-up would be required. Cars also give the police an option of installing additional cameras to record happenings in the back seat of the police car. On the contrary, the BWCs cannot record happenings behind the police officers since they are mounted to face the direction in front of the police officers. Therefore, BWCs is a complementary technology that would aid law-enforcement officers on foot patrol.
The technology has significantly shaped the behavior of police officers, especially those who have prior experience of confrontation situations and hostility (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2004). When they are equipped with audio and video technology, the officer can easily get instructions on how to handle the situation. The police are also aware that the statements that they utter would not be refuted or denied later. The same policy applies to the behavior law enforcement officers, who are forced to reduce their force by more than 59 percent after taking up the body-worn camera technology.
Finally, the availability of video evidence is an essential parameter in prosecutions. Raw evidence from recorded footage is perceived as compelling evidence when an individual is being prosecuted. The video describes better the hostility, anger, situational information, and the words said by the suspect and police officer in an encounter (Merola et al., 2016).
The United States has an endless list of cases involving police officers. The cases have tied down the officers, drawing them in the corridors of justice without sufficient evidence. However, footage of what transpired significantly readily increased guilty pleas among police officers and accused individuals (Merola et al., 2016). For that, the technology has helped avoid lengthy trials and enable the defendants to obtain plea bargains effectively. In jurisdictions, audio and visual evidence is widely acceptable. When they are submitted in a written report, they are subject to scrutiny and comparison with what the defendant and the victim say in their reports. In some cases, the accused pleads guilty even without having to the prosecuted in court (Smykla et al., 2016). Therefore, technology has improved the efficiency of the criminal justice process.
Law enforcement administrators impose numerous restrictions on the use of BWCs by the police. Most of the restrictions are concerned with the possible violation of the fundamental rights to privacy and the associated consequences on the image of policing departments (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2004). The BWCs are activated by the police officers when they would like to record something of importance. They are made in a way that they cannot record without the knowledge and activation by the police officer bearing the camera (Smykla et al., 2016). In such a case, it is possible for a selective recording to be carried out. Once they have been activated, the entire conversation and scene must be recorded without unnecessary interruption. If any interruption is caused, then the police officer should account in writing the cause of the interruption.
Before stopping the recording, the police officer must verbally indicate the intent of stopping the recording (Smykla et al., 2016). Transparency, when pausing and recording videos, eliminates the possible accusation of editing. Some police agencies issue BWCs to some officers at the expense of others. The approach is usually preferable for monitoring the performance of officers whose conduct in the field is questionable (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2004). The approach is used when the department cannot afford BWCs for all individuals (Gaub et al., 2016). However, the approach may make the officer under scrutiny to modify their behavior only when they are under observation. Selective use of technology can also be stigmatizing. When the technology is not deployed for all the officers, those who are given tend to think that they are being singled out for fault-finding (Gaub et al., 2016).
Most people have high expectations of privacy, and therefore the police should inform civilians when being recorded (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2004). When civilians do not want to be recorded, they are free to reject the approach. Sometimes, law enforcement officers may require a written warrant to record information using their BWCs without which they may be accused of violating privacy rights (Smykla et al., 2016). Permission is also required when the officer has to enter into private premises for recording. Therefore, they should inform civilians that they are being recorded without which they may lose their confidence. In most cases, officers record information from the suspect because it is reliable to be used as evidence against them when they are finally prosecuted (Smykla et al., 2016).
Conclusion
In summary, the use of body-worn cameras has significantly improved law enforcement policies and the effectiveness of criminal justice processes. The technology has improved the safety and efficiency of police officers in the field. It has caused the improvement of their behavior and interactions with civilians by making them aware that they would not deny or retract their words if they are accused. Also, the technology has complimented in-car cameras in recording the daily experience of police officers in the field by providing an alternative for officers on foot patrol. The technology has aided the collection of evidence for scrutiny and presentation in court. It increases the likelihood of guilty pleas, saving on the time and resources that would be spent on further investigation and lengthy court trials. Furthermore, the technology has exonerated law enforcement officers from the accusations of excessive use of force and other accusations arising from their interaction with civilians.
Amidst all those pros of BWCs, there are numerous disadvantages associated with the technology. BWCs selectively record the activities of the police in the field because the police officers activate them without which they cannot capture anything. Also, the capture two-dimensional footage of what happened to leave out one dimension. As such, there should be more than two cameras to capture all details, and also for comparison purposes. Also, the cameras can be shielded by the body parts of the police officers during the action, thus would not record all the details. Most importantly, cameras, footages are situational and do not cover the context and previous occurrences which led to the encounter. For that, the thorough investigation remains relevant to criminal justice.
More research needed
Despite the number of studies that have been carried out on the subject, more research is still required to fill the gaps in the body of knowledge. Most studies have examined how BWCs affect the interaction between officers and civilians in the lenses of communication, professionalism, and procedural justice. Other studies also examine the rates of police violence, attitudes towards the cameras, compliance with commands, and how the technology aids the investigation process altogether.
However, there are still gaps in the research in BWCs. For instance, few studies have been carried out on the possibility of improvement of organizational policies and training. More information is also required to understand how the technology has aided investigations and exposure of officers involved in shootings and other critical incidents, especially as evidence in court proceedings. While the present research has supported the embracement of this technology in their agencies, the overall impression of the technology is the underlying potential benefits for law enforcement agencies.
References
Braga, A., Coldren Jr, J. R., Sousa, W., Rodriguez, D., & Alper, O. (2017). The Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras: new findings from a randomized controlled trial at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
Merola, L., Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Scherer, A. (2016). Body Worn Cameras and the Courts: A National Survey of State Prosecutors.
Huff, J., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2018). Understanding police officer resistance to body-worn cameras. Policing: An International Journal, 41(4), 482-495.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2004. The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Policing: Research and Best Practices from the IACP Study on In-Car Cameras. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., & Lynch, M. D. (2014). Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Journal of criminal justice, 42(6), 549-556.
Smykla, J. O., Crow, M. S., Crichlow, V. J., & Snyder, J. A. (2016). Police body-worn cameras: Perceptions of law enforcement leadership. American journal of criminal justice, 41(3), 424-443.
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of quantitative criminology, 31(3), 509-535.
Gaub, J. E., Choate, D. E., Todak, N., Katz, C. M., & White, M. D. (2016). Officer perceptions of body-worn cameras before and after deployment: A study of three departments. Police Quarterly, 19(3), 275-302.