to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an unprecedented pace . Body-worn cameras, which an increasing
92 pages
Missing: caffeia swocta
584 KB – 92 Pages
PAGE – 4 ============
This project was supported by cooperative agreement number 2012-CK-WX-K028 awarded by the O˜ce of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the o˜cial position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to speci˚c agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant ˛ux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS O˜ce can vouch for their current validity. The points of view expressed in this publication do not necessarily re˛ect the opinions of individual Police Executive Research Forum members. Recommended citation: Miller, Lindsay, Jessica Toliver, and Police Executive Research Forum. 2014. Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned . Washington, DC: O˜ce of Community Oriented Policing Services. ISBN: 978-1-934485-26-2 Published 2014
PAGE – 5 ============
ContentsLetter from the PERF Executive Director vLetter from the COPS Of˜ce Director .viiAcknowledgments ..ixIntroduction 1State of the ˜eld and policy analysis ..1Project overview2Chapter 1. Perceived Bene˜ts of Body-Worn Cameras ..5Accountability and transparency 5Reducing complaints and resolving of˜cer-involved incidents5Identifying and correcting internal agency problems 7Evidence documentation9Chapter 2. Considerations for Implementation.11Privacy considerations 11Determining when to record.12Consent to record ..14Recording inside private homes..15Data storage, retention, and disclosure ..15Lessons learned on privacy considerations18Impact on community relationships ..19Securing community support .21Protecting intelligence-gathering efforts..22Lessons learned about impact on community relationships.24Addressing of˜cer concerns ..24Of˜cer concerns about body-worn cameras24Addressing of˜cer concerns .26Incremental implementation.27Lessons learned about addressing of˜cer concerns.27Managing expectations28Of˜cer review of video prior to making statements 29Lessons learned about managing expectations.30Financial considerations..31Cost of implementation .32Cost-saving strategies ..33Lessons learned about ˜nancial considerations34Chapter 3. Body-Worn Camera Recommendations .37General recommendations.38Recording protocols ..40Download and storage policies 42Recorded data access and review .45Training policies..47Policy and program evaluation 48
PAGE – 6 ============
iv Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons LearnedConclusion.51Appendix A. Recommendations Matrix.53Policy recommendations ..53General recommendations ..53Recording protocols.55Download and storage policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Training policies65Policy and program evaluation ..66Additional lessons learned: engaging of˜cers, policymakers, and the community 67Appendix B. Conference attendees.69About PERF77About the COPS Of˜ce 79
PAGE – 8 ============
vi Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learneda certain amount of discretion concerning when to turn their cameras on or off. This discretion is important because it recognizes that of˜cers are professionals and because it allows ˚exibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic fibright linefl rule is impossible. For example, an of˜cer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be recorded. By using discretion, the of˜cer can reach the best solution in balancing the evidentiary value of a recorded statement with the witness™s reluctance to be recorded. The decision may hinge on the importance of what the witness is willing to say. Or perhaps the witness will agree to be recorded by audio but not video, so the of˜cer can simply point the camera away from the witness. Or perhaps the witness will be willing to be recorded later, in a more private setting . By giving of˜cers some discretion, they can balance the con˚icting values. Without this discretion, body-worn cameras have the potential to damage important relationships that of˜cers have built with members of the community. This discretion should not be limitless; instead, it should be guided by carefully crafted policies that set speci˜c parameters for when of˜cers may use discretion.If police departments deploy body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of of˜cers to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably ˜nd themselves caught in dif˜cult public battles that will undermine public trust in the police rather than increasing community support for the police.This publication is intended to serve as a guide to the thoughtful, careful considerations that police departments should undertake if they wish to adopt body-worn cameras .Sincerely, Chuck Wexler, Ex ecutive Director Police Executive Research Forum
PAGE – 9 ============
Letter from the COPS Of˜ce DirectorDear colleagues,One of the most important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage new technology to improve policing services. Whether using social media to engage the community, deploying new surveillance tools to identify suspects, or using data analysis to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an unprecedented pace.Body-worn cameras, which an increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting, represent one new form of technology that is signi˜cantly affecting the ˜eld of policing. Law enforcement agencies are using body-worn cameras in various ways: to improve evidence collection, to strengthen of˜cer performance and accountability, to enhance agency transparency, to document encounters between police and the public, and to investigate and resolve complaints and of˜cer-involved incidents. Although body-worn cameras can offer many bene˜ts, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the public™s privacy rights but also can affect how of˜cers relate to people in the community, the community™s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the public. Before agencies invest considerable time and money to deploy body-worn cameras, they must consider these and other important questions.The COPS Of˜ce was pleased to partner with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to support an extensive research project that explored the numerous policy and implementation questions surrounding body-worn cameras. In September 2013, the COPS Of˜ce and PERF hosted a conference in Washington, D .C., where more than 200 law enforcement of˜cials, scholars, representatives from federal agencies, and other experts gathered to share their experiences with body-worn cameras. The discussions from this conference, along with interviews with more than 40 police executives and a review of existing body-worn camera policies, culminated in the recommendations set forth in this publication.Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned offers practical guidance as well as a comprehensive look at the issues that body-worn cameras raise. I hope you ˜nd that the wide range of perspectives, approaches, and strategies presented in this publication are useful, whether you are developing your own body-worn camera program or simply wish to learn more about the topic. The goal of the COPS Of˜ce and PERF is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the best information possible as they explore this new technology; therefore, we encourage you to share this publication, as well as your own experiences, with other law enforcement practitioners. Sincerely, Ronald L. Davis, Director Of˜ce of Community Oriented Policing Services vii
PAGE – 11 ============
Acknowledgments PERF would like to thank the U .S. Department of Justice™s Of˜ce of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Of˜ce) for supporting this research into body-worn cameras . We are thankful to COPS Of˜ce Director Ronald Davis and Principal Deputy Director Joshua Ederheimer for recognizing the increasingly important role this technology plays for law enforcement agencies across the globe. We are also grateful to our program managers at the COPS Of˜ce, Helene Bushwick and Katherine McQuay, for their support and encouragement throughout the project.We would also like to thank the law enforcement agencies that participated in our survey on body- worn cameras. Their thoughtful responses guided our research and the agenda for the executive session in Washington, D .C., in September 2013 . We are also grateful to the more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, and other professionals who participated in our executive session (see appendix B for a list of participants). These leaders provided valuable information about their experiences with body-worn cameras and prompted an insightful discussion regarding the issues these cameras raise. We are especially thankful for the more than 40 police executives who shared their body- worn camera policies with PERF and who participated in interviews with PERF staff. Their candid assessments of how this technology has impacted their agencies shaped the ˜ndings and recommendations found in this publication. Finally, credit is due to PERF staff members who conducted the survey, prepared for and hosted the executive session, conducted interviews, and helped write and edit this publication, including Jessica Toliver, Lindsay Miller, Steve Yanda, and Craig Fischer .ix
584 KB – 92 Pages