Body Camera Research

Over the last few years there has been much controversy leading up to the need for law enforcement officers to wear body cameras. This is not only for citizens but also for the officers’ protection. With so much debate regarding police brutality and excessive force body cameras are quickly on the rise. New technology is giving police on a state and federal level a new opportunity to cut back on some of the allegations and negativity we have seen in the last few years. On the other hand it is giving citizens all over the country the safety they should feel when being approached by law enforcement. Our technology has improved significantly over the years and this seems to be something that will benefit everyone.

Within recent years there has been much controversy surrounding police officers and whether or not they should be wearing body cameras to document their everyday interactions with the public. While the use of body cameras may seem to invade the public or police privacy. Police-worn body cameras will be beneficial to law enforcement and civilians all over the world. Police must be equipped with body cameras to alleviate any doubt in the effectiveness of officers. Law enforcement worn body cameras would enhance the trust of the public by keeping both the officers and the citizens accountable for their actions, providing evidence, and helping protect them from false accusations, while protecting privacy

First advantage in law enforcement agents wearing body cameras is to hold the officers accountable. “Holding the officers accountable, will ensure the officer adheres to policies and procedures during an encounter with victims and suspects.” Body-worn cameras are poised to help boost accountability for law enforcement and citizens and, unlike many new police technologies, the cameras share preliminary support from both law enforcement and social justice groups. Successful implementation of the cameras will require careful policies that respect and protect both the police and the public.

Body cameras in policing are still new, but more and more agencies are beginning to implement this technology into their line of work. At first police officers were very hesitant to wear these body cameras because they were afraid they would infringe themselves and give away their own privacy. Later, as body cameras were beginning to see more use in the work place, officers began to realize that these very own body cameras that they once thought would only cause themselves harm would actual prove to be useful in a variety of situations. Some of these situations can be citizen complaints, to even backing up an officers use of force. Body cameras can be the one sole thing that can give

I selected an article about police body cameras. The article cited several studies, as well as the authors’ ideas and thoughts. The article, titled Police Body Cameras, is part of the CATO Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, and prepared by Matthew Feeney in 2015. The theme throughout the article is that the use of body cameras will reduce police misconduct. Although we all hope this is the case, we must also look at the other issues involved with the wearing of body cameras. In an effort to gain citizen buy-in and obtain their opinions, they conducted surveys. Interestingly enough, most people did not want the officers to record them, unless it was during an enforcement encounter, such as a traffic stop or arrest situation.

Rialto, California is an example of a city with positive results from the use of body-cameras. In Rialto, police began wearing body-cameras a little less than three years ago. As a result of officers wearing body-cameras, citizens’ complaints against police officers dropped 88 percent and use of force by police officers dropped 60 percent from the previous 12 month period when body-cameras were not in use. Rialto’s police chief said, “When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if the citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better” (Lovett).

a) In a 2012 study, it was found that officers that were required to wear cameras while on the job were more cautious and their use of excessive force fell by 60 percent, while public complaints dropped by 88 percent. (Rory Carroll, 2013)

Does the body camera decline police brutality? Are body cameras more effective in urban or rural areas? Could these cameras decline corruption in policing? These are a few of countless questions that might be brought up about this newly relevant issue. Without even undertaking exploration on this subject you could question a sample of individuals these burning questions. I think that they would agree that it is a necessary evil when dealing with criminals. It’s logical to assume that your every move is being documented and you are theoretically always being “watched”, in saying that one will in turn do their career to the best of their capabilities. Its elementary science that the independent variable being the camera. The dependent variable is the logged evidence which is

The body camera has become a popular choice amongst police departments worldwide. The situation of the scenario, and if the officer or suspect acted in the right can be determined from past footage. The cause of the body camera has been the allegations against officers for how they acted in certain situations, as well as for how the suspect acted during the callout. The effect has been officers being terminated due to lack of integrity or situational awareness, as well as officer safety. Suspects have also been convicted of false accusations against a police officer, as well as crimes presented in court, from fights, to officer involved shootings. The body worn camera has benefited both police officers and the general public.

In February 2012, the Rialto California police department started supplying their officers with cameras they could clip on to their uniforms. At any given time, about half of their active duty officers wore these cameras. They found, in a twelve month period, that the department overall "had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against the officers". (Stross, R. 2013, April 6). They also had a 60 percent decline in the use of force by officers. They also found that officers wearing a camera were half as likely to use force as oppose to officers not wearing one. This is clear evidence that police wearing body cameras is a good

As a further result of the strained relationship between law enforcement and the general population debate about the potential use of police worn body camera’s erupted not only in the United States but across the globe including

Not having body cameras in the line of duty is becoming an issue, legally and ethically, for both officers and citizens. Body cameras show the objective perspective of police in the field, and show everything that occurred, whether it reflects positively or negatively on the officer. There is not much evidence yet on the effect body cameras have. However, one study that was done shows positive feedback from the use of body cameras. In Rialto, California, a study was conducted and showed that use of force by police officers and complaints by citizens were dramatically decreased after they began to use

They have the power and responsibility to use the force, but citizens expect them to use the amount of force that is proportional, reasonable and necessary for the situation. However, the used of body cameras on police officers will reduce police misconduct like the use of offensive language, including racial slurs, or act with more force than necessary during encounters with citizens. These cameras will keep track of what the officer says or does when at the scene of the crime, keeping them liable. Police Foundation Executive Fellow, Chief Tony Farrar, wanted to test out this theory with a yearlong study. The cameras were distributed to all the patrol officers of the California Rialto Police Department. During their 12 month test period they were haphazardly assigned to experimental or control conditions to see the results and after the test period ended, the results showed very interesting results. “The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens’ complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment.” says Chief Farrar (Ariel, et al). Law enforcement officers improved their behavior when using cameras by simply knowing that someone would see their behavior and their performance as officers when the supervisor or the officer in charge was reviewing the camera when your turn

The research conducted to this point of the effect of body-worn cameras on policing is lacking the connection between their use and self-initiated policing. The Mesa, Arizona study showed more self-initiated citizen contacts, but a reduction in stop-and-frisk encounters and arrests (Ready & Young, 2015). Katz et al. (2014) also determined that over a third of officers surveyed felt they would conduct less

complaints have been conducted. In a study conducted by the University of Cambridge with help from the Denver, Colorado police department, complaints have dropped by 47% (Zercoe n.p). According to Zercoe, 105 Denver officers were equipped with body cameras from June 1, 2014 to December 21, 2014 (n.p). The study in Rialto, California found that complaints dropped from 24 in 2012, to three in 2013. New Carrolton police chief stated, “We had one person make a claim and we explained to them that we would check the video on the officer’s interaction. When they heard we had video, they changed their mind and they didn't want to complain" (n.p). Civilian behavior has improved with the use of body cameras. In fact, there are less complaints and civil conversations between an officer and civilian because of the small devices.