Lessons learnt from BWV deployment

The US Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) recently released a report entitled Implementing a Body Worn Camera Programme: Recommendations and Lessons Learned, which covers the key issues surrounding the roll-out of body-worn video (BWV) cameras.

It concludes that police “must think critically about the issues that use of these cameras raise and must give careful consideration when developing BWV camera policies and practices”, adding: “First and foremost, agencies must always remember that the ultimate purpose of these cameras should be to help officers protect and serve the people in their communities.”

Despite the report being authored by the US Department of Justice organisation Community Orientated Policing Services (COPS), it nevertheless provides clear, concise points that apply equally to UK policing.

The report provides a number of recommendations based on current research and lessons learnt from police agencies that have adopted BWV cameras.

Chuck Wexler, executive director of the PERF, says in the report that the emergence of BWV cameras has already had an impact on policing and this impact will only increase as more agencies adopt the technology.

However, he warns: “If police departments deploy body-worn cameras without well-designed policies, practices, and training of officers to back up the initiative, departments will inevitably find themselves caught in difficult public battles that will undermine public trust in the police rather than increasing community support for the police.”

Mr Wexler adds: “Body-worn cameras can help improve the high-quality public service expected of police officers and promote the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments.

Furthermore, departments that are already deploying body-worn cameras tell us that the presence of cameras often improves the performance of officers as well as the conduct of the community members who are recorded. This is an important advance in policing. And when officers or members of the public break the law or behave badly, body-worn cameras can create a public record that allows the entire community to see what really happened.

“At the same time, the fact that both the public and the police increasingly feel the need to videotape every interaction can be seen both as a reflection of the times and as an unfortunate commentary on the state of police-community relationships in some jurisdictions.

As a profession, policing has come too far in developing and strengthening relationships with its communities to allow encounters with the public to become officious and legalistic. Body-worn cameras can increase accountability, but police agencies also must find a way to preserve the informal and unique relationships between police officers and community members.”

He says one of the most significant questions departments will face is how to identify which types of encounters with members of the community officers should record.

“This decision will have important consequences in terms of privacy, transparency and police-community relationships. Although recording policies should provide officers with guidance, it is critical that policies also give officers a certain amount of discretion concerning when to turn their cameras on or off. This discretion is important because it recognises that officers are professionals and because it allows flexibility in situations in which drawing a legalistic ‘bright line’ rule is impossible,” says Mr Wexler.

“For example, an officer at a crime scene may encounter a witness who would prefer not to be recorded. By using discretion, the officer 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 officer can simply point the camera away from the witness. Or perhaps the witness will be