Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:25 pm
Time: 12:25 pm
Results for law enforcement technology (u.s.)
5 results foundAuthor: Miller, Lindsay Title: Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned Summary: Over the past decade, advances in the technologies used by law enforcement agencies have been accelerating at an extremely rapid pace. Many police executives are making decisions about whether to acquire technologies that did not exist when they began their careers - technologies like automated license plate readers, gunshot detection systems, facial recognition software, predictive analytics systems, communications systems that bring data to officers' laptops or handheld devices, GPS applications, and social media to investigate crimes and communicate with the public. For many police executives, the biggest challenge is not deciding whether to adopt one particular technology but rather finding the right mix of technologies for a given jurisdiction based on its crime problems, funding levels, and other factors. Finding the best mix of technologies, however, must begin with a thorough understanding of each type of technology. Police leaders who have deployed body-worn cameras1 say there are many benefits associated with the devices. They note that body-worn cameras are useful for documenting evidence; officer training; preventing and resolving complaints brought by members of the public; and strengthening police transparency, performance, and accountability. In addition, given that police now operate in a world in which anyone with a cell phone camera can record video footage of a police encounter, body-worn cameras help police departments ensure events are also captured from an officer's perspective. Scott Greenwood of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said at the September 2013 conference: The average interaction between an officer and a citizen in an urban area is already recorded in multiple ways. The citizen may record it on his phone. If there is some conflict happening, one or more witnesses may record it. Often there are fixed security cameras nearby that capture the interaction. So the thing that makes the most sense-if you really want accountability both for your officers and for the people they interact with - is to also have video from the officer's perspective. The use of body-worn cameras also raises important questions about privacy and trust. What are the privacy issues associated with recording victims of crime? How can officers maintain positive community relationships if they are ordered to record almost every type of interaction with the public? Will members of the public find it off-putting to be told by an officer, "I am recording this encounter," particularly if the encounter is a casual one? Do body-worn cameras also undermine the trust between officers and their superiors within the police department? In addition to these overarching issues, police leaders must also consider many practical policy issues, including the significant financial costs of deploying cameras and storing recorded data, training requirements, and rules and systems that must be adopted to ensure that body-worn camera video cannot be accessed for improper reasons. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 11, 2015 at: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf Shelf Number: 134908 Keywords: Body-Worn CamerasLaw Enforcement Technology (U.S.)Police AccountabilityPolice BehaviorPolice TechnologyPolice-Citizen InteractionsPolice-Community RelationsVideo Technology |
Author: Mateescu, Alexandra Title: Police Body-Worn Cameras Summary: Police Body-Worn Cameras breaks down what's known - and not known - about the promises, perils, and potential best practices around police body-worn cameras. Both law enforcement and civil rights advocates are excited by the potential of body-worn cameras to improve community policing and safety, but there is no empirical research to conclusively suggest that these will reduce the deaths of black male civilians in encounters with police. There are some documented milder benefits evident from small pilot studies, such as more polite interactions between police and civilians when both parties are aware they are being recorded, and decreased fraudulent complaints made against officers. Many uncertainties about best practices of body-worn camera adoption and use remain, including when the cameras should record, what should be stored and retained, who should have access to the footage, and what policies should determine the release of footage to the public. As pilot and permanent body-worn camera programs are implemented, it is important to ask questions about how they can be best used to achieve their touted goals. How will the implementation of these programs be assessed for their efficacy in achieving accountability goals? What are the best policies to have in place to support those goals? Details: New York: Data & Society Research Institute, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed March 12, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2569481 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2569481 Shelf Number: 134919 Keywords: Body-Worn CamerasLaw Enforcement Technology (U.S.) Police Accountability Police Behavior Police Technology Police-Citizen Interactions Police-Community Relations SurveillanceVideo Technology |
Author: Edmonton Police Service Title: Body Worn Video: Considering the Evidence Summary: The Edmonton Police Service has completed a comprehensive three-year study to assess the effectiveness of body worn video (BWV) for use by its officers, and as a result of the research findings, will proceed with a graduated deployment of cameras to specialized police units at this time. The EPS BWV pilot project ran from October 2011 to December 2014, with operational field testing through a variety of environments from October 2012 to July 2014. This project was partially funded through the Canadian Police Research Centre and continued under the Canadian Safety and Security Program, which is a federal program led by Defence Research and Development Canada's Centre for Security Science, in partnership with Public Safety Canada. From the outset, privacy has been a major consideration of the EPS BWV project. The EPS research team consulted with the Alberta Privacy Commissioner who provided valuable insight and recommendations. Respective of this input, the EPS created policies and procedures for the BWV pilot project that aligned with the BWV guidance document issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. As part of the BWV testing, the EPS issued 56 industry-standard cameras to officers in: Downtown Division and Beats; West Edmonton Mall and Whyte Avenue Beats; the Impaired Driving Countermeasures Unit; and with the Disaster and Emergency Operations Unit for a training exercise with Fire Rescue and EMS. While the body worn video project reviewed technical performance, legal considerations, and usefulness in everyday policing and investigations, it also surveyed the public and police officers on their opinion. Based on the pilot project findings, the EPS has decided to proceed with a graduated deployment of a body worn video program over the next two to five years. Cameras will be used by officers who are involved in high-risk interactions with the public, where the officers are on the scene of a crime being committed, and the evidence captured on video is of the greatest value in providing information to the courts. Examples include: the Specialized Traffic Apprehension Team (STAT) that intercept high-risk vehicles; the Impaired Driving Countermeasures Unit for Checkstop operations; Tactical Team entries where weapons may be involved; and the Public Order Unit when responding to riots. The graduated roll-out of BWV will require training of officers, revising instructional materials, modifying police uniforms to carry cameras, as well as submitting a service package for funding, sourcing newer BWV cameras, and utilizing a new digital asset management system. Details: Edmonton, Alberta: Edmonton Police Service, 2015. 241p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.bwvsg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Edmonton-Police-BWV-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://www.bwvsg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Edmonton-Police-BWV-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137812 Keywords: Body-Worn CamerasLaw Enforcement Technology (U.S.) Police Accountability Police Behavior Police Technology Police-Citizen Interactions Police-Community Relations Surveillance Video Technology |
Author: Hurley, Greg Title: Body-Worn Cameras and the Courts Summary: In response to the August 9, 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, a citizen petition was posted on the White House website, petitions.whitehouse.gov. It asked people to sign if they supported a law requiring all state, county, and local police to wear body-worn cameras, or BWCs. Within a few weeks, the petition collected 150,000 signatures. The response to this petition received national mainstream media attention. Roy L. Austin, Jr., deputy assistant to the president for the Office of Urban Affairs, Justice and Opportunity in the Domestic Policy Council, responded to the petition on behalf of the administration. He noted that research suggested that BWCs can have significant benefits to the community, which can include: - evidence that both officers and civilians acted in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present; - new opportunities for effective training of law enforcement officers presented by the use of cameras; and - useful evidence of interactions was often captured on video. However, he also stated that the cost of this technology cannot be ignored, and there are some significant unanswered questions that need to be addressed, such as: - What is the most effective type of camera (vehicle, body, weapon) - and if body, where is it best placed (lapel, ear, belt)? - What are the privacy implications of having officers record interactions with the public? - When should cameras be turned on? - Does every officer on a force need a camera? - How long should video data be maintained and who should have access to it? - What is the impact on community relationships? On December 2, 2014, Shaun Donovan, the director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, announced that a proposed, three-year $263 million Community Policing Initiative would include an investment package that would increase the use of BWCs. This was a significant statement from the Obama Administration and demonstrated the administration's view that BWCs could be a useful tool in providing greater officer accountability and promoting more trust in law enforcement by the general public. On September 21, 2015, the Department of Justice announced over $23 million in federal funding to support a BWC pilot program, which will support 73 local and tribal law enforcement agencies in 32 states. In their press release, they noted that this was done as a "part of President Obama's commitment to building trust and transparency between law enforcement and the communities they serve." This development is not surprising as the Obama Administration had previously indicated a willingness to deploy BWC technology. It is reasonable to assume that the cumulative effect of public support for officers using BWCs, and the federal government's willingness to provide funding for a significant pilot program, suggests that BWCs will become an increasingly common piece of law enforcement equipment. In fact, the author is of the opinion that within the next five to ten years, the vast majority of law enforcement officers nationally will be equipped with and required to wear and use BWCs. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2016 at: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/criminal/id/268 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/criminal/id/268 Shelf Number: 137938 Keywords: Body-Worn Cameras Law Enforcement Technology (U.S.) Police Accountability Police Behavior Police Technology Police-Citizen Interactions Police-Community Relations Surveillance Video Technology |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts Title: No Tape, No Testimony: How Courts Can Ensure the Responsible Use of Body Cameras Summary: In January 2015, the Chicago Police Department launched a pilot program requiring its officers to use body-worn cameras. The program began in the wake of public outcry over violence by Chicago police officers against civilians, and a police official explained that it sought to "rebuild[] trust with the residents we're sworn to serve." In July 2016, an officer wearing one of these cameras killed Paul O'Neal, a Black teenager who allegedly stole a car and crashed it into a police cruiser. After Mr. O'Neal fled on foot, the officer fatally shot him in the back. In theory, Mr. O'Neal's final moments should have been recorded by the officer's body camera, and the recording should now be available to assist a court, a jury, or the public in deciding whether the shooting was justified. But no such video exists. The camera worn by the officer who killed Mr. O'Neal was reportedly not turned on until after the fatal shot had been fired. This incident, and others like it, have been cited as cautionary tales about how the value of body cameras can be undermined if the police cannot or will not ensure their consistent use. But police departments are not the only institutions capable of assuring the effective use of body-worn cameras. Courts can do it too. For three reasons, courts can and should encourage the police to record, when practicable, their investigative encounters with civilians. 1. Videos of police-civilian encounters have shaken public confidence in the capacity of legal proceedings to separate fact from fiction. Time and again, cases have been headed for an incorrect result - such as the wrongful prosecution of a civilian or the wrongful exoneration of a police officer - until videos surfaced that contradicted officers' versions of events. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that witness testimony, on which courts must often rely when video is absent, can be quite flawed when used as the exclusive means of resolving disputes between police officers and civilians. Thus, when video evidence of a police-civilian encounter does not exist, legal proceedings may be less likely to get the right answer or to be respected by the public. 2. Police body-worn cameras present a viable and valuable supplement to witness testimony. These cameras are quickly becoming part of the 21st-century police uniform, with a recent survey of 70 law enforcement agencies finding that 95% of respondents had either implemented or had committed to implementing body camera programs. Body cameras can be critical to uncovering the truth when the facts of a police-civilian encounter are contested. There is also evidence that, when body cameras are consistently worn and activated, they can deter misconduct or violence from happening in the first place. 3. Courts have both a distinct interest in and a unique means of encouraging police officers to record their encounters with civilians. Courts have an interest in conducting legal proceedings that are fair, that avoid wrongful convictions and other catastrophic outcomes, and that efficiently resolve disputes. Given those interests, and given that videos of policecivilian encounters can make the difference between just and unjust results, courts should encourage, when practicable, the recording of police-civilian encounters. Rather than leave this task to police departments, whose disciplinary practices are necessarily inconsistent, courts should provide this encouragement by using tools uniquely at their disposal: jury instructions. This report proposes a model jury instruction that encourages the recording of police-civilian encounters by empowering juries to impose evidentiary consequences for unreasonable or bad faith failures to record. This instruction would tell the jury that, if it finds that the police unreasonably failed to create or preserve a video of a police-civilian encounter, it can devalue an officer's testimony and infer that the video would have helped the civilian. If the jury finds that the case involves bad faith, such as the outright sabotage of body cameras, then it should be instructed to disregard officer testimony altogether. The tools that courts can use to craft this instruction already exist. Several courts now use jury instructions to encourage the recording of custodial interrogations and drunk-driving field tests; they can and should craft similar rules for body cameras. These measures can help prevent wrongful convictions, accurately resolve allegations of police misconduct, and enhance public trust in the justice system's capacity to get it right when confronted with police-civilian violence. Details: Boston: ACLU of Massachusetts; Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley School of Law Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SLTPPC_ACLU_BodyCameras_Final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SLTPPC_ACLU_BodyCameras_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 147015 Keywords: Body-Worn Cameras Law Enforcement Technology (U.S.) Police Accountability Police Behavior Police Technology Police-Citizen Interactions Police-Community Relations Surveillance Video Technology |