Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:10 pm
Time: 12:10 pm
Results for video recordings
4 results foundAuthor: Rieken, Johannes Christian Title: Making situated police practice visible: a study examining professional activity for the maintenance of social control with video data from the field Summary: This PhD studies the professional practice of policing from a situated perspective. It explores with social psychological theories and methods how officers attend to incidents, showing that discretion exists within the ambiguity of a concrete situation that an officer interprets then and there. With Body-Worn Video(BWV), a head-mounted camera introduced into UK policing in 2007, officers record as part of their practice. Within the framework of Subjective Evidence-Based Ethnography (SEBE) (Lahlou, 2011) self-confrontation interviews of officers with their recordings allow insights into situated decision-making processes. I also became a Special Constable to train as an officer and organised a working group of police on the use of video, to gain insight into institutional factors. Hence, video use in policing is both an object of study and enabler of methodological innovation for this work. The empirical material is analysed to explore the interplay of institutions with concrete situations as displayed in officer recorded footage, focusing in particular on affordances (Gibson, 1986), connotations of action (Uexk=ull, 1956), sequential dimension (Knoblauch et al., 2006, Sacks et al., 1974) and social encounters (Goffman, 1961). The PhD develops 3 papers. Paper 1 focuses on discretion: crucial to the policing of an incident is whether it is pursued formally or informally. This categorisation occurs in a process where officers anticipate formal outcomes. They therefore often have discretion to construct an incident as warranting a formal response or not. So officers frame the situation as well as respond to it. Paper 2 expands on the formal/informal distinction to consider the trade-offs they have to make under cross constraints. Being able to simultaneously maintain an appearance of control Manning, 1977), adherence to due process, and attend to situational demands is only possible because officers have discretion in the process of co-constructing an incident in the 'correct' formats. Paper 3 discusses the relevance of seeing and visibility for policing. It also explores the impact of camera-mediated visibility on officer practice, therefore, addressing the implications of increasing visibility on policing and the biases resulting from using BWV as data for research. As the emphasis on appearance grows, officers lose the discretion that comes as part of interpreting a situation, forcing them to be more mechanistic in how they police incidents. Details: London: London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), 2013. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed March 18, 2015 at: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/775/ Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/775/ Shelf Number: 134966 Keywords: Law Enforcement Technology (U.K.)Police Decision MakingPolice DiscretionPolice Polices and PracticesVideo Recordings |
Author: Davis, Robin Title: Research on Videoconferencing at Post-Arraignment Release Hearings: Phase 1 Final Report Summary: As local governments continue to contend with growing budget constraints and expanding criminal justice costs, they are increasingly turning to technological solutions and alternatives in an effort to mitigate criminal justice expenditures, maintain efficiency, and promote public safety. The use of videoconferencing technology in criminal justice settings has served as a powerful asset to criminal justice stakeholders; however, there is still much to learn regarding the mechanics of these systems and their broader implications. Recognizing the complex challenges and nuances of implementing such technology, as well as the diverse interests at stake, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the Research on Videoconferencing at Post-Arraignment Release Hearings project (NIJ Videoconferencing Project). The project is jointly supported by NIJ's Office of Research and Evaluation and the Office of Science and Technology. NIJ seeks to identify protocols that improve practices and maximize return on investment using videoconferencing to expedite judicial decision-making concerning whether to release a defendant from custody and the appropriate conditions of release, including bail. NIJ anticipates three phases of study: - Phase I: Blueprint-Compile information on past and current videoconferencing applications via interviews and court/jail observation to identify key concerns and solutions (court rules) for protocol. - Phase II: Field Test-Conduct implementation and assessment studies in two pilot sites (one rural), and modify protocol per field experience over a relatively short period via qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. - Phase III: Evaluation-Submit final protocol to multiple new sites for self-implementation and support an objective cost-efficiency study over an extended period. Details: Fairfax, VA: ICF International, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248902.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248902.pdf Shelf Number: 136493 Keywords: Decision-MakingPretrial ReleaseVideo RecordingsVideoconferencing |
Author: Wasserman, Howard M. Title: Police Misconduct, Video Recording, and Procedural Barriers to Rights Enforcement Summary: The story of police reform and of "policing the police" has become the story of video and video evidence, and "record everything to know the truth" has become the singular mantra. Video, both police-created and citizen-created, has become the singular tool for ensuring police accountability, reforming law enforcement, and enforcing the rights of victims of police misconduct. This Article explores procedural problems surrounding the use of video recording and video evidence to counter police misconduct, hold individual officers and governments accountable, and reform departmental policies, regulations, and practices. It considers four issues: 1) the mistaken belief that video can "speak for itself" and the procedural and evidentiary problems flowing from that mistaken belief; 2) the evidentiary advantages video provides police and prosecutors; 3) procedural limits on efforts to enforce a First Amendment right to record, such as qualified immunity and standing; and 4) the effects of video on government decisions to pursue criminal charges against police officers and to settle civil-rights suits alleging police misconduct. Details: Miami: Florida International University, 2017. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 17-48: Accessed March 23, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3086092 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 149554 Keywords: Body-Worn CamerasPolice AccountabilityPolice MisconductPolice-Citizen InteractionsVideo Recordings |
Author: New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board Title: Worth a Thousand Words: Examining Officer Interference in Civilian Recordings of Police Summary: Today, the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the nation's largest independent police oversight entity, released a new report revealing insights into officer interference with civilian recordings of police interactions. The report, - Worth a Thousand Words: Examining Officer Interference with Civilian Recordings of Police,‖ reviews complaints filed against members of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and is among the first analyses in the country of this type of misconduct. - Technology has greatly increased civilians' ability to record and share video of police encounters-as is their First Amendment right. This has increased transparency and debate about safe and fair policing. As these recordings become more prevalent, our police force must be prepared for the profound ways that video will shape police practices,‖ said CCRB Chair Maya D. Wiley. -This report is a step in that direction. It shows how New York City Police Department officers have interfered with civilian recordings of police activity and provides important recommendations for Patrol Guide revisions and improved officer training to help officers better understand and respect this First Amendment right. The report is a quantitative and qualitative analysis of three years of CCRB complaints in which civilians reported that officers had interfered with their ability to record police activity. Over this period, 257 complaints-less than two percent of the 15,006 CCRB complaints closed over three years-included allegations of officer interference with civilian recordings. These 257 complaints included 347 allegations that directly addressed officer interference with civilian recordings of police activity. That interference included verbal interference like directing civilians to stop recording; physical interference like knocking a recording device out of a civilian's hands; blocking recordings like physically obstructing a civilian's camera view of a scene; and intimidation like threatening to arrest or detain a civilian for recording an interaction. Verbal interference accounted for 24 percent of these complaints, while physical interference accounted for 46 percent of the complaints. Thirty percent of these complaints included allegations of both verbal and physical interference. In issuing its dispositions on allegations of recording interference during the past three years, the CCRB found in: - Twenty-eight percent of the allegations that the misconduct occurred (substantiated); - Forty-two percent of the allegations that not enough evidence was available to determine whether misconduct occurred (unsubstantiated); - Eleven percent of the allegations that the conduct occurred but was lawful (exonerated); and - Six percent of the allegations that the misconduct did not occur (unfounded). CCRB Executive Director Jonathan Darche said, -Interference in civilians' recordings of police activity impedes the Board's ability to make fact-based determinations about alleged misconduct and is a disservice to all involved in an investigation-officers and civilians alike. More video from more sources improves the Board's ability to determine if an allegation of misconduct happened, didn't happen, or happened but was lawful under the circumstances. In addition to urging the NYPD to more fully engage with community organizations on this issue, the Board recommends adding a new section to the NYPD Patrol Guide with more comprehensive language that better outlines the obligations of officers and civilians. This guidance should do the following: - State that members of the public are permitted to record officer activity in public and private settings, provided that the recording party has a legal right to be present; - More clearly define what constitutes -interference with a civilian's right to record and explain what types of prohibited conduct hinder a civilian's ability to record; - Reiterate that civilians are not permitted to record if doing so interferes with police activity or jeopardizes the safety of officers or members of the public; - Instruct officers to redirect recording civilians, when necessary, to a position that will not interfere with police activity, rather than tell civilians to stop recording; and - Emphasize that members of service are, under most circumstances, not permitted to search or seize recording devices without a warrant and are prohibited from ever deleting recordings or destroying or damaging the devices themselves. This report underscores a need for members of the public to be aware of their First Amendment right to record police activity, which is only limited by a specific set of conditions. At the same time, analysis of police interference highlights the need for clearer guidance for NYPD officers on how they respond to civilian recordings of interactions so that police respect civilians' First Amendment liberties while ensuring the safety of the officers and civilians involved in an interaction. Details: New York: The Complaint Review Board, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2018 at: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/20172806_report_recordinginterference.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/20172806_report_recordinginterference.pdf Shelf Number: 150363 Keywords: Citizen ComplaintsPolice AccountabilityPolice MisconductPolice-Citizen InteractionsVideo Recordings |