Current Issues in Use and Policymaking with Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) Charles M. Katz, Ph.D. Arizona State University National Association of for Justice Information Systems November 3, 2016 Tucson (AZ)

Timeline of Key Events for BWCs in USA 2009-10 – Oakland (CA) Police Department rolls out 200 BWCs January 2012-PPD-ASU awarded BJA BWC grant, 1st federally funded study of BWC August 2013 –Floyd case against the NYPD (BWCs as a remedy) Spring 2014 – DOJ and PERF BWC reports released August 2014 – Michael Brown killed in Ferguson December 2014 – White House announces Community Policing Plan April 2015 – Freddie Gray dies while in-custody of the Baltimore PD May 2015 – US DOJ releases the National Body-Worn Camera Toolkit; President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing- final report September 2015 & 179 agencies awarded funding through US DOJ Body-Worn September 2016 Camera Pilot Implementation Program ($39 million)

Presentation Overview Getting Started: The Importance of “How” and “Why” Key Considerations for Implementation Resources Key Considerations for Measuring Impact Research Results to Date

GETTING STARTED

1. How are you going to deploy BWCs in your agency? The First Step in Implementing BWCs: Answer the “How” and “Why” Questions 1. How are you going to deploy BWCs in your agency? What is your planning and implementation process? 2. Why are you deploying BWCs in your agency? What goals are you seeking to achieve?

Common concerns about “How” an agency will deploy BWCs Citizens’ Privacy Officers’ Privacy Officers’ Safety Impact on Citizen Attitudes (Satisfaction/Legitimacy) Training and Policy Requirements Impact on Officer Productivity/Morale State and Federal Law (Public Records, Mandatory Wear, HIPAA, etc.) Logistical/Resource/Cost Requirements

Potential Answers to the “Why” Question (should be measurable outcomes/goals) Increased Transparency Enhanced Legitimacy and Public Satisfaction Improved Police Officer Behavior Improved Citizen Behavior Expedited Resolution of Complaints and Lawsuits Improved Evidence for Arrest and Prosecution Opportunities for Police Training

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION: RESOURCES FOR PROPER PLANNING

PERF/COPS and “Assessing the Evidence” Reports

Resources: BJA National Body-Worn Camera Toolkit February 26-27, 2015: Two-day expert panel at the White House May 2015: Toolkit “goes live” at: https://www.bja.gov/bwc Serves as an information warehouse on BWCs Research Policy Technology Privacy Training Stakeholders Law Enforcement Implementation Checklist

Other Resources Model Policies: IACP, ACLU President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Market Survey

Other Resources: BJA Pilot Implementation Program for BWCs BJA Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) The Team: CNA, ASU, JSS Administrative policy review Webinars and podcasts On-site assistance Regional and topical workshops Speakers Bureau Peer-to-Peer connections Web-based support (BWC Toolkit)

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR MEASURING IMPACT

Back to the “Why” What do you want to achieve with your BWC Program? Increase transparency Increase legitimacy and citizen satisfaction Reduce complaints and use of force Evidentiary value Increase officer buy-in What can the existing body of research tell us?

Some Available Research on BWCs from the USA** Study Citation Independent Evaluation Comparative Design Rialto (CA) Police Department Farrar (2013); Ariel et al. (2015) No Yes Mesa (AZ) Police Department MPD (2013); Young & Ready (2015, 2016) Phoenix (AZ) Police Department Katz et al. (2015); Morrow et al. (2016); Hedberg et al. (2016) Orlando Police (FL) Department Jennings et al. (2014; 2015) Spokane (WA), Tempe (AZ) & Phoenix (AZ) Police Departments Gaub et al. (2016); Spokane (WA) & Tempe (AZ) Police Departments White et al (2016) 10 agencies (some outside of USA) Ariel et al (2016) ** Internal department reports: Oakland, CA; San Diego, CA ** Many studies underway in US and UK

Impact on Citizen Complaints and Use of Force Rialto (CA) Police Department Citizen complaints dropped by 88% (24 to 3) Use of force dropped by 60% (61 to 25) Mesa (AZ) Police Department Citizen complaints dropped by 60% among BWC officers Use of force dropped by 75% among BWC officers Phoenix (AZ) Police Department Complaints – BWC officers: declined by 23% Complaints – Comparison officers: increased by 10.6% Orlando Police Department Citizen complaints dropped 60% among BWC officers

Trends in Oakland: Complaints and Force

Phoenix SPI: Activation Compliance by Incident Type

Citizen Perceptions – General Population

Citizen Awareness of the BWC (n=249) Percent (n) To the best of your knowledge, were any of the officers wearing a video camera on his or her body? 28.5 (70) Percent Agree/ Strongly Agree You felt safer knowing the police were wearing video cameras. 61.4 (43) The video camera made you feel uncomfortable 11.4 (8) You were more cooperative because the camera was on. 10.1 (7) You were more cautious about what you said or did in front of the officer. 10.0 (7) You felt angry or annoyed that you were being recorded. The video camera made you feel more confident in the police. 58.6 (41)

Citizen Perceptions: Consumers of Police Services Spokane Citizens rated their encounters with police as more “procedurally just” when they were aware of the BWC Procedural justice – fairness, respectful, neutrality, listens to citizen Implications? Procedural justice is the primary avenue for generating police legitimacy

Evidentiary value Internal (professional conduct) External (processing of criminal cases)

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department To date, more than 60 officers “exonerated” from complaints because of BWC evidence

Phoenix: % of Complaints That Are Unfounded % change 64.9 % change 39.1 % change 3.5

PPD’s Use of Body Camera Evidence in Court for Domestic Violence Offenses Investigator use Evidence storage (information technology) Prosecutor tracking and review Court liaison officer

Domestic Violence (DV) Case Flow Pre & Post Camera Deployment Pre-Test Case Post-Test Comparison Post-Test Camera n % Number of DV-Related Contacts a 878 100.0 933 252 Cases Initiated 369 42.0 320 34.3 103 40.9 Charges Filed 333 37.9 243 26.0 90 37.7 Case Furthered (Not Dismissed) 131 14.9 58 6.2 32 12.7 Plead Guilty 27 3.1 11 1.2 4.4 Guilty at Trial 25 2.8 9 0.9   a The number of contacts is derived from the DV pocket cards, which included data on 2,063 unique incidents from January 1, 2012, through July 31, 2014, from the Maryvale Precinct.

Case Processing Time Number of Days to Process Case to Disposition (N=795) † Pre-Test Case Post-Test Comparison Post-Test Camera mean SD n All Completed Cases * 95.8 124.30 340 43.5 77.50 266 78.1 105.10 92 Dismissed * 65.3 91.00 201 38.2 67.80 184 56.1 65.90 58 Plead Guilty * 167.7 157.57 104 71.3 100.44 46 131.9 156.40 21 Trial 74.4 90.61 27 114.2 125.06 11 105.5 126.07   * Significant at p < 0.05 † Original values ranged from 0 to 756. Values above the 98th percentile of 438 days (n=16) were truncated to 438 to control for outlier cases.

Impact on Officer Activity Mesa Police Department “Officers assigned to wear a camera were less likely to perform stop-and-frisks and make arrests, but were more likely to give citations and initiate encounters (Ready and Young, 2015: 445).” Phoenix Police Department No impact on officer arrests

Some Mixed Findings Too Ariel et al. (2016) Under certain conditions, use of force increases (when BWC not activated) Assaults on officers more common when wearing BWCs Mesa PD Under a more discretionary policy, the number of recorded encounters declined by 42% London Metro No impact on officer activity (stop, search, arrest) No impact on victims’ satisfaction/cooperation San Diego PD Increase in lesser forms of force Edmonton PD No impact on complaints or use of force

Thanks! Charles M. Katz, Ph.D. Director& Professor, Arizona State University Senior Advisor, Training and Technical Assistance, US DOJ BWC Pilot implementation Program ckatz@asu.edu