Body worn cameras : Our APPROACH Tempe BWC Program Did preliminary assessment and pursued appropriate funding to pursue the project. Contacted ASU to find a research partner prior to starting the project. Got appropriate representation – within and outside of the Department. Pursued this as a digital evidence project that incorporated BWC—in essence focused on this being a tool to fully automate our case management process, not just to get BWC video (this was and still is a bit of an anomaly) Fully researched digital evidence and BWC and identified goals for the project Developed a policy long before a camera ever was put on an officer Did a comprehensive RFP process – fully examined the process and technology Did a pilot project to test not only BWCs, but how the hardware and software would support our digital evidence goals Reached out to the community and sought feedback on our project and our policy (ACLU, NAACP, ASU, Community groups, etc.) Communicated regularly with PD personnel – when BWCs were new, there was a lot of suspicion from Officers broadly so we made a huge effort to communicate with PD personnel, Council, City Manager, community, etc. Did not manage the program with a single person or small group of people—have many people involved that shares the workload and creates many experts Still continues today addressing: Day to day user issues Behind the scenes process issues and improvements Testing new equipment (like tools to turn the cameras on) Regular updating of policy Responding to issues when problems occur (e.g. our officer involved shootings when the cameras were not turned on Continuing to work with and participate in the research Developing automated BWC compliance tool via Tablueau and Evidence.com

BWC Benefits for policing in our community Benefits of the BWCs: Enhance transparency, accountability, and trust Enhances training Improves the complaint resolution process Allows us to better document evidence – and ultimately better support the investigative process

Challenges 3. Challenges: They cannot turn themselves on. Ensuring policy is continually assessed and updated Community expectations – when the camera does not work or get turned on, etc. there is a presumption that the Officer is doing something wrong/bad Public Records issues Redaction – tools are inadequate for full screen by screen redaction; time to actually review for redaction Balancing the desire to adequately record with privacy issues Ongoing management of the larger system (the software, camera replacement, case management processing of digital evidence, training for technology, training for use in the field, etc.) Developing, implementing, and maintaining processes around the larger digital evidence management process; e.g. disposition of property/purging old evidence, managing large numbers of high quality digital images, etc.).

Research Research Important to use existing research and add to the knowledge base when possible We reached out to ASU to partner on the project, with the broad goals of assessing: Impact on complaints Impact on use of force Impact on the justice system long term (do they impact prosecutorial outcomes) Importance of training How do Officers perceive the BWCs – this was off the charts positive for us. How does the community perceive BWCs Took advantage of the opportunity to use randomized control groups Provided open access to researchers (after voluntary background) Got the researchers open access to the department and personnel (with background) They were able to talk to Officers about BWC with Officers in low key environments that ultimately helped support the project Demonstrated to ASU and others we are an ‘open’ and transparent agency Benefits of the research relationship flowed over into other areas—they helped us with other related issues. Provided an outside voice when we faced criticism related to shootings and not using cameras Allowed participants on the PD side to participate in panels, trainings, etc. with research partners Researchers published academic and related reports that not only helped us internally, but got us external positive recognition.  

Body worn cameras : What we LEARNED When you think you are done, you are not: Events surface shortcomings of training and policy Technology continues to change Ongoing resources required Learn from real life experiences Monitor and update policy Continue to train Balancing expectations of different stakeholders Communicate

Sylvia Moir Sylvia_moir@tempe.gov Office: 480-350-8378