1. 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)

2. Timeline of Key Events for BWCs in USA
– 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 Camera Pilot Implementation Program ($39 million)

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

4. GETTING STARTED

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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

8. KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION: RESOURCES FOR PROPER PLANNING

9. PERF/COPS and “Assessing the Evidence” Reports

10. 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:
Serves as an information warehouse on BWCs Research
Policy
Technology
Privacy
Training
Stakeholders
Law Enforcement Implementation Checklist

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

12. 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)

13. KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR MEASURING IMPACT

14. 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?

15. 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

16. 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

17. Trends in Oakland: Complaints and Force

18. Phoenix SPI: Activation Compliance by Incident Type

19. Citizen Perceptions – General Population

20. 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)

21. 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

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

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

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

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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

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