1. ON-OFFICER BODY CAMERA SYSTEM
Mesa Police Department
Chief John Meza

2. On-Officer Body Camera System
Purpose
MPD initial use October 2012
50 Cameras
System’s impact on reducing civil liability
Impact on departmental complaints
Impact on criminal prosecution
Ease of use, durability and comfort
Initial Evaluation in 2012 was to reduce liability and complaints. BWC now today are almost demanded by the public and are a main aspect of police transparency.

3. Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing
Pillar Three: Technology and Social Media
3.2 Recommendation: The implementation of appropriate technology by law enforcement agencies should be designed considering local needs and aligned with national standards.
3.3.3 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should review and consider the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA) Body Worn Camera Toolkit to assist in implementing BWCs.

4. On-Officer Body Camera System
Challenges
Costs $350,000
Storage
150 cameras = 7.7 TB storage
10 GB per officer per month
Retention & Redaction
Public Records Request
Officer Acceptance
Academy / Senior Officers

5. Policy Development
“Exercise discretion and activate the on-officer body camera when they deem it appropriate.”
“When practical, officers will make every effort to activate the on-officer body camera when responding to a call or have any contact with the public.”
“Officers will activate the On-Officer Body Camera when responding to a call or have any contact with the public.”

6. Policy Development
Would you review your Video?

7. Policy Development
You are about to view a camera recording of a use-of-force event. Understand that while this recording depicts visual information from the scene, the human eye and brain are highly likely to perceive some things in stressful situations differently than a camera records them, so this photographic record may not reflect how the involved officer actually perceived the event.
The recording my depict things that the officer did not see or hear. The officer may have seen or heard things that were not recorded by the camera. Depending on the speed of the camera, some action elements may not have been recorded or may have happened faster than the officer could perceive or absorb them. The camera has captured a 2-dimensional image, which may be different from an officer’s 3-dimensional observations. Lighting and angles may also have contributed to different perceptions. And, of course, the camera did not view the scene with the officer’s unique experience and training.
Hopefully, this recording will enhance your understanding of the incident. Keep in mind, though, that these video images are only one piece of evidence to be considered in reconstructing and evaluating the totality of the circumstances. Some elements may require further exploration and explanation before the investigation is concluded.

8. Conclusion