There have been large investments in body cameras for police, especially following the U.S. Capitol’s 180-day worn camera pilot program in March 2024. The United States Capitol Police (USCP) Body Worn Camera Taskforce reviews public interactions of 70 volunteer officers and 11 USCP police cruisers equipped with dashboard cameras. After incorporating the cameras into the program, U.S. Capitol Police Chief John Thomas Manger, responsible for administering the department’s laws and regulations, recommended making them permanently required.
Police body-worn cameras (BWCs) are recording devices attached to law enforcement uniforms to record police-citizen interactions. A wide-angle lens and microphone capture the surroundings, documenting a range of police interactions. This technology allows footage to serve as case evidence or news coverage, proving both useful in court and for the media.
Following a number of police-involved shootings and deaths in custody, demands for transparency among law enforcement increased. This caused a rise in BWC adoption by law enforcement agencies.
Since experimenting involves various police departments, measuring the effect of police body-worn cameras becomes difficult. Additionally, their lasting impact on law enforcement situations remains unclear.
Despite this, police BWCs are essential for law enforcement and their benefits outweigh their potential to infringe privacy rights. Since incorporating BWCs into police departments involves risks such as viral video exposure, tampering with evidence and privacy concerns, it is imperative that effective policies are enforced.
BWCs modernize police methods, creating transparency in citizen-police interactions that were previously reliant on witnesses and adjacent cameras. While evidence has sometimes been obtained from the occasional lucky camera present at a scene by chance, police body cams guarantee a camera is always on scene.
Another benefit of police-worn body cameras is the reduced use of police force, as shown by the findings of the University of Chicago Crime Lab. According to the paper, BWCs can, “reduce police use of force incidents by nearly 10% and civilian complaints against law enforcement by over 15%.” Footage obtained can serve as an accountability tool, making violence in police interactions more visible.
Since laws require police to activate BWCs in every citizen encounter, issues concerning privacy violations arise. Privacy and footage release are key topics in the discussion about whether police body cams are ethical.
BWCs need to serve as a tool to increase community trust between police officers and citizens. However, without proper policies, police can manipulate the technology, such as selectively activating the camera. States have differing laws regarding whether BWC footage is eligible for public release. For example, Minnesota and Washington state have very broad policies regarding public access to legal surveillance. One of these policies is that anytime an officer responds to a call for service, it is necessary to have cameras recording situations that might escalate.
Public access to footage can expose victims and suspects to scrutiny and threats. Body camera footage shows uncut, sensitive content that the public can form opinions about, leaving victims, suspects and law enforcement involved in the videos vulnerable to criticism and threats from those who only see small portions of the situation.
Videos also accessed by the public have the potential to go viral, reaching a large audience and pose threats to officers and their families.
However, the effects of virality are not always negative. In July 2023, a family dining at Applebee’s was mistaken for hit-and-run suspects, and Jermelle English Jr. was beaten down by officers. The community was outraged by the actions of the police and demanded change. The virality of the video inspired rapper Jay-Z’s team to hire an attorney for English, leading to the dismissal of misdemeanor charges and a lawsuit against the Kenosha Police Department.
The Irvine Police Department notes that evidence from BWCs still provides a limited perspective of police incidents. Footage collected should still be accompanied by other law enforcement reports. Managing the privacy concern of BWC means policies need to be in place and enforced. These guidelines ensure that selective recording and privacy violations are not permitted.
AB 1215, the Body Camera Accountability Act, is an example of regulation ensuring that BWC technology does not compromise a citizen’s fundamental rights. This act temporarily prevents California law enforcement from using face surveillance technology or face-scanning body cameras against the public. Such laws ensure that police body cameras do not come at the expense of our fundamental freedoms.
Implementing body camera programs into police departments requires financial investment. The Bureau of Justice Assistance has a mission to provide services for funding, such as grant administration, “to the nation’s state, local and tribal justice agencies to develop justice strategies.” These efforts strengthen the proper incorporation of BWCs into police departments nationwide.
The risks associated with BWCs are outweighed by the benefits of increasing police transparency and serving as evidence. It’s even possible that BWCs can even help heal police-citizen relations.
Taryn Ogasawara is an Opinion Staff Writer. She can be reached at ogasawat@uci.edu.
Edited by Isabella Ehring and Bianca Marroquin