Body Worn Video Steering Group

Body Worn Video Essential Reading

Posted on

The AELE Evidence Preservation Information Center (EPIC) legal staff have compiled at comprehensive collection of body worn video related materials touching on subjects of policy, privacy, scholarly articles and research – an essential guide.

Model and Specimen Policies (alpha)

  1. IACP Model Policy: Body-Worn Cameras (Apr. 2014).
  2. Kentucky League of Cities Policy: Body Worn Video Recording (BWV), Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (Dec. 2014)
  3. LRIS: Body-Worn Cameras Policy, Labor Relations Information System (2014)
  4. Microsoft Cloud BWC Policy Guide (2015)
  5. Rialto CA: Police Dept. Policy 451, Body Worn Video Systems; also see the Police Foundation report.
  6. Seattle Police 16.091 – Body-Worn Video Pilot Program (2014)
  7. U.K. Body Worn Video Policy Template

Reports & Studies (alpha)

  1. ACLU – Illinois: Suggested Guidelines on Use of Body Cameras by Police (Sep. 2014)
  2. ACLU – National: Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win for All, by Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union Senior Policy Analyst (Oct. 2013)\
  3. ACLU – National: Strengthening CBP with the Use of Body-Worn Cameras (Feb. 2015)
  4. ASU School of Criminology: Phoenix Police Body-Worn Camera Project (2014)
  5. COPS: The Use of Body-Worn Cameras by Law Enforcement, Testimony of the Constitution Project Policy Counsel Madhuri Grewal, The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Listening Session on Technology and Social Media (Jan. 31, 2015)
  6. DHS: Body-Worn Video Cameras for Law Enforcement Assessment Report, U.S. Dept. of  Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, prepared by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic  (Apr. 2015)
  7. IACP: The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Policing, Research and Best Practices from the IACP Study on In-Car Cameras  (2003)
  8. NIJ: Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement  (2014 and updated)
  9. NIJ: Technology: Body-Worn Cameras for Criminal Justice: Market Survey, National Institute of Justice (Mar. 2014).
  10. NIJ: A Primer on Body Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement, National Institute of Justice (Sep. 2012)
  11. ODS Consulting:  Body Worn Video Projects in Paisley and Aberdeen (Jul. 2011, UK)
  12. OJP: Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence, by Michael D. White, Ph.D., DoJ Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center (2014)
  13. PERF: Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned, COPS – Police Executive Research Forum (2014)
  14. Police Foundation: Field Experiment on the Effect of Body Worn Cameras on Police Use-of-Force (2013)
  15. UK College of Policing: The Essex Body Worn Video Trial (2014)
  16. University of Portsmouth (UK), Evaluation of Hampshire Constabulary BWCs (Feb. 2015)

Training Documents (chronological)

  1. Evaluating the Impact of Officer Worn Body Cameras, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Phoenix Police (Dec. 2014)
  2. Body Worn Cameras: Audio Podcast (21 min.) and PowerPoint presentation from the 9th Annual IPICD conference (Nov. 2014)
  3. Seattle Police Dept. Body Worn Cameras (Nov. 2014)
  4. Wearing a Badge and a Video Camera, IACP-LOS PowerPoint, Eric Daigle, Esq. (Oct. 2014)
  5. 10 Limitations of Body Cams You Need to Know for Your Protection, Force Science Institute (2014)
  6. Body Worn Cameras, Privacy, Professionalism, and Protection – FOP web presentation. (2014)
  7. Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices (UK Home Office, 2007)

Scholarly Articles (chronological)

  1. Development in the Law Policing – Chapter Four: Considering Police Body Cameras, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1794 (Apr. 2015)
  2. Showing Incident Video to Police Officers Under Investigation, by Doug LePard, The Police Chief (Mar. 2015)
  3. Police Body-Worn Cameras: An Overview, by Larry E. Capps, The Police Chief  (Feb. 2015)
  4. Police Body-Worn Cameras, by Alexandra Mateescu, et al., Data & Society Research Institute (Feb. 2015)
  5. Are You Recording This?: Enforcement of Police Videotaping, by Martina Kitzmueller, 47 (1) Conn. L. Rev. 167-196 (Nov. 2014)
  6. The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial, by Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology (Nov. 2014)
  7. Cops and Cameras: Officer Perceptions of the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in Law Enforcement, by Jennings, Fridell, and Lynch, Journal of Criminal Justice (Oct. 2014); abstract
  8. Can Body Worn Cameras Serve as a Deterrent to Police Misconduct? by Nathan James, DoJ CRS (Aug. 2014)
  9. On Officer Video Cameras, Ariz. St. Univ. Master’s Thesis by Allyson Roy (Apr. 2014)
  10. Outsourcing the Evidence Room: Moving Digital Evidence to the Cloud, by Vern Sallee, The Police Chief (Apr. 2014).
  11. Efficacy of Police Body Cameras for Evidentiary Purposes: Fact or Fallacy? by LTC Craig Geis (Ret.) & David Blake  (2014)
  12. Police Foundation: Self Awareness to Being Watched and Socially Desirable Behavior: A Field Experiment on the Effect of Body Worn Cameras on Police Use of Force (2014)
  13. Operation Candid Camera: Rialto Police Dept.’s Body-Worn Camera Experiment, by Chief William Farrar, IACP Police Chief (Jan. 2014).
  14. The Future is Here: How Police Officers’ Videos Protect Officers and Departments, by Craig Ferrell, Police Chief (Oct. 2013)
  15. Sousveillance and the Social Implications of Point of View Technologies in the Law Enforcement Sector, by Katina Michael, University of Wollongong & M.G. Michael, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Sydney, NSW, Australia (2012); abstract
  16. The Camera Versus the Human Eye, by Roger Cicala (Nov. 2012)
  17. The Future is Near: Getting Ahead of the Challenges of Body-Worn Video, by Joe Fiumara, IACP Police Chief (Sep. 2012)
  18. The Use of Personally-Owned Mobile Phone Cameras and Pocket Video Cameras by Public Safety Personnel, by Wayne W. Schmidt, 2012 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 501 (Feb. 2012)
  19. Videotaping and Police Behavior, by Stephen Curran & Jamaal Thomas, 2011 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 501 (Jun. 2011)
  20. On Using High-Definition Body Worn Cameras for Face Recognition from a Distance, by Al-Obaydy & Sellahewa, 6583 Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer) 193-204 (2011); abstract
  21. Picture This: Body Worn Video Devices by Police, by David A. Harris, Univ. of Pittsburgh School of Law, 43 Texas Tech Law Review 357-371 (2010)
  22. Officer Privacy and a Citizen’s Right to Video Record Police Activity, by Wayne W. Schmidt, 2009 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 201
  23. How Accountability Based Policing Can Reinforce or Replace the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, by David Harris, 7 Ohio State J. of Crim. Law, U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-17 (May 2009); abstract
  24. Orwell’s Vision: Video and the Future of Civil Rights Enforcement, by Howard M. Wasserman, 68 Md. L. Rev. 600 (2008); abstract.
  25. Old Blood, Bad Blood, and Youngblood: Due Process, Lost Evidence and the Limits of Bad Faith, by Norman Bay, 86 (2) Washington Univ. L. Rev. 241-311 (2008)
  26. Early Experiences of Visual Memory Prosthesis for Supporting Episodic Memory, by Jyrki Hoisko, 15 (2) Intern. J. of Human-Computer Interaction (Taylor & Francis) 209-230 (2003); abstract
  27. Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments, by Steve Mann, et al., 1 (3) Surveillance & Society 331-355 (2003}
  28. Should Lost Evidence Mean a Lost Chance to Prosecute: State Rejections of the United States Supreme Court Decision in Arizona v. Youngblood; by Daniel R. Dinger, 27 Am. J. Crim. L. 329 (1999); abstract
  29. Fourteenth Amendment – Police Failure to Preserve Evidence and Erosion of the Due Process Right to a Fair Trial, by Sarah Bernstein, 80 (4) J. of Crim. L. & Criminology 1256-1280 (1990)

Privacy Issues (chronological)

  •  AELE Comment: While many citizens welcome the purchase of police body cams, some fear that their homes, license plates, and faces will be subjected to FOIA requests, and that the incident will be uploaded to a publicly accessible video website such as YouTube. Frequently the event involves a juvenile.  Who will bear the cost of blurring faces and other identifying information?
  1. Guidance for the Use of Body-Worn Cameras by Canadian Law Enforcement Authorities, Privacy Commissioner of Canada (Feb. 2015)
  2. Body Worn Cameras, FOP web presentation on officer privacy  (2014).
  3. Consent decree: “The United States has not required that all PPB officers wear body cameras, but the Agreement does not prohibit the City from using body cameras. … If the City utilizes body cameras, the City must carefully govern their use to protect the rights of subjects and bystanders, e.g., providing Miranda warnings when appropriate and respecting reasonableexpectations of privacy.” U.S. v. City of Portland, #3:12-cv-02265 (D. Ore. Aug. 29, 2014).
  4. A three-judge appellate panel concluded that a complaint stated a cause of action against two CHP officers for the tort of invasion of privacy based on the public disclosure of private facts (sending gruesome photos of a fatal accident). The elements of such a claim are: (1) public disclosure (2) of a private fact (3) which would be offensive and objectionable to the reasonable person, and (4) which is not of legitimate concern. Catsouras v. Calif. Highway Patrol, #G039916, 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 352, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 113; review denied, #S180881, 2010 Cal. Lexis 3456.
  5. A Federal court dismissed a privacy lawsuit filed by a federal employee, who claimed a back injury, and was videotaped by contract investigators while lifting heavy boxes into his pickup truck. Because the taping occurred while outdoors and adjacent to a public road, the employee lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ryan v. Whitehurst, #SA-07-CA-723, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36432, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 43690 (W.D. Tex.).
  6. In an action brought by VA hospital police officers because of management’s surreptitious video surveillance of their break room, a federal court held that the officers lacked a valid claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, although management had a legitimate interest in eradicating sexual discrimination in the workplace, there was insufficient evidence in the record to warrant an encroachment into the officers’ privacy via surveillance video. Rosario v. U.S.A., #Civ-06-1517, 538 F. Supp. 2d 480,2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21297 (D.P.R.).
  7. A detective lacked qualified immunity from an officers’ claim that he violated Fourth Amendment by installing a warrantless video-surveillance system in the locker room, in response to reported theft. Officers did not receive notice about system; the locker room was used for private activities and was not open to public. Bernhard v. City of Ontario, #06-55736, 270 Fed.Appx. 518, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6404 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
  8. An arbitrator held that because the bargaining agreement prohibited electronic performance monitoring of employees, videocameras could not be installed in work areas for security purposes, even if they lacked audio capabilities. Berkley School Dist. and Educ. Assn., 122 LA (BNA) 356 (Daniel, 2005).
  9. Management’s placement of a concealed video-only camera in an unlocked computer room, which was shared by two schoolteachers, was not a privacy violation. Crist v. Alpine Union Sch. Dist., #D044775, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 8699 (2005).
  10. An appeals court in Ohio upheld the covert video surveillance of an employee’s break room. Brannen v. Bd. of Educ., #CA2000-11-098, 2001 Ohio App. Lexis 3165, 17 IER Cases (BNA) 1405 (Unpub. 2001).\
  11. An en banc federal appeals court held that even if a bargaining agreement expressly authorizes surveillance which was illegal under state law, it would be void and unenforceable under federal labor law. Federal bargaining laws cannot not permit employers and unions to agree to violate state criminal laws. Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, #98-55657, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 13385, 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. en banc).
  12. Police officers did not need a warrant to secretly videotape a criminal suspect at work. His work station was in view of coworkers and the public. Cowles v. State, #S-8831, 23 P.3d 1168, 2001 Alas. Lexis 67 (Alaska, 2001).
  13. N.H. upheld the use of a concealed videocamera in the nonprivate areas of worksites in public buildings. State v. McLellan, #98239, 744 A.2d 611, 1999 N.H. Lexis 162.
  14. California courts upheld a $634,000 verdict for secretly videotaping fellow employees in the workplace, even though coworkers had a limited expectation of privacy. Sanders v. ABC, 20 Cal.4th 907, 978 P.2d 67, 1999 Cal. Lexis 3900, 15 IER Cases (BNA) 385; on remand (Unpub. Cal.App., 2d Dist.).
  15. A videotape of unlawful behavior in the workplace was allowed into evidence in a criminal case, because the camera was not concealed. U.S. v. O’Reilly, #CR-91-678, 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8187, 7 IER Cases (BNA) 665 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
  16. A Washington appeals court reversed a $70,000 verdict awarded to an ex-employee pension recipient. City videotaped a disabled pensioner’s activities and was sued for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. Jeffers v. City of Seattle, #5967-1, 23 Wn. App. 301, 597 P.2d 899 (1979).
  17. California law clearly provides that surviving family members have no right of privacy in the context of written media discussing, or pictorial media portraying, the life of a decedent. Any cause of action for invasion of privacy in that context belonged to the decedent and expired along with him or her. Flynn v. Higham, #168301, 149 Cal.App.3d 677 (1983).
  18. Photographing employees at work is not an invasion of privacy. Truxes v. Kenco, #9958, 80 S.D. 104, 119 N.W.2d 914 (1963).


Share this post: Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *