Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Police Department

TO:	David L. Corliss, City Manager
FROM:	Tarik Khatib, Chief of Police
CC:	Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager Casey Toomay, Assistant City Manager Toni Wheeler, City Attorney
DATE:	February 2, 2015
RE:	Police Body Cameras

Background

The Lawrence Police Department currently utilizes a combination of patrol vehicle in-car video/audio, video/audio equipped interview rooms, and portable audio stick recorders to document police actions and interactions with citizens.  As technology has improved, body worn video/audio systems (“bodycam”) have been adopted by some law enforcement agencies in recent years.  Several national high-profile police use of force cases have prompted discussion as to whether bodycams should be more widely utilized by law enforcement as a way to protect both the public and officers.

Discussion

Any method that can increase the accuracy of a police officer’s documentation of events, statements by individuals, or interactions between the officer and others should be given careful consideration.   The benefits to bodycams for police officers include:

1.  Evidence.  Within certain limits, bodycams have the ability to capture video and audio footage of events as they occur.  They can assist with the prosecutorial process by documenting the actions and statements of defendants, witnesses, and the involved officers.

2.  Professionalism and Safety.  The presence of a bodycam can increase the quality of the officer’s interaction with the public.  Likewise, citizens who are aware they are being recorded may be less likely to exhibit aggressiveness or assaultive behavior towards the officer.

3.  Event Reconstruction.  From determining whether a complaint against an officer is valid to reconstructing a critical event involving multiple officers, bodycam footage would assist in this process.

4.  Community Confidence.  Depending on what the existing relationship a police department has with its community, the addition of bodycams may increase public trust and build confidence in officer accountability.

5.  Training Aid.  Subject to department polices and procedures, bodycam footage could be reviewed and used as a training aid for the officer whose footage is captured as well as for others.

As beneficial as bodycams may seem to be, there is the potential to over promise or have unrealistic expectations.  There are several importance aspects that should be closely studied before a department implements wide-scale use of bodycams.  These include:

1.  Kansas State Law.  Senate Bill No. 18 was recently introduced to the Legislature.  This would mandate the use of body cameras by law enforcement officers “primarily assigned to patrol duties” in Kansas.  The bill contains language that would not only define police departments’ policy and procedure, but would impact operational costs for equipment, storage, and dissemination.   A full discussion of this bill is not within the scope of this memorandum, however, if Lawrence Police Officers were to utilize bodycams, such an examination would need to take place to ensure the Department would be compliant with it if it passes.  There are portions of the bill that may reduce the usefulness of bodycams and could even create unintended consequences.  For example, the requirement that officers notify individuals – and presumably would turn the bodycam off if requested – before entering a private residence.   Much of what police officers do takes place within private residences and often these are tense situations involving emotional interactions between individuals such as in domestic situations.  Residents may not want recording to take place, but good public policy would dictate that officers should; for everyone’s safety.  It is also unknown how this would impact the Department’s current policy which allows for the recording (audio from the in-car video system) within a residence and even encourages it if the officer believes it is needed for evidentiary purposes or if it is anticipated there may be a heated or potentially negative interaction with individuals in the residence.

2.  Equipment Funding.  The initial cost of the bodycams is not the major expense.  The Department could most likely equip personnel for approximately $150,000.  Depending on options, costs for storage could equal or exceed this figure.  Also, there would need to be approximately an equal amount expended each three to five years for replacement of the bodycams and related equipment.  As realized with the Department’s in-car video system, which at one point failed due to lack of maintenance funds, this is critical.  Costs for the bodycams may vary significantly when considering qualitative features such as high definition, field of view, battery life, pre-event recording, method of uploading media, and level of manipulation allowed by the user.  The availability of startup funding such as grants do little to mitigate the true long-term costs.

3.  Personnel Funding.  Management of the bodycam system, equipment, and footage will require additional information technology and other support staff.  The Department already has an unmet need in this area which currently impacts the ability of the staff to manage, maintain, and improve the technology used by the Department.  This could be significant (all patrol officers recording as little as two hours day could generate approximately 41,600 hours of annual footage) if the mandate is made to review all footage as Senate Bill No. 18 suggests before any bodycam media can be disposed of.  Additionally, best practices would suggest an auditing component.  Similarly to how supervisors review police reports, bodycam footage should also be reviewed, or at least randomly audited, to ensure compliance with usage and other policies.   The Department cannot currently accomplish this feat with the current in-car video system.  A discussion as to the development and funding of an Office of Professional Standards should be considered as part of any implementation plan.

4.  Reduced Workload Fallacy.  There should be an understanding that as each piece of technology is added to the Department, there is not a corresponding reduction in the personnel hours required to perform a task.  Technology does not always allow officers to accomplish more.  In fact, the opposite is often the case.  Technology ensures for a better work product (best evidence, transparency), but each case takes more time.  Technology should not be seen as a way to do more with the same amount of people, but rather to ensure the people are doing it the best way.  Officers will need additional time to download and review bodycam footage as part of their report writing and submittal process.  The presence of bodycam footage will not lessen the need for the detailed reports that supervision and prosecutors require.  Police supervisors will likely (there isn’t enough time to do so) not be reviewing bodycam footage as part of the normal daily routine to determine if the proper conclusions were reached during an investigation.  Likewise, prosecutors will still base initial charging decisions on the written work product (police reports, affidavits) of officers.  There will be a better work product in the end, but the whole process will be slowed down and less work per officer may be the result.

5.  Prosecution and Court.  The implementation of bodycams should be coordinated with input from prosecutors and the court system who may also require additional funding for equipment and personnel.  The large amount of digital media footage will likely lead to increased case preparation time (review of all media, multiple officers who may have some portion of relevant media material) and increased time spent on redaction of media for use in court.  Inevitably, there will be missing segments (redacted for court), instances in which the officer did not activate the bodycam, or lack of footage due to equipment failure.  This could negatively impact prosecution for no reason other than the casting of doubt on the officer’s testimony due the perception that anything missing must be due to nefariousness even though the officer testifies otherwise.  Senate Bill No. 18 specifies that if a law enforcement agency is “unable to produce a recording that is required to be made and retained under the police and citizen protection act, there shall be the presumption that the recording would corroborate the version of facts advanced by the defendant in a criminal action or the party opposing the law enforcement officers or law enforcement agency in a civil action.”  With technology, this is almost certain to occur, as it currently does with the in-car video system.  Is it acceptable for crime offenders to be set free due to their credibility being legislated at a higher level than that of police officers?  To minimize this, will Department policies have to be heavy-handed in regards to the administrative penalties levied against officers for failing to activate their bodycams?  Will this create complaints and civil suits against the Department by officers?

6.  Operational Effects.  There will be instances in which the use of bodycams may not be appropriate.  These include when officers have sidebar discussions with each other and supervisors on-scene or during tactical planning.  Meetings with special victims or potential informants may be other examples.  Each of these will require officers to manipulate the bodycam, further increasing the likelihood it is inadvertently left on or off during any particular situation.  Stressful situations such as responding to high priority calls or when officers have to take quick action may not be captured on the bodycam due to the officer being distracted and not turning it on.  Always-on style bodycams with pre-event recording can mitigate some of this, however, this creates other issues; mainly that the bodycam is really never off.

7.  Personnel Effect.  Officer acceptance of bodycams will have to be gauged.  A work environment where every action and interaction is being audio and video recorded may add stress and dissatisfaction.   What will be the rules for auditing and observation of video?  In addition to citizen privacy concerns, what are those of police officers and other employees?

8.  Bodycam Limitations.  Any decision to implement bodycams should be made with the understanding that they are not a panacea.  The Force Science Institute which studies “human behavior in high stress and deadly force encounters” recently identified limitations (see attached document) on bodycams that are noteworthy to acknowledge.  A brief summary is listed:

· Bodycams do not follow or track what the officer’s eye observes.  The bodycam does not experience the physiological or psychological effects of stress as the officer does.  Nor does its “heart” pound or vision tunnel.

· Bodycams do not sense danger or record other cues officers may use to make decisions as to what next action to take.  They also do not possess the interpretive ability the officer has due to his or her training and experience.

· Bodycams may not capture all the action that actually occurred.  Limitations in frame rate may not capture an important cue that the officer observed.   Additionally, the officer’s reaction time is not factored into what may be seen on video.

· The bodycam may “see” better in certain situations (low light) than the officer resulting in the perception that the officer had the same information to formulate a decision.

· Bodycam view may be blocked in certain situations depending on the placement of the bodycam on the officer.  For example, during a shooting situation, an officer raising her or her weapon in front of their body may block the view of the camera.

· Bodycam depth of view is only two-dimensional.  Reviews of the bodycam footage may not see or perceive what the officer saw.

· Simply viewing bodycam footage may not convey to the reviewer the speed at which a particular action occurred.  Forensic examination and enhancement may need to occur wherein the action is slowed to understand and evaluate the split second decisions the officer was making.

· A single camera worn by a single officer during an event may not be enough to fully appreciate what occurred.

· The hindsight and stress free process of reviewing bodycam footage does not take into account what the officer was experiencing.  There is the potential to second guess the officer’s decisions without understanding all the relevant cues the officer used to reach a decision.

· Bodycams are just one component in determining what occurred and they should not be seen as the determinative factor.

9.  Multiple Format Integration.  How will bodycams integrate with existing in-car video, fixed interview rooms, and stick recorders?  Each format has some advantages over bodycams in certain situations.   The addition of bodycams will likely not result in the lessening of funding or personnel time support for the other platforms.

Conclusion and Recommendation

If expectations remain realistic and the limitations are understood, there are benefits to be realized when police officers wear bodycams.  This includes the ability to gather evidence of crimes and safeguarding the rights of citizens and officers alike during interactions.   The adoption of bodycams should come only after a full examination and understanding of how this could be accomplished and what the effects are on many of the considerations mentioned.  

It is important to note that the Lawrence Police Department has an excellent relationship with the community and the court system.  There does not exist an overarching immediate need to adopt bodycams, so it may be prudent to take a “wait and see” approach before expending a considerable amount of additional funding on equipment and personnel only to have to change direction as technology, polices, and laws continue to develop.  Bodycam implementation should also be examined against what other service improvements could be realized with the same amount of funding (additional detectives, school resources officers, etc.).