Civil Litigation

Police Departments Turning to Body-Mounted Cameras

As a regular presenter on use of force tactics to law enforcement academies, I am often asked why all law enforcement agencies have not implemented body-mounted cameras for all uniformed officers. The simple answer is that while the technology is no longer cost-prohibitive, there are some logistical concerns that come into play, such as: (1) how a police department will store the data the devices record; (2) how long a police department will need to maintain this stored data; and (3) the recurring cost for data storage. Furthermore, police departments will need to revisit their policies and procedures to set forth well-defined parameters regarding the use of body-mounted cameras. For example, will the camera be recording at all times or only when the officer is initiating a traffic or other investigatory stop.

Henrico County, Virginia has just announced that on or about October 1, 2014, its police officers will begin wearing body-mounted cameras. The County anticipates that in a month’s time, it will have 36 cameras in hand.   The body-mounted cameras serve a dual purpose by assisting with the investigation of cases and allegations of police misconduct. Although 36 cameras is a start, it will take some time and money to outfit Henrico’s 400 uniformed officers. The County anticipates that all uniformed officers will be outfitted with body-mounted cameras in 2016. The cameras will cost $800 each.

The logistical concerns of using body-mounted cameras became evident during the police department’s presentation to the Henrico County Board of Supervisors. During the demonstration, a board member accidentally pressed a button that caused the recording unit to stop displaying the camera feed, and the demonstration was temporarily paused while officers corrected the problem. Clearly, during a physical altercation or pursuit, it can easily be anticipated that a camera could malfunction or stop recording. Police departments should then be concerned whether a camera “glitch” or malfunction would create an unintended presumption of misconduct.

The materials available at this website or blog are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. The opinions expressed are those of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.