The evidence is clear: Body-worn cameras should be on the radar screen of every law-enforcement agency

In other states, an equally vexing situation exists, in that the video captured by body-worn cameras is considered to be a matter of public record. That has the potential to be very problematic. Let’s say that something occurs at your neighbor’s house that requires a visit by police. In such states, anyone could file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to gain a copy of that video, providing a high-tech method to snoop or, far worse, a way for tech-savvy burglars to case a home or business. Obviously, the prospect of such a thing happening has raised the hackles of privacy advocates.

Despite the plethora of factors and concerns that must be considered before deciding to launch a body-worn cameras initiative, such devices have many more plusses than minuses. Here are a few best practices that law-enforcement agencies can implement that will make the deployment go smoother and pay bigger dividends.

• A two-factor authentication process should be implemented, at a minimum, to control access to captured and stored video. Passwords, personnel-specific test questions, card-swipe systems, biometric systems (e.g., retinal and thumbprint scanners), and tokens that change authentication codes at pre-defined intervals (usually every 60 seconds) all are effective for this purpose.
• Only supervisory-level personnel should be allowed to access the video, and then only for redaction purposes. The officer who captured the video never should be allowed to access the video, much less edit the file.  
• A managed service for video storage is an option; such a service will be easier and potentially less costly—depending on the size of the agency—compared with implementing and managing storage onsite. However, one important caveat is to ensure that the service provides public safety-grade access, reliability and security.
• Create detailed policies that address how the cameras will be used and how the video they capture will be stored. A balance will need to be struck between ensuring that the video is in context and court-admissible and the amount of video that the agency can afford to store. A couple of tactics can be used to strike this balance. One would be to instruct officers to turn on their cameras as soon as their “spidey sense” starts to tingle, which would cut down on the amount of irrelevant video that is captured while helping to ensure the capture of all relevant video. Another would be to delete video from servers after it has been downloaded to a DVD or USB drive and then stored securely in an evidence locker, which would dramatically reduce the amount of video that needs to be stored.
• Some agencies may be more comfortable with having a backup of the video on its servers even after the video has been placed into evidence. To ease the capacity strain, it is suggested that such agencies craft a well-defined retention policy that allows video that is not categorized as evidence to be purged after a certain amount of time.
• In addition, it is advisable that agencies create policies for categorizing video so that it can be found easily and quickly when needed. Some computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems are able to pair call-sheet data with the corresponding officer videos.
• Once the policies are created, train personnel on them and ensure that they are followed. Nothing creates a feeling of distrust in a community faster than a law-enforcement agency failing to follow its own policies.
• When choosing a system, make sure that it is impossible for the video to be edited surreptitiously; better still would be to choose a system that prevents the video from being altered altogether. It is vitally important that technology-driven safeguards are in place that protect against unauthorized access and the ability to alter the video. However, it should be noted that video redaction—e.g., the blurring of faces and license plates to protect the innocent—is becoming more prevalent, so a complete avoidance of video altering might not be possible. The situations where redaction is permissible need to be clearly defined in the agency’s video policies.
• Before jumping in with both feet, consider conducting a pilot project. This will provide a chance to ensure that the system does what the vendor claims, especially in the area of tamper-proofing. It also will provide practical insight into how best to utilize the system—what it can do and what it cannot. It also will provide valuable information that will help to determine whether agency policies need to be revised. The pilot should have clear objectives that are objectively evaluated to protect the agency from favoring a particular vendor.
• Become familiar with state laws and work with lawmakers to revise those that make it impractical or impossible for law-enforcement officers to utilize body-worn cameras.
• To get officer support for body-worn cameras, it is essential to get them involved in the project from the very beginning.

Other than DNA, there arguably is no evidence more compelling than video to help prosecutors gain more convictions and plea bargains. It also helps officers perform their duties better and protects them from wrongful accusations. In addition, the transparency it provides leads to improved trust within the community and better relations with citizens, because they know that officers are being held accountable for their actions. Clearly, the decision to deploy body-worn cameras is complex, with a great many factors that require careful consideration. Nevertheless, the evidence seems to clearly indicate that they are the wave of the future in law enforcement.

Scott Neal is a communications consultant for Mission Critical Partners, Inc. (www.mcp911.com), a public-safety-communications consulting firm headquartered in Port Matilda, Pa. Prior to joining MCP, Neal was director of the Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Communications and Information Services. He can be emailed at [email protected]