By Shannon M. Day, Senior Grants Development Consultant (Public Safety)
Although the concept of recording law enforcement interactions is not new – police departments began using cumbersome vehicle- and helmet-mounted cameras in the 1960s (Seaskate, Inc., 1998) – the use of body-worn cameras in the United States took off after the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, sparked national outrage and renewed scrutiny of police-citizen interactions. The lack of video evidence from the incident fueled public demands for greater transparency and accountability. This moment proved to be a tipping point for Body-worn Cameras (BWC), which led to the U.S. Department of Justice's creation of the Body-worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program (BWC PIP).
The following year, grants totaling $23.2 million were awarded to expand BWC use and explore their impact. This financial support and ongoing public pressure led to a surge in BWC programs nationwide. Major cities like Washington D.C., New York, and Los Angeles initiated pilot programs, and by 2016, nearly half of all municipal law enforcement agencies had acquired body-worn cameras.
The rapid adoption of body-worn cameras was followed by research and debate. Studies have produced mixed results on the effectiveness of BWCs in reducing use-of-force incidents or citizen complaints. While some studies show a decrease (Alex Sutherland, 2017), others indicate minimal impact (Hutchinson, 2023).
One of the key challenges lies in policy and implementation. A department can purchase the best cameras available, but what is the point if officers do not turn them on? Effective programs require clear guidelines on activation, data storage, and public access to footage. Debates continue to swirl around balancing transparency with officer privacy and ensuring footage is used for legitimate purposes. Additionally, the high cost of storage, data management, and officer training can be a burden for smaller departments. The BWC PIP grant and its sister, the Small, Rural, and Tribal Body-worn Camera (SRTBWC) Program, can help mitigate some of these .
Body-worn cameras remain a significant tool in modern policing. When used correctly, they offer potential benefits for officers and the public. For officers, BWC footage can serve as evidence in court and provide a clearer picture of events during critical incidents. For the public, BWCs can enhance transparency and trust in law enforcement.
As the technology continues to evolve, so too will the way it is used, and, if BWC PIP continues to evolve as it has over the past few years, it should keep pace with this evolution, expanding to include:
- Standardization of policies and procedures: A national standard for law enforcement agencies to emulate.
- Public access to footage: Balancing transparency with officer privacy and victim protection remains challenging. Finding the right balance through clear policies on footage release is crucial.
- Data storage and management: The vast amount of data generated by BWCs necessitates efficient storage and management systems. Cost-effective solutions are needed to ensure long-term accessibility of footage.
- Community engagement: Building trust with the communities they serve is essential for law enforcement. Proactive engagement with community members can help address concerns and ensure that BWC programs are implemented fairly.
- Expansion: To include corrections, campus and school police, park and transportation police, and other law enforcement and security personnel in addition to municipal law enforcement agencies.
While body-worn cameras represent a significant development in modern policing, we are still learning ten years on. While the impact of BWCs continues to be evaluated, they offer a valuable tool for promoting transparency and accountability and potentially improving police-citizen interactions. As technology and policies evolve, BWCs have the potential to become a cornerstone of building trust and fostering a safer future for communities across the United States.