Body-worn video: LE use in the USA?

A colleague and I recently discussed the use in the UK by LE of modern technology, in particular the use of mini / head-cameras.

The UK is well known for having millions of CCTV cameras, sometimes the results seen in “fly on the wall” documentaries, using CCTV, vehicle-mounted video cameras and still a cameraman. I was in the USA over Xmas and noted when watching a few police TV shows none used the mini-cameras.

The impetus for head-cameras here came from a bar threatened with closure for disorder etc and their website is: http://www.robocamuk.com/node .

There is a short CNN News clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKjZIm9nNgs

Wearing these cameras has become an option for non-law enforcement personnel, notably in high-risk actions or locations, for example door staff at clubs and bars. Here is an example of a cyclist –v- a ‘road rage’ motorist:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zWt1SYTlZU

Are there reasons for the apparent lack of interest in head-cameras?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

A colleague and I recently discussed the use in the UK by LE of modern technology, in particular the use of mini / head-cameras.

The UK is well known for having millions of CCTV cameras, sometimes the results seen in “fly on the wall” documentaries, using CCTV, vehicle-mounted video cameras and still a cameraman. I was in the USA over Xmas and noted when watching a few police TV shows none used the mini-cameras.

The impetus for head-cameras here came from a bar threatened with closure for disorder etc and their website is: http://www.robocamuk.com/node .

There is a short CNN News clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKjZIm9nNgs

Wearing these cameras has become an option for non-law enforcement personnel, notably in high-risk actions or locations, for example door staff at clubs and bars. Here is an example of a cyclist –v- a ‘road rage’ motorist:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zWt1SYTlZU

Are there reasons for the apparent lack of interest in head-cameras?

---

I don't know for sure but it may be technology overload. There is so much Tech and Money floating around becuase of Homeland Security sometimes it is hard to abosrb it all. Just speculation on my part.

Cost and complexity are probably factors but I suspect that the thought of having their actions second guessed after the fact by someone sitting safely behind a desk does not appeal to US LE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

Cost and complexity are probably factors but I suspect that the thought of having their actions second guessed after the fact by someone sitting safely behind a desk does not appeal to US LE.

---

I guess that it must be the latter and other issues, as the technology is mature and not too expensive, at least from those bike kids video on youtube and a quick google :wry:

An update after Twitter id'd this Forbes article 'Watching The Police: Will Two-Way Surveillance Reduce Crime And Increase Accountability?':http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarunwad...rove-policing/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

Cost and complexity are probably factors but I suspect that the thought of having their actions second guessed after the fact by someone sitting safely behind a desk does not appeal to US LE.

---

Which is kind of funny, given how helpful the dashboard cameras seem to have been as evidence during DUI stops.

Quote:

---

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered a pilot program of the cameras and other major reforms to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy this week, after she found the NYPD intentionally discriminated against minorities.......In New York, Scheindlin ordered one police precinct per borough where the most stops occur to host the yearlong pilot program. That means possibly more than a thousand officers would be recording with cameras on their eye glasses or lapels.

---

Link:http://online.wsj.com/article/APf61b...KEYWORDS=lapel

related video

Cameras don't lie, at least not without leaving clues showing manipulation.

Technology just gets cheaper and better, so it's more a question of where society will allow the expectation of privacy.

There are ample signs in England that if a criminal prosecution lacks some video footage - if relevant or possibly available - then managers and prosecutors maybe reluctant to press ahead. For example for benefit fraud, where a claim is made for disability, three separate video clips are needed that show the person is able bodied, e.g. lifting heavy weights.

At court it is well known that magistrates will give weight to video evidence. It will be interesting to see if this changes when the defence has their own video. Even in a relatively short incident at Downing Street gates, known as "Pleb Gate", the video record has been challenged.

As a society we are becoming a visual generation; no pictures, nothing there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

As a society we are becoming a visual generation; no pictures, nothing there.

---

Some years ago I was at an Officer Survival seminar and a defense Attorney was giving a lecture about courtroom testimony, evidence, etc. One of his points was that whenever possible he would use Visual evidence not Testimony or audio evidence. Visual is much more persuasive at least based upon his courtroom experience which was considerable.

Quote:

---

Some years ago I was at an Officer Survival seminar and a defense Attorney was giving a lecture about courtroom testimony, evidence, etc. One of his points was that whenever possible he would use Visual evidence not Testimony or audio evidence. Visual is much more persuasive at least based upon his courtroom experience which was considerable.

---

I remember hearing a lecture on evidence as to which was more powerful, 100 nuns who say they watched the courtyard all night and never saw anyone cross it or the footprints in the snow across the courtyard demonstrating that someone had crossed it during the night.

That being said ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

As a society we are becoming a visual generation; no pictures, nothing there.

---

... I was actually just thinking the oposite, that today I cannot trust anything on video.


http://www.noupe.com/inspiration/50-...portraits.html

With the right technology I can prove that velociraptors shot Kennedy...

Something else to wear, more wires to route, another battery to check, more opportunity for your Sgt and anybody on high to bug you, more things to catalog and store and if the durn thing malfunctions in operation, storage or retrieval what you witnessed didnt really happen. And more OJ juries who firmly believe that if it ain't on tape, it didn't really happen.

To me this is just another manifestation of the modern cultural belief that we can make things perfect if we only have another machine. In the long run little good will come of that belief.

Not LE but close. San Francisco Fire Chief has banned helmet cameras.




http://news.msn.com/videos/?ap=True&...om=en-us_msnhp

Slap:

There is something I just thought of when I read your post. Do you think some the the less thoughtful guys might do some grandstanding for their head cameras they might not otherwise do?

I had to operate in a 360 surveilance environment. Guys would grandstand and idiots would idioate. All on film. CIs shutdown. The footage from non related times would be used to embarrass. Scratch your crotch, pick your nose, it was all there on film ready to be edited into a story that didn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Slap:

There is something I just thought of when I read your post. Do you think some the the less thoughtful guys might do some grandstanding for their head cameras they might not otherwise do?

---

Definitely!

http://de.scribd.com/doc/130767873/S...e-use-of-force

used camera: http://www.taser.com/flex

Moderator's Note

Normally to avoid copyright issues SWC removes Scribd links, on this occasion it appears the publishers, the Police Foundation, have loaded this article onto Scribd, so it remains here. Nice article too, thanks (ends).

The use of body-worn cameras is spreading, although with some resistance and taken from a BBC News report the rationale:

Quote:

---

Incidents can be subject to interpretation whereas with the cameras we've got that real view of what actually did happen.

---

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25024204

With Obama's Support, Police Body Cameras Could Become the New Normal

Quote:

---

For people who support putting cameras on cops, this is a very big deal. The White House plan is intended to outfit 50,000 officers with cameras, which would almost double the number of cameras in use in the country. There are currently two major U.S. companies selling body cameras: Vievu, which has sold more than 40,000 cameras to 3,900 police agencies, and Taser (TASR), with 30,000 cameras in use by 1,200 agencies. The $75 million earmarked to purchase new body cameras is more than seven times the total revenue Taser earned from selling the devices in 2013.

---

I'm curious what impact this will have on citiziens (especially of certain backgrounds), law enforcement officers and the society in general. We are now talking about considerable numbers.