Perceptions on policing and surveillance are radically changing due to one small yet controversial piece of technology: the body-worn camera. Recent episodes of police brutality, especially those involving unarmed minorities, have rightfully sparked national outrage and a call for increased police accountability. Body cameras can provide a powerful solution to police brutality by surveilling officers as they perform their daily duties and interactions with civilians. However, their implementation in police departments across the country has not come without controversy. Americans view body cameras as a viable solution in combating police brutality, believing that they will help build transparency and trust between civilians and the police. Others contend that the issues associated with body cameras, including the invasion of civilian and officer privacy, the costs of equipment, and potential difficulties in policy implementation, will outweigh their benefits. Ultimately, police body-worn cameras, while not a panacea, are an effective tool in combating police brutality, especially through the reduction of incidents involving force and civilian complaints. While the body camera, like any technology, has its imperfections, its ability to surveille the activities of police officers and their interactions with civilians will result in better behavior, increased transparency, and healed public trust. 

Body cameras emerged as a popular suggestion as police brutality has increasingly become an epidemic within the United States. Chilling statistics confirm that Americans have a right to be outraged and mistrusting of law enforcement. According to The Guardian, 1092 people were killed by police in 2016 alone (“The Counted”). Additionally, The Washington Post reported that as of March 2017, 244 people have been shot and killed by the police, and this number continues to grow (“Fatal Force”). No matter your race, gender, religion, or political affiliation, all Americans can agree that the outright murder of citizens by the police is horrific and serves as a threat to democracy. Even more disheartening is the fact that this crisis is unique to our nation, as America is an extreme outlier in regards to police brutality and deaths by police officers compared to other nations of similar economic and political standing. For instance, The Guardian reported that, “In the first 24 days of 2015, police in the US fatally shot more people than police did in England and Wales, combined, over the past 24 years” (Lartey). These statistics highlight the gargantuan problem regarding police brutality in the United States, which has become especially apparent in light of the recent killings of unarmed African Americans that have permeated news headlines.

The killings of unarmed African Americans by police including Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Walter Scott, and Freddie Gray have sparked public outrage, massive protests, and an increased call for body camera evidence. In a notable case in North Charleston, South Carolina, Walter Scott was shot eight times by Officer Michael Slager after being pulled over for a non-functioning tail light. A cellphone video captured by a bystander documented the devastating encounter and its release led to the firing of Slager, who was put on trial for murder (Crimesider Staff). The success of video evidence in achieving at least some level of justice for Scott, a 50-year-old black man, and his family brought to the forefront discussions regarding body cameras’ ability to provide concrete, indisputable evidence in a court of law as police brutality worsens. Recently, hundreds of protests and even riots have erupted across the nation in response to police violence, notably in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray, as citizens demand that something be done to put an end to American deaths at the hands of police officers. The police brutality epidemic and subsequent waves of protests, sometimes violent and racially-charged, in America demonstrates the vast importance of police surveillance and the need for heightened accountability. The bond between US law enforcement and civilians is severely damaged and may be remedied by the widespread implementation of body cameras. Body-worn cameras will not put an end to unnecessary police use-of-force, however they can ultimately provide a versatile vantage point for collecting evidence that have been effectively used to achieve justice for those that have fallen victim to the horrors of police brutality in America. 

Empirical research strongly supports the benefits of body cameras in fighting police brutality through their significant ability to decrease use-of-force incidents and civilian complaints, which can be used to gauge police behavior. The results of one year-long study conducted within the Rialto Police Department in California, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, confirms these claims. In this year-long experiment, officers were randomly assigned to “experimental-shifts” in which they were equipped with HD body cameras and “control-shifts” in which they had no cameras (Ariel 520). The results found that use-of-force incidents, which were relatively high in the Rialto Police Department, were reduced by 59 percent and civilian complaints dropped 88 percent compared with totals from 2011 (Ariel 523-524). Another study conducted using officers from the Phoenix Police Department found similar results to the Rialto study, citing a 23 percent drop in citizen complaints and increase in police productivity among officers equipped with body cameras (Katz 40). The researchers ultimately concluded that “...our results combined with prior research suggest that the benefits of officer worn body cameras outweigh their weaknesses and limitations” (Katz 42).  Both the Rialto study and Phoenix study demonstrate the profound ability of body cameras to diminish the police’s willingness to use force and their ability to reduce civilian complaints against officers.

Yet another study conducted by The University of South Florida from March 2014 through February 2015 also found that the use of body cameras significantly reduced use-of-force and civilian complaints, further demonstrating their success in the field. During the experiment, 46 officers from the Orlando Police Department were outfitted with body cameras and were compared to 43 officers who did not wear the devices. Over the year long period, use-of-force incidents dropped by a significant 53 percent among officers equipped with body-cams. Civilian complaints against these officers also experienced a dramatic 65 percent decline (Jennings). In addition, civilian and officer injuries were also reduced with the introduction of body cameras. After the study ended, two out of three officers that were equipped with cameras said that they would want to continue wearing them in the future and that the agency should provide body-cams for all front-line officers (Jennings 480). Orlando Police Chief John Mina has subsequently supported the wishes of his officers, securing a roughly $500,000 grant to help pay for the equipment (Wing). Ultimately, the results of this study along with those of the Rialto and Phoenix studies demonstrate the real successes of body cameras in US police departments across the country and their support by both civilians and officers across the board. 

In addition to combating police force, body cameras also provide evidentiary benefits unparalleled to those of other technologies, such as dashboard-mounted cameras. Body cameras have the unique ability to go wherever the officer goes, providing a more versatile point of view than dash cameras. In his book on police body cameras, Frank Scalise argues that, “In contrast to dash cameras, body cameras are affixed to the patrol officer, providing a viewpoint that is similar to the officer’s own viewing experience” (2). Everything an officer sees, does, or hears is documented by their body camera, providing evidence that limits objectivity and room for speculation. If an incident of police brutality or injustice occurs, body camera footage could be the determining force in whether justice is to prevail. The ability of body cameras to provide solid evidence in trial has been praised by jurors, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Even though the recordings can sometimes be shaky and unpolished, they eliminate most speculation by capturing the words, actions, and emotions of those involved in an incident requiring police action (Alexander). In the words of Michael D. White, professor of criminology at Arizona State University, “The great thing about the technology is that it provides a permanent video record of what happened. If there is a ‘he said, she said’ aspect such as in assault cases, the defense and the prosecution can see what transpired” (Alexander). Body cameras, unlike other technologies before them, are revolutionizing evidence collection and eliminating “he-said, she said” speculation in US courts of law.

Despite numerous success stories and empirical evidence documenting the benefits of body cameras, the adoption of  body cameras in US police departments has still been wrought with controversy, as some contend strongly against their use. Those opposed to body cameras draw upon their potential to invade privacy, their costs, and hurdles that may be faced in implementing cohesive policy. In regards to privacy, some believe that putting cameras on police officers will increase the presence of “Big Brother” in the daily lives of Americans. However, this has and will not be the case. A new layer of monitoring, meant specifically for the safety of the public, on top of our already surveillanced lives will not make a negative difference in our day-to-day lives. Body-cam surveillance will be a positive, as both civilians and police officers will actually engage in more appropriate behavior when they are aware that a body camera is recording them. As stated by Chief Rich McLaughlin of the Laurel Police Department in Maryland, “It [a body camera] keeps everybody in check, on both sides” (Weiner). Additionally, with the right policies in place, footage will be kept secure and privacy concerns will become obsolete. 

The cost of body cameras has also raised concerns for police departments across the nation. The cost per body camera can range between $400 to $1000, depending on model and manufacturer. However, many departments are having these costs covered by the government, in the words of Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, to  “...support local leaders and law enforcement officials in their work to protect their communities…” (Phippen). To reach this goal, in 2016 the US Department of Justice awarded more than 100 police departments $20 million to help pay for body cameras (Phippen). Government funding is therefore relieving many departments of the costs of body-cams and alleviating monetary burdens. Another monetary concern stems from storage costs for body-cam footage. High storage costs, however, may be avoided by storing data in-house on a dedicated server, which has proved extremely successful in saving money for the Wasco Police Department located in California (Kotowski). While there are up-front costs associated with body cameras and video storage, they can often be effective in saving money. According to Walt Miller, captain of the Evesham Police Department in New Jersey, body cameras are actually projected to save over $600,000 in internal affairs complaints and lawsuits by creating an objective record of situations (Sullivan). While they can be expensive, body cameras are a worthwhile tool that will help to deter unnecessary police brutality and thus could potentially save lives, making them truly worthy of any monetary value. Government funding, storing data in-house, and the ability to save money in complaints and lawsuits debunk the argument that body cameras are an extreme financial burden.

Another concern for those against body cameras are perceived problems in implementing comprehensive written body-cam policies that will eliminate privacy concerns, prevent increased power in the hands of police, and assure that body-cams are truly beneficial for all levels of society. Indeed the effectiveness of body cameras is heavily reliant upon the policies governing their use (Wing). The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) along with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing (COPS office) released a report entitled Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned, which called for specific policies that provide consistent guidance while still allowing flexibility and room to grow as the body-cam program evolves (Miller and Toliver). Experts in criminology and policing argue that clear guidelines should be set out as to when officers are required to turn on their cameras. Policies should also include measures to prevent data tampering, deleting, and copying (Miller and Toliver). Additionally, body camera training should be required for all officers being equipped with the technology. With the Department of Justice, civil liberties groups, and law enforcement organizations working to ensure that appropriate policies are put in place, Americans should not worry that body cameras will grant police more power or will fail to execute their intended duty due to bad policies. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Right, a civil liberties group, is putting a major check on the body camera policies of more than 50 US police departments by publishing its yearly policy scorecard. This scorecard rates departments on aspects of their policy including personal privacy, footage retention, and officer discretion, among others (“Police Body Worn Cameras: A Policy Scorecard”). With the public’s push for fair policies and their check on existing policies, potential challenges regarding body camera policies will be overcome and their benefits in evidence gathering and repairing public trust will prevail.

Although body cameras are effective in creating increased transparency and in combating police brutality, they cannot be a panacea. In the words of Howard M. Wasserman, professor of law at Florida International University, “While body cameras are a good idea and police departments should be encouraged and supported in using them, it is nevertheless important not to see them as a magic bullet” (833). Body cameras are certainly effective surveillance tools and their widespread implementation will be beneficial to civilians and law enforcement nationwide. However, it is unreasonable to think of them as a perfect technology that will eradicate all police wrongdoings in America. In order to truly annihilate inappropriate police behavior and the killings of innocent civilians, our nation needs moral reform in addition to heightened surveillance. More comprehensive police training is also needed to prepare officers for dangerous or unpredictable encounters without resorting to violence as a first option. Body cameras will keep officers in check; however, a strong sense of morality along with adequate police training will ultimately put an end to America’s police brutality epidemic. 

Body cameras are revolutionizing the collection of evidence and have great potential in healing America’s broken public trust. With an overwhelming 88 percent of Americans supporting their use, body cameras are soon to be seen in all police departments across the nation (Moore). Research has proven that body cameras are extremely effective in fighting back against police brutality by reducing use-of-force incidents and civilian complaints. However, body-worn cameras are not a “cure-all” and should not be expected to eliminate all wrongdoings in the United States. In order for body cameras to be truly effective, the right policies detailing their use must be put in place. With the right policies in place and appropriate officer training, body cameras will indefinitely create better behavior in both police and civilians. All Americans should push for change and embrace the mandatory nationwide implementation of body cameras. These small pieces of technology hold the power to ultimately create a safer and more united America.
