Body-Worn Cameras: what we know and where to go (transcript)

WELCOME TO CRSP TALK, I’M AVERY MOORE KLOSS AND THIS IS A PODCAST BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON SECURITY PRACTICES AT WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY IN BRANTFORD, ONTARIO, CANADA. IF YOUR FIRST QUESTION IS “WHY WOULD A RESEARCH CENTRE START A PODCAST?” WELL, THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE. OUR RESEARCHERS ARE DOING SOME INCREDIBLE WORK -- AND WE BELIEVE THE INSIGHTS PULLED FROM THAT RESEARCH NEED MORE EYES, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY EARS ON IT.

YOUR SECOND QUESTION MIGHT BE -- “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘SECURITY PRACTICES’... AND THAT ANSWER IS A LITTLE MORE BROAD. FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DEFINES “HUMAN SECURITY” AS A FREEDOM FROM FEAR, WANT, POVERTY AND DESPAIR, AND THE WORK WE DO AT C-R-S-P, OR CRISP AS WE CALL IT, BOTH ENGAGES AND EXTENDS THAT DEFINITION. THE RESEARCH PROJECTS BEING UNDERTAKEN BY OUR MEMBERS RANGE FROM SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES AND POLICING PRACTICES, TO HOUSING INSECURITY, EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR AFRICAN IMMIGRANT YOUTH IN CANADA AND  REFUGEE FAMILIES’ EVERYDAY MOBILITY.

IF YOU LISTENED TO OUR FIRST EPISODE ABOUT USING PODCASTING AS A KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION TOOL, YOU’LL KNOW THAT WE’RE PASSIONATE ABOUT CREATING ENGAGING CONTENT THROUGH REAL LIFE STORYTELLING. AND, WE DO THAT TO CONNECT LISTENERS TO THE WORK OUR CENTRE SUPPORTS. AND, THAT MEANS NOT JUST CREATING CONTENT FOR OTHER RESEARCHERS OR ACADEMICS. WE WANT TO ENGAGE YOU, OUR LISTENER, IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT IMPORTANT TOPICS… THAT WE JUST HAPPEN TO BE RESEARCHING OURSELVES. AND, THAT MEANS NOT ONLY SHARING STORIES FROM OUR OWN RESEARCH EFFORTS, BUT ALSO HIGHLIGHTING THE WORK ACADEMICS ARE DOING IN THE SECURITY PRACTICES SPACE ALL OVER THE WORLD.

AND TODAY -- WE’RE DOING JUST THAT.

THE RESEARCH WE ARE ABOUT TO DIVE INTO BLENDS TWO AREAS OF INTEREST FOR US: SURVEILLANCE, TECHNOLOGIES AND POLICIING.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BLEND SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT? ACTUALLY, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ATTACH SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER?

WELL, WE’VE CALLED ON SOME OF THE FOREMOST ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS IN NORTH AMERICA TO TALK ABOUT: BODY-WORN CAMERAS. 

I WANT TO BE CLEAR OFF THE HOP THAT THIS PODCAST EPISODE IS NEITHER A LOVE LETTER TO OR AN ARGUMENT AGAINST BODY-WORN CAMERAS -- IT’S MEANT AS A BALANCED DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RESEARCH DONE SO FAR, CONCERNS RAISED, AND FUTURE RESEARCH THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THIS SPACE. AND LEADING THAT DISCUSSION ARE OUR FOUR GUESTS TODAY…

Alana Saulnier: “My name is Alana Saulnier. I'm an assistant professor at Lakehead University.”

Michael White: “Michael White. I'm a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University.”

Cynthia Lum: “Cynthia Lum, I'm the director of the Centre for Evidence Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.”

Bryce Newell: “Bryce Newell. I'm an assistant professor at the University of Oregon.”

BODY-WORN CAMERAS ARE A SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY WORN BY AN OFFICER. THE CAMERA CAPTURES BOTH VIDEO AND AUDIO AS AN ATTEMPT TO DOCUMENT WHAT AN OFFICER SEES AND HEARS ON THE JOB. IN THE WAKE OF A SERIES OF HIGH PROFILE POLICE INVOLVED KILLINGS OF UNARMED BLACK PEOPLE IN 2014 A POLICE LEGITIMACY CRISIS BOILED TO THE SURFACE IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH BODY-WORN CAMERAS EMERGING AS A TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION. THE IDEA WAS THAT BODY-WORN CAMERAS WOULD ALLOW POLICE TO DEMONSTRATE TRANSPARENCY, BUT ALSO THAT THE CAMERAS WOULD ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO DEMAND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY. SINCE THEN, POLICE SERVICES ALL OVER NORTH AMERICA HAVE ADOPTED BODY-WORN CAMERAS.

AND, ONE RESEARCHER STUDYING THE EFFICACY OF THOSE ADOPTIONS IS DR. ALANA SAULNIER.

Alana Saulnier: “My name is Alana Saulnier. I'm an assistant professor at Lakehead University. My area of research focus is criminology, and much more specifically it's about how authorities use data collection technologies. And, a very central focus of that research has been body-worn cameras and police use of body-worn cameras for me over the past several years.”

SAULNIER HAS BEEN AT THE CENTRE OF APPLIED RESEARCH ON THE USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS BY THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND MORE RECENTLY THE DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE HERE IN ONTARIO, CANADA. 

Alana Saulnier: “We focused on a number of outcomes, including how body-worn cameras might impact public perceptions following an encounter with police. We saw that there were minor improvements, let's say, in attitude. So, people felt a little bit more satisfied that the police were a little bit more polite in interactions that involve body-worn cameras.”

“We also looked at court outcomes, Provincial Offences Act, so we are thinking about tickets there, particularly vehicle-related tickets. We did not see officers be less likely to issue a roadside reduction when they were wearing a body-worn camera, and that I think connects to concerns about discretion, that there are concerns that officers will feel less free to exercise positive discretion, like issuing a roadside reduction when they're wearing a body-worn camera.” 

“And generally speaking, we saw very little in the way of effects on departmental outputs. When we focused on just traffic tickets, which is a much more routine sort of... you can understand as a fairly standardized... you'd expect it to be a sort of similar time frame type of interaction. What we saw is that there was a six minute increase when officers were using body cameras compared to not.”

PART OF DR. SAULNIER’S WORK IN DURHAM IS FOCUSED ON HOW OFFICERS PERCEIVED THE CAMERAS, AND HOW THOSE PERCEPTIONS CHANGED OVER TIME.

Alana Saulnier: As usual, with many evaluations that have looked at this, we saw that officers were somewhat skeptical about body-worn cameras to begin with. They weren’t sure if this was something they were very comfortable with.”

ALTHOUGH OFFICERS IN DURHAM STARTED OFF SKEPTICAL, DR. SAULNIER SAYS BY THE END OF THE STUDY THEY FOUND THAT OFFICERS USING BODY-WORN CAMERAS ACTUALLY LEFT THE STUDY WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY MORE POSITIVE VIEW OF THE WEARABLE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.

AND, ACCORDING TO GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY’S DR. CYNTHIA LUM, THAT’S WHAT MAKES THIS DISCUSSION A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED.

Cynthia Lum: “I think the initial push for adopting body-worn cameras really came from people, from activists and from community members, not necessarily the police. And, this push was really fueled by concerns about accountability and in particular accountability regarding the use of force and also possible disparities that might come from those uses of force. And I think police officers and agencies were initially very skeptical, if not opposed to body-worn cameras. Especially at the lower ranks, they saw them as a way for leadership to keep an eye on them. But I think as police officers began to use the cameras, many became staunch supporters of them as they found that body-worn cameras could protect them from what they would describe as frivolous complaints or frivolous lawsuits. And I think, body-worn cameras also have been used much more now to frequently hold citizens accountable, either to their behaviours or to their crimes.”

LUM STRESSES THAT THOUGH INITIAL EXPECTATIONS OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS BY CITIZENS WERE HIGH, THOSE EXPECTATIONS WEREN’T NECESSARILY MET WHEN THE TECHNOLOGY WAS IMPLEMENTED.

Cynthia Lum: “And that incongruence between the expectations of people and the expectations of the police are really, in some ways at odds with each other. And so because of this, I think there's not a consensus about the way body-worn cameras are being used currently. And, I do think that citizens and police really both thought that body-worn cameras could protect themselves from the other and hold each other accountable. I just think that the police have been more able to use cameras to hold citizens accountable than the other way around.”

AND THAT IS A VIEW SHARED BY DR. BRYCE NEWELL.

Bryce Newell: My name is Bryce Newell, I'm an assistant professor at the University of Oregon. I've been studying body-worn camera adoption by police agencies around the US since 2014 when I was a doctoral student at the University of Washington.”

“I think in general, overall, my research and I think other research as well, has shown that while body cameras were initially talked about and pushed forward by departments, even by some civil liberties organizations as something that would only benefit the public, hold the police in check, we've seen that body cameras and the evidence that they collect has generally been more protective and more useful to law enforcement for law enforcement purposes, for exonerating officers when complaints of misconduct are alleged against them and so forth.”

THIS IDEA OF WHO THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY BODY-WORN CAMERAS AFFECTS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING DR. SAULNIER STUDIED WITH DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE. DR. SAULNIER SAYS THEY LOOKED AT COURT OUTCOMES RELATED TO PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AND CRIMINAL CASES -- OR IN OTHER WORDS… DID THE USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS AND THE EVIDENCE THEY COLLECTED LEAD TO MORE OR LESS CONVICTIONS? IN BOTH CASES, RESEARCH SHOWED VERY LITTLE IN THE WAY OF AFFECTS OF BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE ON THOSE COURT OUTCOMES.

Alana Saulnier: “Even though body-worn cameras might be rolling during an interaction, it doesn't mean they're actually capturing evidence. So you might have footage connected to a case of an officer doing their job, but it doesn't mean that it's otherwise relevant to the prosecution of that case. And so I think that we're looking far too broadly at what constitutes B-W-C footage being connected to a case.”

SAULNIER UNDERSCORED THE NEED FOR RESEARCH EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF BODY-WORN CAMERA USE ON COURT OUTCOMES TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE THAT IS OF EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND FOOTAGE THAT SIMPLY DOCUMENTED AN OFFICER DOING THEIR JOB.

OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM, THE ISSUE OF FOOTAGE IS ALSO A BIG PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE FOOTAGE TAKEN BY A BODY-WORN CAMERA? AND, HOW CAN THAT FOOTAGE BE USED? ALSO, WHEN SHOULD AN OFFICER TURN THEIR CAMERA ON AND OFF?

DR. MICHAEL WHITE HAS BEEN STUDYING POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERAS FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS. HE’S EVALUATED THIS TECHNOLOGY’S USE BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, TEMPE, ARIZONA and  WASHINGTON, D-C.

Michael White: “My name is Michael White. I'm a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University…” “But, I'm also the co-director of training and technical assistance for the U-S Department of Justice body-worn camera funding program.”

HE SAYS ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES HERE ISN’T WHETHER THE CAMERAS ARE RECORDING SIGNIFICANT FOOTAGE, IT’S WHAT ACCESS THE PUBLIC HAS TO THAT FOOTAGE ONCE IT’S RECORDED.

Michael White: “You know, I think one of the central concerns of the public, of citizens, is the transparency. There have been cases where you know a police chief has come out at the beginning of their body-worn camera program, and said, "we're doing this because we've got nothing to hide. We want to be transparent". And then months later, there's a critical incident, there's a shooting, something horrific happens and that same police department refuses to release the footage from body cameras of that incident. So I think that, you know, the public continues to demand transparency. If there's footage of an incident that happened and that incident involved serious injury or death, the public wants to know about that. And some departments have been very, very reluctant to release that footage. You know, the other piece is that, you know, there have been times where there should have been a recording and an officer failed to record. And, you know, in jurisdictions where there's a lot of tension and antagonism between the community and police, if there's a failed activation I think the community will often assume that that was done intentionally and it was done to hide something.”

WHO EXACTLY BENEFITS FROM THE USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS IS A QUESTION SHARED BY  DR. NEWELL. BUT, HE SAYS THE RESEARCH THAT’S BEEN DONE IN THIS AREA LEAVES US WITH A MORE CLEAR ANSWER AS TIME GOES ON.

Bryce Newell: And so, I think we’ve begun to see that the cameras benefit law enforcement and police officers much more than they hurt them or hold them accountable. And so I think a variety of these factors all lead into our current concerns and pushback towards the cameras in practice.

PUSHBACK. IT’S SOMETHING WE’VE SEEN FROM BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONVERSATION OVER BODY-WORN CAMERAS. THERE ARE CONCERNS BEING VOICED BY THE PUBLIC, AND THERE ARE CONCERNS BEING VOICED BY THE POLICE.

HERE’S DR. SAULNIER….

Alana Saulnier: “Naturally, as time has gone on we've seen the emergence of more critical perspectives to this ongoing discussion that they've been allowed to emerge. I'm not saying that they weren't always there, but they've now emerged more prominently. And those perspectives that are critical of body-worn cameras take varied forms. And I'd say a very central one there is cost relative to outcomes achieved.”

BODY-WORN CAMERAS ARE EXPENSIVE. AND, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ONE-TIME INVESTMENT TO START A BODY-WORN PROGRAM. FOR EXAMPLE, THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE WAS ALLOCATED $3 MILLION TO CONTINUE THEIR DEPLOYMENT OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS IN 2019-2020, WITH TOTAL YEARLY OPERATING COSTS,  ASSOCIATED WITH THE COST OF ONGOING DATA STORAGE AND MANAGEMENT, YET TO BE DETERMINED. AN EVER-GROWING NUMBER OF HOURS OF DIGITAL DATA NEEDS TO BE STORED SOMEWHERE, AND ARCHIVED CORRECTLY. THAT TAKES TIME AND MONEY.

DR. MICHAEL WHITE IS THE CO-DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S BODY-WORN CAMERA FUNDING PROGRAM. HE SAYS, FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE, DESPITE THE COST THERE'S STILL A PRETTY STRONG GROUNDSWELL FOR POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERAS. HE SAYS THE FUNDING PROGRAM HE WORKS WITH IS QUOTE BOOMING. THEY'RE STILL GETTING LARGE NUMBERS OF APPLICATIONS EACH YEAR FOR GRANTS TO PURCHASE BODY-WORN CAMERAS. SO, ALTHOUGH COST IS A BARRIER, IT’S NOT STOPPING DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE U-S FROM INVESTING IN THIS TECHNOLOGY.  HE SAYS, IN 2016, THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS SURVEYED THOUSANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ABOUT BODY-WORN CAMERAS.

Michael White: “From that, we were able to document about just under half of police departments in the US by 2016 had adopted cameras. And that was important that we got that information because we really didn't know how widespread the adoption had been. But importantly, for those agencies that said, “no, we have not adopted,” the survey then asked them why. And by far the most common answer to the why we haven't done this question is cost. And that still is, I think, the primary challenge for law enforcement agencies.”

Alana Saulnier: “Even though I think it was very natural for people to anticipate that body-worn cameras could have very substantial impacts, that as we've gotten more research that's accumulated, that's demonstrated consistency around things -- for example, that in terms of court outcomes there tends to be little in the way of effects -- that people have come to think, well, is this relatively costly technology really that useful? But I'd also say another substantial area of concern is the expansion of the surveillance state which, I'd say the most general sense is people expressing concerns about privacy, privacy infringements and data protection, but also is certainly about demonstrating attention to whether the use of this technology and the use of the data it produces is something that is able to promote human flourishing by helping the public be more satisfied with the police and assisting police in the work that they do or whether the technology is used in a way that's more oppressive... in a way that would leave people feeling more uncomfortable and more uncertain, more scrutinized rather than cared for. And I think that that's another really substantial concern that's emerged in response to body-worn cameras now.”

THIS CONCERN DR. SAULNIER RAISES -- HOW COMFORTABLE THE PUBLIC IS WITH THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH POLICE BEING RECORDED -- IS SOMETHING UNIVERSITY OF OREGON’S DR. NEWELL ALSO THINKS A LOT ABOUT.  IN HIS NEW BOOK “POLICE VISIBILITY: PRIVACY, SURVEILLANCE, AND THE FALSE PROMISE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS” HE ARGUES THAT PERSONAL PRIVACY IS THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE OF THIS TECHNOLOGICAL EFFORT FOR POLICE TRANSPARENCY. 

Bryce Newell: “Some of my early research with a couple of police agencies during their initial adoption of cameras in Washington State -- at that time, starting at about 2014, the public disclosure law in that state -- in Washington State -- essentially they were allowed very few forms of redaction for that footage. And so, most footage that officers were recording, even including very sensitive interviews inside people's homes and in various other sensitive contexts was subject to public disclosure. We had individuals requesting essentially all body-worn camera footage and posting it to YouTube. And so, we saw some of this footage start to get very public and very visible to the public -- even very sensitive footage. And so this concern I have, what I've called ‘collateral visibility’ -- or the privacy harms that come from you know this form of police surveillance, without thinking more broadly about the transparency and privacy related laws that might apply here, I think really is an argument for preserving privacy and thinking more broadly about how we regulate police and body-worn cameras before putting them on the police so that police don't go into people's homes in, for example, a domestic violence case, a domestic assault case, record everything on their cameras and then get back to the station, upload it and realize, ‘oh, wow, this is subject to public disclosure. Anyone who wants this could potentially get a copy and do whatever they want, including post it to YouTube’.”

NEWELL SAYS PARTWAY THROUGH HIS RESEARCH A NUMBER OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE LAWS DID CHANGE IN WASHINGTON STATE, BUT THAT THERE ARE STILL A NUMBER OF LAWS THAT CHANGE STATE-BY-STATE THAT DON’T PROTECT PRIVACY IN THE WAYS HE THINKS THEY SHOULD. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE IS ALSO REGULATED AT THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL IN CANADA, BUT, IN GENERAL, THE ABILITY TO REQUEST INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER PERSONS FROM PUBLIC BODIES IN CANADA IS LIMITED -- MAKING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODY-WORN CAMERA VIDEO AN IMPORTANT TOPIC IN THE CANADIAN CONTEXT AS WELL, BUT FROM A DIFFERENT STARTING POINT. 

COLLECTING PERSONAL DATA AND IMAGES OF PEOPLE -- ESPECIALLY IN VULNERABLE SITUATIONS -- IS A TOPIC THAT GETS DISCUSSED A LOT WHEN IT COMES TO SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IN GENERAL. THIS IDEA DR. SAULNIER MENTIONED OF THE QUOTE SURVEILLANCE STATE IS ONE THAT SPARKS DEBATE AND FEAR AMONG CITIZENS IN NORTH AMERICA. AND AT THE CENTRE OF THAT DISCUSSION IS THE QUESTION OF WHAT DATA SHOULD BE COLLECTED AND HOW CAN IT BE USED IN THE FUTURE?

Alana Saulnier: “I think that body cameras can serve a very valuable role in letting police and members of the public have access to a documented record about an encounter, but that this should not be an opportunity for wide scale data collection that is held long-term and for purposes other than focusing on that particular interaction.”

“I'd say that one of the biggest concerns is connected to using data collected by body-worn cameras in conjunction with pre-existing data sets, by which I mean something like a mug shot database or just more generally other forms of public surveillance. So, let's say data banks have CCTV footage that we're talking about, looking to connect various sources of data that probably don't need to be connected, that it doesn't necessarily serve the public's interest for that sort of broad scale scrutiny to be constant, that it can have concerning chilling effects and that people are owed some sense of anonymity to be able to continue our social development in ways that are progressive.”

DESPITE CONCERNS, ALL FOUR OF OUR RESEARCHERS AGREED THAT THE TRAIN HAS ALREADY LEFT THE STATION WHEN IT COMES TO BODY-WORN CAMERAS. THE WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY IS NOT LIKELY TO BE REVERSED. SO, IF BODY-WORN CAMERAS ARE A NEW NORMAL IN POLICING EQUIPMENT, WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS BOTH THE POLICE AND THE PUBLIC HAVE ABOUT USING THESE CAMERAS? AN ANSWER? THOUGHTFUL POLICY. HERE’S DR. SAULNIER...

Alana Saulnier: “What I really think we need is a sound policy regulation. It's incredibly important to me that if body-worn cameras are to be used, we see them used in ways that are consistent, at least at a provincial level if not across Canada, which would be my preference. And, my reason for that is that in Canada we have expectations regarding consistency in the administration of policing. We also have consistency all the way up to the National level with our Criminal Code.”

“But police use of technology has not really been subject to the same level of consistency. This isn't picking on body-worn cameras -- this is across the board. We do see that there is a much more limited consistency in policies used by specific services when it comes to their adoption of a technology.”

SAULNIER SAYS IN CANADA, THERE ISN’T A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK GUIDING THE USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS. SHE SAYS WHAT SHE WANTS TO SEE IS LEADERS IN THE POLICE PRACTITIONER COMMUNITY AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS (LIKE PRIVACY ADVOCATES, VICTIM ADVOCATES, AND RESEARCHERS) COME TOGETHER TO PRODUCE A NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK THAT LOCAL SERVICES CAN ADOPT.

FOR DR. BRYCE NEWELL THERE ARE SIMILAR REGULATORY ISSUES ACROSS THE BORDER. HE SAYS IN THE UNITED STATES THEY’RE AT THE POINT WHERE THEY NEED TO START THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HOW THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH BODY-WORN CAMERAS -- HOW THEY REGULATE THEM AND HOW THEY THINK ABOUT PROTECTING COMMUNITIES FROM THE POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

Bryce Newell: “I'm fairly critical of the way in which body-worn cameras have been adopted by police agencies around the country, in particular because I think under the sort of lackadaisical regulatory setup that we have in the United States, local police departments are able to adopt these sorts of surveillance technologies, often without much oversight. We have some cities and municipalities around the country that have started to adopt various forms of surveillance technology review and pre purchase review and so forth. But in most cases, these agencies are adopting cameras without our states and local municipalities being forced to really grapple with the broader legal and regulatory questions and the privacy concerns and so forth. If we move forward... body-worn cameras, I think, can play an important role in policing. But we really do need to take a much more holistic approach to how we regulate them, how we regulate who can do what and who can access the footage that comes with it and what footage they can access and so forth. And without really taking that more holistic approach to understanding sort of the broader impacts that these have in society and the variety of law that might apply here, that the adoption is premature.

FOR DR. CYNTHIA LUM, THE CHANGES SHE’D LIKE TO SEE GOES BEYOND THE REGULATION OF TECHNOLOGY. THE CAMPBELL COLLABORATION REVIEW SHE AND HER COLLEAGUES JUST COMPLETED FOUND THERE WEREN’T REALLY CLEAR, CONSISTENT EFFECTS OF THE USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS ON THINGS LIKE USE OF FORCE, OR POLICE PROACTIVITY, TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN STOPS OR ASSAULTS ON OFFICERS. SHE SAYS THE RESEARCH SHOWS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT BODY-WORN CAMERAS CAN REDUCE THE USE OF FORCE, CAN INCREASE THE USE OF FORCE, OR CAN HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE USE OF FORCE. AND FOR THAT REASON SHE SAYS WE NEED TO LOOK TO THE ACTUAL ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INSTEAD OF PUTTING ALL OF THE EGGS IN THE TECHNOLOGY BASKET.

Cynthia Lum: “The Campbell Review really emphasizes that we need to better understand when and under what conditions body-worn cameras could be effective since police agencies have already adopted them.”

“The reality of policing, at least in the U-S and I'm sure very similarly in Canada, is that the organizational infrastructure is incredibly strong and much more stronger than the technology itself. So, to achieve more accountable, transparent, fair and effective policing, certain infrastructures within the organization have to be strengthened. So, for example, strengthening accountability infrastructure doesn't require just better policies and training, but stronger first line supervision, adjustment to internal affairs practices, maybe even systematizing communication channels between people and the police. Those things need to really be the focus if you're trying to increase accountability in policing. And so I would argue that not only do we need research that really gets at the nitty-gritty of, you know, under what conditions, can body-worn camera research be effective. But we also need to understand the realities of the way policing works and whether or not the optimal cases can be actually achieved. And what can we do to achieve those optimal cases? Again, body-worn cameras are not the solution to deeper internal reforms that need to be accomplished in policing to achieve the conditions in which body-worn cameras can be optimized. It's a bit of a catch 22.

LUM SAYS SHE THINKS RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED TO STUDY BOTH EFFECTIVE POLICE PRACTICES AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES TO GET CLOSER TO FAIR AND EFFECTIVE POLICING. TECHNOLOGY ISN’T THE ONLY SOLUTION. 

Cynthia Lum: “I think one thing that really needs to be analyzed a bit more is whether or not either technologies or organizational reforms can impact disparities in criminal justice. I think one underlying hope for body-worn cameras is that it could have not just reduced use of force, but also could reduce disparities within use of force. That's a complicated relationship and a complicated thing to analyze. I think we really need to better understand that. Just because you have less of something doesn't mean you also reduce the disparities within that phenomenon. You can still have disparities or disparities can increase. So, I think getting at more specific effects of body-worn cameras will be important in the next generation of research that comes out on body-worn cameras.”

THAT PUSH FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF BODY-WORN CAMERA RESEARCH IS SOMETHING SHARED BY ALL OF OUR GUESTS. AND, THOSE AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH ARE VAST AND FAR REACHING. FROM COURT OUTCOMES, TO USE OF EVIDENTIARY FOOTAGE, TO WEIGHING THE COST WITH THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE CAMERAS AS TOOLS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.

FOR DR. NEWELL, THE EMPHASIS ALSO NEEDS TO BE ON HOW THE FOOTAGE COLLECTED BY THE CAMERAS IS BEING USED IN LITIGATION AND PROSECUTION IN THE COURT SYSTEM BY PROSECUTORS AND DEFENCE ATTORNEYS.

Bryce Newell: “I think it's important that we understand more about how people understand what they see in this video --- and how they interpret what they see and what credibility they give to that information. That there's a lot of evidence that we as humans, juries and so forth, give a lot of weight to visual evidence. And I think the same is very true in the case of body-worn camera footage. That we see this and the jury might see this and they give a lot of credibility. But we don't understand a whole lot at this point in particular about how people interpret what they see and how they make distinctions about what they see on this footage.

HE THINKS THIS KIND OF RESEARCH COULD HAVE A PROFOUND IMPACT ON THE WAY BODY-WORN CAMERA EVIDENCE IS BEING USED BOTH TO PROSECUTE POLICE OFFICERS FOR MISCONDUCT, BUT ALSO IN CASES WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS BEING USED FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS OF POTENTIAL OFFENDERS THAT THE POLICE HAVE ARRESTED.

IN DR. MICHAEL WHITE’S VIEW, HE’D LIKE TO SEE MORE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES PERFORMED IN COMMUNITIES ALREADY USING THIS TECHNOLOGY.

Michael White: “There's been one that's been completed. It was completed as part of the evaluation of body-worn cameras in Las Vegas. It was a solid cost benefit analysis done by an economist. And it actually showed that the body-worn camera program saved the Las Vegas Metro Police Department nearly four million dollars a year. And that was simply as a result of savings in investigative costs with regard to complaints and things like that. But that's the only cost benefit that's been completed. So we need more of that kind of research.”

WHITE SAYS HE’S HOPING TO SEE RESEARCHERS DIG DEEPER TO REVEAL THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH LARGE DECLINES IN USE OF FORCE AND CITIZEN COMPLAINTS CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS.

HE CITES A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS KIND OF RESEARCH. A REPORT RECENTLY RELEASED BY THE N-Y-P-D MONITOR DETAILING THE RESULTS AND EVALUATIONS OF THE SERVICE’S BODY-WORN CAMERA PILOT PROGRAM. THE REPORT INCLUDED AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS ON “STOP AND FRISK” PRACTICES.

Michael White: “This recent report that came out earlier this week suggested that body-worn cameras are extremely useful in terms of increasing the reporting of stops that officers are making. That was one of the concerns that the Monitor and others have had for several years now, is that New York City police officers are conducting stops, but they're not reporting them. And what the federal monitor study found was that body-worn cameras led to increased reporting of stops. And also what it showed is that many of the stops that are recorded on body-worn cameras do not meet Constitutional standards. And the Monitor talks about how that footage can now be used to review the decisions that officers are making with regard to stops and to identify officers who are consistently engaging in stops that are unconstitutional. So I think that those are some of the areas we need to focus on. And again, that NYPD study goes directly to local context because, you know, I haven't seen any other studies that have looked at the impact of body-worn cameras on stop and frisk.”

THE LOCAL CONTEXT -- AS DR. WHITE SAYS -- DOES MATTER. WHAT’S HAPPENING IN GLENDALE, ARIZONA IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT’S HAPPENING IN LOS ANGELES, OR CHICAGO, ...OR DURHAM REGION, ONTARIO. 

AND THIS, IS AN IDEA THAT CAME UP TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THESE CONVERSATIONS. LOCAL CONTEXT MATTERS. FOR DR. SAULNIER, EVEN THOUGH SHE’S CALLING FOR A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK IN CANADA TO REGULATE THE USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS, SHE SAYS SHE STILL THINKS IT SHOULD BE UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY TO DECIDE IF BODY-WORN CAMERAS ARE SOMETHING THEY WANT.

Alana Saulnier: “Creation of a national policy framework doesn't mean that services need to adopt body-worn cameras. That needs to be decided locally in conjunction with community members. But, that we have every reason to expect that when a service adopts body-worn cameras, that they should be doing so reasonably consistently in terms of things like activation policies -- when a body-worn camera is turned off. That doesn't mean that we can't have discretion instituted for something like victim sensitivity -- orienting a lens away from or even turning off video while retaining audio for a situation where a victim is unclothed, for example, or in a state of extreme distress. But, you know, thinking about other things, notification policies that for instance, officers be required to notify persons that a body-worn camera is in use as soon as reasonably possible during an interaction. And there's a fair number of these general themes that we need to reach I think agreement on. Around what the best practice is for police services to move forward with. And that would be most ideal for those to be applied consistently.”

“This is, of course, a costly technology, and I think the decision to adopt body-worn cameras should be made by individual services in consultation with the community they serve. So, their local community. I think that if your local community wants body-worn cameras, that a local service is very much obliged to strongly consider adopting that technology.”

WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR GUESTS TODAY FOR THEIR INCREDIBLE INSIGHTS AND FOR SHARING THEIR IMPORTANT WORK WITH US.

ALANA SAULNIER IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY. SHE HAS STUDIED THE EFFECTS OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS IN PILOT PROGRAMS WITH THE CHICAGO P-D, DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE, AND THE GUELPH POLICE SERVICE. 

BRYCE NEWELL IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF MEDIA LAW AND POLICY IN THE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON. HIS BOOK, "POLICE VISIBILITY: PRIVACY, SURVEILLANCE, AND THE FALSE PROMISE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS" IS A SOCIO-LEGAL STUDY OF BODY-WORN CAMERA ADOPTION BY TWO POLICE AGENCIES IN WASHINGTON STATE. IT WILL BE RELEASED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS IN JUNE 2021. THE LINK TO PRE-ORDER HIS BOOK IS INCLUDED IN THE SHOW NOTES.

CYNTHIA LUM IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRE FOR EVIDENCE BASED CRIME POLICY AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY AND ALSO A PROFESSOR IN THEIR CRIMINOLOGY, LAW AND SOCIETY DEPARTMENT. SHE IS THE FIRST AUTHOR OF A CAMPBELL COLLABORATION SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON BODY-WORN CAMERAS. WE’VE INCLUDED A LINK TO THAT REVIEW IN THE SHOW NOTES AS WELL.

AND DR. MICHAEL WHITE IS A PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY. HE’S ALSO THE CO-DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BODY-WORN CAMERA FUNDING PROGRAM.

YOU CAN FIND THE LINKS TO ANY STUDIES OR REVIEWS WE REFERENCED IN THE SHOW NOTES FOR THIS EPISODE. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORK WE DO AT THE CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON SECURITY PRACTICES PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE AR C-R-S-P.ONLINE.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO CRSP TALK. WE WILL BE BACK AGAIN SOON WITH MORE RESEARCH TO UNCOVER. 

I’M AVERY MOORE KLOSS.