TO: Chief

FROM: Assistant Chief James Kidd

DATE: February 25, 2016

SUBJECT: Body Worn Cameras

The Brownwood Police Department will benefit from the implementation of body worn

cameras but must address several issues and concerns in regards to the camera system. Research

has indicated several benefits in the use of body worn cameras. That same research also shares

your concerns in reference to the appropriate time to activate the camera, privacy matters, and

the review of body worn cameras before writing reports and testifying in court.

I have met with the street crimes unit and narcotic investigators to receive informal input

on the subject. The street crimes unit is excited about body worn cameras. The unit indicated that

they usually arrive on scene a few minutes after patrol. The unit gave an example that during the

shooting incident last week they arrived on scene after the victim was transported to the hospital.

The unit did not have access to photos of the victim or scene construction, as the patrol officers

were performing live saving efforts, and not able to photograph the initial scene during that time.

Review of the video produced by the body worn camera would had shown the exact location of

the victim, conditions of the scene, and any excited utterance that may have been recorded. The

narcotic investigators are already utilizing department covert style cameras, but they are

apprehensive in a policy that would not allow for discretion. The investigators main concern is

protecting their intelligence-gathering efforts. The Mesa (Arizona) Police Department has also

found that body worn cameras can undermine information-gathering efforts. We have definitely
seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know that they are videotaped,

said Lieutenant Harold Rankin. Policy and procedures must allow for the narcotic investigators

to utilize cameras differently than a citizen contact by a patrol officer.

There are several issues and concerns we must consider before the implementation of

body worn cameras which include the following: privacy, officer-citizen relations, storage

capacity, camera selection, cost, and policy development. The American Civil Liberties Union

advocates that officers should record all encounters with the public citing that, mandatory

recording is also what will protect an officer from allegations of discretionary recording or

tampering. Our investigators have requested flexibility and discretion as to when to record

citizen encounters. This discretion will allow the officer to determine if the recording would

infringe on an individuals privacy rights and possible negative community relations. The most

popular approach as to when to activate the body camera is during all calls for service and law

enforcement-related encounters and activities. Activities include every arrest and detention.

Activities do not include consensual encounters or routine patrol but will provide officer

discretion if he/she feels it is necessary to activate the body camera during those type of

encounters and activities. Our department policy will need to be clearly written as defining what

constitutes a law enforcement-related activity or encounter to provide guidance to the officer.

When seeking input from the street crimes unit, and narcotic investigators an area of concern

seemed to be the mandatory review of body camera footage before the police report is written

and before courtroom testimony. The word mandatory does not allow for flexibility which the

officers are requesting. I believe reviewing footage will assist the officers memory and would

lead to a more accurate documentation of events, but there will need to be a balance as reviewing

video footage before each report is time consuming. There will need to be criteria put in place to
provide guidance for the officer as when he/she should be encouraged to review body camera

video before writing their report. The prosecutors advise officers to review their body worn

camera video before testifying in court. There is an argument that an officers truth and

credibility are better served if an officer is not permitted to review video footage. The mindset is

that it is the officers perceptive at the time of the event rather than what the video shows. Our

prosecutors believe reviewing the video benefits the officer and allows the officer to recall events

more clearly. The video may be the best evidence of what actually took place.

There are numerous advantages and benefits to the use of body worn cameras. The

concerns will be handled effectively by clearly defined guidelines and procedures. We must also

be prepared to adjust those guidelines and procedures as the use and implementation of body

worn cameras evolve.