Body worn video (police equipment)
In policing equipment, body worn video (BWV), body-worn camera (BWC), body camera or wearable camera is a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording system used to record events in which police officers or other law enforcers are involved. They are typically worn on the torso of the body on the officer’s uniform. Body worn cameras for policing are often similar to other body worn video equipment used by members of the public, commercially, or by the military, but are designed to address specific requirements related to law enforcement.
- 1 Definition
- 2 Usage in law enforcement
- 3 English language countries with bodycams
- 4 Other countries with bodycams
- 4.1 China
- 4.2 Denmark
- 4.3 Finland
- 4.4 France
- 4.5 Germany
- 4.6 Italy
- 4.7 Netherlands
- 4.8 Sweden
- 4.9 United Arab Emirates
- 5 Effects
- 6 Privacy concerns
- 7 Supply
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
The definition used in a market survey prepared for the United States Department of Justice in 2016 is that body worn cameras "are cameras with at least one microphone and internal data storage, and allow audio/video footage to be stored and analyzed with compatible software. The cameras are typically located on the police officer's chest or head".
Usage in law enforcement
Wearable cameras are often utilized by law enforcement to record their interactions with the public or gather video evidence at crime scenes. Current body cameras are much lighter and smaller than the first experiments with wearable cameras as early as 1998. There are several types of body cameras made by different manufacturers. Each camera basically serves the same purpose, yet some function in slightly different ways than others or have to be worn in a specific way. Some are meant to be mounted on the chest or shoulder, while others are attached to glasses or may be worn in a function similar to a headband or on a helmet. Bodycams may weigh anywhere from about 2 ounces (55 grams) to 5 ounces (140 grams).
The various needs and budgets of police departments have led to a wide range of body camera equipment to be offered in recent years. Body camera manufacturers have constantly looked for technical innovations to improve their products. Many body cameras offer specific features like HD quality, infrared, night vision, fisheye lenses, or varying degrees of view. Other features specific to law enforcement are implemented in the hardware to integrate the bodycam with other devices or wearables. Another example are automatic triggers that start the recording when the officer starts a specific procedure, for instance when a fire-arm or taser is pulled from a holster, when a siren is activated or when the car door opens.
Ever since body cameras were first worn by police officers, there has been a debate over whether capabilities that make the camera superior to that of the officer’s eyes should be allowed. For instance, infra-red recordings could in hind-sight clearly show that a suspect did or did not carry a gun in his hand, but the officer at the scene may not have been able to see this. This type of issue forces companies to choose whether they want to incorporate 'super human' features into their products, or not. HD video quality, for instance, no doubt improves usability of recordings as evidence, but at the same time increases file size, which in turn leads to an increase in bandwidth requirements for data transfer and storage capacity. At present, HD quality is the industries' standard, but until roughly 2016 that was not the case even though the technology was widely available in other devices.
Another important feature in law-enforcement is buffering: the option to let a body camera 'pre-record'. The bodycam can record continuously and store the most recent for instance thirty seconds. If the officer presses the record-switch, the preceding thirty seconds of recording will be kept. If he does not, the recording will be deleted after thirty seconds have passed on a 'first in, first out' basis. The ability to buffer enables officers to retain video of everything that occurred prior to the moment the record switch was pressed. This buffered video and audio may provide more context to an incident.
Other features are constantly being trialed and implemented into the cameras and the data-storage process, such as cloud storage. Axon offers the possibility of sharing footage outside the police department, for instance with district attorneys or other prosecutors or the courts.
Algorithms can be helpful in sifting through the recorded data that can quickly become overwhelming. Video content analysis, such as facial recognition or automatic indexing of recordings to simplify searching of the data, can help to reduce the time needed to find relevant fragments.
The device and storage are important and often require specific adaptation to make the technology suitable for law enforcement. But another important aspect of bodycams are the policies that shape the way officers use the bodycams. Three main questions are important:
1) Who wears the bodycam? This can be an individual voluntary choice or a collective mandatory requirement.
2) What has to be recorded? Officers can have discretion to turn the bodycam on or off as they see fit or they can be guided through protocols.
3) Who has access to the recordings? Access to the recordings determines to a large extent whether police officers will embrace the technology or not. Important questions in this domain are whether supervisors can access the footage and whether the recordings are public records or not. The rules that determine who has access, influence the willingness of officers to comply to the rules concerning wearing of bodycams and the on/off instructions. Important in this respect is whether the software automatically logs who has accessed the footage and whether any editing has been done.
English language countries with bodycams
The number of body-worn cameras in use by the police of Australia is growing increasingly prevalent in parallel with other countries. The first bodycams or 'cop-cams' were trialed in Western Australia in 2007. Victoria has been trialing body-worn cameras since 2012, and in 2015 the NSW police announced they had invested $4 million in rolling out body-worn cameras to frontline police officers. According to research being conducted in 2016 'the use of body-worn cameras has now gathered traction in most Australian states and territories'.
Some police services in Canada such as the Calgary Police Service have trialed body-worn video systems since 2012, and have recently adopted body-cameras for deployment by all officers beginning in 2017. Police unions in Canada have been opposed to body-worn video systems, citing privacy and cost concerns. In 2015, several city police units including those in Winnipeg and Montreal announced plans to experiment with the technology. The Toronto Police Service started a pilot in 2014 with the technology during a year-long study of body-worn cameras. In total, 100 officers were using the technology from May 2015 thru May 2016. The evaluation report concluded that support for the body cameras was strong and increased during the pilot. There were technical issues, for instance with battery life, camera mounting, docking, recharging, ability to classify, ease of review and other issues. Administrative responsibilities associated with the body cameras resulted in significant commitment of time by officers that then was not available to spend on other duties. In September 2016, the Toronto police wanted to put out a call for proposals from suppliers.
First tests 2005
Body-worn video cameras received wide media coverage because of the first testing of body-worn cameras in the United Kingdom in 2005. The test was begun on a small-scale by Devon and Cornwall Police. In 2006, the first significant deployments of body worn video at the national level were undertaken by the Police Standards Unit (PSU) as part of the Domestic Violence Enforcement Campaign (DVEC). The basic command units equipped with the head cameras recorded everything that happened during an incident from the time of arrival which led to the "preservation of good-quality first disclosure evidence from the victim". The evidence gathered was deemed especially useful in the way of supporting prosecutions if the victim was reluctant to give evidence or press charges.
Plymouth study 2007
This led the Home Office to publish a report stating that "evidence gathering utilising this equipment has the potential radically to enhance the police performance at the scene of a wide range of incidents". In the same report, the Home Office concluded that the body worn camera system used in Devon and Cornwall had "the ability to significantly improve the quality of the evidence provided by police officers at incidents". However, mostly due to the limitations of the then available technology, it was also recommended that police forces should await the completion of successful trials and projects to re-evaluate the technology before investing in cameras. By July 2007, the Home Office was beginning to encourage the emerging industry and published another document entitled "Guidance for the Police use of Body Worn Cameras". The report was based on the first national pilot of BWV conducted in Plymouth. Tony McNulty MP, Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism and Police wrote a foreword that held BWV in a promising light: "The use of body-worn video has the potential to improve significantly the quality of evidence provided by police officers…video recording from the scene of an incident will capture compelling evidence…that could never be captured in written statements." Despite being hailed as a tool to enhance the quality of evidence, the focus was beginning to shift away from exclusively benefitting prosecutions. The Home Office highlighted that BWV also had the significant potential to "prevent and deter crime". In addition, the final report on the National Pilot for BWV announced that complaints against the officers wearing the cameras had been reduced to zero and time spent on paperwork had been reduced by 22.4%, which led to a 9.2% increase in officer time spent on patrol ("50 minutes of a 9-hour shift").
Over 40 UK police areas with BWV in 2010
Following the national pilot, BWV began to gain some traction in the UK and, by 2008, Hampshire Police began to use the technology in parts of the Isle of Wight and the mainland. These were the first steps that paved the way for Chief Constable Andy Marsh becoming the national lead for BWV. Pioneers of BWV in the UK began to drive the need to review the legislation surrounding the use of the equipment. In 2009 the Security Industry Authority concluded that a CCTV license could be extended to cover the use of a body camera. The summary stated that a CCTV license was required to review footage from a body camera and that a door supervision or security guard license was required to operate a body camera if security activities were also being performed.
In 2010, 5 years after the first BWV venture, over 40 UK police areas were using body cameras to varying degrees. Grampian Police were one such force that initiated a trial in July 2010 which paved the way for the Paisley and Aberdeen body wore video project in 2011. The project was considered a huge success and it was identified that the benefits saved an estimated minimum of £400,000 per year due to the following:
- Increase public reassurance;
- Reduce fear of crime in local communities;
- Increase early guilty pleas;
- Resolve complaints about the police or wardens more quickly;
- Reduce assaults on officers.
The concluding sections of the report on the Paisley and Aberdeen project turned the attention to the digital, back-end solutions for BWV. Now that the benefits of using body cameras were being realized, the implications on the digital infrastructure were being called into question. The report suggested providing "robust central IT support" to have established the processes behind information gathering and monitoring.
Code of Practice surveillance cameras
In 2013 the Home Office released an updated code of practice for surveillance cameras, in which Principle 8 included the use of body cameras, stating: "Surveillance camera system operators should consider any approved operational, technical and competency standards relevant to a system and its purpose and work to meet and maintain those standards". 2013 also saw the start of Operation Hyperion, a Hampshire Police initiative on the Isle of Wight that equipped every frontline police officer with a personal issue body worn camera, the biggest project of its kind at the time. Sergeant Steve Goodier oversaw the project and was adamant that the project would drive legislative changes to free up further uses for body worn cameras. He said "I strongly believe we could make some small changes to legislation that can have a big impact on officers: "PACE was written in 1984 at a time when BWV was not around…We want to get the legislation changed so that BWV could replace the need for handwritten statements from officers when it is likely that an early guilty plea would be entered at court or that the incident could be dealt with a caution or community resolution."
In 2014, the Metropolitan Police Service began a 12 month trial in ten London boroughs, testing the impact of Body Worn Video on complaints, stop and search and criminal justice outcomes for violent offenses. Following the trial, the decision was made to issue body cameras to all officers who have regular engagement with the public. Other officers will be able to access cameras on an ‘as needed’ basis. A total of 22,000 cameras will be issued.
In 2016, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) formally introduced body Worn Video technology commencing with Derry City and Strabane District, with Belfast becoming the second District to introduce the technology. A pilot Body Worn Video camera scheme was run during 2014/15, which illustrated the benefits of Body Worn Video. On that basis a business case was submitted to the Department of Justice and funding was secured to purchase Body Worn Video technology for officers across the service. In 2017, the Northern Ireland Prison Service implemented body worn video, following the success of the PSNI deployment.
Law and policies
Following The Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, the state of Illinois became one of the first states to have a comprehensive set of rules for police departments in regards to body camera usage. The Chicago Police Department as well as the mayor of the city, Rahm Emanuel, have been vocal about their plan to enact a body-worn camera expansion that would equip police officers by the end of 2017. The goal of this plan, as well as the hiring of more officers, is to improve public trust in the law, expand transparency, and halt the climbing number of homicides. Springfield Police Department (Illinois) has also been among the local departments that have expanded the use of body worn cameras despite the Springfield Police Chief Kenny Winslow stating that "there are still problems with the state body camera law, and many departments in Illinois aren’t adopting the cameras as a result". One of those departments is the Minooka Police Department that discontinued the use of body cameras because they felt overburdened by administrative responsibilities. The considerable cost of cameras and the support of related technology is another factor limiting the speed of their adoption. In New York City, for example, initial purchase of body-worn cameras could cost up to $31 million. However, proponents hypothesized that body-worn cameras would save money by reducing lawsuits targeted towards the police force and by aiding in the dismissal of court cases with digital evidence provided by the recorded footage of the body-worn cameras.
On December 1, 2014, President Barack Obama "proposed reimbursing communities half the cost of buying cameras and storing video—a plan that would require Congress to authorize $75 million over three years to help purchase 50,000 recording devices". He also asked Congress for a $263 million package overall to deal with community policing initiatives that would provide a 50 percent federal match for local police departments to purchase body cameras and to store them. With the push from former President Barack Obama to “expand funding and training to law enforcement agencies through community policing initiatives”, the United States Department of Justice announced in May 2015 that they would grant 73 out of the 285 awards requested for a total of 20 million dollars. This allowed for the purchase and distribution of 21,000 cameras to be placed in active duty. A National Institute of Justice report found this in regards to responding police agencies: "In a sample of police departments surveyed in 2013, approximately 75 percent of them reported that they did not use body-worn cameras". A November 2014 survey of police departments serving the 100 most populous cities, Vocativ found that "41 cities use body cams on some of their officers, 25 have plans to implement body cams and 30 cities do not use or plan to use cams at this time".
Investigations have shown that although in many states the usage of body worn cameras is mandatory, there are instances where some officers have failed to adhere to the law. From 2015 until 2017, there have been nationally recognized scenarios of fatal shootings in San Francisco, Alabama, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles in which the officer was wearing a body camera, but did not activate it during the incident. The Los Angeles Police Department is one of the first to publicly discuss solutions as to how they will try to fix this problem. Small reminders such as stickers in the station and cars are meant to remind officers to utilize this technology. In addition, Los Angeles Police Department is testing new technology that would activate the cameras at the same time as the officer turns on their emergency lights. The LAPD has also been working with the body camera manufacturer it uses, Taser International, to increase a buffer that saves video from 30 seconds before and after the camera is turned on and off.
There have been conflicting studies on the use of body-worn cameras and the effect that these cameras have on police behavior. Early reports touting the benefits of police body cameras were based on limited research of small groups of police officers in a short period of time.
In recent years, more robust research has become available, refuting the early claims. Reports on 54 Rialto police officers wearing cameras showed that complaints against officers from citizens dropped by 88% and "use of force" dropped by 59%. Another report that studied the effects of body-worn cameras for 46 officers of the Orlando Police Department over one year stated that for officers wearing the body cameras, use-of-force incidents dropped by 53%, civilian complaints dropped by 65%, two in three officers who wore the cameras said they’d want to continue wearing them in the future and that it made them "better officers". However, a study of thousands of Washington, D.C. officers found no effect on use of force by officers or the number of complaints by civilians.
Police unions in several U.S. cities, such as New York City (the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which represents the NYPD), Las Vegas, and Jersey City, New Jersey, and St. Louis, Missouri, expressed doubts or opposition to body cameras. Specifically, union officials expressed concerns about possible distraction and safety issues, and questioned "whether all the footage filmed by body cameras will be accessible via public-records requests, whether victims of domestic violence will be hesitant to call police if they know they will be filmed and whether paying for the cameras and maintenance will lead to cuts elsewhere in the police budget". Others have worried about a "gotcha discipline". Some unions have argued that it was "mandatory" for police departments to include provisions about body-worn cameras in union contracts because it would be a "clear change in working conditions" as well as something that could "impact an officer's safety".
Washington D.C. researcher Harlan Yu conducted a study with the nonprofit consulting company Upturn, which focuses on technologies effects on social issues. The researcher conducted data that showed the lack of effect on the police body worn cameras. From the random sample of Washington D.C. police officers who wore these body cameras there was no significant data set to make a statistical difference. The results concluded that police enforcement who were equipped with body cameras used force and confronted civilians in a comparative manner to police who were not equipped with body cameras. Harlan states, “ This is the most important empirical study on the impact of police body-worn cameras to date.”  This study is significant as Washington D.C. has one of the most controversial police organizations in America. “These results suggest we should recalibrate our expectations” of cameras’ ability to make a “large-scale behavioral change in policing, particularly in contexts similar to Washington, D.C., concluded the study, which was led by David Yokum at the Lab @ DC, a team of scientists embedded in D.C. government, and Anita Ravishankar at D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department (M.P.D.).”  As no single study can give exact proof on why police should or should not be equipped with body cameras, this study provides qualitative research and analysis for the controversy on the topic. Cameras appeared to not change behavior of police enforcement due to two factors, desensitization of these cameras, and the fact that police officers performed more accordingly due to being watched. The generalization of being surveyed is the assumption of what changes an individual's behavior and may have created a change in police force tendencies.“ (The researchers also checked the data to make sure officers were turning their cameras on when they were supposed to, and found a very high level of compliance.) Another possibility is that officers without cameras were acting like officers with cameras, simply because they knew other officers had the devices.”
The American Civil Liberties Union is an organization that has been a major proponent of body cameras on officers, but only in certain situations. The ACLU has advocated body camera use for both police departments and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, granted that safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of both officers and civilians. However, they have opposed the use of such camera systems for parking enforcement officers, fire marshals, building inspectors, or other code enforcement officers.
The debate on body-worn videos for police rages on. Some believe similarly to Fox News resident psychiatrist Keith Ablow, who stated that it was an "insult to police officers" to provide them body cameras. Others, such as Black Lives Matter, have released specific policy solutions to tackle the issue of police violence and escalation that include body cameras for police, limited use of force, and demilitarization of the police are a few of the ten crucial policies listed in Campaign Zero.
Other countries with bodycams
The use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement offers potential advantages in keeping officers safe, enabling situational awareness, improving community relations and accountability, and providing evidence for trials. A legislation regarding body-worn camera has been enacted by the Ministry of Public Security, making the body-worn camera standard and mandatory policing equipment for law enforcement agencies in China.
Two million police officers are being equipped with this camera in China. The police in Hong Kong has been experimenting with body cameras since 2013. Based on positive findings from an (unpublished) evaluation, the decision was taken to supply all front-line officers with a bodycam.
The police in Denmark has been credited in English media as the first police force to use body cameras, even before the English pilots of 2007 were initiated. In 2017, the Minister of Justice has equipped security personnel in detention centers with body cameras.
Pilot project 2015
In Finland, a pilot with body cameras was started in 2015. Thirty cameras were used by the Helsinki Police Department to help the police in maintaining public order. It was hoped that body cameras might prevent crime and disorder. Furthermore, it was expected that the cameras could at the same time improve the way the police worked. The cameras were meant to be used in specific settings and only in public places. Filming inside homes would only be allowed as part of a criminal investigation. The data were to be encrypted and could only be accessed with specific software, according to the police. It was expected that most recordings would be deleted right after each shift, because of the need for privacy protection.
According to a report from 2017 by a working-group, the pilot justified the national roll-out of bodycams in Finland. The report concluded that police officers' safety improved, reduced resistance to the police and better protected police. During the experiment in Helsinki, the report noted, behaviour of citizens improved when people see that the situation is being recorded. The introduction could be based on current legislation, but an additional legal framework would be needed regulating recording and storage of recordings. Filming inside homes is not generally allowed. The cameras could be available at the end of 2018, after the necessary training and purchases. The Federation of Police Officers wants provisions to make sure that human errors will not be problematic for officers wearing cameras. The question is whether police can erase recordings when they want to. According to the working group, this is no different from the handling of other police documentation. During the pilot, the recordings were stored for 24 hours and then wiped, unless a criminal offence was recorded. The working group recommended to extend that period to 96 hours.
Plans for national roll-out in 2018
In early 2018, some 30 cameras were in use at Helsinki police department on a trial basis. The National Police Board recommended in April 2018 to issue all police officers on patrol with cameras. The ambition is to make the procurements in 2018. The two main reasons are to improve officers' safety by reducing confrontations with members of the public and to make recordings that can be used as evidence.
French law enforcement has been experimenting with bodycams - 'caméra-piéton' - since at least 2013, but possibly earlier. Organisations that use small wearable cameras include personnel of the rail transportation (SNCF) and the regional public transport for Paris (RATP). In 2018, the senate approved plans to experiment with bodycams in fire fighting and in detention centers. National and municipal police have also been outfitted with body cameras, starting with 2 600 cameras in 2017, after experimentation during the previous years. The measure is intended to appease interventions and reassure the security forces. Formally, the goals of the cameras are:
- prevention of incidents during interventions by the police or the military (gendarmerie nationale);
- detection of violations of the law and the prosecution of the suspects by collecting evidence;
- training and education of officers
The legal framework has been determined by a law of 3 June 2016 by the national committee on information and freedoms (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés - CNIL). Their opinion is that because of the elevated risks created by surveillance of persons and personal life that could result from the use of these cameras, a specific legal framework was needed. Separate laws have been developed for national police and gendarmerie and for municipal police - the latter being adopted by parliament in 2018. Recordings have to be retained for at least six months. Specific legislation has also been developed for law enforcement in sectors such as rail transportation and regional public transport for Paris. One of the key components of the law in France is that officers are not allowed to review the recordings. However, the bodycams acquired offered this option and would have to be replaced with different type progressively, but not before the end of 2017 - according to the source quoted in the article.
One of the main reasons for the national police, gendarmerie and municipal police to start using bodycams is the systematic recording of identity checks in public places. Starting in March 2017, the police and gendarmerie in 23 prioritised security zones ('zones de securité priorities), including Paris, Marseille, Nice, Toulouse, Lyon and other regions, had to record each identity check. Up to 2013, the decision to start a recording was discretionary, but after 2017 recording of these checks was supposed to become the rule. According to a critical article, this requirement was not fulfilled, given the fact that there were 2 500 bodycams available for the total of around 245 000 officers in the country. Some controversy surrounded the introduction because of a statement in the Senate by ministre de l'intérieur, Bruno le Roux, that recording would be triggered automatically - a statement that later had to be revoked because it proved to be incorrect.
Reasons for bodycams
In some parts of Germany, some state police services have used body-worn video systems since 2013 and the number of states (German: Land or Länder) where police use bodycams has increased ever since. The reason for the introduction of these cameras in Germany has overwhelmingly been to protect police against assaults from citizens. The second reason is the ability to reconstruct events and to use the recording as evidence. A third reason has been the fact that citizens are filming the police and that the police wants to add their own recordings to what they perceive as selective filming by citizens. As Rüdiger Seidenspinner, the president of the union of police officers for the State of Baden-Württemberg, explained: "The reason is simple: our colleagues have had enough in this era of smartphones of being filmed only when they intervene. What caused the intervention, what actions, insults etc. took place does not seem to concern anyone. Furthermore, we will not use the BodyCam in all situations, but only for specific deployments and especially in areas with high levels of crime". According to a representative sample of 1,200 citizens from Germany in 2015, a majority of 71% is in favour of body cameras and 20% is opposed to the technology.
Länder with bodycams
Detailed information is available on the use of body cameras in five Länder. In State of Hesse, the police were the first force in Germany to use body cams in May 2013. According to official registrations, the resistance (Widerstand) to police decreased from 40 to 25 and only one of the officers wearing a body camera was wounded, compared to nine colleagues without camera. Following the pilot, the number of bodycams acquired went up from the original 13 to 72 in total, also meant for other areas in Hesse. The success of the pilot inspired many other German cities and the Federal Police to start using body cameras as well. Police services from Hungary, Switzerland, and Austria were interested as well and asked the German police for information.
In the State of Rhineland-Palatinate body cams are in use since July 2015 in the cities of Mainz and Koblenz to reduce violence towards the police and to collect footage that can be used as evidence. The costs of these body cams was 18.500 euro. Based on the positive experiences, eighty more bodycams have been acquired to be deployed in more areas in these two cities. In Hamburg, one of five members in each team that surveils during weekends is equipped with a bodycam since June 2015. These cameras can be pointed in different directions by manually operated remote control. Since 2016, the Bavarian State Police has been testing bodycams in Munich, Augsburg and Rosenheim. The cameras have to be activated in critical situations and at dangerous locations, for instance in nightlife entertainment areas where fighting is a common occurrence. In Baden-Württemberg, bodycams are deployed in Stuttgart, Mannheim and Freiburg since 2016. The aim here is to test the bodycams during one year with the purpose of reducing violence against the police.
All Länder in the country use bodycams, but there are substantial differences in the legal framework. Some have explicitly created a legal basis (Hesse, Hamburg, Saarland, Bremen, Baden-Württemberg), some are still working on it and in the meantime fall back on existing norms (North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony, pilot projects in Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony-Anhalt, Federal Police). Still others have no concrete plans for legal adaptations (Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia).
In the cities of Milan and Turin, police forces have started experimenting on a small scale with bodycams. One of the first projects started in 2015 in Turin where police used the bodycams for their own protection during protests. Starting in May 2017, ten bodycams were being trialled by the police forces of Turin and Milan to be used in high-risk operations and use-of-force incidents. Part of the trial was to connect the live streams of the cameras to the control-room of the police. The bodycams for these pilots were supplied free of charge by a manufacturer for a period of three months. Based on the experiences during the trials, a decision would have to be reached whether to supply all front-line officers with bodycams. The price for fifty bodycams in Milan was 215,000 euros.
Police officers in Rome have not yet been equipped with bodycams. However, in October 2017, the secretary of the union Sulpl Roma, announced that police officers who ask for them will receive a bodycam before the end of the year 2017. The reason would be two-fold: to modernise the officers' equipment and to settle disputes with drivers who disagree with police, for instance over a fine or the cause of an accident.
The privacy law governing the use of bodycams by police in Italy is the law that protects personal data. According to a spokesperson of the police in Rome the law allows for the creation of video recordings of police interventions, provided the footage is used only for the reconstruction of police activity. The fact that other people including innocent by-standers could be recognised by their faces or voices does not mean the recording can not be used for legitimate purposes.
First bodycams in 1997
The first body worn video used by the Dutch police were portable cameras used by the mounted riot-police in 1997. The first small-scale experiments with modern-day bodycams date back to 2008. Large-scale coordinated experiments were conducted from 2009 through 2011 and took place in four of the 25 regional police-forces. The pilot was aimed at reducing violence against the police. The results were disappointing, largely due to technical problems with recordings and 'wearability' of the equipment. Following this evaluation, the Department of Justice concluded that bodycams were not ready to be 'rolled out' on a larger scale.
Regional and local projects 2010–2016
Since then, however, regional and local experiments with bodycams have been undertaken. According to a survey conducted by the Dutch public broadcasting corporation (NOS) in 2011, 10 of the 25 regional police forces were using body worn video. One year later, that number had gone up to 17 of the 25 forces, according to one of the major suppliers of body worn video cameras in the Netherlands. In November 2015, the Dutch National Police published a programme regarding the integration of 'sensing' capabilities into police activities. The programme mainly focuses on CCTV, automatic number plate recognition and bodycams.
National experiments 2017–2018
In 2017 and 2018, the Dutch National Police will conduct large-scale experiments with bodycams to find out whether this technology will become part of the standard equipment of all police officers. The experiments will be evaluated extensively.
Other law enforcement with bodycams
Other organizations that use bodycams include local law enforcement agencies, such as the Amsterdam city wardens surveilling taxis. Body worn cameras are used city wardens in several cities, among which Alkmaar, Assen, Eindhoven and Rotterdam. Others that use body cameras are the stewards that supervise supporters during football matches or public events, such as festivals or protest-demonstrations. In other sectors such as public transportation, ambulances and fire-fighters, bodycams have been trialled, but have not been implemented on a large scale. Larger roll-outs are predicted from 2017 onwards.
Swedish police have been using body cameras for several years, for instance at large football games or demonstrations. The police in Stockholm announced to start using body cameras from the summer of 2017. The cameras will be used in two suburbs of Stockholm to ease the pressure on police staff and to increase clear-up rates. In total, 300 body cameras will be used in areas such as Rinkeby and Botkyrka. According to the co-ordinator of the project, officers in Rinkeby are met with quite a lot of violence and threats during interventions. The project is part of a pilot project within the national police camera project. Earlier trials with body cameras have been carried out in Gothenburg and Södertälje. Many other Swedish police regions have expressed interest in using body cameras. Trials have already been carried out in Gothenburg and Södertälje, and in the long run the cameras could be used across Sweden.
United Arab Emirates
Following a successful six month pilot scheme, the Dubai Police Force decided to adopt body worn video technology in 2015. Speaking to the media at the time, Gen Al Muzeina flagged-up the value of footage from these cameras. He said that this evidence could, potentially, be used where there are objections to traffic offences or a failure by officers to meet acceptable standards. The Abu Dhabi Police also confirmed in the same year that – following two years of trials – it would be rolling out body worn video cameras to patrol officers.
Monitoring police behavior
Police body cameras have been suggested to be a way to monitor police behavior. While a small study initially concluded that when 46 randomly selected officers were chosen to wear video recording devices against 43 officers who were not there was a 53% decrease in use-of-force incidents reported and civilian complaints dropped by nearly 65%, a study of more than 2,000 officers over 2.5 years showed no difference in the use of force or civilian complaints. Studies suggest police body cameras have had no measurable effect when it came to civilian complaints, use of force incidents, police activity, or judicial outcomes involving the city’s metropolitan police department.
Another indirect benefit police body worn cameras could provide is the increased trust between the public and law enforcement. An example of heightened relationships occurred after the death of Sam DuBose of Cincinnati in 2015. Officer Ray Tensing claimed he had to fatally shoot Sam DuBose because “he was being dragged by the vehicle and had to fire his weapon.” However, after reviewing the body camera footage on Tensing’s person, it was discovered Tensing was lying and he was charged with murder and voluntary manslaughter. After the discovery, DuBose’s sister said, “Every day now, I’m going to be marching for video cams.”
Video as evidence or for reconstruction of events
Video recording devices can also provide documented footage into the behavior of law enforcement officers, video can be used in the court of law and the cameras can encourage honesty and dispel any false accusations made by any parties. Although deemed as expensive, ranging between $400 and $1,200, body cameras can promote positive, civilized and appropriate behaviors.
There is a list of high profile cases involving police officer shootings of unarmed persons that have not resulted in convictions of those officers even with video evidence provided from body cameras. This has caused activists and even some supporters of the new technology to doubt the overall effectiveness body cameras can have in court cases involving questionable actions on behalf of police officers. In the Ray Tensing and Walter Scott trials, which took place in Cincinnati and Charleston, the results for both shootings ended in a hung jury despite video evidence and alleged mishandling on the officers’ account. Part of the reason why video evidence in general can be ineffective simply lies with the poor quality or angle of the video itself, as described in the Minnesota shooting of Philando Castile. Once footage was lost after Castile entered the back of the police car, only audio recording of the incident was available from that point on since the cameras did not cover the backseat. 
Police officers are worried that body cameras can be used against them and not just used as evidence to solve a case. The body worn cameras do not show all aspects of the encounter. For example, it does not show “where the officer’s eyes are looking, may record sounds the officer did not hear and cannot”. Therefore it does not accurately depict the situation and show the officers perspective in the moment. Some ways to solve this problem or misconception with body cameras are for police officers to gain access to their footage ahead of time so they can explain certain behaviors portrayed. Some police officers do not like body cameras because “they can be used as a strong evidence against the officers wearing them, not just the suspects who may also be recorded by them.” Even though body cameras are usually implemented to collect evidence on suspects, sometimes police officers view these body cameras as an invasion of privacy or believe that they “can be or even designed to be used against them in investigations.”
Assaults against officers
A study by researchers at Cambridge based on camera use on 2,122 officers across the United States and Britain (in total about 2.2 million work hours) was conducted in 2016. It concluded that assaults against police officers increased by about 15% while wearing cameras, but the data was insufficient to conclude exactly why.
In 2014, a study was led by professors at Arizona State University and commanding officers in Phoenix. Among the other positive impacts that have been discovered, complaints against officers who wore body worn cameras dropped 23% compared to a 10% increase in officers who did not wear the camera.
When the Rialto, California Police Department was attempting to improve public perception after a series of scandals, the department began issuing body-worn cameras to officers. A report on their 54 officers found that there was a 59% reduction in use of force by officers and that complaints fell by 87% compared to the previous year. This finding could not be verified in studies of larger groups of police officers. In 2017, a study was published of over 2,000 police officers showing no impact of wearing body cameras.
Another study found that a group of police officers assigned to wear body-worn cameras in Mesa, Arizona, were found to be less likely to stop-and-frisk or arrest people, but "were more likely to give citations and initiate encounters". The authors concluded that the officers are more proactive with the use of these cameras, but that they are not more likely to use invasive strategies "that may threaten the legitimacy of the organization".
Willingness to report crimes
Body worn video can potentially have a legitimizing effect on public view of police officers, due to the perception that officers are more accountable for their actions if body cameras are recording these actions. According to research conducted by Cambridge University, more crimes were reported when officers wore body cameras than in control groups in which no cameras were worn.
As with all forms of surveillance, bodycams highlight issues of privacy. There are concerns about the privacy of the people being filmed (suspects, victims, witnesses), but also about that of the officers wearing the cameras or the officers whose actions are record by their colleagues.
With 88% of Americans and 95% of Dutch people supporting body cameras on police officers, there is strong public support for this technology. However, it is important to note that not all members of the public are necessarily aware of the presence of bodycams. A study in Milwaukee revealed that awareness of the bodycams was comparatively low in the first year following implementation (36%) but increased after two more years (76%). In that study, respondents were asked whether they thought bodycams would improve relationships between the police and community members: 84 percent (strongly) agreed. An even larger proportion, 87 percent, (strongly) agreed that Body-Worn Cameras would hold Milwaukee police officers accountable for their behaviors. These percentages hardly changed in the three years following introduction, which suggests that opinions such as these are independent of awareness of bodycams.
One possibility is that a police officer wearing this technology could become a 'roving surveillance camera'. If the bodycams are equipped with biometric facial recognition technology, this could have a major impact on people's everyday lives, depending on the reliability of the technology to prevent false positives (those that are mistaken for a person on a list of suspects, for instance). Furthermore, cameras equipped with facial recognition technology heighten worries over “secret surveillance at a distance”. With 117 million Americans in the FBI’s shared database according to the Georgetown Report, people are fearful of the police’s ability to identify them in public and gather information about where they’ve been and where they might be going. Information about citizens whereabouts can consistently be tracked if they appear in public and it happens without their knowledge. There are more concerns about the advancement of these facial recognition technologies in body cams and the lack of government regulation over them. There is no federal law in place that directly protects Americans when it comes to the use of facial recognition technology. Only Illinois and Texas have regulations, “that requires an individual to give consent for their biometrics to be used, protecting its application in a system that it was not originally intended for”.
In the context of recording, the biggest issues arise from whether consent from parties involved is required before starting a recording. The nature of police work has officers interacting with citizens during their most vulnerable moments, such as citizens in the hospital, or domestic violence cases, there is also a threat of citizens not coming forward with tips for fear of being recorded. In terms of the police officer's private contexts, they may forget to turn off cameras in the bathroom or in private conversations. These situations should be considered as the technology is developed further and the use of it is becoming more saturated. In the U.S. federal and individual states have varying statutes regarding consent laws.
Search and seizure
Another major concern that has arisen since the implementation of police body cameras is how these technologies will affect the privacy rights of individual citizens in regards to search and seizure laws. The 1967 Supreme Court case Katz v. United States determined that “there need not be a physical or technical trespass to constitute a search or seizure deserving deserving of constitutional protection.” Extraction of sensitive information from individuals through electronic transmission is deemed to be unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Police body camera recordings conducted on private property without a warrant or probable cause are expected to violate the individual search and seizure rights of the property owner. Video recording conducted in public spaces aren’t generally subject to Fourth Amendment protections under the “plain view” doctrine developed by the Supreme Court. In these circumstances an officer can record an individual and their actions as long as they are in public spaces. Many other nations have their own search and seizure laws that have specific implications associated with the use of body cameras worn on police officers.
Costs and pricing
Body cameras require sizeable investments. The prices of the cameras themselves are between $120 and $1,000, according to a market survey in 2012 by the United States Department of Justice in which seven suppliers were compared. A market survey in 2016, describing 66 body cameras of 38 different vendors, showed that the average price (or actually the average manufacturer’s suggested retail prices) was $570, with a minimum of $199 and a maximum of $2,000. In 2017, based on information from 45 police forces in the United Kingdom, research showed that nearly 48 000 body cameras had been purchased and that £22,703,235 had been spent on the cameras. Dividing this total by the number of cameras gives an estimate of the average costs per camera: £474. The minimum was £348 for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the maximum was £705 for the Metropolitan Police Service. These differences may be partly attributable to the fact that some forces have included more types of costs than other forces.
In any case, the camera itself is just the start of the expenses. Police departments also have to run software and store data for all the cameras which can add up quickly. Other costs include maintenance, training and evaluations. In addition, several indirect costs will be incurred by bodycams, for instance, the hours police and others in the criminal justice system spend on managing, reviewing and using the recordings for prosecution or other purposes such as internal reviews, handling of complaints or education. These 'hidden' costs are difficult to quantify, but by looking into total cost of ownership, some indication can be given of the percentage of costs is associated with the body cameras themselves or other expenses:
- The New South Wales Police Force in Australia produced 930 terabytes of recorded video each year with 350 bodycams. The costs involved in storing and managing the data was estimated at 6.5 million Australian dollars each year. The body cams were bought for less than 10% of that amount.
- The Los Angeles Police Department (United States) acquired 7,000 cameras in 2016 for an amount of $57.6 million. At an estimated price of $570 per camera, the costs of the cameras would be around $4 million, which is 7% of the total amount. The other costs involve replacement equipment and digital storage of the recordings.
- Police in Denver, Colorado (United States) bought 800 body cams and storage servers for the amount of $6.1 million. The price of the body cams was estimated to be 8% of that amount, the other 92% was spent on storage of recordings and management and maintenance of the body cams. The costs involved in reviewing, editing and submitting recorded video or the training of personnel were not included.
- The Sacramento Police Department (California, United States) purchased 890 cameras for all patrol staff under a five-year, $4 million agreement. Storage on an ongoing basis was expected to cost about $1 million per year. The city would also hire three full-time police employees to handle technology issues, including editing of video.
- The Houston Police Department (Texas, United States) estimated that the total cost of about 4,100 cameras was $3.4 million for the equipment and an expected $8 million over five years to buy servers and other equipment to store video collected by the cameras, plus staffing costs.
- Toronto Police Services concluded that the major challenge associated with any adoption of body-worn cameras is the cost. Staffing, technology and storage requirements would be about $20 million in the first year of implementation, with a total 5-year estimated cost of roughly $51 million, not including costs for integration of records management and video asset management systems. The most expensive component would be storage of recordings reaching nearly 5 petabytes in five years
Costs and benefits
All costs and benefits, including indirect costs and benefits, have to be weighed against each other in a cost-benefit analysis, to be able to judge whether body cameras lead to a positive or negative business case. The police in Kent, United Kingdom, predicted a positive business case within two years after their investment of £1.8 million in body cameras, purely because of a reduction in the number of complaints.
Manufacturers and suppliers
In a 2012 market survey by the U.S. Department of Justice, eight companies producing body cameras were compared: Taser International, VieVu, StalkerVUE, Scorpion, FirstVU, Wolfcom, MuviView and Panasonic. In 2014, the three top companies that had been producing body cameras throughout the United States were Taser International, VieVu, and Digital Ally. In 2016, a market survey described 66 body worn video cameras produced by 38 different vendors.
- Black Mamba
- BrickHouse Security
- Brimtek EdgeVis
- DEI Getac Veretos
- Digital Ally FirstVU
- Global Justice Eagle
- HauteSpot Networks
- HD Protech CITE
- Kustom Signals
- Law Systems Witness
- Patrol Eyes
- Paul Conway
- Primal USA
- Reveal Media
- Safety Innovations
- Taser International
- Hung, Vivian; Babin, Steven (2016). "A Market Survey on Body Worn Camera Technologies" (PDF). Laurel, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- "How Police Officer Body Cameras Work". Popular Mechanics. 2014-12-03. Retrieved 2017-03-03.
- "Digital Partner: Here's How Police Body Cameras Work - NBC News". NBC News. Retrieved 2017-03-03.
- "About Us, Company". www.taser.com. Retrieved 2017-03-03.
- Li, Shirley. "The Big Picture: How Do Police Body Cameras Work?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
- "Digital Partner: Here's How Police Body Cameras Work". NBC News. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
- Emmeline Taylor (2016). "Lights, Camera, Redaction... Police Body Worn Cameras, Autonomy, Discretion, and Accountability". Surveillance and Society.
- Benjamin Shingler (20 January 2014). "Canadian police forces looking to arm officers with cameras". The Canadian Press. Retrieved 4 March 2015.
- "Body-worn cameras to be on all front-line Calgary police within about a year".
- "Toronto Police Body Cameras".
- Toronto Police Service (2016). Body-Worn Cameras; a report on the findings of the pilot project to test the value and feasibility of body-worn cameras for police officers in Toronto (PDF).
- "Toronto police want to deploy body-worn cameras service-wide". CBC News. Retrieved 2017-04-10.
- Associated Press (13 July 2007). "Britain straps video cameras to police helmets". NBC News. /
- Home Office (October 2006). "Lessons Learned from the Domestic Violence Enforcement Campaigns 2006" (PDF). Police and Crime Standards Directorate. Retrieved 2014-04-15.
- "MPS-BWV-HOME". www.met.police.uk. Retrieved 2017-03-17.
- "Belfast City Policing District introduce Body Worn Video Cameras". Retrieved 2016-11-16.
- "Now prison officers will get body cameras to improve jail security". Retrieved 24 January 2017.
- "A Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement" (PDF). September 2012.
- "50 ILCS 706/ Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act". www.ilga.gov. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Mayor Emanuel and Police Superintendent Escalante Announce Districts for Body-Worn Camera Expansion | Chicago Police Department". home.chicagopolice.org. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- Lee, William. "Police body cameras to be implemented citywide a year early: officials". ChicagoTribune.com. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Police body cameras hit Springfield streets". Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Illinois law discourages police from using body cameras". NY Daily News. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Minooka police discontinue body camera use". Morris Herald-News. April 8, 2016. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Illinois police department gives up on body cameras because they're tired of people asking for videos". www.RawStory.com. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- Thompson, Derek. "Forcing America's Weaponized Police to Wear Cameras". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Issues over police shooting in Ferguson lead push for officers and body cameras". Washington Post. December 2, 2014. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Obama To Ask For $263 Million For Police Body Cameras, Training". NPR.org. December 1, 2014. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- Williams, Rich (4 January 2017). "Body-Worn Camera Laws Database". National Conference of State Legislatures.
- "Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement". National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 2017-03-16.
- "Are Cops in Your City Wearing Body Cameras?". Vocativ. 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2017-03-16.
- Mather, Kate (4 February 2017). "Why some of the most controversial police shootings aren't on video". LA Times.
- Wing, Nick (2015-10-13). "Study Shows Less Violence, Fewer Complaints When Cops Wear Body Cameras". Huffington Post. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- Hermann, Peter (2017-10-20). "Police officers with body cameras are as likely to use force as those who don't have them". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-11-05.
- Shallwani, Pervaiz (September 5, 2014). "NYPD Unveil Two Cameras for Officers". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-03-16.
- "Police union threatens legal action over Metro's decision to test body-mounted cameras". LasVegasSun.com. May 7, 2012. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Jersey City cops urge caution on plan for police body cameras". NJ.com. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Tensions between St Louis Police officers union over body cameras". KMOV.com. Archived from the original on 2014-09-19.
- Ripley, Amanda (2017-10-20). "A Big Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-11-10.
- "Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Strengthening CBP with the Use of Body-Worn Cameras" (PDF).
- "Body-Worn Cameras Should Not Expand Beyond Law Enforcement". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Fox News psychiatrist: Body cameras, de-escalation training are 'an insult to police officers'". www.RawStory.com. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- Craven, Julia; Reilly, Ryan J. (2015-08-21). "Here's What Black Lives Matter Activists Want Politicians To Do About Police Violence". Huffington Post. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Campaign Zero". Campaign Zero. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- "Meeting of Ministry of Public Security to promote the construction of a single law enforcement recording system". Ministry of Public Security People's Republic of China (in Chinese). Retrieved 2018-06-08.
- "Body-camera plan for all frontline police raises 'injustice' fears". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 2018-01-09.
- "Britain straps video cameras to police helmets". msnbc.com. 2007-07-13. Retrieved 2017-10-24.
- "Body-worn cameras put police evidence beyond doubt". New Scientist. 23 October 2013. Retrieved 2017-10-24.
- "Kan du spotte det? Nu får fængselsbetjente kameraer på skjorten". nyheder.tv2.dk (in Danish). 2017-10-23. Retrieved 2017-10-24.
- "Helsingin poliisi ottaa pilottikäyttöön vartalokamerat" [Helsinki Police to pilot the use of body cameras]. www.poliisi.fi (in Finnish). 16 December 2015. Retrieved 21 March 2017.
- "Haalarikamerat tulevat – poliisit haluavat oikeuden poistaa nauhoilta todisteet virkavirheistään" [Bodycameras are coming; police want the right to remove the video recordings]. Turun Sanomat (in Finnish). 25 April 2017. Retrieved 24 October 2017.
- "KSML: Finnish police to get body cameras". Yle Uutiset. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
- Décret n° 2016-1862 du 23 décembre 2016 relatif aux conditions de l'expérimentation de l'usage de caméras individuelles par les agents des services internes de sécurité de la SNCF et de la Régie autonome des transports parisiens, 23 December 2016, retrieved 20 March 2017
- Berne, Xavier (2018-05-06). "Le Sénat en passe d'autoriser les pompiers et surveillants de prison à utiliser des caméras-piétons" [Senate authorises fire-fighters and prison guards to use body cameras]. Next Impact (in French). Retrieved 2018-08-31.
- "Bruno Le Roux annonce le déploiement de 2600 caméras mobiles pour les forces de l'ordre" [Bruno le Roux announces the deployment of 2600 mobile cameras for law enforcement]. Le Monde.fr (in French). 2017-02-10. ISSN 1950-6244. Retrieved 2017-03-20.
- Décret n° 2016-1860 du 23 décembre 2016 relatif à la mise en œuvre de traitements de données à caractère personnel provenant des caméras individuelles des agents de la police nationale et des militaires de la gendarmerie nationale, 23 December 2016, retrieved 20 March 2017
- Décret n° 2016-1861 du 23 décembre 2016 relatif aux conditions de l'expérimentation de l'usage de caméras individuelles par les agents de police municipale dans le cadre de leurs interventions, 23 December 2016, retrieved 20 March 2017
- Berne, Xavier (2018-03-08). "Caméras-piétons : feu vert du Parlement pour les policiers municipaux et les pompiers" [Bodycams: green light from Parliament for municipal police and fire-fighters]. Next Impact (in French). Retrieved 2018-08-31.
- Fessart, Louise; Hourdeaux, Jérôme (1 March 2017). "En France, des caméras-piétons au service des policiers plus que des citoyens" [In France, the body cameras serve the police more than the citizens]. Mediapart (in French). Retrieved 2018-08-31.
- "Heise.de: Kamera-Cops, Weitere Bundesländer erwägen Body-Cams bei Polizei-Einsätzen" (in German).
- "Kamera-Cops: Weitere Bundesländer erwägen Body-Cams bei Polizei-Einsätzen". heise.de. 8 August 2015. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
- Martini, Mario. "Bodycams zwischen Bodyguard und Big Brother - Zu den rechtlichen Grenzen filmischer Erfassung von Sicherheitseinsätzen durch Miniaturkameras und Smartphones (PDF Download Available)". ResearchGate (in German). Retrieved 2017-10-23.
- Gewerkschaft der Polizei (2014-07-07). "Und wer shützt die Politie?". Retrieved 2017-03-16.
- "GroBe Mehrheit befürwortet KörperKamera's für Polizisten". YouGov.de. 18 June 2015. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
- Jörg Diehl (2015-07-03). "Bodycams für Polizisten: Hände hoch, wir filmen". Retrieved 2017-03-16.
- RP Online (2015-06-23). "Videoüberwachung per Body-Cam Hessische Polizei schreckt Schläger mit Minikameras ab". Retrieved 2017-03-16.
- "Body-Cams werden ab kommendem Jahr in ganz Hessen eingesetzt". innen.hessen.de. 2014-10-01. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
- Frank Schmidt-Wyk (2015-06-08). "Gewalt gegen Polizisten verringern: Rheinland-Pfalz testet Einsatz von Bodycams in Mainz". Allgemeine Zeitung. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
- Peter-Michael Ziegler (2015-06-19). "Polizei Hamburg mit Bodycams: "Achtung, Aufnahme!"". heise.de. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
- "Bayerns Polizei bekommt Body-Cams". bayerische-staatszeitung.de. 2015-11-25. Retrieved 2015-11-25.
- Josef Kelnberger (2016-02-02). "Vorsicht, Kamera". sueddeutsche.de. Retrieved 2016-02-03.
- "Testlauf mit Schulterkameras kommt". stuttgarter-zeitung.de. 2016-02-02. Retrieved 2016-02-03.
- "BPOLD STA: Bundespolizei erprobt mobile Körperkameras "BodyCams" sollen Gewalttäter abschrecken". presseportal.de. 2016-01-29. Retrieved 2016-02-09.
- Matthias Monroy (2016-01-29). "Videoüberwachung mit "Bodycams": Polizei in Köln und Düsseldorf hängt sich Warnschilder um". netzpolitik.org. Retrieved 2016-02-09.
- "Torino: tradito dalla bodycam, agente rischia accusa di falsa testimonianza". Repubblica.it (in Italian). 2017-03-10. Retrieved 2017-10-20.
- "Torino, "body cam" sul corpo dei vigili per le operazioni ad alto rischio". Repubblica.it (in Italian). 2017-05-05. Retrieved 2017-10-20.
- "Vigili urbani al Comune: "Basta liti stradali, dateci le bodycam"". RomaToday. Retrieved 2017-10-20.
- Flight, Sander (2017). De mogelijke meerwaarde van bodycams voor politiewerk; een internationaal literatuuronderzoek [The possible value of bodycams for police-work; an international literature review] (in Dutch). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Politie & Wetenschap. ISBN 9789035249462.
- Ham, Tom van (2011). Mobiel cameratoezicht op scherp: effecten op geweld tegen de politie en het politieproces in beeld [Mobile camera surveillance in focus: impact on violence against the police and visualising the police process] (PDF) (in Dutch). Arnhem: Beke Onderzoeksgroep.
- NOS (2009), Politie tijdens jaarwisseling uitgerust met bodycam, 29 December 2009
- "Politie gebruikt massaal bodycams tijdens jaarwisseling" [Police use body cameras during New Year on a massive scale] (in Dutch). Security.nl. 20 December 2011. Retrieved 4 March 2017.
- Justitie, Ministerie van Veiligheid en. "Kamerbrief over waarnemen met technische hulpmiddelen bij de politie". www.RijksOverheid.nl. Retrieved 15 June 2017.
- "Actueel - Slim Bekeken". www.SlimBekeken.nu. Retrieved 15 June 2017.
- Radio, Sveriges. "Stockholm police to start using body cameras - Radio Sweden". Retrieved 2018-06-08.
- "Dubai police to test body worn cameras". Retrieved 2015-05-25.
- "Body Worn Video camera surveillance solutions on trial for police officers". Retrieved 2016-09-16.
- "Study Shows Less Violence, Fewer Complaints When Cops Wear Body Cameras". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 10, 2016.
- Ripley, Amanda; Williams, Timothy (2017-10-20). "Body Cameras Have Little Effect on Police Behavior, Study Says". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
- Wing, Nick (2017-10-24). "New Study Casts Doubt On Effectiveness Of Police Body Cameras. But Is That Fair?". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
- O'Neal, Brynne (2 May 2016). "How Do Police-Worn Body Camera Programs Actually Work?". Brennan Center For Justice at New York University School of Law.
- "Another Police-Involved Shooting Marks a Turning Point in the Debate on Body Cameras". CityLab. Retrieved 2017-11-05.
- "Police Body Cameras: Pros And Cons For Officers And Citizens | EInvestigator.com". www.einvestigator.com. Retrieved March 10, 2016.
- "The failure of police body cameras". Vox. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
- Lippman, Gary (July–August 2017). "Police Body Cameras Part II: Will Body Cameras Improve Policing In Florida". Florida Bar Journal, vol. 91, no. 7, 59-64.
- Meck, Stephen (April 2018). "Focusing the Lens of Justice: The Implementation of Police Body Cameras Is a Management Right, Not a Mandatory Subject of Collective Bargaining". Florida Bar Journal, vol. 92, no. 4,42-45.
- Meck, Stephen (April 2018). "Focusing the Lens of Justice: The Implementation of Police Body Cameras Is a Management Right, Not a Mandatory Subject of Collective Bargaining". Florida Bar Journal, vol. 92, no. 4, 42-45.
- "Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment". European Journal of Criminology. May 2016. doi:10.1177/1477370816643734.
- "Body-worn cameras associated with increased assaults against police, and increase in use-of-force if officers choose when to activate cameras". University of Cambridge. Retrieved 17 May 2016.
- Katz, Choate, Ready, Nuño, Charles M., David E., Justin R., Lidia (December 2014). "Evaluating the Impact of Office Worn Body Cameras in the Phoenix Police Department" (PDF). Arizona State University Center For Violence Prevention and Community Safety.
- Barak Ariel; William A. Farrar; Alex Sutherland (September 2015). "The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens' Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial". Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 31 (3): 509–535. doi:10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3.
- "First scientific report shows police body-worn-cameras can prevent unacceptable use-of-force". University of Cambridge. Archived from the original on 13 January 2015. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
- Ready, Justin T.; Young, Jacob T. N. (14 June 2015). "The impact of on-officer video cameras on police–citizen contacts: findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ". Journal of Experimental Criminology. 11 (3): 445–458. doi:10.1007/s11292-015-9237-8.
- Ariel, Barak (2016-09-01). "Increasing Cooperation With the Police Using Body Worn Cameras". Police Quarterly. 19 (3): 326–362. doi:10.1177/1098611116653723. ISSN 1098-6111.
- Edwards-Levy, Ariel (April 16, 2015). "There's Near-Universal Support For One Police Reform Proposal". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 3, 2017.
- CapGemini (2017). "Trends in Veiligheid". Trends in Veiligheid. Retrieved 2017-10-26.
- "Community Views of Milwaukee's Police Body-Worn Camera Program". Urban Institute. 2018-08-22. Retrieved 2018-08-29.
- Tilley, Aaron. "Artificial Intelligence Is Coming To Police Bodycams, Raising Privacy Concerns". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-03-03.
- "'Invisible' facial recognition technology raises privacy concerns". NBC News. Retrieved 2017-11-10.
- "Recording Phone Calls and Conversations | Digital Media Law Project". www.dmlp.org. Retrieved 2017-03-03.
- "Police Perspective: The Pros & Cons of Police Body Cameras". www.rasmussen.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-16.
- Nielsen, Erik. "Fourth Amendment Implications of Police-Worn Body Cameras" (PDF). St. Mary's Law Journal. 48.
- National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice (2012). A Primer on Body Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 4 March 2017.
- Smile you’re on body worn camera Part II - Police; The use of body worn cameras by UK police forces (PDF). Big Brother Watch. 2017.
- "How Police Body Cameras Work". HowStuffWorks. 2015-06-12. Retrieved 2017-03-03.
- Mather, Kate; Zahniser, David (21 June 2016). "Deal to spend $57.6 million on LAPD body cameras clears key hurdle". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 13 March 2017.
- Gaub; et al. (2016). "Officer Perceptions of Body-Worn Cameras Before and After Deployment: A Study of Three Departments". Police Quarterly. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
- Chabria, Anita; Chavez, Nashelly (7 March 2017). "Sacramento police will put body cameras on all patrol officers by September". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
- Morris, Mike; Kragie, Andrew (1 March 2017). "City pauses police body camera rollout over battery questions". Chron. Retrieved 13 March 2017.
- "1.8 million body cam rollout will pay for itself". Police Oracle. 24 September 2015. Retrieved 1 March 2017.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Body worn video (police equipment).|
- Police Body Cameras: What Do You See?. The New York Times.