Body-Worn Camera
Frequently Asked Questions
Lively conversation about allowing or not allowing officer viewing of video took place during the February 26-
27, 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel. Although participants provided examples of when
officer viewing of videos should be limited or constrained, they also discussed a number of examples
illustrating the benefits derived from officers’ assessment of their video, including affording valuable
opportunities for self-awareness and development. Moreover, Inspector Steve Goodier, Hampshire
Constabulary, U.K., also explained that his agency found situations where a video review with a supervisor or
mentor proved instrumental in realizing that “certain training and instructions were not quite translating to
real life, giving both an opportunity to reflect on their performance.” Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD)
Maggie Goodrich shared, “the purpose of BWCs is the collection of evidence and to find what really
happened. Though studies show that if wrongdoers don’t know what is on the video, it makes them more
likely to lie. LAPD does not take the approach that assumes wrongdoing or lying.”
Jumani Musa, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, warned against giving officer’s the ability to
view video after a community member encounter, explaining that the purpose of “the officer’s testimony is to
get their assessment of what happened in the moment, so it is important to capture what happened as it
happened, but during testimony the officer is processing what they saw on the video rather than what they
recalled and then this could change the nature of the statement. We are also getting statements from others
involved, and they aren’t getting the opportunity to review the video.” In response, Chief Whent of the
Oakland Police Department said, “when people can view the videos, officers can view them as well, but not
prior to statements in the event of an officer-involved shooting. Statements must be given first so they aren’t
simply recounting video.” Maggie Goodrich, LAPD CIO, said, “with use-of-force and officer-involved shootings,
they can review the video first before making a statement–the two involved officers are separated, and the
line supervisor takes cameras and shuts them off so nothing can be altered”.
27. Should officers be able to wear their own cameras?
As agencies consider the formal adoption of body-worn cameras (BWCs), some officers may choose to
purchase and wear their own personal BWCs, or an officer may wish to do so if any agency does not deploy
cameras to its entire force of sworn personnel. The decision to allow officers to wear personally owned
devices should be made locally, but both the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF, 2014) and a number
of law enforcement executives have expressed concern with self-purchase of BWCs. Such cameras are a
potential problem because the data recorded by a personal BWC is not owned by the law enforcement
agency. Moreover, there may be insufficient protections in place for proper storage and safeguarding of the
video (e.g., tampering, chain of custody). PERF specifically recommends that officers be prohibited from
carrying their own privately owned cameras on duty. Officers who utilized personally owned technology may
have this technology seized and examined and be subject to extensive review (of personal and professional
data, video, photos, etc.), which could be used to impeach the officer in legal proceedings.