Police Technology An Analysis of in Car Cameras and Body Worn Cameras Lillian Draisin Spring 2011

2011
Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and body worn cameras
Lilian Draisin University of Central Florida, Public Administration Department, 4/1/2011 PAD 6062
Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3 Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................... 5 History of Camera Use .................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 9 Review of Literature ...................................................................................................... 11 Why use cameras at all? ............................................................................................ 11 Best Practices ............................................................................................................... 15 What are other agencies doing? ................................................................................ 15 Comparison Analysis & Issues ...................................................................................... 22 What are the implementation issues? ..................................................................... 22 Legal Issues ............................................................................................................... 22 Equipment Type and Cost Analysis ........................................................................... 23 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................... 28 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 36 References .................................................................................................................... 37
Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and 2011 body worn cameras
2|Page
Executive Summary
At the request of the Chief of Police for the Orlando Police Department (OPD) a study was conducted on the use of in-car cameras and body worn cameras for law enforcement use. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Orlando Police Department should invest in camera systems for officers, either in-car cameras or body worn cameras; and if so, which camera system is most suitable for the agency. The study focused on the history of camera use, what other agencies are doing, current literature, and analyzed camera equipment and cost. The following research questions were answered by the study: 1) Why use cameras at all? 2) What are other agencies doing? 3) What are the implementation issues? 4) Which camera type(s) is most useful for OPDs needs? The study described the challenges that the agency is facing that could be abated by camera use; driving under the influence (DUI) and violence against officers. It also looked at literature that described issues of officer safety, professionalism, and training as they relate to the use of camera technology. A review of other agencies determined that while many agencies nationwide, statewide, and locally use in-car cameras, very few have implemented the new body worn cameras. Legal issues such as rights of privacy are explored and determined to be a non-issue, in accordance with state law. However, no known case law regarding the body worn cameras was found. Several different types of body worn cameras were analyzed and compared to the in-car cameras.
3|Page
The result of the study concluded with the recommendation that the Orlando Police
Department proceed with the implementation of cameras for officers. However, due to several factors, such as; cost, legality issues with body cameras, lack of evaluation of new technology, and officer acceptance, the most effective and efficient approach is a mixed-technology and multi-phase approach; using both types of camera systems for different purposes. This approach would implement a camera technology project in multiple phases, allowing for further equipment testing, evaluation, and leveraging of funding sources. It is also recommended that the agency publish a policy directly related to in-car and body worn cameras. Proper training on this policy and on the equipment is also recommended, as well as ensuring that a thorough logistics plan is in place prior to implementation. All of these recommendations will ensure the agency proceeds with a project that is effective, efficient, and maintains the agencys and officers integrity.
4|Page
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The Orlando Police Department (OPD) should implement the use of camera technology through a mixed technology and multi-year (phased) approach. Recommendation 2: In-Car cameras should be standard equipment for all marked patrol vehicles and all unmarked vehicles whose primary duties include traffic enforcement or drug enforcement. Recommendation 3: Body worn cameras should be standard equipment for all officers in units that have high instances of citizen contact and self-initiated calls. Recommendation 4: OPD should purchase the lapel style body worn cameras. Recommendation 5: OPD should only purchase camera technology that includes software from the vendor that can be managed by OPD. Recommendation 6: OPD should develop policies and procedures for camera technology and ensure these policies and procedures are in place, prior to camera use. Recommendation 7: OPD should ensure that all personnel are properly trained on the use of the cameras as well as the policies and procedures addressing camera use. Recommendation 8: OPD should develop a logistics plan prior to project implementation. Recommendation 9: OPD should evaluate each phase of the implementation plan in order to ensure the projects efficiency and effectiveness.
5|Page
History of Camera Use
The initiative to outfit police vehicles with cameras began in 1980, when Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) was formed. MADD brought great awareness to the problem of driving under the influence (DUI) and police departments began installing cameras in vehicles to document DUI stops and arrests. The video from DUI stops provides the necessary evidence for the conviction of drunk drivers. From there, the incar cameras were used in the 1990s not only for DUIs, but for drug arrests. It was during this time that Americas war on drugs began (International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP], 2004, p 5). In-car cameras were able to provide juries with video evidence of traffic stops, consent to search, and the drug evidence found during the stop; conviction rates soared (IACP, 2004, p.5).
In the late 1990s racial bias/ racial profiling was the major issue facing police. Police officers across the country found themselves being investigated for racial profiling (IACP, 2004, p.5). Police agencies throughout the United States were inundated with lawsuits alleging race-based traffic stops (IACP, 2004, p.5). In some cases, the courts determined that racial profiling did occur and this enhanced the publics perception of racial profiling by police. Public confidence in law enforcement declined (Westphal, 2004). Also during this same time, incidents of violence against the police rose dramatically (IACP, 2004, p.5). Due to the issue of racial profiling, the Federal government began to require that all traffic stops be documented. In-car cameras became even more common amongst law enforcement agencies as a means to document stops and dispute claims of racial profiling (IACP, 2004, p.5).
6|Page
Still today, in-car cameras are most prominent in state agencies; state police and
highway patrol. These agencies mostly work traffic related incidents. As of 2004, it was estimated that 72% of all state police and highway patrol vehicles were equipped with in-car camera systems. As of 2004, there were over 17,500 cameras in state police vehicles nationwide. Advances in technology and grant programs continue to increase the use of in-car camera use in state agencies as well as local law enforcement agencies (IACP, 2004, p. 6). More recently, new technology has been introduced that allows officers to wear cameras on their person, enhancing the potential capabilities of camera use.
7|Page
Introduction
The City of Orlando currently has 228,765 residents (Florida League of Cities, 2011). The Orlando Police Department currently has an authorized strength of 743 sworn personnel. This includes 622 officers, 78 sergeants, 29 lieutenants, 9 captains, 4 deputy chiefs and 1 chief of police (Orlando Police Department, 2010). The traffic units and first responders are most likely to use camera systems; units that respond to calls for service, conduct self-initiated citizen contacts, and traffic related calls. These units or sections include the Traffic Enforcement Section, The Uniform Drug Enforcement Section, the Patrol Services Bureau, the K-9 Unit and the Community Policing Section, Downtown Bikes and Parramore Heritage Bikes. The Traffic Enforcement Section has a staffing of 20 officers and 3 supervisors. The Uniform Drug Enforcement Section has 16 officers and 2 supervisors. The Patrol Services Bureau has 399 sworn personnel assigned. The K-9 Unit has 11 officers and 2 supervisors, and the Community Policing Section, Downtown Bikes and Parramore Heritage Bikes, has 35 officers and 4 supervisors. This is a total of 492 members that are most likely to benefit from the use of cameras, either in-car cameras or body worn cameras (Orlando Police Department, 2010).
The purpose of this study is to determine if the Orlando Police Department should invest in camera systems for officers, either in-car cameras or body worn cameras; and if so, which camera system is most suitable for the agency. This research study focuses on the history of camera use, an analysis of what other compatible agencies are doing,
8|Page
current literature, a review of the camera equipment, and provides a recommendation
on camera use for the agency. This study will answer the following research questions: 1) Why use cameras at all? 2) What are other agencies doing? 3) What are the implementation issues? 4) Which camera type(s) is most useful for OPDs needs?
Statement of the Problem

The City of Orlando has been faced with a rising DUI problem. As compared to other large cities in Florida, Orlando was ranked number one for DUI related deaths. From 2007 to 2010, there were 55 traffic fatalities and more than 2,300 DUI traffic citations issued (Orlando Police Department, 2011). The Orlando Police Department realizes the seriousness of this problem and has implemented countermeasures to combat the problem. The agency has a small group of officers (6), on patrol, that drive aggressive driving vehicles. These vehicles were provided to the agency through a grant. In addition, the agency is currently developing a DUI Enforcement Team. This team of 8 officers and 1 supervisor will focus on DUIs and other traffic violations. OPD is considering in-car cameras for these vehicles (Orlando Police Department, 2011 April).
Currently, the Orlando Police Department has in-car cameras installed in 4 unmarked patrol vehicles, 2 marked patrol vehicles and 11 Drug Enforcement Division (DED) vehicles. The patrol vehicles equipped with in-car cameras are installed in vehicles that look for aggressive drivers and drivers that may be under the influence (Officer B. Cechowski, personal communication, April 5, 2011). The DED in-car cameras are used to record drug stops (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication, February 3,
9|Page
2011). These cameras were funded through a grant project (Officer B. Cechowski,
personal communication, April 5, 2011). The agency is currently testing 6 body worn cameras from 2 different vendors. Currently, no other officers, except the test subjects, are assigned body worn cameras (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication, February 3, 2011).
The Orlando Police Department is faced with another challenge. Although in the past few years a majority of violent crime in the City has been on the decline, violence against officers continues to be a problem. Between 2007 and 2010, OPD officers had to use force 2,434 times (Sergeant T. Woodhall, personal communication, April 8, 2011); OPD officers used deadly force 21 times (Orlando Police Department, December 2010). The use of force may involve the use of the Taser, take downs, strikes, impact weapons, chemical agents, K-9s, and stop sticks. In 2010 alone, 135 officers were battered, with 60 reporting injury (Sergeant T. Woodhall, personal communication, April 8, 2011).
10 | P a g e
Review of Literature
Why use cameras at all?

In 2002, the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office worked with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to complete an 18 month evaluation on the use of in-car video cameras by state agencies that the COPS Office provided funding to. This was a two part study focusing on process and impact (IACP, 2004, p.1). The impact of the value of cameras on the agencies is most relevant (IACP, 2004, p.2). The impact evaluation determined that the use of the in-car cameras had a dramatic positive impact on the agencies. The researchers conducted surveys, worked with research groups, and completed interviews of 21 state agencies, including the Florida Highway Patrol (IACP, 2004, p.1). This process measured the impact of in-car cameras on issues such as: officer safety, officer professionalism/perception, liability, training, policy, leadership and the judicial process (IACP, 2004, p.2). Most agencies provide three of these issues as reasons why they have implemented camera programs: officer safety, professionalism/perception, and training. Officer Safety: The COPS Office study discussed a major problem for law enforcement, officer safety. Officers are frequently being assaulted and involved in traffic accidents while on duty (IACP, 2004. P.13). Even worse, the instances of officer on-duty deaths have risen dramatically in recent years. Last year, on-duty deaths rose by 26% nationwide; 49 officers were shot to death in 2009 and 61 in 2010. Thus far this year, the death rate statistics are even more devastating. Within one 24-hour time period in January, 11 officers were shot nationwide. Eleven more officers were killed by gunfire in
11 | P a g e
February 2011, doubling the national trend of each of the previous years of the last
decade (Fredricks, 2011). In 2010, Florida saw nine officers killed in the line of duty. Four of these deaths were from automobile accidents, one officer was struck by a vehicle, and four were shot to death. Just this year alone, (January April 2011) 55 officers have died nationwide, 10 officers died in the line of duty in Florida. Six of these officers were shot to death, while one died from an automobile accident, and three died from natural work-related causes (heart attack and bacterial infection) (Officer Down Memorial Page, 2011). After the tragic death of Orange County Deputy, Brandon Coates, a local news channel said, cameras may have provided objective insight into the roadside shooting that killed Deputy Brandon Coates (WESH, 2011). Another local tragedy occurred in Tampa in June of 2010 that shows the value of camera use. Officers Curtis and Kocab were murdered while they were conducting a traffic stop. Officer Curtis video system recorded the tragic event. The system recorded video and audio of the suspects and provided identification information received during the stop. This video assisted in the capture of the suspects (Fredricks, 2011).
Professionalism/ Public Perception: Proponents and vendors of the body worn cameras propose that the use of video would improve police accountability, reduce complaints of police misconduct, and save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs (Howland, 2011). The vendors argue that the body worn cameras would reduce the number of complaints against officers for misconduct, and it would save the city money related to court costs and overtime costs for officers who have to appear in court for these cases (Howland, 2011). Out of the prosecutors who were surveyed in the COPS
12 | P a g e
study, 91% of them stated that they used the video recording in court. They also stated having the video dramatically reduced court time and expenses (IACP, 2004. p.22).
The COPS study also found that the cameras improved the officers ability to respond to complaints regarding their professionalism. The cameras also cleared officers of any wrong doing in internal investigations. Within the agencies studied, only 5% of complaint cases were sustained, due to the recorded evidence (IACP, 2004. p.22). Video evidence reduced the number of complaints and reduced the amount of time spent on internal investigations. The internal affairs sections realized that the majority of the complaints were handled at the supervisory level, which lead to the reduction (IACP, 2004. p.22).
In 2010, a Duluth, Minnesota officer was cleared of wrongdoing after he shot a 17 year old. His video showed the suspect hitting and smashing the officers drivers side patrol car window with a baseball bat while the officer was in the vehicle. The video also showed the teen failing to respond to the commands of the officer to put down the weapon (bat). This case is one that again depicts the value of video, protecting officers from false claims of misconduct (Orlando Sentinel, 2011).
The COPS evaluation concluded that the number one reason for cameras is to collect evidence for trial; to protect officer from false accusation (IACP, 2004, p.16). However, the second purpose for camera usage, as determined by these officers was to monitor their performance (IACP, 2004, p.16). Community perspective is also an area looked at
13 | P a g e
through this evaluation. Public forums were held in 12 states, in addition, 900 citizens
from 18 states responded to surveys. The result was that 94% of citizens supported the use of in-car cameras and 71% said they thought the public should be informed when they are being videotaped (IACP, 2004, p.16). In addition, 51% said that they would change their behavior if they were being videotaped (IACP, 2004, p.16). Overall, the IACP evaluation determined that the in-car camera programs had a tremendous impact on advancing technology for the state police and highway patrol agencies (IACP, 2004, p.28). Training: The officer survey results from the COPS evaluation showed that only onethird of the officers actually felt an increase in safety with the use of the cameras. However, a large majority of officers said in the interviews that they use the cameras as a training tool and to self-critique. The officers also said that they believed the use of cameras deescalated confrontational situations, promoting safety. In addition, the more training the officers received on the system, the more they believed the cameras improved safety; 77% of the officers interviewed said they never received training on how to use the cameras. Less than half of the officers said they received training on laws or departmental policies regarding camera use (IACP, 2004, p.18).
14 | P a g e
Best Practices
What are other agencies doing?

This study compares four other Florida agencies to the Orlando Police Department. These four agencies are: Tampa Police Department, St. Petersburg Police Department, Hialeah Police Department, and Ft. Lauderdale Police Department. These agencies were chosen because they are all Florida municipal law enforcement agencies, they are the similar in size in, and the city populations are similar (Florida League of Cities, 2011). Each agency was contacted and asked if they used in-car cameras and/or body worn cameras; if so, how many officers or vehicles were assigned camera units. The agencies were also asked to provide copies of any policy they have regarding the use of cameras. The results are depicted in the chart below. None of the agencies reported using body worn cameras. Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Ft. Lauderdale reported using in-car cameras for traffic enforcement purposes.
Comparison Analysis of Florida Municipal L.E. Agencies by Population and Agency Size
City Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Hialeah Ft. Lauderdale
City Population 336,264* 253,369* 228,765* 228,528* 179,971*
# of sworn personnel 977 540 743 347 511^
In-car camera, if yes # of units Yes Yes, 6 Yes., 22 No 30^
Body worn cameras, if yes, # of units unknown No No No No^
*Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, 2007 Hialeah Police Department Tampa Police Department ^Ft. Lauderdale Police Department Orlando Police Department Organizational Chart St. Petersburg Police Department
15 | P a g e
Additionally, a Florida Police Accreditation Coalition (FLA-PAC) request was sent out to all Florida agencies requesting information and copies of video camera policies, either in-car or body worn. The Boca Raton Police Department, Ft. Myers Police Department, Brevard County Sheriffs Office, Manalapan Police Department, St. Lucie Sheriffs Office, Clearwater Police Department and Highlands County Sheriffs Office responded with copies of their agencys policy on in-car cameras. No agency responded with any information on the use of body worn cameras. Information was gathered on these agencies for a general comparison. They were not used for analysis because they were either county agencies and/or they did not have a similar population to Orlando. The data is for information use only.
Respondents to Florida Agency PAC Request, Informational Data
City/County Boca Raton Ft. Myers Brevard County Manalapan St. Lucie County Clearwater Highlands County
City Population 86,445 64,674 536,357 343 266,502 106,642 98,704
# of sworn personnel 191 173 501* 10 260 248 130
In-car cameras, if yes # of units Yes/150 Yes Yes/20 Yes/4 Yes Yes Yes
Body worn cameras, if yes, # of units No Unknown Yes/2 No Unknown Unknown Unknown
http://www.city-data.com FBI http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_78_fl.html *Brevard County Sheriffs Office
As stated, no policies were provided regarding body worn cameras. However, a review of the policies from these informational agencies has revealed that the in-car camera policies are very similar across agencies and are generally used for DUI investigations
16 | P a g e
and various other traffic related incidents. The major characteristics of these policies outline when the in-car cameras can be/or are required to be used, what the video download requirements are, and describe what the limitations are regarding the
recorded data. Most of these policies were created based on accreditation standards. Many agencies are accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement (CALEA) and the in-car policys are based on CALEA Standard 41.3.8, In Car Audio/Video Recording(Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011). This is the case for the Boca Raton, St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Ft. Myers police departments. Other Florida agencies are accredited through The Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation (CFA); some are accredited through both agencies. The CFA Standard 22.04 governs the use of cameras and requires agencies to have directives (Standard Operating Procedures and/or Policies and Procedures) addressing camera use. The CFA accredited agencies discussed here include Brevard County Sheriffs Office, Boca Raton Police Department, Clearwater Police Department, Ft. Lauderdale Police Department, Highlands County Sheriffs Office, St. Petersburg Police Department and the Orlando Police Department (The Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation, 2011). Currently, the Orlando Police Department does not have a policy solely dedicated to incar cameras or body worn cameras; DED does have a standard operating procedure (SOP). Video camera use is a also part of the Orlando Police Departments Policy 1625.4, Use of Electronic Communications Systems (Orlando Police Department, 2010) and is mentioned as part of the equipment used in the aggressive driving vehicles in
17 | P a g e
Policy 1801.7, Special Purpose Vehicles or Vessels (Orlando Police Department, 2007). Both policies are geared towards traffic enforcement and DUI. The Boca Raton Police Department policy requires officers with in-car cameras (150) to use the in-car video recording system for all vehicle pursuits, all traffic stops, all DUI investigations, all felony stops, and all situations when lights and/or sirens are activated (Boca Raton Police Department [BRPD], 2000). The officers also have the option to use the in-car cameras at their discretion in other police situations (BRPD, 2000). Additionally the officer is required to download the video as soon as possible after the incident and at minimum, at least once every other shift (BRPD, 2000). Similarly, the Ft. Myers Police Department policy states that the cameras should be used during all of the same circumstances as the Boca Raton policy, but also includes field interviews and citizen consensual contacts; this is based off CALEA accreditation standards. In addition, the Ft. Myers policy states that the camera will activate automatically as soon as the officer puts on his or her emergency lights; the officer can also manually activate the camera (Ft. Myers Police Department, 2009). The St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office policy states that the purpose is for use during DUI stops only (St. Lucie County, 2011). In almost all of the policies reviewed, parameters are set up that require officers to download video within a reasonable time, and state that officers cannot delete, edit, or alter video. Other local agencies that did not meet the selected criteria or did not respond to the FLPAC request were looked at to see what they were doing regarding camera use. The Winter Park Police Department has a total of 87 officers, no in-car cameras, or body
18 | P a g e
worn cameras. However, they do use video cameras that are attached to their Tasers. Winter Park Police Department currently has 50 of these cameras (Sgt. J. Askins, personal communication, March 31, 2011). Taser International manufactures this
product called the Taser Cam and the company states that as of October 2010, more than 2,400 law enforcement agencies use the Taser Cam (Walker, 2010). Lt. Farrell from the Winter Park Police Department said in an article by the Palm Beach Post that it is a good way to protect ourselves from false allegations and provide evidence in court and another reason we use them is to provide the public sense of transparency (Pacheco, 2010). These cameras are attached to the actual Taser; the video is activated as soon as the Taser leaves the officers holster and records the incident even after the Taser prongs are released from the Taser (Pacheco, 2011). However, when the Taser is not engaged, no video is recorded. The Orange County Sheriffs Office has more than 1,300 vehicles. However, there are only 8 cars with in-car cameras. Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings and Mayor Teresa Jacobs support in-car cameras and are exploring the issue. However, funding is not currently available to purchase the equipment. (Pacheco, 2011). It would cost the Orange County Sheriffs Office $9 million to put cameras in all of their vehicles (WFTV, 2010). Additionally, the University of Central Florida Police Department is considering outfitting the agencys 60 officers with body worn cameras, but has not done so yet (Pacheco, 2011). Although no local agency has responded to the request regarding the use of body worn cameras, this new technology is beginning to appear at agencies in other parts of the
19 | P a g e
country. The most cited agency using body worn cameras is the San Jose, California, Police Department. The San Jose Police Department tested 18 body worn cameras during 2010. These cameras were worn by officers over their ears and were made by
Taser, the Taser Axon (Paddock, 2010). The agency has 1,200 officers and 17 of those officers completed a one-year study on the camera use. The results of the study were positive; Lt. Sims from the San Jose Police Department stated that all police departments are going to be moving toward this technology (Young, 2011). However, due to severe budget constraints, the agency will most likely not be able to outfit the entire department with the body worn cameras (Young, 2011). Other large agencies have tested the equipment over the past year, to include Cincinnati and San Diego, with similar results to San Jose (Howland, 2010). Due to cost and budgetary issues, smaller agencies may be in a better position to outfit personnel with cameras. Two small agencies in the United States that have implemented body worn cameras are Erlanger, Kentucky and Lafayette, Colorado. Erlanger has only 41 officers and purchased 10 body worn cameras for its officers after the agency completed an evaluation of the equipment (six-month trial). The officers work 10 per shift and pass on the cameras to the next shift, after assigned personnel download the video. Officers cannot download the video themselves, delete it, or alter it in any way. The agency decided on the body worn cameras over the in-car cameras for a few reasons; the body worn cameras were significantly less expensive, they were more practical, and they have better quality sound (National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, [NLECTC], 2010). The Lafayette, Colorado Police Department also conducted
20 | P a g e
an evaluation of the body worn cameras. The evaluation was for 30 days and as a
result, the agency planned to purchase the cameras for the entire agency (40 officers). The agency felt that the body worn cameras were useful for all the reasons previously stated, they increase officer safety, reduce agency liability, reduce officer complaints and improve public perception of police (NLETC, 2010). The agency had in-car cameras, but stopped purchasing them after this evaluation; the body worn cameras were much less expensive (NLETC, 2010).
21 | P a g e
Comparison Analysis & Issues

Legal Issues
What are the implementation issues?

Many of the concerns with cameras are legal issues regarding privacy rights; the expectation of privacy of citizens and the expectation of privacy inside a residence, business, vehicle, etc. To get information on these potential issues, I interviewed the OPD Legal Advisor, Lee Freeman. Mrs. Freeman advised me that when a citizen has a conversation with a Law Enforcement Officer, in the course of his/her duty, there is no expectation of privacy. In addition, when a citizen calls the police to their home or business, etc. there is also no expectation of privacy. Whatever an officer sees or hears is fair game, audio and video would be allowed (L. Freeman, personal communication, March 24, 2011). A citizen has an expectation of privacy while they are in their home or vehicle, however, this does not apply to an encounter with an officer who is on lawful duty (L. Freeman, personal communication, March 24, 2011). This information is also found in Florida State Statute (FSS) 943. A 2008 OPD Training Bulletin discussing FSS 943 states, the circumstances surrounding most encounters with law enforcement officers normally do not justify an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy (Orlando Police Department, 2008). Case law on in-car video has been established regarding this concern (Orlando Police Department, 2008). Mrs. Freeman did also caution that if cameras will be used on a regular basis, policies and procedures will have to be put in place, or expanded upon, to address several legal
22 | P a g e
issues, besides privacy. For example, policy would have to address when a camera should be used and when they should be turned on or not turned on to ensure fair
treatment of all citizens. Parameters would need to be set for voluntary, compulsory, and prohibited use of the cameras (L. Freeman, personal communication, March 24, 2011). In addition, camera video is public record and a process would need to be established to ensure the video could not be deleted or altered and is downloaded on a regular basis. Officers should also be trained on the use of the cameras and the policy. This will ensure proper usage as well as safeguard the officer to protect his or her personal privacy. For example, an officer could accidently leave a camera on while not on a call and that video would become public record (L. Freeman, personal communication, March 24, 2011). Equipment Type and Cost Analysis There are two types of camera systems that this study focused on, in-car cameras and body worn cameras. In-car cameras are currently the most popular form of camera used in law enforcement. The systems have been used for many years and they are proven to be durable and reliable, particularly reliable in court cases. The in-car cameras are made of good quality and provide great quality images, to include excellent nighttime recording capability. The cameras are installed directly into the vehicles, and the video obtained from the cameras is directly sent to a video server (Officer B. Cechowski, personal communication, April 7, 2011). Settings can be placed on the cameras that trigger when the cameras are turned on and the information can be sent wirelessly back to the server (Bay News 9, 2010). For example, the camera may begin recording when
23 | P a g e
the lights and sirens are turned on, when the car reaches a certain speed, or when it is turned on manually by the officers (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication, February 3, 2011). With the few in-car cameras that OPD has, the images produced are of excellent quality, nighttime recording quality is good, and the video is directly downloaded to a server within the agency, the officer does not have to worry about remembering to download video, etc. (Officer B. Cechowski, personal communication, April 7, 2011).
One downfall of all in-car cameras is that they only record what is occurring in front of the vehicle. If an officer leaves the front of the vehicle to enter a home or business, works on a bike or motorcycle, or is working in any circumstance when he or she is not in a vehicle, the camera is useless (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication, February 3, 2011). The other downfall of in-car cameras is the cost. According to previous Capital Improvement Project requests, (not official quotes) each camera system costs approximately $5900. To outfit the 492 members previously identified (Traffic Enforcement Section, The Uniform Drug Enforcement Section, the Patrol Services Bureau, the K-9 Unit and the Community Policing Section, Downtown Bikes and Parramore Heritage Bikes) with in-car cameras, the cost would be approximately $2.9 million (Orlando Police Department, 2011 January).
Due to cost, agencies such as the Burnsville Police Department in Minnesota have stopped purchasing in-car cameras for an alternative product, the body worn camera
24 | P a g e
(StudentNewsDaily, 2011). The body worn camera provides many of the same benefits as the in-car cameras. In addition, the body worn camera is not stationary inside a vehicle. The camera goes wherever the officer goes and sees and hears whatever the officer sees and hears (Policeone, 2011). When an officer is entering a building, a home, or is on the street, everything can be recorded on the video (Policeone, 2011). These cameras are easy to use, they are generally light weight, and they are less expensive than in-car cameras. All of the body worn cameras generally can record for about 4 hours, and have additional home and car chargers.
One of the disadvantages of the body worn cameras is that the officers are responsible for the video. They must download the video themselves, and must ensure that this is done properly. In addition, some departments have complained about the image quality; fuzzy pictures, and poor quality at night. There are also quality issues with stability; for example, when an officer is running or fighting, the video may be shaky and the camera may not be secure (Huntersystems, 2011).
The body worn cameras vastly range in style and cost. There are cameras that can be attached to the Taser (Taser-cam), cameras that are placed on the ear, head-mounted cameras, mic-cameras, and lapel style cameras. The Taser-cam is not practical because it only records while the Taser is in use. However, Taser developed the Taser Axon which is a camera that can be worn over the ear or on the head. The cost of this type of body worn camera is $1700 each, which would cost $836,400 for 492 units. This
25 | P a g e
camera system uses a secure website managed by the company to upload the camera video. This allows for increase in protection of video legitimacy and accountability. However, the monthly cost of management of the data is $99 per month, per officer (Economist, 2010). For 492 officers, this would cost $48,708 a month, $584,496 annually. According to the CEO of one company that sells the mic camera, the miccamera style would replace the current mic attached to an officers radio. It has a
camera in the top of the mic, which can also be turned over and the officer can watch as he or she is recording. The video is uploaded to a web based software program that is managed by the agency and provided at no cost. These cameras cost about $700 each (not official quotes) and there are no additional charges or fees, total agency cost is approximately $344,400 (T.Hayes, personal communication, April 7, 2001). Lapel style video cameras are the latest additions in camera technology. According to the president of one company that sells this type of camera, these cameras are generally small in size (2-3), lightweight, and can be worn on a pocket or clipped onto the front of an officers shirt (J. Duncan, personal communication, March 22, 2011). This style camera cost anywhere between $100 each to $800 each. The more expensive cameras ($800) include the software to download the video, with the agency still managing it. They also do not allow for manipulation of video. In other words, no video can be edited or deleted (J. Duncan, personal communication, March 22, 2011). The agency cost for the 492 identified officers would be up to $393,600 for the cameras that cost up to $800 per unit. The less expensive style cameras ($100) do not have these controls, the video can be deleted; however, there is a tracking system on the videos.
26 | P a g e
The cameras that cost $100 per unit would cost the agency $49,200. Eight Orlando
Police Department officers will test 6 body worn cameras (4 mic style and 2 lapel style) cameras for a period of 30-45 days, results will be reviewed after this test period.
Estimated camera cost comparison based on 492 units purchased
Camera Type In-car cameras Body worn camera w/ Video Management (Ex:Taser) Body worn camera mic style Body worn camera lapel style w/software Body worn cameralapel style no software
Cost Each $5900
Total Cost $2.9Million
Reoccurring Cost 0
$1700
$836,000
$584,496
$700 Up to $800
$344,400 Up to $393,600
0 0
$100
$49,200
27 | P a g e
Findings and Recommendations
The use of in-car cameras has proven to be highly beneficial. Evaluations of in-car cameras show that in- car cameras are successful at capturing officer involved traffic accidents, DUI arrests, and officer safety incidents. They have also been a great benefit in resolving complaints and allegations against officers. In-car cameras are used throughout the country and state for traffic related incidents and the video has been proven to hold up in court. The new technology of body worn cameras is in the experimental or test phase. Numerous agencies are testing the different types of body worn cameras and are self-evaluating the cameras. No formal studies have been conducted on the use of body worn cameras as of yet. Additionally, no large agencies found have fully implemented the use of body worn cameras and the courts have not yet established case law regarding body worn cameras.
My recommendation is that the Orlando Police Department begin a process of implementing the use of camera technology within the agency. However, there are several factors to consider. First, and probably the most prohibiting, is the cost to the agency. As with most local agencies, funding for technology is not a fiscal priority. Most agencies, including OPD, are facing a continuation of budget freezes or budget reductions. Therefore, it may be impractical to implement in-car camera technology that will cost millions of dollars at this time. The second issue deals with the quality and proven use of technology. Although the in-car cameras are more costly, they are of great quality and are proven reliable and admissible in court proceedings. Body worn
28 | P a g e
cameras are still being tested and have no established case law regarding privacy
issues. Although state statute has demonstrated that there is no expectation of privacy in a residence or business when an officer is conducting an investigation, there are limited court cases on this subject regarding the use of body worn cameras. Finally, one of the most challenging issues may be officer acceptance. If OPD officers feel that the video cameras are being used as a tool to monitor the officer, as several officers felt in the IACP study, they may be resistant to using the cameras (IACP, 2004, p.16) To abate these issue, I recommend a mixed-technology and multi-phase approach. OPD should implement a multi-year plan to phase in a combination of in-car cameras and body worn cameras. The standard cost for in-car cameras is approximately $5900 each. The only body worn style camera that is recommended is the lapel style camera that includes software from the vendor that is managed by OPD. The Taser camera is impractical because it only captures those instances when the Taser is drawn. The Taser over the ear style camera and head camera require a monthly fee for managing the video; making it cost-prohibitive. The mic style camera would require our officers to replace their newly purchased Motorola mic with the camera mic. The new mics have an antenna that assists officers with reception inside of building and areas with poor reception. There may also be problems with the radio manufacturer and their warranty. The lapel style cameras are ideal because they are light weight and can be worn on the officers shirt, either on the pocket or simply clipped on the front of the shirt. However, I would only recommend the more expensive lapel style camera ($800) that includes software from the vendor which can be managed by OPD. The reason for this is to
29 | P a g e
maintain officer and agency integrity. These cameras do not allow video to be altered or deleted from the camera, while the less expensive cameras do. This fact alone will ensure integrity and maintain a positive public perception for officers. In addition, I feel that this will benefit the officers submitting video evidence in court cases or in responding to citizen complaints; there will be no doubt that the video evidence was not tampered with. Because of their quality and proven success in traffic related incidents, in-car cameras should be standard equipment for all vehicles that are assigned to officers whose primary duty is traffic enforcement. Also, it has been demonstrated that the in-car cameras work well at night, while body worn cameras do not work as well in low-light situations. All units that are part of the DUI Enforcement Team (8 officers) should be equipped with in-car cameras. Because the Traffic Enforcement Section (23 officers) primarily drive motorcycles, in-car cameras are impractical. These units should be assigned body worn cameras for use during traffic enforcement and DUIs. The Patrol Services Bureau has the 6 aggressive driving vehicles that are already equipped with in-car cameras that were purchased through grant funding. This would complete the first implementation phase of the project and would cost the agency approximately $65,600. I would recommend funding this first phase by using funds from the Federal Asset Sharing Trust (FAST) Fund. During first phase implementation, exploration into other funding sources, such as grants and capital improvement project submissions should occur for future phases. In addition, the technology can be reviewed to ensure that the best solutions have been chosen.
30 | P a g e
Phase I
Camera Type In-car camera Body worn camera Unit Name DUI Enforcement Team Motors Number in Unit 8 23 Cost Each $5900 $800 TOTAL Total Cost $47,200 $18,400 $65,600
If phase I proves successful, phase II of this project will introduce in-car cameras and body worn cameras to those units that have high instances of citizen contact and selfinitiated calls, the Drug Enforcement Division (DED), and the Community Policing Section (Downtown Bike Unit and Parramore Heritage Bike Unit), and K-9. Because of the nature of the work of the DED officers, these officers should have in-car cameras in their vehicles and wear body worn cameras. These officers are frequently investigating drug crimes in vehicles and inside homes. The in-car video would help protect the officers against claims of illegal pursuits, vehicle searches, or traffic stops (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication, February 3, 2011). The body worn cameras would protect the officers against claims of unnecessary use of force or illegal searches in homes. The cost to outfit DED (18 officers) with in-car cameras is $106,200 and $14,400 for body worn cameras, a total of $120,600. The K-9 Unit serves to respond with patrol officers to in-progress calls and to assist officers with apprehending suspects. Similar to the DED officers, K-9 would benefit from in-car cameras and body worn cameras. K-9 officers respond to traffic stops and vehicle searches; these are instances where in-car cameras will be of great benefit. The officers would benefit from the body worn cameras during tracking and apprehension of suspects. The cost of
31 | P a g e
outfitting the K-9 Unit (13) with in-car cameras is $76,700 and the cost of body worn cameras is $10,400.
The Downtown Bike Officers and Parramore Heritage Bike Officers respond to calls for service, initiate calls, and are often flagged down by citizens. These units are assigned vehicles, but their main function is to bike throughout downtown. These officers are frequently in contact with citizens that are downtown partying at the nightclubs and the citizens may have been drinking or impaired (Lieutenant R. Anzueto, personal communication, April 11, 2011). For these officers, body worn cameras are most important to reduce the number of citizen complaints and protect the officers from claims of unnecessary use of force or unprofessional behavior. To outfit these officers (39) with body worn cameras, the cost is $31,200. The total phase two cost is $238,900. Phase II
Number in Camera Type Unit Name unit In-car camera Body worn camera In-car camera Body worn camera Body worn camera DED DED K-9 K-9 Bike Units (39) 18 18 13 13 39 $5900 $800 $5900 $800 $800 TOTAL Cost Each Cost $106,200 $14,400 $76,700 $10,400 $31,200 $238,900 Total
32 | P a g e
Ideally, the entire fleet of the Patrol Services Bureau vehicles (399) should be outfitted with in-car -cameras. As discussed, the in-car cameras are reliable and easy to use. From the officers perspective, they do not have to manually turn the cameras on and they do not have to manually download video as they would with the body cameras. Officers that are resistant to the use of body worn cameras may feel much more comfortable with the in-car cameras. It is also much less likely that officers will accidently turn on the in-car camera or forget to turn it off. However, unless grant funding is acquired, the cost is prohibitive; more than $2 million dollars. On the other
hand, outfitting 399 Patrol officers with body worn cameras would cost $319, 200, which is still a budgetary concern, although much more feasible. Before dedicating such significant funding to this large group of officers, I recommend Phase III of the project serve as a program review and evaluation. At this point 45 in-car cameras and 80 body worn cameras would have been deployed. Implementing cameras in the patrol function is expensive and before doing so an evaluation should now be conducted to determine efficiency and effectiveness of the project. Data should be collected from phase I and II on information such as: are the cameras successful at officer safety efforts, DUI convictions, reviewing officer involved accidents, and/or rebuking officer complaints. Also, the current technology of the body worn cameras can be reviewed for effectiveness. Another important factor is how the officers feel about the cameras. The reason this is so important is because if the officers adamantly resist the use of cameras, the cameras will not be used at all or they will not be used properly; therefore wasting agency time and money. I recommend officer
33 | P a g e
surveys be completed. These surveys should be broken up into two groups, those who have the cameras and those who dont. The surveys will provide information that the
agency can use to proceed with the project. The overall evaluation may determine that it is essential that the agency continue to fund in-car cameras and/or body worn cameras or it may determine that the project should remain where it is; traffic enforcement and citizen contacts. This internal evaluation can be completed by in-house personnel or ideally, in collaboration with UCF staff or interns. If this evaluation determines that the program is successful, phase IV would be to outfit all of patrol with cameras. The evaluation will determine which camera would be the best solution for the patrol function. Another recommendation is that the agency must have appropriate policies and procedures in place prior to any further camera deployment. This would be a review of any current policy and an addition to include body-cameras. It is vital to this project that officers know when they are required to have video on, what they are allowed to video, when they are required to download the video, and the public record laws protecting the video. Officers must be trained on the policy and procedures governing the use of the cameras. Training should also include the proper use of the camera and instructions on how to download video to the site; supervisors would need to be trained on how to access the video to view. The final recommendation is to plan the logistics of the camera use prior to project implementation. The agency must determine if the current servers are sufficient to hold additional data from additional in-car cameras. This issue may become an additional
34 | P a g e
expense. With the use of the body worn cameras, logistics must be determined
regarding the download of the video, video storage, and video management. During meetings with vendors it was determined that it would not be feasible for officers to download the video to their in-car computers and transfer the data. The officers will need to download their body worn camera video themselves and will need to have a location to do so. This is particularly challenging since the agency is decentralized. Options may include having video download stations at each substation as well as headquarters; keeping in mind that there is no longer line up and check off. Video storage servers will be required as well as personnel to manage the video. The manager would be responsible for complete knowledge of the software, and have the capability to produce copies of video for evidence, etc. Current staff would have to be assigned these additional responsibilities.
35 | P a g e
Conclusion
The Orlando Police Department has made every effort to reduce crime and increase livability within the City; while protecting its citizens and officers. The use of technology in law enforcement is continuously opening gateways to improve these efforts. Currently the agency uses camera technology throughout its downtown for crime prevention and investigative purposes. Although, the use of cameras in vehicles is not new technology, it has widely used for traffic enforcement. However, due to the cost, local agencies have not fully implemented the use of in-car cameras. Body worn cameras are the latest technology and appear to be the wave of the future. However, this technology has yet to be proven effective or efficient. OPD should cautiously explore the vast possibilities of this latest technology. As the agency moves forward, equipment selection must occur through careful thought, implementation should occur in phases to determine efficiency and effectiveness of the products, improvement and additions to policies need to be made, personnel need proper training, and logistics need to be well thought out and pre-planned. These efforts will assist the agency to make the best possible choices for the agency as a whole and for the individual officer.
36 | P a g e
References
Bay News 9. (2010, September 26). Zephyrhills PD cruisers receiving new type of in-car cam. WESH News.com. Retrieved from http://www.baynews9.com/artilce.news/2010/septembet/155069/Zephyrhills-PDcruisers Boca Raton Police Department. (2000). Boca Raton police departmental standard directive (Standard Directive No. 41.25, In-car video system). Boca Raton, FL. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). (2011). http://www.calea.org/ Florida League of Cities. (2011). My City: Facts of Florida cities. Retrieved from http://flcities.com/membership/my_city_facts.asp Fredricks, Grant. (2011, March). Caught on Camera: The clear capture of officer murders is a grim reality of this powerful technology. Evidence Technology Magazine. Retrieved on March 30, 2011 from: http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id =431 Ft. Myers Police Department. (2009).Ft. Myers police departmental general order (General Order No. 25.3, Mobile video/audio recording equipment). Ft. Myers, FL. Howland, Lance. (2010, May 11). Two Urban Police Departments Test Officer-Mounted Mini-Cams. Publicceo.com. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governmentspublicceo-exclusive/1479-two-urban-police-departments-test-officer-mounted-minicams Hunter Systems Group, Inc. (2011, February 8). While body worn video expands to more police departments, some concerns still arise. Huntersystems Posterous. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://huntersystems.posterous.com/while-bodyworn-video-expands-to-more-police International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the United States Department of Justice, Community Oriented Police Office. (2004). Research and Best Practices
37 | P a g e
from the IACP Study on In-Car Cameras. Retrieved on February 2, 2011from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/video_evidence.pdf National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (2010, Fall). Officerworn cameras expand point of view. TechBeat. Retrieved from http://www.justnet.org/TechBeat Files/Officer Worn Cameras Expand Point of View.pdf Officer Down Memorial Webpage, Inc (ODMP). Retrieved on April 6, 2011 from http://www.odmp.org/ Orlando Sentinel. (2011, February 3). Candid (cop) cameras. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.orlandosentinel.com Orlando Police Department. (2011, April 1). Highway Safety Concept Paper, Orlando, FL. Orlando Police Department. (2011, January 18). Capital Improvement Project (CIP) request form, Orlando, FL. Orlando Police Department (2010, December). A year in review 2010 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://opdweb1/opdonline/YIR_2010/SJ's%20edited%20version%20of%20YIR%20 -%202010.ppsx Orlando Police Department. (2010, October 1). Orlando Police Department Organizational chart. Orlando, FL. Orlando Police Department. (2010, January 29). Orlando police departmental policy and procedure. (Policy and Procedure No. 1625.4, Use of electronic communications systems). Orlando, FL. Orlando Police Department. (2008, April 2). Orlando police departmental training bulletin (Training Bulletin No. 1309.1, Audio recording or interception of oral communications by law enforcement officer). Orlando, FL. Pacheco, Walter. (2011, January 15). In-car board cameras can give key evidence, but cost limits their use. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from
38 | P a g e
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/os-in-car -cams20110107,0,7828747,print.story Pacheco, Walter. (2010, November 11). Tiny cameras on Tasers record Central Florida police takedowns. The Palm Beach Post. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/nes/tiny-cameras-on-tasers-record-central-flroidapolice-1039224.htm Paddock, Richard. (2010, April 1). Cameras for the police. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/us/02sfbriefs.html PoliceOne.comNews. (2011, January 22). Officer-worn cameras expand point of view. Policeone.com. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.policeone.com/pc_print.asp?vid=3227048 St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office. (2011).St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office general order (General Order No. 31.10, DUI traffic enforcement). St. Lucie County, FL. StudentNewsDaily.com. (2011, March 14). Body Cameras: The new eyes of the law. StudentNewsDaily.com. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://studentnewsdaily.com/ The Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation (CFA). (2011). http://www.flaccreditation.org/ The Economist. (2010, December 30). Proto-Robocop, the iconic maker of stun guns aims to take policing into cyberspace. The Economist, 394, 46-47. Retrieved on March 29, 2011 from http://www.economist.com/node/15179584?story_id=15179584 Walker, Dionne. (2010, October 23). Police using TASER cameras to protect themselves in court. Policeone.com. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from: http://www.policeone.com/pc_prinst.asp?vid=2833031 WESH News.com. (2011, January 21). Orange Co. mulls cameras for deputies, officers: cameras dont lie. WESH News.com. Retrieved from http://www.wesh.com/print/26570679/detail.html
39 | P a g e
Westphal, Lonnie J. (2004, August). The in-car camera: value and impact. The Police Chief, vol 71, no 8. Retrieved on February 2, 2011from: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index
WFTV (2010, November 18). Why dont Orlando Police have in-car-cams? WFTV.com. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.wftv.com/print/25842422/detial.html Young, Chris. (2011, January 6). Personal cameras for police officers. Pittsburg City Paper. Retrieved from http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A89594
40 | P a g e

Police Technology An Analysis of in Car Cameras and Body Worn Cameras Lillian Draisin Spring 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Police Technology An Analysis of in Car Cameras and Body Worn Cameras Lillian Draisin Spring 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and body worn cameras

History of Camera Use

current literature, a review of the camera equipment, and provides a recommendation

Statement of the Problem

Why use cameras at all?

What are other agencies doing?

City Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Hialeah Ft. Lauderdale

City Population 336,264* 253,369* 228,765* 228,528* 179,971*

# of sworn personnel 977 540 743 347 511^

In-car camera, if yes # of units Yes Yes, 6 Yes., 22 No 30^

Body worn cameras, if yes, # of units unknown No No No No^

City Population 86,445 64,674 536,357 343 266,502 106,642 98,704

# of sworn personnel 191 173 501* 10 260 248 130

http://www.city-data.com FBI http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_78_fl.html *Brevard County Sheriffs Office

Comparison Analysis & Issues

What are the implementation issues?

Cost Each $5900

Total Cost $2.9Million

Findings and Recommendations

You might also like