By R. Shute and M Mecray

Context Service weapon activity, including instances where an officer’s firearm is drawn, pointed, or discharged, plays an important role in understanding events transpiring during a police–public encounter. Detection, documentation, and communication of these events in a way that is accurate, timely, and dependable is vital for enhancing transparency and accountability of law enforcement service weapon use. About this Report The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) requested the Criminal Justice Technology Testing and Evaluation Center (CJTTEC) to investigate the landscape of commercially available and emerging technologies that could meet this need. CJTTEC conducted a review of technologies capable of detecting when a service weapon has been unholstered, pointed, or discharged; documenting when a law enforcement officer discharges their service weapon (or initiating documentation such as body-worn camera (BWC) recordings in such incidents); and communicating the information to dispatchers. CJTTEC’s methodology to understand this technology landscape included secondary research (e.g., reviewing patents, trade literature, press releases, news articles, and publications) and primary research with technology experts, product representatives, and researchers. This brief provides a high-level summary of technology systems capable of documenting, detecting, and communicating service weapon activity, focusing specifically on technology integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Conclusion Although no single commercially available tool is capable of detecting, documenting, and communicating service weapon activity, law enforcement agencies may be able to rely on a suite of products to help them address these needs.

Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2024. 15p.

By George Shaler, Alison Grey, Lucy Tumavicus, Tara Wheeler, Clare Murray, Robyn Dumont

In the immediate aftermath of George Floyd’s killing four years ago, many people campaigned for police reform to hold law enforcement more accountable for their actions. At the same time, many law enforcement supporters pushed back, maintaining that in the midst of the pandemic and surge in crime that followed, a more robust law enforcement presence was needed. In response to the demand for greater accountability, various legislative and policy proposals were put forth. Most notably, in June 2020, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, H.R. 7120, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill would have held law enforcement officers accountable for misconduct in court, improved transparency through data collection, and reformed police training and policies. It would have required federal uniformed officers to wear body-worn cameras (BWCs) and would have required state and local law enforcement to use existing federal funds to ensure the use of those cameras.

While this legislation passed the House in both the 116th and 117th Congress, it failed to gain passage in the Senate each time and was not enacted. Despite this failure, among police reform initiatives, the use of body-worn cameras has received the most widespread bipartisan support. While some reformers would like to quicken the pace, the adoption of BWCs by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies continues to increase. Here in Maine, local, state, and federal funding has enabled agencies to purchase BWCs and implement their use.

Today, when high-profile events occur, there is often both an expectation that video footage exists and public pressure on law enforcement officials to release that footage. Civilians view the mere presence of a body-worn camera as the most important tool in the evaluation of allegations of use of force in police-civilian encounters. However, citizen access to BWC video depends on location. Each state has its own public records law that determines when and how the public may have access to BWC footage. Some states, like Maine, have not addressed BWC footage specifically. Therefore, the laws governing the release of BWC footage in Maine are aligned with existing public record laws and exemptions that are open to interpretation.

Maine Statistical Analysis Center, University of Southern Maine., 2024. 75p.

By Madison, Wisconsin Police Department

  In August 2023, Madison City Council passed a resolution authorizing the Implementation of the Body-Worn Camera Experiment Program. The resolution included multiple attachments that provide a history of the body worn cameras (BWC), feasibility reports, example policy, public comments, Alder amendments, legal review, and Chief Barnes’ memo requesting approval to conduct the experiment. The resolution represents a culmination of several years of effort by city residents, staff and alders. The experiment program consisted of technology, research and cost estimates. The technology portion began April 1, 2024, and was completed July 14. The BWC units were worn by officers in the North District. The first two weeks consisted of setting up and assigning units to officers, testing, and training. The use of body worn cameras began in the field on April 15. The BWC units were loaned by MPD’s existing dash camera vendor for the duration of experiment. The research was conducted by an outside researcher; Dr. Broderick Turner at Virginia Tech. Police Director Eleazer Hunt and members of the BWC Committee met with Dr. Turner multiple times to identify needed data and survey questions. This report includes Dr. Turner’s findings (Appendix A) and a budget estimate for implementation (Appendix B). Estimates are based on full deployment of BWC across MPD, the acquisition of hardware, operations/storage needs, peripherals, personnel, and support several years of operation. During the experiment, an interim Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guided the use of BWC (Appendix C). This SOP is informed by the Police Body-Worn Camera Feasibility Review Committee, MPD’s current SOP for dash cameras and audio microphones , and a review of model policies developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the U.S. Department of Justice. Findings from the experiment: 1- Officers did not change behavior while wearing a BWC 2- Charges were not added when officers reviewed video 3- Technical issues related to battery life and uploading video were evident in the first half of the experiment and resolved 4- Specific situational use of BWC required clarification of the SOP 5- The limitations of the experiment included a short duration, a small number of officers participated, there was limited time for analysis (interviews), and no post-experiment analysis 6- BWC may help with trust building, legitimacy, and transparency  7- Public Records requests impacted staff time to research, redact, and provide videos to requestors  

Madison, WI: City Police Department, 2024. 47p.

By Hannah Cochran and Robert E. Worden  

The proliferation of body-worn cameras (BWCs) among police agencies across the nation emerged largely in response to sweeping demands for increased police accountability and transparency: heightened tensions between the police and the public in the aftermath of several high-profile in-custody deaths spurred attention to this technological innovation, and its benefits were expected to accrue to both law enforcement and community. Early media accounts’ praise for BWC technology heralded its potential to rebuild police-community relationships, reinforce accountability mechanisms for police, improve the quality of evidence in police investigations, and reduce the number of frivolous civilian complaints. Emblematic of its widespread appeal, in the aftermath of Michael Brown’s shooting, the Brown family urged the public to unite behind a platform that promotes the police use of body-worn cameras (Sink, 2014). The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) endorsed the dissemination and implementation of policing technologies such as BWCs, and it noted the urgent need for expanded research on the efficacy and practicability of BWCs. The Task Force also called for inquiry into the potential impacts of BWCs on the communities in which they are deployed. To wit, the report (2015: 32) quoted Ronald L. Davis, then the director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), who wrote (in Miller and Toliver, 2014: vii): Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the public. The public’s embedded significance and relevance to the implementation of BWCs is underrepresented by the body of research on the subject, most of which spotlights police perceptions, and police and citizen behavior. In their review of BWC research, Lum and colleagues (2019) found that the number of studies examining officer behavior and attitudes were double those in which citizen or community attitudes were examined as outcomes. BWC technology emerged in part as a response to public demands; a fundamental question underlying the use of BWCs is what the public thinks about BWCs, and why. But evidence on how the public views this technology, and the correlates of public sentiment is slim. Expanding this research could be crucial to understanding the potential impacts of current and future reforms, and that is the purpose of our study.  

 Albany, NY: The John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety, Inc.   2020. 43p.