Laserfiche WebLink
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3 <br />According to a 2012 nationwide survey conducted by Taser,4 a majority of police officers <br />believe that there is a need for body-worn cameras.5 The survey included 785 federal, state, and <br />local law enforcement professionals. According to Doug Wyllie, PoliceOne Editor in Chief, <br />“perhaps the most important single piece of data was that more than 85% of respondents believe <br />that body-worn cameras reduce false claims of police misconduct, and reduce the likelihood of <br />litigation against the agency.”6 A surprising statistic in the survey relates to the perceived <br />effectiveness of body-worn cameras versus in-car systems, with 77% of officers saying they <br />think the body-worn solution is more effective.7 A 2015 study conducted by the University of <br />South Florida with the Orlando Police Department reported that “most officers felt that their <br />agency should adopt body-worn cameras for all front-line officers and reported that they would <br />feel comfortable wearing a body-worn camera.8 <br />A commonly cited indicator of body cameras’ potential to reduce instances of officer-civilian <br />conflict is the “Rialto Study.” In Rialto, a small city outside of Los Angeles, the police <br />department outfitted all 70 of their uniformed officers with body-worn cameras, theorizing that <br />use of the cameras would reduce complaints and lawsuits, and accordingly also reduce expensive <br />litigation costs, as well as settlements and payouts.9 <br />The introduction of body-worn cameras in Rialto as standard equipment in 2012 led to an <br />88% reduction in public complaints against officers, and a 60% decline in officers’ use of <br />force. This dramatic reduction in the use of force indicates that body-worn cameras may <br />have had a moderating effect on officers' behavior, as the presence of a camera appeared <br />to drastically lower the frequency with which officers “resorted to the use of physical <br />force—including the use of OC spray (‘pepper spray’), batons, Tasers, firearms, or canine <br />bites.”10 <br />Showing citizen interactions from the officer’s perspective to the community at large has <br />resulted in a reduced rate of public complaints.11 Based on its investigation, including its <br /> <br />4 Taser is a manufacturer of body-worn cameras and related law enforcement equipment. See <br />https://www.taser.com/. <br />5 Doug Wyllie, Survey: Police Officers Want Body-Worn Cameras, October 23, 2012. PoliceOne. <br />http://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/6017774-Survey-Police-officers-want-body-worn- <br />cameras/. <br />6 Ibid. <br />7 Ibid. <br />8 Evaluating the Impact of Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs): The Orlando Police Department (OPD) <br />Experience. http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/10/09/OPD-Final-Report-Executive- <br />Summary-10-6-15.pdf. <br />9 The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints against the Police: <br />A Randomized Controlled Trial Original Paper, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, September 2015, Volume 31, <br />Issue 3, pp. 509-535. <br />10 PoliceOne Staff, 5 Ways Body-Worn Cameras Have Helped Police Officers: How Video from the Officer's <br />Perspective Is Making Their Jobs Easier, September 30, 2014. PoliceOne. <br />https://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/7522310-5-ways-body-worn-cameras-have- <br />helped-police-officers. <br />11 "Considering Police Body Cameras," Harvard Law Review 128.6 (April 10, 2015): 1794-802. <br />http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/considering-police-body-cameras/. <br />6.1.J. - Page 8