A Policy Scorecard

Due to concerns from civil rights groups about the increased potential for surveillance, leading departments have begun to include limits on their use of biometric technologies, like facial recognition, together with camera footage. In our initial release, only Baltimore’s policy addressed facial recognition. Since then, Baltimore County, Boston, Cincinnati, Montgomery County, Parker (CO), and Seattle have all followed suit. Additionally, Baltimore strengthened its policy since our first analysis.

None of the department policies we analyzed have a blanket limitation on officer review of footage before filing an initial written incident report. Only thirteen departments have partial prohibitions in place, for certain critical incidents like officer shootings. The vast majority of departments (55) allow officers unrestricted footage review .

Increasingly, departments are establishing explicit procedures that allow recorded individuals — like those seeking to file a police misconduct complaint — to view the footage of their own incidents. Four departments we analyzed — in Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Parker (CO) and Washington DC — now appear to provide special access to recorded individuals. These special access rights, tailored specifically for body camera footage, exist alongside state-level public records laws.

Even when departments have policies in place, over a third (28 of 68) don’t make them easily and publicly available on their department websites, which hinders robust public debate about how body cameras should be used. Many of the policies we analyzed were found externally on other websites.

As of November 2017, of the 69 “major city” departments in the U.S., 62 now have body worn camera programs with policies in place. Three of those major departments appear to have cameras on the ground, but have not released their policies to the public — Buffalo, Suffolk County, Tulsa.

Departments are moving quickly to deploy body-worn cameras, and are experimenting with a wide range of policies across each of the dimensions we examined. Departments that have a strong policy in one area often falter in another — every department has room to improve. At the same time, we are pleased to find examples of strong policy language currently in use for nearly all of our criteria. The positive policy language highlighted on this site should serve as a model to departments looking to improve their policies.

Of course, a department’s policy is only as good as how it is put into practice. Departments must ensure that their stated policies are followed and, when department personnel violate those policies, that the appropriate disciplinary measures are taken.

For each factor, we scored department policies on a three level scale. We awarded a policy a green check only if it fully satisfies our criteria — these are the policies that other departments should consider emulating if they are looking to improve their own. A yellow circle means that a policy partially satisfies our criteria, and that the department has room for improvement. A red ex indicates that a policy either does not address the issue, or a policy runs directly against our principles. In cases where the department has not made its policy public, we use a question mark as a placeholder for future review.

We evaluated each department policy on eight criteria, derived from our Civil Rights Principles on Body Worn Cameras . We believe that these are among the most important factors in determining whether the proper policy safeguards are in place to protect the civil rights of recorded individuals.

The policy landscape is shifting rapidly: Since our initial release, many departments have updated their policies multiple times based on their early experiences, and others have launched new body camera programs and policies. Our analysis is current as of the “last updated” date on each individual department scorecard. As we become aware of new deployments and policy changes, we will do our best to update our scorecard analysis. If you see anything that looks out of date, please let us know .

When we initially released our scorecard in November 2015, we examined the body-worn camera policies from 25 local police departments. Since then, we’ve expanded our scorecard to 75 departments, covering all major city police departments in the country that have equipped — or will soon equip — their officers with body cameras. We also added departments that have received more than $500,000 in DOJ grant funding to support their camera programs (as indicated by on the scorecard). In addition, we included Baton Rouge (LA) and Ferguson (MO) because of the national attention they have received after recent events, and Parker (CO) because of the promising policies they have adopted.

This scorecard evaluates the body-worn camera policies currently in place in major police departments across the country. Our goal is to highlight promising approaches that some departments are taking, and to identify opportunities where departments could improve their policies.

But accountability is not automatic. Whether these cameras make police more accountable — or simply intensify police surveillance of communities — depends on how the cameras and footage are used. That’s why The Leadership Conference, together with a broad coalition of civil rights, privacy, and media rights groups, developed shared Civil Rights Principles on Body Worn Cameras . Our principles emphasize that “[w]ithout carefully crafted policy safeguards in place, there is a real risk that these new devices could become instruments of injustice, rather than tools for accountability.”

In the wake of high-profile incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, North Charleston, Baltimore, and elsewhere, law enforcement agencies across the country have rapidly adopted body-worn cameras for their officers. One of the main selling points for these cameras is their potential to provide transparency into some police interactions, and to help protect civil rights, especially in heavily policed communities of color.

While we are not fully satisfied with any department’s policy in this category, Oakland provides an example that we believe should be applied to all footage and in all situations.

While no single department satisfied all of our criteria, many departments have adopted strong policies in one or more individual criterion. Below, we highlight the leading examples we’ve found from across the country, and we hope that departments looking to strengthen civil rights protections in their body camera policies will emulate these examples.

Alameda County Sheriff’s Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2016 View Policy

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) implemented its first body-worn camera (BWC) program in 2012. In December of 2015, ACSO conducted a study to evaluate BWC policies, guidelines, recommendations, and technologies as part of an effort to align under Department of Justice (DOJ) practices. In 2015, ACSO appears to have solicited community feedback on the program through a survey. In 2016, DOJ awarded ACSO $1 million to expand and improve its existing body-worn pilot program. On May 8, 2017, ACSO entered into a contract with Axon to purchase 1,200 body-worn cameras.

While officers are wearing body cameras in the neighborhoods of Alameda County and the community has been debating the policies governing the program, the department does not make its policy public. We obtained a copy of a policy, revised on March 15, 2017, from a reporter.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Alameda County’s policy requires officers to record certain categories of law enforcement encounters, and has additional guidance for officers assigned to the Detention and Corrections Division. (§§IV.D.5,E)

D. GENERAL PROCEDURES AND USE FOR MEMBERS: . . . 5. As soon as practical and safe, Members shall activate their BWCs when responding to calls for services and during law enforcement related encounters that occur while on duty. Members assigned BWCs shall activate the BWC in the following situations: a. All dispatched calls for service (prior to arrival on scene) b. All traffic stops c. All enforcement and investigative contacts (consensual, detention or arrest) d. When serving all search or arrest warrants e. All Code 3 driving and/or responses f. When conducting the following: searches of one’s person, property or residence (incident to arrest, cursory, probable cause, probation/parole, consent, vehicle) g. All vehicle pursuits: primary and secondary deputies and other authorized deputies h. Any foot pursuit i. All K-9 deployment or searches j. Crowd control situations involving engagement, enforcement, or investigative contact k. All incidents involving use of force l. Witness and victim statements m. Suspect statements to include post-Miranda advisement interviews n. While serving all civil processes o. All inmate/prisoner transports [exception for Detention and Corrections (D&C) Transportation Unit noted in the D&C section of this order p. Any contact that becomes adversarial after the initial contact, in a situation that would not otherwise require recording q. Anytime the Member believes audio and/or video evidence would be of use r. At the direction of a supervisor

E. DETENTION AND CORRECTIONS: Members assigned to the D&C Division shall activate their BWCs in accordance with the general procedures and use for Members, as well as while in the performance of the following duties: 1. Anytime an inmate is removed or escorted from their cell or holding area 2. Entering a cell, dormitory housing, or holding area occupied by an inmate (i.e., conducting a count inside a minimum housing setting, window checks)



Exception - supervising pod time or conducting general observation and intensive observation checks, unless a situation arises that dictates otherwise 3. Processing of new arrestees (except during the supervision of medical screenings or classification interviews) 4. Resistive Inmate Movement (RIM) activations 5. Searches of a cell, dormitory housing, or holding area (i.e., shakedowns) 6. Supervising inmate workers who are in close proximity to security exit/entry points or perimeters 7. During on-loading and off-loading of Transportation vehicles 8. Members shall not record inmates while conducting a strip search, conducting a classification or medical interview, or during the inmates’ use of a toilet or shower. There may be circumstances which dictate the need for BWC activation, such as the inmate becoming uncooperative or resistive, or the possibility of an allegation of misconduct arises from the contact.



The policy says that officers “should” explain the reason for deactivating their cameras, but does not appear to require them to do so. (§IV.G.3)

3. Once activated, the BWC should remain in recording mode . . . . . .

4. In all cases indicated above, while in recording mode, the Member should explain the reason for deactivating their BWC.

However, the policy does require officers to provide concrete justifications for activation delays or non-activation. (§IV.H.5)

5. Members shall document and explain in their incident report any delayed or non-activation of their BWC when activation was required. In an incident where any of the above listed reports were not generated, Members may be required to submit a memorandum to the captain of their duty station, explaining their reasons for delaying or failing to activate their BWC in a situation requiring activation.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Alameda County’s policy mentions the importance of privacy, recommend officers advise people they are being recorded, and makes allowances for a variety of sensitive situations. Members may, but are not required to, stop video recording upon the request of a member of the public. (§IV.E.8,G)

E. DETENTION AND CORRECTIONS: . . . 8. Members shall not record inmates while conducting a strip search, conducting a classification or medical interview, or during the inmates’ use of a toilet or shower. There may be circumstances which dictate the need for BWC activation, such as the inmate becoming uncooperative or resistive, or the possibility of an allegation of misconduct arises from the contact.

. . .

G. ADVISEMENT AND DEACTIVATION: 1. Generally, Members are not required to advise or obtain consent from a person(s) to record or utilize the BWC when they are in a public place or at a location where the Member is lawfully present. 2. Members should make a reasonable effort to advise a person(s) they are being recorded with the BWC, unless the advisement would endanger their safety, another Member’s safety, the safety of the public, or the advisement would interfere with an ongoing investigation. 3. Once activated, the BWC should remain in recording mode until: . . . d. Members may stop recording when encountering or interviewing a victim(s) who asks not to be video-recorded (i.e., sexual assault, domestic violence or child abuse victims), and the absence of a BWC recording will not affect the investigation. e. Members may stop recording when interviewing a Member of the public who does not want to be video-recorded, if the Member feels the importance of obtaining information and/or a statement outweighs the need to record it. . . . 9. Places where there is reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., doctor office).



The policy also states that officers should obtain consent before interviewing crime victims and witnesses. (§IV.G.5)

5. While in recording mode, the Member should obtain consent prior to conducting an interview with crime victims and witnesses. If the witness and/or victim refuse to provide a statement on camera, the option of an audio statement or written statement may be used. An audio statement can be accomplished by angling the camera lens away from the victim and/or witness. Statements taken with a BWC are required to be audible, intelligible, and summarized accurately in a police report. Members who take a statement with a BWC, absent exigent circumstances, will create a separate file for each statement by turning the BWC off and then turning it back on.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Alameda County allows offers to review their own footage to prepare official reports. (§IV.H.4)

H. MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES: . . . 4. Members shall be able to review BWC data under the following instances: a. To complete a criminal investigation or preparation of an official report b. Prior to courtroom testimony . . . d. Pursuant to a Critical Incident in accordance with General Order 1.02 e. To prepare for an Internal Affairs Unit investigation, to include reviewing the data with their representative, outside the presence of any supervisor or investigator f. For other reasons not specified, with the permission of the Sheriff or designee g. The Sheriff or Undersheriff reserves the right to prohibit a Member from reviewing BWC data.



In use-of-force incidents, supervisors are instructed to take possession of the BWC, but the policy still does not appear to prohibit officers from reviewing footage prior to making a statement in those cases. (§IV.I.4-5)

I. SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES: 4. In the event of an officer involved shooting, use-of-force involving significant injury or death, or pursuit involving great bodily injury or death, supervisors shall take possession of the BWC of the involved Member(s) and ensure data related to critical incidents and other incidents described in this subsection is downloaded as soon as possible following the incident. 5. Supervisors completing use-of-force reviews or pursuit analysis where a BWC was used will review the video as part of their review.



Alameda County states that “data will be retained in compliance with governmental standards, guidelines and applicable laws,” for a minimum of three years. After that point, data may be destroyed, but the policy does not appear to require footage deletion. (§IV.J.3)

3. BWC data will be retained in compliance with governmental standards, guidelines and applicable laws. Per the recommendation of the Office of the County Counsel, data will be maintained in a secured data storage medium for a minimum period of three years. After that period, the data may be destroyed, unless other conditions (described herein) would preclude destruction. Exceptions to this purge criteria are data associated with civil or criminal cases that have yet to be adjudicated, or if the Sheriff’s Office has sufficient notice of a potential litigation that could involve particular BWC data; sustained Internal Affairs investigations; the request of the District Attorney’s office or other law enforcement agency; and/or at the discretion of the Sheriff’s Office. The purging of data files will be completed in a manner consistent with all statutory requirements and Sheriff’s Office policies.

Alameda County prohibits unauthorized access and notes that access to the system is logged, but the policy does not appear to explicitly prohibit footage tampering. (§IV.J.4)

J. DATA STORAGE AND SECURITY: 4. Any access to the BWC system will be tracked utilizing the VERIPATROL software solution. Members are prohibited from accessing, downloading, uploading or using the BWC data for private, unauthorized, or personal use. . . .

K. AUDIT OF BODY-WORN CAMERA SYSTEM: . . . 2. The audit will be conducted on an annual basis to ensure that Members are complying with the guidelines set forth in this order. The audit will review the efficacy of the BWC program, including but not limited to, agency-wide training issues, impacts on use-of-force situations, adjudication of Internal Affairs complaints, and impacts on prosecution of criminal cases submitted to the District Attorney.



The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage, and relies on a separate public records policy. (§IV.D.3)

3. Pursuant to Government Code section 6254 (California Public Records Act) all BWC video and footage is considered a “law enforcement investigatory file” and does not require full disclosure to the public. Requests for video will be processed pursuant to General Order 1.22, Public Records.

The policy does not place any limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to search footage.

Albuquerque Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage Received a $250,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015 View Policy

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Albuquerque PD publishes its BWC policy on its website, in the department’s General Orders Manual. Order 2-8 is titled “Use of On-Body Recording Devices.” The latest version is dated June 2, 2017, and is due for review on June 2, 2018.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Albuquerque PD requires officers to record certain categories of citizen contact. The policy also includes an “Officer’s Quick Guide: When Do I Record” page that the department encourages officers to print and keep. (§§2-8-5.B.1,6,8)

1. Department personnel shall activate OBRDs only in conjunction with official law enforcement duties.

...

6. This policy is intended to achieve a reasonable balance between the benefits of using OBRD devices and an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Although this policy identifies those situations in which activation of the OBRD is mandatory, Department personnel have discretion to manually activate the device any time an officer believes it would be appropriate or valuable to document an incident. In exercising this discretion, personnel should be aware of, and sensitive to an individual’s reasonable privacy expectations. The OBRD may only be activated for legitimate law enforcement purposes.

...

8. Mandatory Recording Incidents

Subject to the limitations in this policy, Department personnel shall use Department-issued OBRDs to document the incidents listed below: a. All use of force encounters, including contacts leading up to the use of force, when Department personnel can reasonably foresee a use of force may occur. b. All encounters with individuals who are the subject of a stop based on reasonable and articulable suspicion or probable cause. c. Traffic stops and DWI investigations. d. Arrests, including contacts leading up to the arrest, when Department personnel can reasonably foresee an arrest occurring. e. Vehicle searches, unless conducted at tow yards, APD facilities, or other law enforcement facilities. f. Search warrants of structures from the time of entry until the location has been secured. g. Emergency evaluations (i.e. pick up orders) h. Contacts with subjects who (1) are not complying with officers’ commands; (2) appear to pose a current threat to themselves or others; or (3) are known to the officer to have a history of being a threat to themselves or others based on either personal knowledge or notification from an APD resource. i. Any other legitimate law enforcement contact where the Department personnel believe that recording an incident would be appropriate or valuable. In these contacts, the Department personnel shall balance the law enforcement objectives and need to record against the individual’s expectation of privacy, particularly with respect to sensitive victims.

Subject to the limitations in this policy, Department personnel shall use Department-issued OBRDs to document the incidents listed below:

The policy requires officers to provide justifications for stopping record in certain limited circumstances. (§§2-8-5.B.5,11-12)

5. For all mandatory recording incidents identified below: a. Department personnel will activate their OBRDs at the beginning of the incident and prior to exiting the patrol car, if possible. b. If the immediate activation of the OBRD is not feasible due to immediate risk to the safety of the Department personnel or others, then the Department personnel will activate the OBRD at the first available opportunity when it is safe to do so. c. Department personnel may cease recording when they reasonably determine that the incident has concluded, based on information available to the personnel at the time. Deciding when the incident has concluded will depend on the type of incident and individual circumstances, but, typically, the incident has concluded when Department personnel terminate contact with the individual or they have cleared the scene. ...

11. Individuals may request that an officer stop recording them. Department personnel shall not stop recording in response to an individual’s request if the recording is required by this policy or if the Department personnel deem that continued recording is necessary. If the recording is not mandatory, the Department personnel may evaluate the situation and, when appropriate, may honor the individual’s request.

12. The individual’s request to stop recording should be documented with the OBRD. In the event that it is not reasonably possible to record the individual’s request with the OBRD, Department personnel shall document the request via the CAD system or a report.

Albuquerque PD also requires officers to provide concrete justifications when they fail to record required events. (§2-8-5.F.b)

b. Articulate on an OBRD recording or in writing their reasoning for not activating their OBRD before required incidents, for not recording the entire contact, or for interrupting the recording. Department personnel shall document why a recording was not made, was interrupted, or was stopped.

Notably, the department requires supervisors to refer officers for investigation if they “intentionally or repeatedly fail to activate” their BWCs. (§2-8-5.F.2.g)

g. Supervisors shall refer assigned personnel for investigation if they intentionally or repeatedly fail to activate their OBRDs during incidents required to be recorded. Intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate an OBRD when required by APD policy shall subject the Department personnel to discipline.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Albuquerque PD mentions the importance of personal privacy in its policy. (§§2-8-5.B.6-7)

6. This policy is intended to achieve a reasonable balance between the benefits of using OBRD devices and an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Although this policy identifies those situations in which activation of the OBRD is mandatory, Department personnel have discretion to manually activate the device any time an officer believes it would be appropriate or valuable to document an incident. In exercising this discretion, personnel should be aware of, and sensitive to an individual’s reasonable privacy expectations. The OBRD may only be activated for legitimate law enforcement purposes.

7. Officers should not record in locations where individuals may have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in private residences, restrooms, locker rooms, hospitals, or in the presence of medical personnel. However, Department personnel will record in these locations if the encounter is subject to mandatory recording as set forth below or if the totality of the incident leads Department personnel to believe that recording is appropriate.

The policy recommends officers inform people they are being recorded, and are required to inform arrestees they are being recording, but does not require officers receive consent to do so. (§§2-8-5.B.2-3)

2. It is recommended that officers inform individuals they are being recorded during their initial contact; however, they are not mandated to do so.

3. Department personnel shall inform arrestees that they will be recorded, unless informing them would be unsafe, impractical, or impossible.

The policy allows individuals to request that officers stop recording, but gives officers discretion to continue if they deem it necessary. (§2-8-5.B.11)

11. Individuals may request that an officer stop recording them. Department personnel shall not stop recording in response to an individual’s request if the recording is required by this policy or if the Department personnel deem that continued recording is necessary. If the recording is not mandatory, the Department personnel may evaluate the situation and, when appropriate, may honor the individual’s request.

The policy does not specifically protect categories of vulnerable individuals (e.g., victims of sex crimes) from being recorded without their informed consent.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Albuquerque PD allows offers to review their own footage to “assist quality and accuracy in their reports.” (§2-8-5.D.2)

2. Department personnel may review their own OBRD recordings to assist quality and accuracy in their reports and for investigatory interviews. For specific procedures involving an officer-involved shooting, see the guidelines in SOP 7- 3 – Force Investigation Team (FIT).

In use-of-force incidents, the policy refers to a different section of the departments general orders; this section also does not appear to restrict involved officers from viewing footage prior to writing reports or making statements.

Albuquerque PD specifies a minimum retention period, and refers to a video category called “120 Day Delete,” but does not otherwise appear to require footage deletion. (§§2-8-5.E.5;G.5)

E.5. Department personnel shall add the “120 Day Delete” category to non- evidentiary recordings that are uploaded or imported into the Department’s digital storage application.

...

G.5. The Department shall retain and preserve non-evidentiary recordings for 120 calendar days. Deleting non-evidentiary videos after 120 calendar days does not imply that the Department personnel did not record the incident, as it is reflected in the audit trail.

Albuquerque PD allows footage access only for “authorized purposes.” (§§2-8-5.D.3-4;G.4)

D. Viewing, Accessing, and Sharing OBRD Recordings ... 3. Department personnel may view, download, redact, and share OBRD recordings only for legitimate law enforcement purposes and for authorized administrative review purposes 4. Department personnel will not delete OBRD recordings unless deletion is consistent with this policy and SOP 2-73 - Submission of Evidence, Confiscated Property, and Found Items. ...

G. Redaction, Retention, and Release of Recordings ... 4. Viewing and downloading OBRD recordings is for criminal investigation and prosecution, administrative investigations, or authorized administrative purposes only.



The policy indicates the system retains audit trails; however, the policy does not appear to explicitly prohibit tampering. (§2-8-5.G.3.d)

d. If recording contains evidentiary content, only the portion that meets Paragraph B(9) shall be redacted of audio, video, or both by the lieutenant or equivalent. A detailed description stating the reason for edit shall be noted in the system for each segment of the recording that is redacted. Redactions will automatically be reflected in the audit trail.

Albuquerque PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage; it make reference to a separate policy governing records and public disclosure. (§2-8-5.G.1)

1. APD policies shall comply with all existing laws and regulations, including those governing evidence collection and retention, public disclosure of information, and consent. See SOP 2-16 – Records and Administrative Instruction 1-7.

Albuquerque PD does not place any limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to search footage.

Arlington Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage View Policy

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Arlington PD has a section of their website specifically dedicated to its body camera program, although it isn’t easily accessible on the homepage of their website. The department’s BWC policy is embedded within a list of Commonly Asked Questions, dated September 20, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Arlington PD provides officers with a clear list of situations that must be recorded and clearly states that the “officer shall document why a recording was not made, was interrupted, or was terminated” in instances where the officer failed to activate the BWC, record the entire contact, or interrupts the recording. (§C.2)

2. When and How to Use the BWC (A 41.3.8b) a. When safe to do so officers shall activate the BWC during all calls for service and law enforcement-related activities to include but not limited to: Any enforcement stop, pedestrian or vehicle Investigations and interviews of criminal acts Arrest Searches Use of force Critical Incidents Pursuits Any encounter with the public that becomes confrontational after initial Contact. . . . c. The BWC shall remain activated until the event is completed in order to ensure the integrity of the recording unless deactivation is authorized by this policy or a Supervisor. d. If an officer fails to activate the BWC, fails to record the entire contact, or interrupts the recording, the officer shall document why a recording was not made, was interrupted, or was terminated. e. If the officer stops recording, the reasoning and circumstances will be made both on camera before recording ceases and later in the written report. The name of the approving supervisor should also be recorded if applicable.



Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

In general, Arlington PD prohibits recording in places where individuals have a “reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a residence” but offers vague evidence on when not to record vulnerable individuals. (§C.2.b)

Officers should inform individuals that they are being recorded, when it is safe to do so. In locations where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a residence, recording should not be made unless the recording is being made as part of an ongoing investigation or police action resulting from a call for service, offense observed by the officer, or during the execution of an arrest or search warrant.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy allows officers to view the recording prior to making any statement. (§C.3.f)

An officer may access any recording of an incident involving the officer before being required to make any statement about the incident as required by state law.

The policy states that “non-evidentiary video and audio recordings” are retained for 90 days. However, the policy does not appear to expressly require that footage be deleted. (§C.5.c)

Files should be securely stored in accordance with state records retention laws and no longer than useful for purposes of training or for use in an administrative or criminal investigation or prosecution. Non-evidentiary video and audio recordings will be maintained for 90 days. All video and audio recordings marked as evidence shall be maintained through the conclusion of court proceedings and in compliance with the evidence retention policy of this agency. In capital punishment prosecutions, recordings shall be kept until the offender is no longer under control of a criminal justice agency.

Arlington PD prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access “without prior approval.” However, the policy does not indicate that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§C.3.d, §C.4.b, §B, §C.6.f.5)

C.3.d. Officers shall not edit, alter, erase, duplicate, copy, share, or otherwise distribute in any manner BWC recordings without prior approval of the Police Chief or his or her Designee.

C.4.b. Accessing, copying, editing or releasing recordings or depictions of recordings without proper approval is prohibited. This restriction does not apply to recordings that are released as a requirement through the Public Information Act request process or as required through the evidentiary sharing process for criminal investigation or prosecution.

B. Supervisors will conduct random audits of BWC footage to ensure compliance with departmental policy and training.

C.6.f.5) An officer or any other employee of the Police Department will not use their position to obtain, attempt to obtain, or convert for their personal use or for the unauthorized use of another person/entity, any BWC video or information from Department video files.

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing complaints to view relevant footage. Instead, supervisors are allowed to review BWC recordings to resolve complaints. (§C.7.c, §C.5.a)

C.7.c. Supervisors may have the ability to resolve citizen complaints by reviewing video captured by an officer’s BWC. In those circumstances where a complaint is resolved with no further action needed, the supervisor shall document their investigation and shall include a copy of the video reviewed.

C.5.a. Public Information Act requests for video will be handled in accordance with Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code and departmental procedures.

SDPD PD does not place any limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to search footage.

Atlanta Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage View Policy

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Atlanta PD publishes its BWC policy on its website as part of its Standard Operating Procedure. It can be reached by searching “body worn cameras” from the department homepage. The current policy was made effective January 15, 2017.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Atlanta PD requires officers to record all calls for service and law enforcement interactions with the public, among other events. (§§2; 4.3.1-5, 4.3.8)

2. . . . The BWC shall be used during the course of regular and extra job duties, for the purpose of potential evidence in the prosecution of criminal and traffic offenses, departmental internal investigations, and any other situations which the Department shall deem necessary. . . .

. . .

4.3.2 Employees shall place the BWC in event (recording) mode upon arriving on scene of a call for service requiring recording of an incident, or when interacting with the public in a law enforcement capacity which the officer and/or his or her supervisor deems necessary to record and document.

4.3.3 Supervisors shall place the BWC in event (recording) mode upon arriving on scene of all supervisor requests initiated by a citizen or an employee regarding a call for service or incident.

4.3.4 The Atlanta Police Department recognizes that employee safety is paramount and understands that events can take place without notice. Employees shall place their BWC into event (recording) mode for the following circumstances listed to include, but not limited to: a. Vehicle or Pedestrian stops; b. Department approved vehicle safety checkpoints; c. Field Interviews; d. Vehicle or Foot Pursuits; e. Emergency Driver (either code 2 or code 3); f. When requested by a citizen during an encounter with law enforcement; g. While en route to crimes in progress where fleeing suspects or vehicles may be captured on video leaving the crime scene; h. Statements made by suspects, victims or witnesses while interviewing; and i. Execution of a search warrant.

4.3.5 Employees may activate the BWC anytime they believe its use would be appropriate and/or valuable to document an incident, or as instructed by their supervisor. The BWC shall be placed in event (recording) mode as soon as it is practically possible for employees to do so in order to capture an event.

. . .

4.3.8 Employees shall deactivate their BWC when the incident has transitioned to a controlled orderly manner, when the interaction has been completed by the employee, or as instructed by their supervisor. (CALEA 5th ed. Standard 41.3.8(b)

The policy also requires officers to justify non-activation or interruption of recordings. (§4.3.6)

4.3.6 If there is a non-activation or interruption of recording by employees arriving on scene of an incident requiring activation of the BWC, or if an employee does not place the BWC in event (recording) mode while interacting with the public in a law enforcement capacity deemed necessary by the employee and/or his or her supervisor, the employee shall begin recording the event as soon as practically possible and document the circumstances in a written report explaining the delay in activation or interruption in the recording of the incident in accordance with APD.SOP.3060 “Report Writing”.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Atlanta mentions reasonable expectations of privacy, but then strangely notes that officers still may record in those events since “they occur in the presence of the law enforcement officer.” However, the policy does go on to prohibit recordings in dressing rooms, locker rooms and restrooms, and to avoid recording “exposed genitals or other sexually sensitive areas.” (§§4.3.1; 4.4.1)

4.3.1 Law enforcement officers may use their BWC or other camera devices during the lawful performance of their duties to observe, photograph, videotape, or record the activities that occur in places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy if they occur in the presence of the law enforcement officer. (Senate Bill 94, O.C.G.A Section 16-11-62 Unlawful Eavesdropping or Surveillance)

. . .

4.4.1 The purpose of the BWC is to be used during law enforcement interactions with the public. The BWC shall not be used for the following reasons to include, but not limited to: a. The BWC shall not be activated in areas such as but not limited to: dressing rooms, locker rooms and restrooms unless performing a legitimate law enforcement action; b. When possible, employees shall refrain from recording exposed genitals or other sexually sensitive areas, unless doing so would be unavoidable;



The policy does attempt to protect the privacy of recorded individuals by exempting recordings from The Georgia Open Records Act when reasonable expectation of privacy is met. (§4.9.1)

4.9.1 The Georgia Open Records Act shall exempt audio and video recordings used by law enforcement in places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy from disclosure under certain circumstances specified in accordance with O.C.G.A. Section 50-18-72(a)(26.2).

The policy does not specifically protect vulnerable individuals or victims, or allow subjects to opt-out of recordings by request.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Officers may review footage before writing their reports for all incidents, except in the cases of use of force. In use of force incidents, employees are explicitly required to complete a report prior to reviewing footage or audio, and include a statement to that effect. (§§4.3.9; 4.9.2-4)

4.3.9 Employees are permitted to access and review either video stored on their BWC or the employee’s video uploaded to the Atlanta Police Department (APD) approved storage network with the exception of all use of force incidents (see section 4.9.3).

. . .

4.9.2 Any use of force incident captured by the BWC must be uploaded by a supervisor before the end of the employee’s shift/tour of duty. Supervisors and employees shall adhere to guidelines and procedures in accordance with APD.SOP.3010 “Use of Force”.

4.9.3 Any employee involved in a “use of force” incident, shall complete an incident report of the event prior to viewing the BWC footage. Only after an employee has completed an incident report following a use of force event, shall the employee be permitted to view BWC footage if they desire to do so.

4.9.4 Upon completion of the incident report, the employee shall include the following statement: “I have completed this report prior to reviewing any video/audio pertaining to this incident to the best of my knowledge.”



Atlanta PD notes that the retention period for “citizen contact” footage (which we assume to be non-evidentiary) is 180 days. However, it is not clear whether this is a minimum or maximum retention period, and the policy does not appear to expressly require that footage be deleted. (§4.8.1)

4.8.1 BWC recorded data shall remain stored on a secured APD approved storage network, in accordance with Georgia Archives (State Govt. Schedule 13-002) and The Georgia Records Act O.C.G.A. 50-18-90 et seq. The retention guidelines are as follows: a. Traffic Stop 180 Days b. Citation 180 Days c. Citizen Contact 180 Days d. Criminal Investigation 30 months e. Use of force w/ no arrest 30 months f. Arrest 5 Years g. Homicide Indefinite



Atlanta PD prohibits tampering with both cameras and footage, as well as “destroying any evidentiary recording produced.” (§4.5)

4.5 Tampering with the BWC

4.5.1 The BWC and recordings are the property of the Atlanta Police Department. Use of the BWC for any purpose not associated with an employee’s duties, or as specifically prescribed in this Standard Operating Procedure, is strictly prohibited. (CALEA 5th ed. Standard 41.3.8(c)

4.5.2 Employees are strictly prohibited from disabling or destroying a BWC. This includes changing or attempting to change settings and/or permission levels within a BWC.

4.5.3 Employees shall not interfere or intentionally block the ability of the BWC to record an encounter.

4.5.4 The intentional destroying or altering of any evidentiary recording produced from the BWC by any employee shall be treated as a violation of O.C.G.A 16-10-94 tampering with evidence, O.C.G.A 16-10-94 interference with government property, APD.SOP.2010 “Truthfulness” Section 4.1.3, and subject to disciplinary and/or criminal prosecution.

Access appears to be limited to users given permission by the BWC Compliance Administrator, and employees who view footage must place a note on the file justifying their reasoning for accessing it. (§§4.9.5-6; 4.11.1)

4.9.5 Whenever an employee or supervisor reviews a recording, they shall place a note in the video detailing their reasoning for accessing the video.

4.9.6 Employee responsibilities include, but are not limited to: a. Video tagging; b. Reviewing; c. Not allowing unauthorized people to view the BWC footage; d. Not obtaining copies of video without authorization; and e. Prohibiting the release of footage without permission.

. . .

4.11.1 The BWC Compliance Administrator shall be responsible for the following: a. Maintaining an accurate listing of all BWC users; b. Management of the digital data storage management system; c. Assigning permissions and roles to users in the BWC system as directed and/or approved by the Chief of Police or his or her designee; . . .



The policy also provides that footage will be audited. While the language does not make clear whether these audits also review access or change logs, the relevant clauses, when read together with the clause requiring employees to document and justify viewing of footage, imply that access is indeed audited. (§§4.10.2; 4.10.4; 4.11.2)

4.10.2 The BWC Compliance Administrator shall be responsible for conducting audits of BWC footage, and shall ensure accountability and compliance in accordance with the guidelines and procedures in this directive.

. . .

4.10.4 The Compliance Administrator shall conduct a random audit of BWC data on a semi-annual basis and generate a report documenting the findings.

. . .

4.11.2 The Compliance Administrator shall be responsible for conducting audits of BWC footage, generate a report documenting the findings, and shall ensure accountability and compliance in accordance with the guidelines and procedures in this directive. The report shall be submitted to the Deputy Chief of Strategy and Special Projects Division (SSP) for review.

Atlanta PD does not expressly allow recorded individuals to view footage.

Atlanta PD does not place any limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to search footage.

Aurora Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage View Policy

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Aurora PD publishes its BWC policy on its website as a part of its Directives Manual in the chapter titled “Police Technical Systems.” The most recent policy was made effective on October 3, 2017.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Aurora PD requires officers to activate cameras “as soon as practical” during citizen contact or at the discretion of the officer when the determine footage should be captured for “evidentiary purposes.” (§16.4.3)

16.4.3 Body-Worn Camera Operation

. . . b. Body-worn camera activation: . . . On duty officers shall activate the camera’s recording capabilities as soon as practical when; (1) Contacting a citizen or confronting an incident unless such activation is not feasible; (2) Anytime the officer determines that a video or audio file needs to be captured for evidentiary purposes such as a member-involved critical event; (3) When actively involved in a pursuit. Uniformed off duty/secondary employment officers will activate the camera when they are in contact with a citizen regarding official business or when confronting a situation that would merit camera activation.



The policy also describes when officers may turn off cameras. When officers deactivate recording prior to the completion of an event, they must justify it verbally on camera before deactivation. (§16.4.5)

16.4.5 Body-worn camera de-activation

Body-worn camera may be de-activated when: The contact is completed. An articulable reason exists prior to the completion of the contact or incident. The wearer should record the reason verbally, just prior to de-activating the equipment. A citizen requests that the recording stop. Deactivating the camera is at the discretion of the member operating the camera. If the member choses [SIC] to deactivate the body-worn camera, the request from the citizen must be recorded. If the camera is deactivated, the camera should be reactivated to record the conclusion of the citizen contact.

Body-worn camera may be de-activated when:

While officers must document whether body worn cameras were used and failures to record are tracked, Aurora PD does not require officers to provide concrete justifications when they fail to record required events. (§16.4.9,12)

16.4.9 Member Responsibility . . . Members shall document the use of the body worn camera or any other recording device in all reports.

16.4.9 Failure to properly utilize the body worn camera system

If the body-worn camera was not utilized as required by this policy, an entry into the AIM system will be done under the incident type of Body-Worn Camera Violation (BWCV).



Process



Supervisors will document the incident in a Body-Worn Camera Violation (BWCV) entry in AIM when the member: Failed to activate the camera. Activated the camera late. Activated camera late and did not record a use of force. Turned off the camera early. Turned off the camera upon request, but failed to re-activate the camera at conclusion of contact.

If the body-worn camera was not utilized as required by this policy, an entry into the AIM system will be done under the incident type of Body-Worn Camera Violation (BWCV). Process Supervisors will document the incident in a Body-Worn Camera Violation (BWCV) entry in AIM when the member:

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

While vague, Aurora PD’s policy does mention privacy concerns, prohibiting recording in “public places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists” except for “official law enforcement activity.” The policy also encourages officers to be cautious in healthcare facilities, and provides additional guidance for recording within private property. (§16.4.4)

16.4.4 Special considerations: . . . The body-worn camera will not be activated in public places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, such as locker rooms, changing rooms, or restrooms unless the activation is for the purpose of official law enforcement activity. ... Members will only use the body-worn cameras in patient care areas of a healthcare facility when the recording is for official purposes and caution should be used to record only the parties involved in the event being investigated. Members have the authority to record inside a private property as long as the member has legal authority to be there. If a member enters private property in response to a call for service, pursuant to a valid search warrant, lawfully without a warrant, or with consent of a resident or person with lawful authority, members should activate their body-worn cameras.



Citizens may request that cameras be deactivated, and officers have discretion as to whether to do so. The policy does not provide stronger protections for vulnerable individuals like victims of sex crimes. (§16.4.5)

16.4.5 Body-worn camera de-activation Body-worn camera may be de-activated when: . . . A citizen requests that the recording stop. Deactivating the camera is at the discretion of the member operating the camera. If the member choses [sic] to deactivate the body-worn camera, the request from the citizen must be recorded. If the camera is deactivated, the camera should be reactivated to record the conclusion of the citizen contact.

Body-worn camera may be de-activated when:

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy encourages officer to view footage when preparing reports. (§16.4.9)

16.4.9 Member Responsibility

. . . Members are encouraged to review recordings when preparing reports to ensure accuracy and consistency.



Following critical incidents, the policy dictates that supervisors or detectives should take custody of cameras, but does not restrict officers from viewing footage prior to making a statement. (§16.4.6)

16.4.6 Video Download

. . . Based on the nature of the Member-involved critical event, a Supervisor or a detective assigned to Major Crimes Unit or a member of the Crime Lab Section will take custody of the body-worn camera of any member involved in a critical event. The Supervisor or Crime Lab Section member will download all video contained on the body-worn camera.



Aurora PD specifies a minimum retention period of 90 days, and mentions, but does not appear to require, footage deletion. (§16.4.10)

16.4.10 Retention, Storage and Duplication Body-worn camera video, other than test video, is considered a Criminal Justice Record and will be retained for a minimum of 60 days. The retention period is based upon the disposition code category. Supervisors may mark video for extended retention. Any video marked for retention will be retained according to Crime Lab Section Standard Operating Procedures. ...Destruction of any recorded media will be in accordance with the Department retention schedule based on statutes of limitation as outlined in the Crime Lab Section Standard Operating Procedure.



Aurora PD expressly prohibits employees from erasing or altering BWC recordings, and states that employees may not use recordings for personal use or distribute footage. (§16.4.9-10)

16.4.9 Member Responsibility Members will not erase or attempt to erase, alter, reuse, modify, copy or tamper with any recording. All audio and visual recordings will be treated as evidence and the appropriate chain of custody will be maintained. Members will not modify or attempt to modify the body-worn camera. Modifications include covering the lens, microphone, or LED lights with any object or material. Members will not log in to the system utilizing another member's log in ...

16.4.10 Retention, Storage and Duplication . . . All recorded files associated with body-worn cameras, or any other recording device are the property of the Aurora Police Department. Dissemination outside the agency is strictly prohibited without specific authorization from the Media Relations Detail or the Chief of Police. Members cannot use any part of recorded files for personal use. The Aurora Police Department Crime Lab Section Lieutenant is the administrator of the storage and duplication of all recorded media. Members will not copy, alter, modify or tamper with original recordings without permission of the Crime Lab Section Lieutenant or his/her designee. Destruction of any recorded media will be in accordance with the Department retention schedule based on statutes of limitation as outlined in the Crime Lab Section Standard Operating Procedure.



While the policy alludes to unauthorized access by prohibiting officers from logging in using someone else’s credentials, it does not appear to otherwise restrict unauthorized access to footage, and does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.

Aurora PD does not expressly allow recorded individuals to view footage.

Aurora PD does not place any limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to search footage.

Austin Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage Received a $750,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2016 View Policy

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Austin PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website under a section dedicated to body worn cameras. The latest available version is not dated, although the policy is included in the full Austin Police Department policy manual issued on August 21, 2017. The BWC policy is Policy 303, starting on page 130 of the full manual.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Austin PD requires officers to record in a wide range of law enforcement situations, which it lays out in the policy. The policy also gives officers discretion to activate cameras “anytime they believe its use would be appropriate and/or valuable to document an incident.” (§303.2.1)

This section is not intended to describe every possible situation where the system may be used. In some circumstances it may not possible to capture images of an incident due to conditions or location of the camera, however the audio portion can be valuable evidence and is subject to the same activation requirements. The BWC should only be activated for law enforcement purposes. (a) All units responding to a scene shall activate their department issued BWC equipment when they: 1. Arrive on-scene to any call for service; or 2. Have detained or arrested a person; or 3. Are attempting to detain or arrest a person; or 4. By the nature of the call for service, are likely to detain or arrest a person; or 5. Any consensual contact in which the officer or a citizen believes activation of the BWC would be in the best interest of the community. (b) Examples of when the department issued BWC system must be activated include, but are not limited to: 1. Traffic stops 2. Foot pursuits, until completion of enforcement action 3. DWI investigations including field sobriety tests 4. Warrant service 5. Investigatory Stops 6. Any contact that becomes adversarial in an incident that would not otherwise require recording. (c) Officers that are issued a BWC will be required to utilize the BWC when engaging in Off-Duty LERE Overtime. (d) In addition to the required situations, employees may activate the system anytime they believe its use would be appropriate and/or valuable to document an incident.



Austin PD also provides detailed requirements to officers as to when BWC deactivation is authorized and when BWC system use is not required. (§§303.2.3.a-c; 303.2.5)

303.2.3 WHEN DEPARTMENT ISSUED BWC SYSTEM DEACTIVATION IS AUTHORIZED

Once the BWC system is activated it shall remain on until the incident has concluded.

(a) For purposes of this section, conclusion of an incident has occurred when: 1. All arrests have been made and arrestees have been transported, and 2. No further law enforcement action is likely to occur (e.g., waiting for a tow truck or a family member to arrive.



(b) Employees may choose to discontinue a recording currently in progress for any non-confrontational encounter with a person, including an interview of a witness or victim.

</li> 303.2.5 WHEN DEPARTMENT ISSUED BWC SYSTEM USE IS NOT REQUIRED

Activation of the BWC system is not required: (a) During break and lunch periods (b) When not in service and not on a call (c) When in service, but not on a call. (d) Employees will not utilize the body worn camera in the following circumstances: 1. A potential witness who requests to speak to an officer confidentially or desires anonymity. 2. A victim or witness who requests that he or she not be recorded as a condition of cooperation and the interests of justice require such cooperation. 3. During tactical briefings, or the discussion of safety and security procedures. 4. Public or private locker rooms, changing rooms, restrooms, unless taking police action. 5. Doctor’s or lawyer’s offices, unless taking police action. 6. Medical or hospital facilities, unless taking police action. 7. At a school, where minor children are present, unless taking police action. 8. To monitor persons based solely upon the person’s political or religious beliefs or upon the exercise of the person’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and religious expression, petition, and assembly under the United States Constitution, or because of the content or viewpoint of the person’s protected speech.



Officers must articulate the reasoning for discontinuing recording for privacy reasons or for delayed activation of their BWC during required situations, such as the need to “take immediate action…which may not allow time to activate their BWC.” (§§303.2.1; 303.2.2.b)

303.2.2.b. . . . Officers choosing to discontinue a recording for privacy must be able to articulate their reasoning

303.2.1.e There may be instances in which an officer is required to take immediate action to an event that occurs directly in front of them which may not allow time to activate their BWC. In those situations, it may be impractical or unreasonable for employees to activate their BWC system before taking police action. It is expected that once the immediacy of the situation is over, employees will activate their BWC system to record the remainder of the incident. Officers will need to articulate the reasoning for the delayed activation of their BWC.

The policy does not appear to require justification for failure to record.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy briefly mentions the need to balance evidence collection with privacy considerations and allows officers to choose to discontinue recording when interviewing witnesses or victims. (§303.2.4)

303.2.4 Victim and Witness Statements (a) When conducting an investigation, the officer shall attempt to record the crime victim or witness’ statement with the body worn camera. The recording may be valuable evidence that contributes to or compliments an investigation. While evidence collection is important, the Department also recognizes it is important for officers to maintain credibility with people wanting to share information with law enforcement. On occasion, an officer may encounter a reluctant crime victim or witness who does not wish to make a statement on camera. In these situations, the officer should continue to develop rapport with the individual while balancing the need for evidence collection with the individual’s request for privacy. (b) Should the officer use discretion and not record the crime victim or witness statement with the body worn camera, the officer should document the reason for not fully recording the statement with the body worn camera. In these instances, officers may still record with an audio recorder. Officers should work with victim services when possible in determining what type of statement will be taken. (c) If a citizen, other than a victim or witness as described in this section requests that an officer turn off the BWC, the officer will explain that APD Policy requires the camera to be activated and recording until the conclusion of the incident or until there is no further law enforcement action necessary.



The policy expressly protects victims. (§303.2.5(d)2)

303.2.5 WHEN DEPARTMENT ISSUED BWC SYSTEM USE IS NOT REQUIRED ... (d) Employees will not utilize the body worn camera in the following circumstances: 1. A potential witness who requests to speak to an officer confidentially or desires anonymity. 2. A victim or witness who requests that he or she not be recorded as a condition of cooperation and the interests of justice require such cooperation.



Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Austin PD allows officers to view footage before completing their written reports. (§303.4.a.b)

Recordings may be reviewed: . . . 2. By an employee to assist with the writing of a report, supplement, memorandum, or prior to making a statement about the incident.



Austin PD mandates that recordings should be kept for a minimum of 181 days, but does not specify a maximum retention period or require the department to delete footage. (§303.3.4)

Videos shall be retained for a longer period of time consistent with the City of Austin's Records Management Ordinance, Chapter 2-11, and any applicable City Records Control Schedules and/or the State Local Government Retention Schedules. At a minimum all BWC recordings shall be retained for 181 days.

Austin PD expressly prohibits employees from erasing or altering BWC recordings. (§303.2)

Employees shall not: (a) Bypass or attempt to override the equipment. (b) Erase, alter, or delete any recording produced by the BWC.



Austin PD mentions the existence of unauthorized access to footage or copies of recordings and notes that “authorized persons” may review recordings, but does not expressly prohibit unauthorized access to footage. (§§303.3.3; 303.5)

303.3.3. Copies of a BWC media recording will be used for official APD business only. This may include public information requests after the recording has been reviewed by the Department of Legal Advisor and approved for release by the department. Copies of BWC System Recordings will not normally be made unless the person requesting the copy is authorized to view the recording and does not otherwise have access to view the recording using the BWC system. When a copy is made, it is the responsibility of the person receiving the copy to comply with records retention as outlined in policy [sic].

303.5.a . Recordings may be reviewed: . . . 3. By authorized persons for the purpose of reviewing evidence. . . . 5. By authorized Department personnel participating in an official investigation, such as a personnel complaint, administrative inquiry, or a criminal investigation. ... (d) Employees shall not obtain, attempt to obtain, or convert for their personal use or for the unauthorized use of another person, any information obtained by a BWC system. (e) Employees shall not make personal copies or attempt to upload recordings to social networking sites (e.g., You-Tube, Facebook).



The policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.

Austin PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage, and refers to “applicable laws” to govern the release of recordings. (§303.5.6)

The Department will comply with all applicable laws pertaining to the release of BWC recordings. Open records requests will be processed through the department coordinator in central records. Media requests will be processed through the Public Information Office (PIO).

Austin PD does not place any limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to search footage.

Baltimore Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage View Policy

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Baltimore PD publishes its BWC policy on its website, and also has a page dedicated to the department’s BWC program. The current policy was published on September 13, 2017.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Baltimore PD requires officers to record activities that are “investigative or enforcement in nature.” (Mandatory Recordings §1-8; Ending a Recording §1-2)

Mandatory Recording

Unless unsafe, impossible, or impractical to do so, all members (not just the primary unit) present, dispatched, or otherwise participating in any of the below listed activities must activate their BWC:

1. At the initiation of a call for service or other activity that is investigative or enforcement in nature. 1.1. The BWC must be activated immediately upon receipt of or response to any in-progress call , or activity likely to require immediate enforcement action (e.g., in progress or just occurred armed robbery, armed person, aggravated assault, narcotics, gambling, etc.). 1.2. The BWC shall be activated upon arrival for routine, non-emergency calls for service (e.g., larceny from auto report, destruction of property report, Signal 30, etc.).

2. During any encounter that becomes confrontational.

3. When operating a vehicle in Emergency Response Mode (emergency lights and siren activated) as defined in Policy 1503, _Emergency Vehicle Operation and Pursuit Policy_.

4. When attempting to conduct a stop (traffic stop, bicycle stop, or person), the BWC shall be activated immediately upon obtaining probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the attempted stop, or responding to provide back-up for another officer.

5. When present on the scene with prisoners, arrestees, suspects or any other individuals who are stopped by police, whether primary unit or not, the BWC shall be activated.

6. When transporting a detainee, regardless if the transport vehicle is equipped with a Transport Vehicle Camera (TVC) System.

7. When following a medic, tow truck, or other vehicle as part of a continuation for an investigation or call for service.

8. When a search for evidence, or inventory of a vehicle is being conducted. This applies to both the member(s) searching, and those on scene. (See Strip Searches on pg. 6).

. . .



Ending a Recording

Once recording with a BWC has been initiated, members shall not end the recording until: 1. The event or encounter has fully concluded; or 2. The member leaves the scene and anticipates no further involvement in the event...



Officers who fail to activate their cameras or interrupts or terminates a recording in progress are required to document the reason for the failure. (Exceptions to Recording §4,6)

Exceptions to Recording

...

4. A member who does not activate the BWC as directed by this subsection shall document the reason that the BWC was not activated in an Administrative Report, Form 95, as soon as possible after the incident concludes, and submit the report to the member’s first-line supervisor by the end of the member’s tour of duty. Upon review, the first-line supervisor shall scan/email the Administrative Report, Form 95 to: BWC@Baltimorepolice.org.

6.[sic] A member who interrupts or terminates a BWC recording in progress shall document the reason that the BWC was interrupted or terminated in an Administrative Report, Form 95, as soon as possible after the incident concludes, and submit the report to the member’s first-line supervisor by the end of the member’s tour of duty. Upon review, the first-line supervisor shall scan/email the Administrative Report, Form 95 to: BWC@Baltimorepolice.org.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Baltimore PD expressly protects victims and witnesses from being recorded without their consent. (Policy §2; Exceptions to Recording §2, Ending a Recording §2)

Policy

...

2. Privacy Protection. BWCs might record extremely sensitive and private data. A breach in BWC data security, careless handling of BWC data and/or intentional release of BWC data to non-authorized individuals could jeopardize relationships with victims, witnesses, and the general public, as well as subject those people to invasions of privacy, endanger their safety, and/or jeopardize prosecutions. Accordingly, the utmost care and caution shall be taken to ensure that this data is not mishandled or misused. Private residences should not be treated differently than other locations for purposes of recording.

...

Exceptions to Recording

...

2. When victims, witnesses or other individuals wish to make a statement or share information during a voluntary interaction with police, but refuse to do so while being recorded, members may deactivate the BWC in order to obtain the statement or information. If the encounter begins when the BWC is not actively recording, the member may, but is not required to, temporarily activate the BWC for the sole purpose of documenting the person’s request they not be recorded.

...

Ending a Recording

...

2. Deactivation of a BWC is permitted when a victim, witness, or other person who wishes to make a statement or share information and who is free to terminate the encounter, requests on camera that the camera be turned off. Members shall inform individuals in these categories at the earliest opportunity that they can request to deactivate the BWC.

The policy also addresses patient privacy and the wishes of individuals being strip searched, and some other cases. (Health Care Facilities: Patient Privacy; Strip Searches; Review of Recordings)

Health Care Facilities: Patient Privacy

1. Inside a medical facility, members shall not activate the BWC until just prior to meeting with the complainant/victim on a call for service or when encountering an on-view incident which would require BWC activation under this policy. 1.1. Members shall be aware of patients’ rights to privacy when in hospital settings. Members shall not record patients during medical or psychological evaluations or treatments. When recording in hospitals and other medical facilities, members shall avoid recording persons other than the person of interest, or recording medical documents. 1.2. However, as in any setting, if confronting a violent or assaultive suspect, or in an anticipated use of force instance, the member shall activate the BWC in advance of the encounter or as soon as reasonably practicable.

Strip Searches

1. When conducting a strip search, members issued a BWC shall advise the person being searched, while the BWC is activated, that the BWC is recording. The member shall then ask the individual to be searched if he/she wants the search to be recorded on the BWC, or if the individual wishes the BWC to be deactivated during the search to respect privacy.

2. Comply with the wishes of the individual. 2.1. If the individual asks for the BWC to be deactivated, memorialize this request on the BWC, and conduct the search. 2.2. Once the search of the requested area is complete, activate the BWC immediately to record the rest of the encounter.

...

Review of Recordings

...

8. BWC recordings of constitutionally protected activity may not be used to identify persons present at the activity who are not otherwise suspected of being engaged in illegal activity.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

For certain serious incidents, Baltimore PD only allows officers to review the BWC recording if certain conditions are met, such as if an officer “has been compelled to make a statement.” For other routine matters and administrative investigations, officers can view footage before writing their reports. Officers must document in their written reports whether BWC data for the incident was reviewed. (Review of Recordings §5-6)

Review of Recordings

...

5. Where not otherwise prohibited by this policy, members may view BWC data from their own assigned camera, or the camera of another involved member to assist in complete and accurate report writing for routine matters. A member must document in their written reports whether BWC data for the incident was reviewed.

6. Members who are involved in a Level 3 Reportable use of force (See Policy 1115, Use of Force), in custody death, or are the subject of a criminal investigation may not view their BWC recordings related to the incident prior to completing and submitting any required reports and/or being interviewed by the appropriate investigative unit unless: 6.1. The member is in receipt of a declination letter from the prosecuting authority, or the member has been compelled to make a statement and the appropriate Garrity warning has been issued; and 6.2. The recording is viewed at OPR or at a location approved by an OPR official.



Although the policy contains a section titled “Security, Retention, and Disclosure of BWC Data,” Baltimore PD does not address, and thus does not require, the regular deletion of any footage.

Baltimore PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, and logs all access to footage. (Security, Retention and Disclosure of BWC Data)

Security, Retention and Disclosure of BWC Data

1. Members are strictly prohibited from sharing any BWC log-in credentials with any other person.

2. Accessing, copying or releasing BWC data for non-law enforcement purposes are strictly prohibited, unless directed by the Police Commissioner, or designee.

3. Accessing, copying, releasing or sharing BWC data on any computer or device not controlled or provided by the BPD is strictly prohibited.

4. The BPD shall retain a non-editable original version of BWC footage, and shall log any time the data is viewed, for what length of time and by whom, and shall log any copying or editing of BWC data. BPD personnel are strictly prohibited from tampering with or editing this original version.

5. Access to BWC data shall be controlled through a secure location.

Baltimore PD relies on Maryland’s public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow complainants to view relevant footage. (Review of Recordings §4)

Review of Recordings

...

4. The following members can view and/or copy BWC data upon request and approval from the BWC Coordinator: ... 4.5. Members of the public, after approval of a properly submitted Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) request.

Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) Requests

Members of the public may request to obtain BWC footage by completing a Baltimore Police Department MPIA Request Form and emailing same to: DCU@baltimorepolice.org. Requests for BWC footage shall be granted or denied based upon the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA).

Baltimore PD limits the use of facial recognition technologies to perform broad searches of recorded footage. A narrow exception is made for analyzing particular incidents using such technologies. (Review of Recordings §9)

Review of Recordings

...

9. BWC data shall not: 9.1. Be used to create a database or pool of mug shots; 9.2. Be used as fillers in photo arrays; or 9.3. Be searched using facial recognition software.

EXCEPTION: This subsection does not prohibit the BPD from using a recognition software to analyze the recording of a specific incident when a supervisory member has reason to believe that a specific suspect, witness, or person in need of assistance was recorded.

Baltimore County Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage View Policy

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Baltimore County PD has a dedicated public website that provides an overview of its body camera program. The site includes both an informational video, as well as a link to the latest policy. The most recent publicly available policy is dated January 9, 2017.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Baltimore County PD requires its officers to record all “enforcement or investigative” activities, among other types of situations. (General; Required BWC Activation; Discretionary BWC Uses)

General

. . . BWCs should be activated as soon as possible to ensure as much of the incident as possible is captured.

Note: If there is immediate danger to the member or others, the BWC should be activated once that immediate danger has been addressed and it has been deemed safe, practical and possible to activate the device.

. . .

Required BWC Activation Members wearing a BWC will activate the device as soon as possible unless it is unsafe, impractical, or impossible. The device will be activated in the following circumstances whether or not they are engaged in a call for service: 1. Enforcement or investigative activity (e.g., traffic stops, searches, pursuits, arrests, field interviews, stop and frisk situations, etc.). 2. Other activities of a potentially confrontational nature. 3. Emergency vehicle operations. 4. Custodial transports.

. . .

Discretionary BWC Uses Members wearing a BWC have the discretion to activate the device during any legitimate law enforcement contact if the member believes a recording of an incident would be appropriate (e.g., transports of people of the opposite sex, advising of Miranda rights, etc.).



However, the policy does not require officers to provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Baltimore County PD prohibits officers from recording “in depth interviews with sexual assault victims,” but otherwise allows officers to determine when there is a “heightened expectation of privacy.” (Prohibited Uses of BWCs; Discretionary BWC Uses; BWC Deactivation)

Prohibited Uses of BWCs

. . . During in depth interviews with sexual assault victims beyond the initial call for service assessment.

. . .

Discretionary BWC Uses

. . . In order to preserve the dignity of our citizens, members will exercise good judgement prior to the discretionary use of the BWC during situations where a heightened expectation of privacy exists (e.g., restrooms, locker rooms, etc.).

. . .

BWC Deactivation

. . . Once recording has been activated, members shall not end the recording until one of the following occurs:

. . . 6. Required activation circumstances no longer exists, or did not exist, and the member has determined that: a. A heightened expectation of privacy exists and deactivation is necessary in order to preserve the dignity of our citizens (e.g., locker rooms, restrooms, etc.). . . . 7. A victim, witness, or other individual wishes to make a statement or share information, but requests not to be recorded or refuses to be recorded. Note: During these situations members may deactivate their BWC in order to obtain the statement or information.



The policy requires officers to notify individuals that they are being recorded. (Public Notification)

Public Notification Members shall notify individual(s) they are being recorded as soon as possible, unless it is unsafe, impractical, or impossible to do so.

Exception: Unless otherwise exempted by law. When notification is delayed, it will be given once it is safe, practical, and possible.

Note: These provisions are satisfied even if another individual becomes a party to the communication after the initial notice has been provided.



Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Baltimore County PD permits officers to review footage when completing their written reports. (Access to Recordings; Internal Affairs Section (IAS))

Access to Recordings Members have access to their own recordings, and recordings shared by other members. Members may access recordings for the following purposes: 1. Report writing or preparation of other official documents. 2. Court preparation. 3. Review of prosecution evidence. 4. Review of victim/witness/suspect statements. 5. Crime scene observations. 6. Statement of charges preparation. 7. Clarifying observations at the scene of an incident. Members will share their recordings with other members upon request to further an investigation or for other official purposes.

. . .

Internal Affairs Section (IAS) Ensures that members and their representatives are given the opportunity to review all related recordings prior to providing a statement during an administrative investigation.



Baltimore County PD keeps unflagged footage for 18 months. (Categories and Retention)

Categories and Retention

. . . The Department’s categories and retention periods are: 1. Miscellaneous and Non-Criminal Retention: 18 months. Use: Field interviews, non-criminal calls, and accidental recordings.

2. Routine Traffic Retention: 18 months. Use: Non-jailable and non-arrestable traffic.



Baltimore County PD prohibits officers from unauthorized footage distribution and deletion, and prohibits footage tampering. (System Recordings)

System Recordings Are the property of the Department. Will not be altered or tampered with in any manner. . . . Will not be copied, reproduced, shared, posted, downloaded, or disseminated in any manner unless for an official law enforcement purpose. Will only be copied, reproduced, shared, posted, downloaded, or disseminated in any manner absent an official law enforcement purpose when authorized by the Chief of Police or the TCS Video Manager. Will not be deleted without authorization from the TCS Video Manager.



The policy indicates that Baltimore County PD maintains audit logs for footage access. (Technology and Communications Section (TCS))

Technology and Communications Section (TCS)

. . . Ensures the DEMS is configured to:

. . . 2. Automatically create and track audit and access logs, including all viewing, copying, and editing.



Baltimore County PD sets out a category of recordings that are “[r]eleasable to a Person in Interest,” defined in Maryland code as “a person or governmental unit that is the subject of a public record or a designee of the person or governmental unit” (Maryland GP §4-101)(, but does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage All other public footage requests are handled in accordance with Maryland’s public records law. (Definitions; Recording Redaction and Reproduction; TCS Video Manager)

Definitions

. . . Person In Interest - a person having a greater right of access to a recording than the general public as defined by GP §4-101.

. . .

Recording Redaction and Reproduction All requests for production of recordings will be sent to the TCS Video Manager. BWC recording requests will be fulfilled and redacted in accordance with applicable laws. BWC recordings requested by the public will be categorized as: 1. Publicly Releasable - Released to any member of the public subject to public redaction requirements. 2. Person In Interest Releasable - Releasable to a Person in Interest subject to individual redaction requirements. 3. Non-Releasable - Recordings that cannot be released at the time of the request in accordance with legal requirements. Recordings of the following nature will be automatically categorized as non-releasable: 1. Suspected neglect, abuse and or exploitation of a vulnerable adult or child. 2. Covert personnel and or activities. 3. An ongoing investigation. 4. Intelligence information or security procedures. Exceptions to release and redaction standards may only be authorized by the Chief of Police.

. . .

TCS Video Manager

. . . Receives, reviews, and processes public requests for copies of BWC recordings in accordance with the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA), MD. Code Ann. Gen. Provis. §§ 4-401 to 601. Estimates, collects, and processes fees associated with request fulfillment in accordance with the MPIA. Releases authorized and redacted recordings consistent with this policy and applicable law. Sends a denial letter, explicitly stating the reason, if the release of a recording in not authorized.



Baltimore County PD limits the use of facial recognition technologies to perform broad searches of recorded footage. A narrow exception is made for analyzing particular incidents using such technologies. (System Recordings)

System Recordings

. . . May not be:

1. Used to create a database or pool of mugshots.

2. Used as fillers in photo arrays.

3. Searched using facial recognition software.

Exception: Recognition software may be used to analyze the recording of a particular incident when a supervisor has reason to believe that a specific suspect or person in need of assistance may be the subject of a particular recording.



However, we are concerned that the policy limits the restriction to “system recordings,” which leaves room for the incorporation of facial recognition technology into live video capture and situational awareness technology.

Baton Rouge Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage Received a $749,992 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2017

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

We include Baton Rouge PD in our scorecard due to the national attention the department received following the Alton Sterling on July 5, 2016. NBC News reported that during the shooting, “the body cameras worn by two officers involved allegedly fell off during the altercation, and didn’t capture footage.” At the time of the shooting, the officers were wearing body cameras as part of a pilot program to test various vendors before final implementation of the program. On June 28, 2017, East Baton Rouge Metro Council members voted unanimously to enter into a five-year contract with Axon (formerly “TASER”) to outfit the entire police department with body cameras.

While we know that officers are wearing body cameras in the streets of Baton Rouge, we haven’t been able to locate a public version of the department’s policy.

Boston Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing Limits Retention of Footage Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints Limits Biometric Searching of Footage View Policy

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Boston PD does not make its BWC policy available on its website, presumably because the program is still in a pilot stage. However, a copy of the most recent policy was shared by the Boston Globe (embedded at the bottom of the article).

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Boston PD’s policy clearly describes when officers must record contact with civilians. (§2.2)

BWC Activation and Incidents of Use: Officers will activate the BWC only in conjunction with official law enforcement duties, where such use is appropriate to the proper performance of duties, and where the recordings are consistent with this policy and the law. If there is an immediate threat to the officer’s life or safety, making BWC activation impossible or dangerous, the officer shall activate the BWC at the first reasonable opportunity to do so. The BWC shall not be deactivated until the encounter has fully concluded and/or the officer leaves the scene (See Section 2.8, BWC Deactivation). Officers shall record all contact with civilians in the following occurrences: 1. Vehicle Stops; 2. Investigative person stops: consensual, or articulable reasonable suspicion stops pursuant to Rule 323 (FIOE Report), or stops supported by probable cause; 3. All dispatched calls for service involving contact with civilians; 4. Initial responses by patrol officers, including on-site detentions, investigations pursuant to an arrest, arrests, and initial suspect interviews on-scene; 5. Pat frisks and searches of persons incident to arrest (if not already activated); 6. K9 searches; 7. Incidents of Emergency Driving (primary and secondary responding officers); 8. Incidents of Pursuit Driving (primary and secondary responding officers); 9. When an officer reasonably believes a crowd control incident may result in unlawful activity; 10. Any contact that becomes adversarial, including a Use of Force incident, when the BWC had not been activated; or 11. Any other civilian contact or official duty circumstance that the officer reasonably believes should be recorded in order to enhance policing transparency, increase public trust and police-community relations, or preserve factual representations of officer- civilian interactions, provided that recording is consistent with Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 7.1 and 7.2 of this policy.



The policy also describes when cameras should be deactivated. Officers are encouraged to justify their decision to discontinue recording, but are not required to do so. (§2.8)

To the extent possible, prior to deactivating a BWC, the officer shall state the reason for doing so. Generally, once the BWC is activated, recording will continue until or unless the event has concluded. Below are examples of when an event shall be considered concluded:

1. Victim and/or witness contact has concluded;

2. All persons stopped have been released or left the scene or an arrestee has arrived at the district station for booking. If a transporting officer has a BWC, recording shall continue until the transporting officer arrives inside the station at the booking desk;

3. The event is of a sensitive nature and the BWC officer has weighed the BWC Discretionary Recording Considerations specified in Section 2.4 and decided to deactivate the BWC;

4. The incident has concluded prior to the arrival of the officer;

5. The incident or event is of such duration that deactivating the BWC is necessary to conserve available recording time; or

6. The officer is ordered to turn the camera off by a supervisor.

When officers fail to record a required incident, the policy does not appear to require that officers provide a concrete justification.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy highlights the importance of privacy and prohibits recording civilians’ constitutionally protected rights, and also allows officers to stop recording in areas with a reasonable expectation of privacy, which are described. Officers can, but are not required to, deactivate their cameras in circumstances of a sensitive or private nature or when minors are present. (§§1; 2.4)

1. It is the policy of the Department to respect the legitimate privacy interests of all persons in Boston, while ensuring professionalism in its workforce. The recording of civilians based solely upon the civilian’s political or religious beliefs or upon the exercise of the civilian’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and religious expression, constitutional petition and assembly is prohibited. BWC footage shall not be reviewed to identify the presence of individual participants at such events who are not engaged in unlawful conduct. . .



2.4. Recording in Areas Where There May be a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: BWC officers should be mindful of locations where recording may be considered insensitive, inappropriate, or may be prohibited by privacy policies. Such locations may include locker rooms, places of worship, religious ceremonies, certain locations in hospitals or clinics, law offices, day care facilities, etc. At such locations, at the officer’s discretion and based on the circumstances, BWCs may be turned off. The officer may consider the option to divert the BWC away from any subjects and record only audio, if appropriate. When exercising discretion in such situations, the decision whether to stop recording, divert the BWC, or record only audio should generally be based on the following BWC Discretionary Recording Considerations: the extent to which the officer observes activities or circumstances of a sensitive or private nature; the presence of individuals who are not the subject of the officer-civilian interaction; the presence of people who appear to be minors; any request by a civilian to stop recording; and the extent to which absence of BWC recording will affect the investigation.

The policy also allows subjects to opt out of recording in a private residence. (§2.3)

Recording within a Residence: Before entering a private residence without a warrant or in non-exigent circumstances, the BWC officer shall seek the occupant’s consent to continue to record in the residence. If the civilian declines to give consent, the BWC officer shall not record in the residence. Officers recording in a residence shall be mindful not to record beyond what is necessary to the civilian contact, and not to use the BWC with exploratory intent in an effort to create an inventory of items in the residence.

Officers are required to notify subjects they are being recorded, but are not required to obtain consent to continue recording outside of private residences. (§§2.5-6)

2.5. Notice of Recording: Unless there is an immediate threat to the officer’s life or safety, making BWC notification impossible or dangerous, BWC officers shall inform civilians that they are being recorded. BWC officers shall notify civilians with language such as “Ma’am/Sir, I am advising you that our interaction is being recorded by my Body Worn Camera.” BWC officers shall not record civilians surreptitiously.

2.6. Consent to Record: Aside from the restriction in Section 2.3 (Recording within a Residence), BWC officers are not required to obtain consent to record. If a civilian has requested the BWC officer to stop recording, officers have no obligation to stop recording if the recording is pursuant to the circumstances identified in Section 2.2. When evaluating whether or not to continue recording, BWC officers should weigh the BWC Discretionary Recording Considerations specified in Section 2.4. The request to turn the BWC off should be recorded, as well as the officer’s response.

Officers are not required to deactivate recording victims or witnesses, but are given discretion to turn off their cameras if requested. (§2.7)

Recording of Victims / Witnesses: If a BWC officer is in range of visual or audio recording of a victim or witness who is giving their first account of a crime, the officer may record the encounter but should weigh the BWC Discretionary Recording Considerations specified in Section 2.4 in determining whether to activate or discontinue recording. If the decision to activate and/or continue recording is made, notification shall be made as specified in Section 2.5. If the victim is in anyway unsure of the need for the recording to be made or is uncomfortable with the thought of being recorded, the officer shall inform the civilian that they can request to have the BWC turned off. If the camera is already activated, the request to turn the BWC off should be recorded, as well as the officer’s response.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Boston PD encourages officers to view footage before completing their written reports. (§4.1)

BWC Officer Access to Footage: BWC officers may review their own BWC recording as it relates to: 1. Their involvement in an incident for the purposes of completing an investigation and preparing official reports. To help ensure accuracy and consistency, officers are encouraged to review the BWC recording prior to preparing reports; 2. Providing testimony in court to refresh recollection. Officers will ensure that the prosecuting attorney is aware the BWC recording was reviewed; and 3. Providing a statement pursuant to an internal investigation, including officer involved shooting investigations and other c