Jason Potts Vallejo Police Department

Running head: THE IMPACT OF POLICE VIDEO RECORDINGS ON POLICING
STRATEGIES.
1
The Impact of Police Video Recordings on Policing Strategies
Jason G. Potts
In Fulfillment of a Capstone Requirement
University of California, Irvine
Criminology, Law & Society 2015
Author Note
Jason G. Potts, Master of Advanced Study, Criminology, Law and Society, University of
California, Irvine

THE IMPACT OF POLICE VIDEO RECORDINGS ON POLICING STRATEGIES
1
Abstract
This paper explores the impact video recordings have on policing strategies. Improved police
legitimacy, professionalism, transparency, innovation and crime reduction efficiency were seen
with body worn (BWC) and in-car camera policies. Privacy and mistrust were concerns for both
police and the public. Closed circuit television (CCTV) assisted with crime reduction when
coupled with human effort; however, controverting data revealed it only displaced crime.
License plate readers (LPR) exponentially assisted in investigations. However, despite the
perceived benefits, policies must be considered with clear goals that consistently consider the
holistic human experience. Police video recordings have documented limitations and
consequences that criminal justice administrators should consider as technology in the 21st
century catches up with community mandates. The research examined BWC projects at Rialto,
Vallejo, Phoenix and Mesa Police Departments. For instance, the data in the Rialto Police
Department body-camera one year study revealed that use of force complaints dropped by 59%
and citizen complaints by 88% compared to control samples. In addition, the effectiveness of
CCTV and LPR’S were examined in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Wichita and Newark. In all of the
studies - the human experience was an important factor in the effectiveness of video recordings
of policing strategies. Without clear and direct policies, and if the police were given the latitude
to activate, the data showed that they typically would not activate BWC from the outset of a
citizen contact.
Keywords: police body-worn cameras, police in-car cameras, discretionary versus mandatory
activation

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Because of the increasingly panoptical world we live in, on-duty police are now routinely
recorded (Farrar and Ariel, 2014). These recordings are not a cause for concern until police are
called on to use force. Fortunately, police use of force is still a relatively uncommon event
(IACP, 2012). Incidents of force captured on video can be polarizing, even if justified and
within policy (COPS, 2014). Nonetheless, video recordings are not a panacea toward better
relations between the police and the community, but they are valuable. These video recordings
support increased police legitimacy, professionalism, transparency, and innovation along with
crime reduction. However, they must be accomplished with policies and goals consistently and
deliberately applied that consider the human experience. Video recordings memorialize events
but do they capture what occurred?
Feelings of exacerbation and societal disconnects toward police use of force are evident
by events in Ferguson, Missouri and New York, and marked by the mass protests that followed.
There is arguably not a more prominent covert recording of excessive force by police than the
Rodney King incident that occurred in 1991. The reaction to the riots that followed, or the 2009
incident in Oakland, California involving Oscar Grant accidentally shot by Officer Johannes
Mehserle, all reveal the police and some segments of society have tremendous work to bridge the
gaps between fact and fiction. Tragic errors occasionally result when training does not address
the occasional incidents of intense police stress. For example, Officer Mehserle accidentally
shot Grant when Mehserle believed he was reaching for his TASER. Officers subjected to
extreme stress not only have their decision-making ability affected, but their ability to accurately
recall and perceive (Lewinsky, 2014).
Video recordings are here to stay, and technology will continue to advance, but there are

3
inherent limitations. They are not a solution for all our woes, as they fail to consider the total
human experience. The expectation is that body, and in-car cameras will provide a more
accurate and transparent account while creating a civilizing and more professional effect for both
citizens and police. Yet, as humans, we process, perceive, interpret, and plainly see events much
differently than a camera. Cameras produce details that are "recorded portrayals of events from
the myopic viewpoint" of a 2-D lens - not subjected to stress (Blake and Geis, 2014; Lewinsky,
2014). Hyper stress and fear create auditory exclusion and "inattention blindness" during life-
and-death incidents. As a result, memory and recall are significantly impaired (Blake and Geis,
2014; Lewinsky, 2014). Because the police will perceive these incidents much differently than
the camera, an additional concern is that police will be judged liars after the video depicts a
different version - even slightly. Cameras create more work in the form of end-of-shift
downloads, technological glitches, report review and unreasonable Public Records Act and
evidence discovery requests for support staff (COPS, 2014). As a result, they are often not
supported by a cynical and distrustful police culture averse to change (Gilmartin, 2002).
The decisions of judges and grand juries in some cases contribute to the public's
polarization and view of an injustice done. Especially true when they seem to give police use of
force an unwarranted benefit of the doubt. For example, in the landmark case - Graham v.
Connor, the police officer was judged to have not used excessive force. In that case, the
petitioner had a medical reaction, but police believed he was resisting, which resulted in multiple
injuries at the hands of police. Despite the use of force, the Supreme Court Justices ruled the
behavior of the police reasonable. Based on the Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness
standard, which compared the action of an involved officer with similar training and experience
and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (Ross, 2002)? However, risk managers and city

4
attorneys send the opposite message of culpability for police when monetary settlements become
settled out of court for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The proliferation of video recordings and media sensationalism has partly contributed to
unsupported scrutiny of police (Blum, 2002). This examination occasionally leads to resistance
by the police in the form of de-policing (Cooper, 2003; Goodman and Baker, 2015). Police push
back is evident in Oakland where quality of life crimes, i.e., open-air drug dealing and street
level prostitution have increased and gone unenforced. Proactive enforcement arrests are down
significantly, partly due to federal monitoring and the erosion of police discretion and trust via
restrictive policies and mandatory body camera activation for every citizen contact (Bulwa,
2012).
There is research that documents the benefits of video recordings on police. Benefits
included self-awareness, crime reduction and increased professionalism (Ariel, Farrar &
Sutherland, 2014; COPS, 2014; White, 2013; Ramirez, 2014). Of course, video recordings assist
the police. For example, the Boston Marathon bombers were identified via closed circuit
television (CCTV) video recording. License plate readers (LPR) have provided investigators
with a technologically advanced tool that has been used exponentially to assist in criminal
investigations. Internally generated administrative investigations also benefit, which was
apparent when Mehserle's defense enhanced cell phone recordings. The video-recordings
ostensibly proved he did not intentionally execute Oscar Grant, but manipulated his thumb,
consistent with one deploying a TASER (Rains, 2012). Body and in-car cameras are often used
to exonerate officers accused of false complaints. Research in two different studies - Mesa,
Arizona and Rialto, California documented a significant lessening of use of force incidents and
citizen complaints. These studies seemed to show that they occurred without push back by

5
police (Farrar and Ariel, 2014; White, 2013; Roy, 2014). Nonetheless, both of these studies
showed the importance of a mandatory body camera policy compared to a discretionary one. For
example, the Vallejo Police has utilized a discretionary body camera policy since 2011, and the
result was little to no effect on the use of force incidents or complaints. Officer involved
shootings may have lessened in Vallejo since body cameras, but this may have been the result of
increased scrutiny and other similar measures. Police across the US and UK, tasked with
collecting evidence, gathering victim and witness statements, benefit with more cases prosecuted
due to the efficient memorialization of crime scenes (White, 2013). Additionally, video
recordings encapsulate incidents in a non-sterile environment that assist prosecutors tasked with
prosecuting complicated offenses such as domestic violence (COPS, 2014).
Video recordings are not a cure-all for the woes that affect police and community
relations, as there are many questions that must still be answered to assess their actual
effectiveness. The road map of this paper will unfold via a literature review, followed by a
methodology section, a discussion, and conclusion. Clearly understanding and communicating
the pros and cons of video recordings is critical. Privacy awareness, police legitimacy, changes
in police services, training and crime reduction benefits to the community and police who will
use them, may sustain use and legitimacy.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study examined the benefits and consequences of video recordings
toward policing strategies. Research cited increased professionalism and legitimacy, crime
reduction, researched misconceptions, de-policing, scrutiny, distrust and privacy concerns in the
study. This is important because a thorough knowledge of the benefits and limitations of video
recordings is critical to police agencies desiring to implement them. Once a decision is made to

6
implement a body and in-car camera policy, the public, including courts will expect it (COPS,
2014; Ramirez, 2014; White, 2013).
This literature review will evaluate body and in-car cameras, closed circuit television
recordings and license plate readers. With all of these technological advancements, privacy
concerns along with the study of de-policing will be addressed. Why would we discuss de-
policing or a refusal of police to enforce crime proactively? As cameras are increasingly worn
by police officers, some fear that police will increasingly perceive a loss of trust, discretionary
decision-making ability and an ability to be autonomous. The public does not call on video
recordings for physicians and airline pilots, so why the police? Both professions come with
significant responsibility and occasional poor behavior.
The current perception held by some in the public about police behavior is troubling. The
need to confirm police conduct through video recordings seems to be an indictment of poor
police behavior, which is disappointing because community-based policing has advanced police
legitimacy over the years (COPS, 2014; White 2013; Harris, 2010 Schellenberg, 2000).
However, even with a growing need for police accountability and corroboration, body and in-car
cameras foster concerns. For example, if not implemented clearly and reasonably, some studies
show that police will tend to be more officious as a result of less perceived discretionary
decision-making ability and an erosion of trust (Roy, 2014; Schellenberg, 2000). This increased
surveillance of the police was evident in a 2000 study, which showed that police officers forced
to work with in-car camera videos preferred to trade leniency for legitimacy. In one evaluation,
if the officers knew their behavior was recorded, they were more inclined to issue a ticket or
summons than provide a warning (Schellenberg, 2000). The effect may need further research as
officers behaviors change as they become desensitized to the presence of cameras, along with

7
many other informal and formal factors, which affect individual officers differently.
Schellenberg’s study (2000) also cited research by Grant (1988) in that police prepared more
thoroughly for interviews when they were recorded. Not surprisingly, those recorded interviews
had few if any instances of egregious misconduct. Some have suggested that video recordings,
i.e., body and car cameras start from a position of mistrust (COPS, 2014). Nevertheless, some
fear police will lose the ability to foster unique and informal relationships with the public due to
increased surveillance and less perceived privacy (COPS, 2014; White, 2013). In addition, push
back from the police in a “do nothing – do nothing wrong” approach to policing is an ever-
present concern with video recording surveillance. Evident in cities such as Oakland and New
York where the police as a whole have chosen to not proactively enforce crime for fear of
violating a policy or punishing politicians (Bulwa, 2012; Cooper, 2003; Goodman & Baker,
2015).
The Connecticut State Police first experimented with in-car cameras in the 1960’s, by
utilizing a tripod and a large recording device (Albright et al., 2004). However, those limitations
continued in law enforcement until the 1980’s, when heightened awareness by Mothers Against
Drunk Drivers (MADD) for DUI drivers emphasized prosecutions and convictions. Prosecutors
believed video evidence would assist them. As we moved into the 1990’s, society waged a war
on drugs. Some criminal justice administrators had trouble believing suspects would provide
consent to search when they possessed a trunk full of narcotics and hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Awareness expanded to racial profiling and recent high profile cases depicted in the
media (Albright et al., 2004). Today, cases such as Kelly Thomas in Fullerton California, Oscar
Grant in Oakland California, Rodney King and now the recent incidents in Ferguson, Missouri
and New York have polarized and galvanized some against the police. Rodney King first

8
highlighted police brutality awareness from the perspective of a video recording.
Because of smartphone technology police are now routinely captured on video (COPS,
2014; White, 2013; Harris, 2010; Blum, 2002). Today, we see it sensationalized via the media.
Adding to the ubiquitous function of the 21st century are the immensely popular YouTube
videos and their contributions to mainstream media. Smartphone cameras are ready to record and
upload. They have made anyone with a camera an instant social media actor, director and
producer.
Well over a hundred years ago, Sir Robert Peel stated the following, “The ability of the
police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.” The police
are typically able to police a community based on the community’s tolerance level for crime and
the developed partnerships. Legitimacy and transparency through video recordings should
improve those perceptions (COPS, 2014; Farrar and Ariel, 2014). Additionally, Peel said,
“Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the
historic tradition that the police are the public, and the public are the police. The police being
only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties that are incumbent
on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence” (COPS, 2014).
Limitations and Benefits of Body and Car Cameras
Research has shown that response times for police decrease when police have in-car
cameras (Ulkeman, 2009). From a Department of Justice Study in 2004, 41% said that the body
and in-car cameras increased case preparation time (Albright et al., 2004). These limitations do
not include evidence discovery requests for support staff, and potentially enormous Public
Records Act requests (COPS, 2014; White, 2013). Nevertheless, technology has advanced, and,
as a result, some are now calling for mandatory body cameras for all police – despite the

9
problems. If policies are implemented, then police agencies must develop “buy in” early on
from the police union and their line staff (White, 2013; Farrar & Ariel, 2014; Roy, 2014). When
implementing a body worn camera program, a Phoenix Police Department Commander
articulated the importance of involving all stakeholders. Being deliberate in the process, while
establishing clear goals and celebrating successes when they occur were cited as critical (White,
2013; Katz, Kurtenbach and White, 2013). Cameras should be a tool to protect them and make
their jobs easier, instead of another form of scrutiny or surveillance (Katz, Kurtenbach and
White, 2013). However, this will not be an easy undertaking, as there are limitations (COPS,
2014; White, 2013; Lewinsky, 2014). Researchers have shown that videos only capture a one to
two-dimensional perspective, and when an officer is subjected to fear and/or stress, the view
restricts even more (Lewinsky, 2014). The brain when subjected to fear and stress, can edit,
perceive and see things much differently than what we see on camera (Blake and Geis, 2014).
For example, an impaired prefrontal cortex is commonly seen with a brain under high stress and
fear. This impairment then leads to disconnection and impaired neurons in the brain, which then
may dramatically affect recall (Arnsten, 2009). In addition, cameras simply show a different
view of the multi-dimensional world in which we see and perceive. For instance, because of
depth perception or a single angle, a police officer depicted at a distance may erroneously appear
to be striking a subject’s head (Lewinsky, 2014). Additionally, police are often armed with
additional information that cameras do not capture, such as relevant criminal background
information (Lewinsky, 2014; Blake & Geis, 2014; COPS, 2014).
So what happens when the video depicts a much different version of events than what the
police officer perceives? Slight discrepancies in police accounts as compared to camera views
may deem the police officer a liar, which could terminate a career. A concern, because of

10
advancements in technology, body-worn video cameras may soon be used to document almost
every aspect of a law enforcement officer’s shift. Dr. Lewinsky (2014) recently testified before
the Task Force on 21st Century Policing and concluded the following limitations: Body and in-
car cameras do not always track what the eye sees. They capture a wide scene different from a
human eye but may miss subtle cues and movements, which is especially true under stress, as the
mind goes into fight or flight. The field of view then constricts significantly compared to a wide-
open camera view (Lewinsky, 2014; Blake and Geis, 2014). The camera does not factor in line
of sight, expectancy perception, periphery limitations, visual acuity and surrounding behavior
(Lewinksy, 2014).
As briefly mentioned above, cameras have a much greater field of view compared to
one’s eyesight. Two popular brands, used by most police agencies, are the VIEVU and TASER
Axon. They have the following fields of view (FOV): The best model for the “VIEVU” has a
95- degree field of view. TASER Axon has a 130-degree field of view (Blake and Geis, 2014).
Why does this matter? Well, the human eye has a much smaller field of field, and again can
deploy perception and prior knowledge into one’s decision-making process, which a camera
cannot. The human brain is limited to what it sees under the best conditions - not subjected to
stress or fear. For example, human vision has a typical visual field of view of only 55 to 60
degrees, much less than most body cameras (Blake and Geis, 2014).
Additionally, cameras are unable to feel when a subject has tensed up. So, to one
watching a video, they will only see a police officer placing a subject in a control hold and may
deem that behavior unnecessary. Innocuous looking movements may be just that on a camera;
they will not capture a prior experience with the suspect or interpretations of his movements
based on an officer’s training and experience (Lewinsky, 2014). Further, one’s ability to

11
observe, orient, decide and act (OODA) might be much slower than the view perceived on
camera. OODA is relevant when evaluating police officer fatal incidents. For example, a police
officer may have continued to shoot when the suspect dropped the weapon or turned their back
(Blake and Geis, 2014; Lewinsky, 2014).
We see the video required of NFL football referees to get a call right. Even with multiple
angles, slowed down and played back over and again, some of us still disagree on the call made
(Lewinsky, 2014). In Shreveport Louisiana, a YouTube video depicted the apparent execution of
a young man by the police. This so-called police “execution” appeared very clear in one video
clip. However, it illustrated a much different perspective when seen from other dashboard
camera angles. The young man used a cell phone to simulate a firearm against police in an
apparent incident of suicide by cop (Marquise Hudspeth YouTube, 2009). If not for the other
camera angles, the conclusion may have been much different for those officers instead.
According to Professor Katz of Arizona State University, there is still much to learn in reference
to the real benefits and consequences of body cameras. He identified as a potential consequence
the impact enormous amounts of data technology would have on storage and retention. There
were also notable concerns with recording life for devices, which had a range of 1.5 to 12 hours
of charging time, but ultimately a range of 2-6 hours. TASER seemed to have the most optimum
product at 12 hours of charging (Ramirez, 2014).
Nonetheless, there are benefits to video recordings, in the form of increased
professionalism, among others, to include the camera’s ability to invoke a civilizing effect on the
public (Farrar and Ariel, 2014). For example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(2005) surveyed 900 citizens in 18 states. The survey discovered that 51% of the citizens believe
that they modify and change their behavior in the presence of an in-car camera (Ulkeman, 2009).

12
If the police are aware they are being observed, then they are more apt to adhere to policies, rules
and social norms (Farrar & Ariel, 2014; Ramirez, 2014; Harris, 2010). From a specific and
general deterrence theory, most poor behavior seems to be deterred by the perception of
swiftness and certainty of punishment (Farrar and Ariel, 2014). As a result, the correlation
between video monitoring and professionalism seems clear. We comply with social norms when
we know we are being watched. The public, including the police, develop heightened self-
awareness, which ensures we are more likely to go along with the rules (Farrar and Ariel, 2014).
A 1989 study illustrated the power of observation. In that study, an observer examined over a
four-day period whether college girls would wash their hands after using the toilet. She watched
as 24 of 31 female college students washed their hands - accomplished when the observer’s
presence was well known. Nevertheless, only 11 of 28 washed when they did not believe they
were being observed (Munger and Shelby, 1989; Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2014). There are
multiple studies that suggest people do alter their behavior when they know they are being
watched. In one study, the presence of a poster of staring human eyes was enough significantly
to change the participant's behavior (ACLU, 2013; Calo, 2011). That behavior goes to the crux
of police body video cameras in that we modify our responses when we believe we are being
watched; police are no different, but there is still much to learn.
Officers have reported increased officer safety, successful prosecution, reduced frivolous
complaints and court time. Video evidence has exonerated officers in internal investigations
(COPS, 2014; Ramirez, 2014; Roy, 2014; NIJ, 2012; Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2014; Albright
et al., 2004). In a 2004 survey conducted by the Department of Justice, 33% felt that car cameras
made them feel safer (Albright et al., 2004). 91% of prosecutors used the videos; 58% stated it
reduced time spent in court. However, U.S. research has not sufficiently examined with

13
empirical data better prosecution. The Plymouth Head Camera Project reported that the
technology increased an officer’s ability to document a violent crime had occurred when
responding to crimes of violence. Incidents recorded by body cameras were more likely resolved
through guilty pleas rather than criminal trials (White, 2013). Because cases tend to plead,
overtime costs are lowered. According to the UK Home Office guide, an expedient resolve of
cases also meant a 22.4 percent reduction in paperwork and case preparation. As a result, police
gained an extra 50 minutes per a nine-hour shift (White, 2013). Additionally, cameras
consistently activated seem to reduce complaints of police misconduct and as a result, a
reduction in litigation (Ramirez, 2014; COPS, 2014). Finally, police cameras may prove useful
for training and debriefing officers after critical incidents (COPS, 2014; NIJ, 2012; Harris,
2010).
The ability to efficiently collect evidence for everyone to see also improved overall
transparency (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2014, Albright et al., 2004; Marks, 2013; COPS, 2014,
Ramirez, 2014). Marks (2013) documented an incident of transparency via CopTrax, a company
from Plano, Texas. Technicians recently fine-tuned their body cameras so that they can work
with Google Glass to record what the officer sees, rather than a view depicted from the chest.
Police in Byron, Georgia were able to make the first arrest on record utilizing CopTrax's Google
Glass system, where it streamed live an officer’s viewpoint back to police headquarters (Marks,
2013).
From the Mesa Arizona body camera study, White (2013) documented a 60 percent
decline in complaints as compared to those not wearing body cameras. The Mesa Arizona study
researched volunteer use compared to mandatory use through a ten-month study and 1,675
police-citizen contacts (Roy, 2014). In the study, volunteers averaged 71 more video recordings

14
per month, compared to just 28 videos for assigned officers (White, 2013; Roy, 2014). However,
similar to a Rialto Police Department study, unknown behavior dynamics may have caused the
decline. For example, in a one-year study by Rialto Police, use-of-force incidents were reduced
from 61 to 25 in those control and experimental groups. Additionally, there was a reduction in
complaints from 24 to 3. According to the Rialto study, officers were surveyed before and
during, and there was no change in self-legitimacy (Farrar and Ariel, 2014). Did the camera’s
presence have a civilizing effect on the officer and citizen, or was there simply a change, even
subtle in the complaint process? Did the police just avoid proactive enforcement, i.e., stopping
suspicious subjects on foot or in a car? For example from a study by VIEVU (2015), a leading
body camera manufacturer. They documented the following statistics from Oakland Police
(OPD): According to numbers from OPD, there was a 73.8% decrease in use-of-force incidents.
The number of incidents dropped from 2,186 in 2009 to 1,945 in 2010, when just under 200
officers began to wear body cameras and dropped down to 572 events in 2014 when 619 officers
wore cameras. Notably, the department has gone 18 months without an officer-involved
shooting, where they alleged an average of about eight incidents per year prior to the
implementation of the body cameras (VIEVU, 2015). Was this because of the VIEVU body
cameras or the perceived informal and formal scrutiny police were under and the resultant
change in behavior for fear of getting in trouble? White (2013) emphasized the perceived
benefits to the cameras, as there is minimal research to support or disprove all the advantages
mentioned above.
De-policing - Loss of Discretion, Trust, and Autonomy
White (2013) documented a quote from a union official with Baltimore Police, this
official said, “Trust builds relationships, and body-worn cameras start from a position of

15
mistrust.” However, Chief of Police, John Carli of Vacaville Police Department believed that if
body cameras are presented as a tool to make a police officer’s job better, i.e. efficiency, better
prosecution, and training, instead of one used to second-guess, then he believed that officers
would be more inclined to support it (COPS, 2014). Police administrators should routinely
celebrate camera successes with video recordings. Fishing expeditions and holding officers
accountable for minor policy violations caught on camera, damage the initial support of a video
recording policy (COPS, 2014; White, 2013).
Scrutiny of any profession is warranted but with unsupported scrutiny comes possible
consequences in the form of work slowdowns (Cooper, 2003). However, not all scrutiny is
negative. By the very nature of police work, police have a monopoly on use of force and
authority, so it is important that the police are perceived to act reasonably and legitimately. To
that end, positive and supportive examinations of conduct are valuable in order to find an
identity; it can invoke a positive police behavior through community trust, confirmation and
empowerment (Shane, 2010).
Stone and Travis (2013) believe that police should strive for accountability, legitimacy
and innovation. Video recordings may achieve this through consistent implementation of a body
and in- car camera system (Sklansky, 2011; Stone and Travis, 2013). However, this might be
difficult because quality of life crimes such as open-air drug dealing, vagrancy, and prostitution
go unenforced when morale is down. Morale may suffer when police feel they are being second-
guessed by increased surveillance (Cooper, 2003). Officers de-police and punish those that over
scrutinize and second-guess. Especially, when police believe their autonomy or discretionary
decision-making abilities are being eroded, which some police fear with the introduction of video
recordings (Cooper, 2003). To illustrate this consequence, one need only look at the New York

16
Police Department. They had a dramatic work slow down after Mayor DeBlasio criticized the
police. The results from NYPD CompStat Unit were telling. For example, statistics compared to
last year for New Year’s week were down significantly - Parking violations 16,008 to 1,191;
Traffic infractions 9,349 to 749; Criminal Summonses 4,077 to 347. With this slowdown,
robberies rose 13.5 percent and murders were up 11 compared to 7 during that same week, which
appears to show the correlation between non-proactive enforcement and crime rates (Goodman
and Baker, 2015).
Police officers have a great deal of discretion, and the work is autonomous. For example,
it is not uncommon for police to have very few interactions with their supervisors (Shane, 2010).
In one study, police cited second-guessing as a significant job stressor (Shane, 2010; Blum,
2002). Freedom was cited as a police job benefit (Parson & Jesilow, 1999; Roy, 2014; Cooper,
2003). Nonetheless, police occasionally participate in impulsive behavior where a lack of self-
control and hyper-masculinity is on display, which predisposes misbehavior. Not surprising as
police are picked from society (Cooper, 2008; Donner and Jennings, 2014). This misconduct
seems to show a need to verify police conduct through recordings. In the research by Donner
and Jennings (2014), female officers were 38% less likely to be involved in misconduct
compared with their male counterparts. Their results also indicated that officers younger than
age 26 at the time of their application were 47% more likely to receive a departmental
disciplinary action (Donner and Jennings, 2014). Donner and Jennings (2014) further discussed
the importance of assessing deterrence on police misconduct. Their study researched self-control
and the examination of “certainty, severity and celerity” on 210 police, civilian and sworn.
Participants were given two hypothetical scenarios: failing to report a fellow officer driving
under the influence (DUI) and conducting unauthorized record checks of a new neighbor. Their

17
analysis found that impulsivity had a direct effect on police misconduct; that impulsivity
partially mediated the effect any punishment or deterrence would have on behavior (Donner &
Jennings, 2014). Recording police may negate those predisposed to impulsivity and a lack of
self-control.
“Hot spot” policing strategy, often result in more negative encounters with citizens when
stopped by police on foot (Skogan, 2005; Sherman, 1997). Police video recordings through
increased self-awareness may minimize these negative encounters, but it cuts both ways, as it
requires police to choose proactivity, one that they may refuse based on the increasing panoptical
environment. Finally, accountability was addressed in a thorough study from the University of
North Texas. Ulkemen (2009) suggested that municipal police departments that deployed both
in-car and CCTV cameras tended to have a higher number of sustained complaints. This
research may conclude that Internal Affairs Units can hold their officers accountable with proof
of misconduct – compared to those that did not, which supports the claim that cameras
accomplish trust and transparency from the community (COPS, 2014; Farrar & Ariel, 2014;
Ramirez, 2014).
Closed Circuit Video Surveillance Cameras
As we progress further into the 21st century, we see surveillance videos located almost
everywhere. One might consider we are a society that has become desensitized to video
cameras. This lack of camera awareness is evident with the advancement of smartphone
technology, popularity of reality television shows, and the rise of social media. Now it seems
anyone can instantly upload videos to popular social media sites such as YouTube and Facebook
- all of which have contributed to exaggerated ideals of narcissism and indulgence.
Nonetheless, do surveillance cameras work in preventing and deterring crime? Many

18
legal scholars have suggested that CCTV does little to reduce crime. The reality is that most of
our crimes are out of the view of the camera lens (La Vigne, 2011; Caplan and Kennedy, 2014).
When they do show reductions, there is research that indicates it is typically displaced
somewhere else (Ratcliffe, Taniguchi, and Taylor, 2008; Piza, Caplan and Kennedy 2014).
However, an offender may see the presence of cameras as a sign that the community cares. They
are more willing to report the illicit behavior - similar to the “Broken Windows Theory” (Wilson
and Kelling, 1982).
Similar to body and in-car cameras, CCTVs often do not consider the human experience.
Nevertheless, these surveillance cameras seem to have more to do with the perception and
symbolic view that something is being done to combat crime, than in real objective results
(Coleman, 2012). Unfortunately, most CCTVs require significant human capital to man them.
These cameras work well in deterring crime in retail loss prevention settings but seem to miss the
mark in overall crime reduction. However, this didn’t appear to concern social theorist Michael
Foucault. He asserted that it was not important that one was under surveillance; it is the
potential for being watched. As a result, Foucault believed that the “intense internalization of
discipline reduces the need for external restraints” (Calavita, 2010). Kennedy, & Petrossian,
(2011) theorized that cameras might create an atmosphere of swift and certain punishment.
Renowned criminologist Sherman cited this as critical to successful crime reduction efforts
(Sherman, 2013). A Newark Police Department study evaluated the deterrent effects of CCTV
cameras on three types of crimes—shootings, auto thefts, and thefts from cars (Caplan et al.
(2011). These crimes were chosen because they typically occurred outside and within sight of
domed cameras, which provide a 360-degree omnipresent view from the offender’s perspective.
Additionally, Caplan et al. (2011) proposed that the limitation of CCTV’s were not for a

19
lack of technology, but the result of human limitations. As mentioned in previous discussions,
video recordings are not a panacea for crime woes or improved police and community relations,
but in this study they seemed to assist crime-fighting efforts. From a micro level perspective,
crimes that often occur outside, such as street level prostitution, auto thefts and open-air drug
dealing, benefit with “hot spot” patrols that target specific crime groups (Caplan et al., 2011). If
so, then they should be measured and coupled with the assistance of CCTV. Hotspot increased
patrols and the increased proactive arrests of subjects armed with guns do work to reduce crime
(Caplan et al., 2011; Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter, & Bushway, 1997).
However, police must man the CCTV for them to be fully capable.
Piza et al. (2014) documented the effectiveness of CCTV with the ability of the police to
monitor effectively and coupled with proactive enforcement of hot spot locations. For example,
Baltimore PD utilized cameras along with consistent monitoring and proactive street
enforcement units (La Vigne, 2011). These efforts showed a reduction in crime (Piza et al.,
2014; La Vigne, 2011). However, Caplan et al.’s (2011), research found of the 73 cameras
throughout Newark, NJ only 58 experienced a reduction in shootings. 34 experienced reduced
levels of auto theft and 41 a reduction in thefts from automobiles (Caplan et al., 2011; Piza et al.
2014). From a Temple University study, Ratcliffe and Taniguchi (2008) posit that there was a 13
percent reduction in crime in which CCTV surveillance was placed around Philadelphia.
However, some locations showed no benefit of camera presence, which would lead one to
believe that it may not be just the presence of the camera. Ratcliffe and Taniguchi (2008)
suggested that a camera might work to prevent crime if two criteria are met. “The offender is
aware that the camera might be watching their activity and second that the offender perceives
that the risk of capture by police outweighs the benefits of the crime they are considering” (p.4).

20
Displacement of crime to surrounding areas might be an adverse outcome of the cameras, but
their research showed that it is result of a crime prevention initiative (Ratcliffe and Taniguchi
2008). In a Seattle hidden camera project from 1979, they cited that 55% of robberies were
cleared by arrests when cameras were hidden. As opposed to only a 25% clearance rate for the
control group area without cameras. Convictions were 49% with hidden cameras and 19%
without (Whitcomb, 1979).
License Plate Readers
Wichita Police claimed in one patrol car, officers made 15 more arrests in six weeks
while testing the value of license plate readers (LPR) than they normally would have. Most of
those arrests came in the form of car thieves, but apprehending those driving on a suspended
driver’s license and those possessing outstanding arrest warrants were also cited. They returned
$80,000 in stolen property to owners (Wenzle, 2014). A 2009 survey showed that 37 percent of
police were already using license plate readers or LPR (Merola, Lum, Cave, & Hibdon 2014).
Despite the significant numbers, there are similar privacy concerns in reference to the
government being able to watch the movements of the public. LPR’s are often useful in
ascertaining movements of suspect vehicles involved in crimes. They have powerful abilities to
show where cars have been parked. The technology is similar to “Google Maps” in which police
vehicles and others equipped with LPR scan thousands of license plates a day and store them in
police databases. Occasionally, these readers are strategically located at fixed locations where
they can efficiently scan plates. The public knows very little about LPR’s, and there is little data
to support any increased police legitimacy as a result of them (Merola et al., 2014).
Additionally, there is little known about their effect on crime and deterrence (Merola et al.,
2014).

21
Some suggest that the technology goes too far by allowing police the ability to store
significant amounts of data on innocent people to be used against them at later dates. Despite the
concerns for privacy by defense attorneys, the public still supports the technology. If it can be
used to track terrorism and sexual predators, then the survey is overwhelmingly in support of it
(Merola et al., 2014). However, this is all tied to the severity of the crimes; it tapers off as the
incidents are seen as less severe. Nonetheless, one theme common to license plate technology
and body and in-car cameras, are privacy concerns tied to reasonable storage and policies on
retention.
Privacy Concerns
There are many citizens who are apprehensive about speaking to the police for fear of
retaliation, which is compounded by the presence of a camera. Of course confidential informants
would be concerned when talking with police on camera (White, 2013; COPS, 2014). In
addition, some have expressed concerns with how long the body and in-car camera footage
would be retained. This is relevant as Public Records Act requests have a tendency to be
extensive if not narrowed in their scope (COPS, 2014). To resist this, some agencies have made
it a policy only to retain non-evidentiary items for 60 to 90 days, thus minimizing their Public
Record Act requests. A police agency in Colorado has a policy of only keeping videos for 30
days if there was contact with a citizen. If no contact with the citizen, then the recording was
retained for only seven days (COPS, 2014). Though more often, most agencies are opting to
keep non-evidentiary video recordings for one year before they are purged (White, 2013; COPS,
2014). Just as important, are decisions on when officers should activate recordings, i.e., in one’s
home, situations with nudity and victims of sexual assault. Most Chiefs and legal scholars
suggest consent in some of those situations (Farrar & Ariel, 2014; Ramirez, 2014; COPS, 2014).

22
Many police agencies, such as Oakland and Rialto, California; Mesa, Arizona; and Fort Collins,
Colorado, afford police discretion to activate or deactivate cameras when interviewing victims of
sensitive crimes (COPS, 2014). Some state legislators around the country are now pushing to
make it more difficult for the public to get police body and in-car camera recordings through
state public records laws (Foley, 2015). Those in support of that limitation assert that it is
important for police to protect the privacy of individuals captured on police video, along with
minimizing costly and labor- intensive public records requests (Foley, 2015).
The ACLU believes there should be a balance between strong police accountability and
privacy interests of society. Nonetheless, Scott Greenwood of the ACLU thinks police should be
required to video record every police contact so that there is an “unimpeachable record of the
good and bad” (COPS, 2014). The Police, Executive Research Foundation (PERF) assert that
there are many interviews with crime victims, witnesses, informants and informal interactions
with the public that should not be recorded. Thus, police agencies should adopt explicit policies
that allow for discretion when deciding to activate the body and car cameras (Ramirez, 2014;
White, 2013; Farrar & Ariel, 2014; COPS, 2014). Finally, according to an ACLU (2013) report,
license plate readers in Maryland had over 29 million reads, but only 0.2 percent or 1 in 500
were hits. The significant dragnet that license plate readers have on innocent subject seems
troubling if only 0.2 percent or 1 in 500 were associated with any crime or wrongdoing (ACLU,
2013).
III. METHODS SECTION
The video recording studies mostly utilized quantitative models, which used experimental
and control groups. The data for the body camera studies was obtained from Rialto Police
Department, Mesa Police Department, and Vallejo Police Department. The data collected from

23
the Vallejo Police Department was obtained by accessing the Vallejo Police Department's
database – IA Pro, open and closed investigative files and the FBI Uniform Crime Report. IA Pro
is a software program that many Internal Affairs (IA) Investigators throughout U.S. law
enforcement utilize to track formal complaints against officers. The term "formal" complaint
being the key word, as complaints are not fielded consistently throughout law enforcement, and
conclusions on whether any complaint is logged informally or formally are subjective. The
Vallejo Police Department has had a discretionary body camera system utilizing the VIEVU
camera system since 2011 and the mandatory wearing of body cameras since 2013. Analysis of
use of force data; officer-involved shootings; citizen complaints; and internally generated IA
investigations were collected from 2011 through 2014. The Department began strictly tracking
use of force complaints in 2012. The Mesa and Vallejo Police Department evaluation focused on
the relevance and comparison of a discretionary and mandatory body camera policy. The ability
to increase officer accountability, reduce citizen complaints, and lessen use of force incidents
was evaluated for the presence of a BWC policy. Information on enhanced prosecutions was
difficult to measure without a human survey. The data was transcribed and coded into the
following themes – setting, participants, and procedure and data analysis. The Rialto Police
Department study was chosen because researchers seemed to illustrate the effect self-awareness
via body cameras had on legitimacy and professionalism and was the first study of its kind. The
Mesa Police Department study researched the behavior of police and those effects when police
are forced to wear and activate a body camera - compared to those who freely volunteered to
wear one.
Police video recordings were searched using the National Crime Justice Reference
Service (NCJRS) as well as the University of California online library. Many peer-reviewed

24
articles were found on the subject of police video recordings, police behavior and police
encounters within the community. In addition, the Body Worn Video Steering Group had many
articles on the topic of body worn cameras, as did the National Institute of Justice (NIJ):
Research, Development, and Education. The NIJ had a page dedicated to body-worn cameras.
Blake and Geis of Force Analysis and Dr. Lewinsky of Force Science Institute were chosen, as
they deal with recent trends in force analysis, and how they relate to police cameras and fields of
vision under stress. The Community Oriented Policing (COPS) research paper on the
implementation of a body camera program utilized law enforcement leadership throughout the
U.S. and was one of the most up to date articles on the topic. They surveyed 254 law
enforcement agencies and interviewed 40 police executives in reference to body - worn cameras
(COPS, 2014). Other similar papers were chosen as they researched trends, limitations and
benefits of video recordings. Research on police behavior was selected as it illustrated, and
related an erosion of trust and second-guessing concerns police have to the panoptical effect of
cameras. Finally, the Rialto, California body camera study displayed recent qualitative and
quantitative analysis in reference to the role body-worn cameras play on police behavior in U.S.
law enforcement. The Mesa, Arizona study researched policy strategies that compared the
effectiveness of discretionary versus mandatory activation and other relevant variables. The
Vallejo Police Department has utilized a discretionary body camera program since 2011. A
quantitative analysis of their use of force, complaints, and officer-involved shootings illustrated
little empirical data to support the claim that body cameras create less use of force incidents or
complaints. This data was accessed by various internal affairs databases and internally generated
documents, which are accurately managed by a full-time administrative analyst.

25
The Rialto Police Department's Body-Worn Camera Study
The Rialto Police Department (115 officers) sought to answer the question: Will wearing
body cameras reduce the number of complaints and number of instances of the use of force
compared to control groups in which cameras were not worn (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2014)?
Street level patrol officers were utilized by using random assignments with body cameras. They
used high definition cameras manufactured by TASER, in which experimental integrity
safeguards were maintained. In their study, experimental officers were required to activate them
prior to every contact. The videos were then docked and downloaded into a secure database. To
ensure integrity and transparency, the videos could not be accessed or altered by participants. In
a one-year study, use-of-force incidents were reduced from 61 to 25 in that experimental group.
Additionally, there was a reduction in complaints from 24 to 3. According to the study, officers
were surveyed before and during - there was no change in self-legitimacy (Ariel, Farrar &
Sutherland, 2014). A de-policing or "blue flu" attitude did not occur, in which police refused to
enforce the law proactively. The lack of push back by police seemed surprising and relevant in
my overall analysis of their body camera experiment.
From Chief Farrar (2014):
"By randomly assigning 988 shifts into experimental and control shifts
within a large randomized controlled field experiment, the department
investigated the extent to which cameras affect human behavior and,
specifically, reduce the use of force by police or citizen complaints.
Broadly, the Department put to test the implication of self-awareness to
being observed on compliance and "deterrence theory in real-life settings
and explored" the results in the wider context of theory and practice (Farrar and Ariel,
2014).
The experimental procedure of the Rialto Police Body Worn Camera Study emphasized
random assignment of all police shifts - compared with experimental and control conditions.

26
Experimental shifts were assigned to wear body worn video cameras, which captured all police-
public encounters. The control shifts were instructed not to wear body cameras. The integrity of
the study may have been achieved through comparison of footage hours against the assigned
shifts. Random sampling of the footage was also conducted to ensure officers wore cameras as
instructed (Farrar and Ariel, 2014). After the study, researchers measured the dependent variable
- police behavior against the control group, which did not wear cameras. The results were
significant and measurable improvements. Less use of force incidents and fewer citizen
complaints as previously mentioned between experimental (those wearing BWC) and control
groups (those not wearing BWC). Taken from Chief Farrar's study (2014) at Rialto Police
Department the following illustrates the effectiveness of his body camera experiment:
Table 1: Rialto Police Department Use of
Force, Citizen Complaints and Police Public
Contacts
2009 2010 2011 2/2012-
2/2013
Use of Force 70 65 60 25
Complaints 36 51 28 3
Police Public
Contacts
40,111 43,289
Table 2: Rialto Police Department Officer Use
of Force
February 13, 2011 to February 12, 2012 = 61
February 13, 2012 to February 12, 2013 = 25
2009 - 70 64.28%
2010 - 65 61.53%
2011 - 60
CONTROL 17
EXPERIMENT 8
58.33%
The Rialto Police Body Worn Camera Study experiment seemed to show a noticeable
cause and effect toward professional police behavior, and better community relations, especially

27
when police knew they were being watched. However, the limitations consist when measuring
variables such as whether or not the community changed their behavior based on the apparent
presence of the camera (civilizing effect). Or was it just because the police were behaving more
professionally due to the camera? Another question in reference to the reduction in complaints
was if the process or procedure in which complaints were being fielded or concluded changed –
even subtly. For example, were citizens reminded that the incident was captured on video, and
as a result, were the complaint numbers skewed? Another conclusion may have occurred
because the police were behaving differently due to their focus in the study – similar to the
Hawthorne experiment (Ulkeman, 2009)? For example, the Hawthorne studies were led by
Mayo and Roethlisberger (1941) and began just before the Great Depression in 1927. They
studied worker productivity; researchers discovered increased worker productivity after injecting
different variables – some not so pleasant and with little negativity. The Hawthorne experiment
illustrated those subjected to research make rational choices to perform better at work because
they are the focus of an experiment (Ulkeman, 2009). One might make the inference that this
could apply to watching police in the form of body and in-car cameras. Will police become
desensitized to the presence of cameras? Perhaps the Hawthorne study was just the result of the
times – scarce work during the Great Depression (Roethlisberger, 1941; Ulkeman 2009).
Additionally, does a reduction in crime coincide with a reduction in complaints, as police
increase legitimacy in their communities? The Rialto and Mesa, Arizona Body-Worn Video
Study experiments did not answer those questions.
Mesa, Arizona Police Department’s Body-Worn Camera Study
Mesa Police Department used the TASER Axon body camera system. In Alison Roy's
study (2014), she tackled the implementation of mandatory versus discretionary body camera

28
policies and other variables on the usage of body worn cameras by police. Up until then, there
had been no research that examined mandatorily versus discretionary activation on improved
police behavior or officer assignment - voluntary versus mandatorily assigned. Her research
sought to answer the variables that affected the usage of body worn cameras, citizen and police
actions during those field contacts" (p.12). Roy (2014) wanted to know if there was a difference
in usage and if so, the variables that made it more or less efficient. The evaluation of the Mesa
Police Department's body- worn video cameras revealed a 48% reduction in citizen complaints
against camera officers for misconduct during the study period. There was a 75% decline in use
of force complaints (Roy, 2014). Volunteer officers averaged 71 more video recordings per
month, compared to just 28 videos for assigned officers (White, 2013; Roy, 2014). In addition,
complaints were quickly resolved due to immediate access of storage data. Roy (2014) made a
sound assumption, "Before the widespread diffusion of this technology occurs it behooves
researchers to take a closer look at how the surveillance revolution is going to impact how
citizens and police officers relate to each other, and how the coming flood of video evidence
might change the way our justice system operates" (p.12). If street or line level officers believe
that their autonomy and discretion making ability is threatened by the perception of increased
surveillance and second-guessing, then police pushback is inevitable (Roy, 2014; Parsons &
Jesilow, 2001).
Allison Roy utilized the following methodology:
“Specifically, under the mandatory activation policy, officers were
instructed to activate the camera as they approached the scene of the call
or point of initiation. The camera policy was changed to discretionary
activation during the last five months of the evaluation period - (Apr 24,
2013 to Oct 1, 2013). During that period, officers were given the latitude
to "exercise discretion and activate the on-officer body camera when they
deem it appropriate" (Roy, 2014: 20).

29
Not surprising, Roy discovered that when officers volunteered to use body-worn cameras
but had the discretion to activate it, activation was less. Compared with those officers
mandatorily assigned to use and activate body-worn cameras (Roy, 2014). There were other
variables that were factored, such as when civilian bystanders were around. If bystanders were
around, then a mandatory activation and assignment policy and/or a discretionary one had no
bearing one way or other. However, juxtaposed to that, if other officers were around, then both
groups were hesitant to activate. They didn't believe that other officers wanted to be captured on
video. They seemed to be sensitive to the perceived privacy concerns of other officers (Roy,
2014). Additionally, the study concluded that officers with cameras made much fewer stop-and-
frisk contacts and fewer arrests compared to those without cameras. Officers with cameras wrote
much more tickets and citations – confirming a research theory that cameras make officers more
officious, or perhaps they were simply punishing the public subconsciously or consciously.
Finally, those with cameras were less likely to proactively contact subjects in the street
(pedestrian stops). They were also less inclined to respond to calls (Roy, 2014; Wasserman,
2014).
Vallejo Police Department Body Worn Video Study
The Vallejo Police Department is a mid-sized police department that provides police
services to a population of approximately 120,000 residents. The Department currently employs
110 sworn police. Between the years of 2009 and 2014 (FBI, 2014), the murder rate averaged 17
homicides per year. During that same period, the Department averaged approximately 10 citizen
complaints a year - a minimal number considering the call volume. As an Internal Affairs
Sergeant with the Vallejo Police Department, it is my experience that a complaint number such
as this is not as relevant as one might think. There are minimal checks and balances. Citizen

30
complaints are fielded and evaluated based on human bias where many variables are considered
before a formal complaint number is granted, and the case is investigated.
An additional issue that has plagued the Vallejo Police Department was the dire financial
situation the City of Vallejo found itself after it filed for federal Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection
in 2008. The City emerged from bankruptcy a few years ago, but with a significant shortage of
police officers compared to the national average. For example, in 2010, the Police Department
operated with 89 police, which is .78 per 1000, compared to on average 2.46 per 1000. Further,
according to the 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report, Vallejo's homicide rate for a population
between 80,000 and 150,000 was significantly higher than most any other city in California at
25. Only the cities of Compton – 36 and Pomona - 29 had more murders (FBI, 2013).
Nevertheless, Vallejo is a violent city, and the police have a difficult challenge policing it with
their staffing levels. For similar sized cities in California, violent crimes are 150% higher than
the average, and the homicide rate is 370% greater than the mean of 5 (FBI, 2013).
As already mentioned, the Vallejo Police Department began a discretionary VIEVU body
camera system in June of 2011. The discretionary policy meant that police had the discretion of
when to turn it on. 20 cameras were purchased for the pilot project, and provided to those that
wanted to deploy them voluntarily. In the 3rd quarter of 2013 with the significant uptick in
officer-involved shootings for 2012 every patrol officer and Sergeant was mandatorily assigned
and restricted to wear a VIEVU camera while in uniform. Discretion to activate body-worn
cameras was still provided to officers. Increased scrutiny by Vallejo Police administrators was
coupled with mandatory use of force reporting; every incident of force was documented and
tracked.
An analysis of use of force to include TASER deployments, citizen complaints, internal

31
investigations and collisions from the start of the discretionary body camera program was
illustrated in the following table. It showed little effect other than a reduction in officer-involved
shootings:
Table 3: Vallejo Police Department Use of Force, Pursuits,
Homicides, Citizen Complaints
and Officer Involved Shootings
2011 2012 2013 2014
Sworn Staffing
Use of Force
92
85
88
135
82
153
106
186
Pursuits
Homicides
Complaints/Internal
Investigations
Animal Shootings by
Police
28
19
17
3
48
14
41
4
36
25
22
3
64
17
24
2
Officer Involved
Shootings
3
1
Officer
Killed
9 5 2
The validity and reliability of the Vallejo Police Department data were obtained and
measured by a dedicated Administrative Analyst. Verifying by hand documented written files,
checked the reliability of the data. Essential to my analysis above, was the significant uptick in
use of force incidents, complaints and officer-involved shootings – even pursuits jumped
exponentially from 2011 to 2012. A meaningful event happened in 2011. Officer James Capoot
was killed in a foot chase chasing a bank robbery suspect. Most every single member in the
Vallejo Police Department was affected by his murder. The conclusion, despite a reduction in
staffing, an increase in use of force complaints and officer involved shootings that unknown
stressors partially contributed to the increases, independent of a policy utilizing the discretionary
activation of body cameras. Nonetheless, other variables such as increased violence were
occurring at that time as well, so conclusions are difficult to deduce from limited variables.

32
Additionally, city employees were still suffering from the effects of bankruptcy in 2008 and
morale was deteriorating. Haas et al. (2015) wrote that officers who are respected and
empowered by their supervisors and peers are more likely to accept departmental policies and
comply with them voluntarily (COPS, 2014). As a whole, respect and empowerment were not
occurring at the Vallejo Police Department due to the perceived disrespect by city government
leadership. A polarizing police culture and a lack of leadership at the time negated any attempts
at creating or even sustaining any type of legitimacy. For example, the use of force numbers
jumped 59% from 85 in 2011 to 135 in 2012 despite a reduction in staffing from 92 to 88
officers. Another interesting statistic was the jump from 3 officer-involved shootings in 2011 to
9 in 2012 - a 200% jump. As mentioned above, this sparked the mandatory wearing of body
cameras in the 3rd quarter of 2013, but the policy was still a discretionary activation. In 2014,
officer involved shootings dropped along with complaints in line with 2011 numbers. Body
cameras may have contributed, but increased police scrutiny both formally and informally by
new police administrators helped most of all; they were more inclined to hold police
accountable.
CCTV and License Plate Readers
Similar to body and in-car cameras, police implementing CCTV's in high crime areas,
often do not consider the human experience. Nevertheless, these surveillance cameras seem to
have more to do with the perception and symbolic view that something is being done to combat
crime, than in real objective results (Coleman, 2012). Placing CCTV cameras in high crime
areas just displaces crime as was illustrated by CCTV studies by Caplan et al. (2011) in Newark
and La Vigne (2011) in Baltimore. The Ratcliffe and Taniguchi, (2008) studies in Philadelphia,
also illustrated this crime displacement. CCTV's when overtly displayed did little to reduce

33
crime, unless coupled with proactive policing and subjected to human effort. Most crime occurs
indoors outside of the view of most omnipresent dome CCTV cameras. The point is that CCTV
cameras, like body-worn and in-car cameras, are subject to human manipulation and error. To
combat crime, police must use them efficiently and consistently. Relevant to my research, Piza
et al. (2014) documented the effectiveness of CCTV coupled with the ability of the police to
monitor crime along with proactive enforcement of hot spot locations. For example, Baltimore
PD utilized cameras in combination with consistent monitoring and dynamic street enforcement
units (La Vigne, 2011). These efforts showed a reduction in crime (Piza et al., 2014; La Vigne,
2011) - compared to just an omnipresent camera used only as a deterrent. The 1979 Seattle
hidden camera project cited that arrests cleared 55% of robberies. Compared to only a 25%
clearance rate for the control group area without cameras. Convictions were 49% with hidden
cameras and 19% without (Whitcomb, 1979).
The study on license plate readers was chosen because they demonstrate possible crime
reducing effectiveness when strategically affixed to locations where they can efficiently scan
plates. The public knows very little about LPR's, and there is little data to support any increased
police legitimacy, as a result. There are many who are concerned about that technology when
considering constitutional policing, trust and privacy. Nevertheless, when crimes are more severe
such as terrorism, sexual violence, and child molestation, then the public is more apt to support
privacy intrusions (Merola et al., 2014). Facial recognition software, gunshot detection systems,
and drone surveillance are advancing quickly, but policies are having difficulty keeping up
(Merola et al., 2014; COPS, 2014). Additionally, there is little empirical data on LPR’S effect
on crime and deterrence (Merola et al., 2014).

34
IV. DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION SECTION
Video recordings will continue to impact policing strategies because they are polarizing,
especially when police incidents of force are captured on video. The efficient application of
police video recordings is dependent on human effort, trust and sound leadership. Nonetheless,
surveillance of the police starts from a position of mistrust. The following anonymous quote is
telling, "We think you might be participating in misconduct, and we want you to prove that you
are not." Not an attitude of empowerment and professionalism that we advocate our police.
However, the distrust goes both ways in that some police administrators fail to trust the veracity
of a citizen’s complaint. In some cases the local prosecutor’s office, with very little oversight,
seems to practice disparate sentencing of marginalized groups. For example, 1 in 106 white men
were behind bars for drug offenses, compared to 1 in 14 black men (Alexander, 2007: 100 and
Pew, 2008).
This study also focused on the benefits and consequences of video recordings. The
research revealed that human subjectivity has a great deal to do with both the advantages and
limitations. Further, challenges will remain because of technological limitations; lack of support
from police unions; inconsistent use based on discretionary versus mandatory activation of body-
worn cameras, along with privacy concerns - both for the public and police. In most studies, the
presence of body cameras resulted in less use of force incidents and citizen complaints.
However, and most notably, the results were inconsistent when police were provided the
discretion to wear and activate BWC. Not surprising, in the Mesa, Arizona study, those officers
that interacted with citizens under the mandatory policy were more inclined to use the body-worn
cameras. Compared to those provided the option to use them discretionarily (Roy, 2014). Use
of force incidents and citizen complaints were tangibly different when compared to mandatory

35
versus discretionary activation (White, 2013; Roy, 2014).
Video recordings by themselves are not a solution for better policing. However, the
recordings may increase professionalism and improve the legitimacy of the public and police,
while assisting in efficient evidence collection (White, 2013; Farrar & Ariel, 2014; Ramirez,
2014; COPS, 2014). The Rialto Police Department study, in partnership with the University of
Cambridge, Institute of Criminology, showed that body cameras lessened use of force incidents
dramatically with very little slow down or push back by police. During a 12-month study, their
research revealed that officers who wore the cameras had 60 percent fewer incidents of use of
force and 88 percent fewer complaints than the officers not wearing the cameras. The civilizing
effects of self-awareness toward officers and citizens were discovered. Everyone seems to
behave better (Farrar and Ariel, 2014). As mentioned, citizen complaints went down
dramatically, and many agencies claimed that it discouraged people from filing unfounded
complaints (COPS, 2014). Notwithstanding, the variables associated with citizens following
through to file complaints were unknown. Did human subjectivity and discretion influence a
citizen attempting to file a complaint? For example, did the Watch Commander or Internal
Affairs Sergeant influence their decision by reminding them that the incident was captured on
video recording, which thus skewed the numbers?
Nevertheless, video recordings come at a cost with increased workload in the form of end
of shift downloads; video recording reviews; data retention; costs associated with technology
storage; increased labor to monitor the recordings; evidence discovery requests and the
occasional public records act request. As previously mentioned, privacy concerns, a lack of
trust, and a more officious interaction between police and the community were cited as concerns
(COPS, 2014; Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2014; Ramirez, 2014; White, 2013). There are video

36
recordings everywhere. We see them in taxis, buses, street corners, ATM's, businesses, hotel
lobbies, pool areas and most notably smartphones.
Large segments of society that police deal with are not always law abiding, but instead
people police have to reason with or persuade. Some would argue that inappropriate words
might have to be used when attempting to make a point in the vernacular that person may better
understand. The presence of these cameras may make officers more professional, but will it
make them safer? Will they treat suspects with "kid gloves" because they are concerned with
getting in trouble, instead of aggressively dealing with a particular incident in order to stay safe?
While a lack of trust, unsupported scrutiny, discretion, and autonomy may result in a
work slowdown; this was not the case at the Rialto Police Department. They were able to obtain
"buy-in" with the assistance of their police officers association (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland,
2014). It appeared that Chief Farrar of Rialto Police Department effectively found a way to
promote and achieve support in an innovative way by enhancing it through trust instead of
distrust. His apparent buy-in through his police union resulted in confidence and empowerment
by his front-line officers, critical to effectively changing a police culture for the better (Haas et
al., 2015). The Phoenix Police Department also valued "buy-in." They too discovered very little
slow down after implementing their body – worn camera program. According to their research,
they had an 8.9 % increase in arrests compared to pre-experiment numbers (Katz, Kurtenbach
and White, 2013).
Privacy issues and data retention policies were researched. The length of time that videos
are retained is important because the longer they are kept - the more they are subject to
disclosure. Important, because police in most states are allowed to record if they have a right to
be there, i.e. inside someone's home. The broad disclosure of video recordings might promote

37
transparency and trust from the public, but it would raise significant concern for all those
involved if released to the media. Some are apprehensive when speaking to the police in any
case; it will now be even harder to do so if the citizen knows they are being recorded. Sexual
assault victims will have obvious privacy concerns. Most police executives suggest obtaining
consent when recording victims of sensitive crimes and while in one’s home (COPS, 2014;
PERF, 2014).
With the implementation of body-worn cameras, officers will find it necessary to spend
time reviewing video recordings to ensure the accuracy of their criminal reports. Some
transcription companies are attempting to find a solution to this. Net Transcript, a transcription
company in Arizona, is offering up their services to transcribe police camera videos (Net
Transcripts, 2013). When the technology advances, police might be able to refer to the
transcription of their body-worn camera footage. Significant, because defense attorneys are
aware of the potential pitfalls and will quickly take advantage of any discrepancy in reports or
testimony to obtain acquittals or dismissals. Increasingly, police agencies in the next ten years
will have some form of a body or in-car camera policy (COPS, 2014). However, this fear of the
scrutiny associated with questioning police on the minute details of their reports, may result in
unintended consequences. Delays in police response might occur as police confirm the accuracy
of video footage review in their police reports or properly label the previous in-car camera file
before going in service. There will be several adjustments before the systems are perfected, but
selling it as a device to make their jobs easier and more efficient will be key to long-term
sustainability and support (COPS, 2014, White, 2013; Katz, Kurtenbach & White, 2013). For
example, one common theme in reference to limitations found in the research was that cameras
will depict a different version than what an officer under stress will be able to recall effectively.

38
Illustrated in an FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (2002), which involved stressful officer involved
shootings and the resultant concern that cameras would show an entirely different version
(Artwohl, 2002)?
"When I got home after the shooting, my wife told me that I had called her
on my cell phone during the pursuit of the violent suspect just prior to the
shooting. I have no memory of making that phone call."
"During a violent shoot-out I looked over, drawn to the sudden mayhem,
and was puzzled to see beer cans slowly floating through the air past my
face. What was even more puzzling was that they had the word Federal
printed on the bottom. They turned out to be the shell casings ejected by
the officer who was firing next to me (Geis, 2014:2; Artwohl, 2002).
Some of the research also debunked the fallacies associated with the presence of CCTV
and the reduction of crime in areas where they were deployed. For example, Caplan et al.’s
(2011) research suggested groups of strategically placed cameras had minimal effects on crime
than ones randomly placed. Hard to evaluate, because like body worn cameras, CCTV cameras
are not a cure for crime reduction. They rely heavily on human effort to properly man them,
coupled with clear and direct goals. If they are not manned, one could expect similar results to
discretionary body worn camera policies. For example, Caplan et al.'s (2011), research found of
the 73 cameras throughout Newark, NJ only 58 experienced a reduction in shootings. 34
experienced reduced levels of auto theft and 41 a decrease in thefts from vehicles (Caplan et al.,
2011; Piza et al. 2014).
Caplan et al. (2011) stated the following:
"That is, when all CCTV cameras are considered to be equally qualified
crime deterrents, they do not have a statistically significant impact on
citywide reductions of theft from auto or shootings within their view shed.
Therefore, the effect of police monitored CCTV cameras on crime
deterrence could be very minimal (Caplan et al.: 267).
The Vallejo Police Department's discretionary activation policy supported Roy's assertion

39
that an activation policy a police department implements, is a clearer predictor of body camera
use than the individual assigned (Roy, 2014). The Vallejo Police Department's discretionary
body-camera activation policy made little difference in use of force incidents, complaints, and
until a policy was enacted to wear them mandatorily - officer involved shootings. In-car cameras
are different in that most police agencies have them set up to activate when police lights are
activated. Thus, minimizing the perception of misconduct that might be seen with body cameras,
especially when providing officers the discretion of activating them (COPS, 2014; White 2013;
Roy, 2014; Ramirez, 2014). The Vallejo Police Department recently implemented an in-car
camera policy, outfitting most every marked patrol car with a video recorder. One can conclude
that it will represent a reduction in use of force complaints and increases in police legitimacy and
professionalism. During the first three months since the in-car camera project was implemented,
the data has revealed a significant decline in complaints with only two through the first 3 months
of the year. Moreover, complaints coming in from the front desk have decreased significantly,
but further research is needed to evaluate other variables that may have caused the decline.
Future studies may need to focus on the diversity within different police departments. As
Roy (2014) suggested in the study, there must be additional research on different types of calls,
various camera systems, as well as violent and non-violent use of force scenarios. Finally,
Wexler (2015) of the Public Executive Research Foundation (PERF) suggested that there must
be a paradigm shift in police work. Police are trained to be the first ones into a dangerous
situation, and they should most of the time. However, there are other incidents when stepping
back, and de-escalating might be more appropriate. A culture change must occur for this to
come to fulfillment as police supervisors and administrators become more willing to hold their
personnel accountable. Nevertheless, the self-awareness of video-recordings of officers in an

40
increasingly panoptical world might just be a start (Farrar and Ariel, 2014). As Barak Ariel
(2013) of University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology stated in an unpublished report,
people will eventually revert to their old behavior. Soon body, in-car cameras, license plate
readers and CCTV will be part of the landscape. The hope is that these documented limitations
and consequences will have been refined and become more manageable as technology catches up
to community mandates in the 21st century, accomplished with a consistent and sound
application of policies that consider the holistic human experience.

41
References
ACLU. (2013). You Are Being Tracked. Retrieved February 11, 2015, from
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf
Albright, W, Cullen C, Nichols, L, Savvakis, A, Strick, S, Vaughn, A, Hak, J, Kadoch, C,
Mazzone, C, Oliphant C, Threefoot, K & Westphal, L - IACP (2004). The Impact of
Video Evidence on Modern Policing. COPS. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/WhatsNew/IACP%20In-
Car%20Camera%20Report%202004.pdf
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The
New Press.
Ariel, B. (2013). Tracking police performance. Unpublished manuscript.
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2014). The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on
Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled
Trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1-27.
Arnsten, A. F. (2009). Stress signaling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and
function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410-422.
Artwohl, A. (2002). Perceptual and memory distortion during officer-involved shootings. FBI
Law Enforcement Bulletin, 71(10), 18-24.

42
Blake, D & Geis, C. (2014). Efficacy of Police Body Cameras for Evidentiary Purposes: Fact or
Fallacy? Retrieved 20 January 2014, from: http://www.cti-home.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/Body-Cameras-proof-finalword.pdf
Blum, L. (2002). Stoning the Keepers at the Gate: Society’s Relationship with Law Enforcement.
Location: New York, NY: Lantern books.
Bulwa, D. (2012). Arrest totals down sharply in Oakland. Retrieved January 25, 2015, from
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Arrest-totals-down-sharply-in-Oakland-
4084463.php#photo-3827035
Calavita, K. (2010). Invitation to Law & Society: An Introduction to the Study of Real Law.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print.
Calo, R. (2011). How the Illusion of Being Observed Can Make You a Better Person, Sci. Am.
(May 3, 2011), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-illusion-of-
being-observed-can-make-you-better-person People Can Be
So Fake: A New Dimension to Privacy and Technology Scholarship, 114 Penn St. L.
Rev. p. 809 (2010), http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/
articles/114/114%20Penn%20St.%20L.%20Rev.%20809.pdf.
Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., & Petrossian, G. (2011). Police-monitored CCTV cameras in
Newark, NJ: A quasi-experimental test of crime deterrence. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 7(3), 255-274.

43
Coleman, R (2012). Review of Doyle, Lippert and Lyon’s Eyes Everywhere: The Global Growth
of Camera Surveillance. Surveillance and Society 10(1): 99-102.
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org | ISSN: 1477-7487
Cooper, R. (2003). "Understanding 'De-policing': Symbiosis Theory and Critical Cultural Theory
" (February 2003). Villanova University School of Law Working Paper Series. Working
Paper 17. http://law.bepress.com/villanovalwps/art17
Cooper, F. R. (2008). Who's the Man-Masculinities Studies, Terry Stops, and Police Training.
ColUM. J. genDer & l., 18, 671.
COPS. (2014). Department of Justice National Institute of Justice. Implementing a Body Worn
Camera Program. Retrieved January 25, 2015, from
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014
Donner, C. M., & Jennings, W. G. (2014). Low Self-Control and Police Deviance: Applying
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory to Officer Misconduct. Police Quarterly,
1098611114535217.
Farrar, T & Ariel, B (2014). "The Rialto Police Department’s Body-Worn Video Camera
Experiment: Operation “Candid Camera”." The Rialto Police Department Experiment.
19 Apr. 2013. Retrieved 1 June 2014, from:
http://ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu/files/Wearable_Cameras_Capitol_Hill_Final_Pres
entation_Jerry_Lee_Symposium_2013.pdf

44
FBI UCR. (2013; 2014). Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.fbi.gov/about-
us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications
Foley, R. (2015). State bills would limit access to officer body camera videos. Retrieved March
21, 2015, from http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/state-bills-would-limit-access-to-
officer-body-camera-videos/article_53aead6c-986e-5a04-84bd-e4a13767afa8.html
Goodman, J., & Baker, A. (2015, January 5). For Second Week Arrests Plunge in New York
City. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/nyregion/decrease-in-new-york-police-arrests-
continues-for-a-second-week.html?_r=0
Geis, C. (2014). Does my eye see what the camera sees? Retrieved January 28, 2015, from
http://www.cti-home.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Newsletter-5-Eye-vs.pdf
Gilmartin, K. M. (2002). Emotional survival for law enforcement. ES Press, PMB, 233, 2968.
Haas et al. (2015). “Explaining Officer Compliance: The Importance of Procedural Justice and
Trust inside a Police Organization,” Criminology and Criminal Justice (January 2015),
doi: 10.1177/1748895814566288; COPS Office, “Comprehensive Law Enforcement
Review: Procedural Justice and Legitimacy,” accessed February 28, 2015,
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Procedural-Justice-and-Legitimacy-LE-Review-
Summary.pdf.
Harris, D. A. (2010). Picture This: Body-Worn Video Devices (Heads Cams) as Tools for
Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance by Police. Tex. Tech L. Rev., 43, 357.

45
Hartle III, F., Parker, M., & Wydra, C. (2014). THE DIGITAL CASE FILE: THE FUTURE OF
FIGHTING CRIME WITH BIG DATA. Issues in Information Systems, 15(1).
IACP. (2012). Emerging Use of Force Issues; Balancing Public and Officer Safety. Retrieved
from: http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/emerginguseofforceissues041612.pdf
Katz, C., Kurtenbach, M. and White, M. (2013). Phoenix, Arizona – Arizona State University.
Retrieved Feb 11, 2015, from http://www.smartpolicinginitiative.com/SPIsites/phoenix-
arizona
La Vigne, N. (2011). Evaluating the use of public surveillance cameras for crime control and
prevention.
Lewinsky, W. (2014). 10 limitations of body cams you need to know for your protection. Force
Science Institute, Ltd. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from
http://www.forcescience.org/bodycams.pdf
Marks, P. (2013). Police, camera, action. New Scientist, 220(2940), 21-22.
"The Marquise Hudspeth Case (video from all 3 angles)." YouTube (2009). YouTube Web.
Retrieved 5 June 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGtNug8gvpk
Merola, L. M., Lum, C., Cave, B., & Hibdon, J. (2014). Community support for license plate
recognition. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,
37(1), 30-51.

46
Munger, K., & Shelby, J. H. (1989). Effects of an observer on hand washing in a public
restroom. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69(3), 733-734
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Sensor, Surveillance, and Biometric Technologies (SSBT)
Center of Excellence. (2012). A Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement.
Available at: https://www.justnet.org/pdf/00-Body-Worn-Cameras-508.pdf.
Net Transcripts (2013). Press Release – VIEVU Partnership. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from
http://www.nettranscripts.com/about/press-releases/08-26-2013-NetTranscripts-
VIEVU.htm
PERF (2014). Subject to Debate – PERF and COPS Office to Release Report on Body-Worn
Cameras. A Newsletter of the Public Executive Research Forum. Vol. 28. No. 4 / July /
August 2014.
PEW Charitable Trusts (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008. Washington, DC: The
PEW Center on the States.
Parsons, D., & Jesilow, P. (2001). In the same voice: Women and men in law enforcement.
Seven Locks Press.
Piza, E. L., Caplan, J. M., & Kennedy, L. W. (2014). CCTV as a tool for early police
intervention: Preliminary lessons from nine case studies. Security Journal.
Rains, M. (2012). Mike Rains Teaches Class on Officer-Involved Shootings and the Mehserle

47
Case to 600 Detectives in Los Angeles. Retrieved January 23, 2015, from
http://www.rlslawyers.com/mike-rains-teaches-class-on-officer-involved-shootings-and-
the-mehserle-case-to-600-detectives-in-los-angeles/
Ramirez, E. (2014). A Report on Body Worn Cameras. Retrieved from:
http://www.parsac.org/parsac-www/pdf/Bulletins/14-
005_Report_BODY_WORN_CAMERAS.pdf
Ratcliffe, J., & Taniguchi, T. (2008). CCTV Camera Evaluation: The crime reduction effects of
public CCTV cameras in the City of Philadelphia, PA installed during 2006. Temple
University, Department of Criminal Justice.< http://www. temple.
edu/cj/misc/PhilaCCTV. pdf>.(18 April 2009).
Ross, D. L. (2002). An assessment of Graham v. Connor, ten years later. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(2), 294-318.
Roy, A. (2014). On-‐Officer Video Cameras: Examining the Effects of Police Department Policy
and Assignment on Camera Use and Activation (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State
University).
Schellenberg, K. (2000). Policing the police: Surveillance and the predilection for leniency.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(6), 667-687.
Shane, J. M. (2010). Organizational stressors and police performance. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 38(4), 807-818.

48
Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997).
Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising: Corrections Forum;
Nov/Dec 1998; 7, 6; Pro Quest Criminal Justice pg. 19
Sherman, L. W. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing, and tracking.
Crime and justice, 42(1), 377-451.
Sklansky, D. (2011). The persistent pull of police professionalism. New Perspectives in Policing,
March.
Skogan, W. G. (2005). Citizen satisfaction with police encounters. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 298-
321.
Skogan, W. G. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing & Society,
16(02), 99-126.
Stone, C., & Travis, J. (2013). Toward a new professionalism in policing. Journal of the Institute
of Justice & International Studies, 660.
Ulkemen, S. (2009). The Impact of Surveillance Technology on the Behaviors of Municipal
Police Departments (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Dec.).
VIEVU. (2015). VIEVU News 2015. Retrieved February 14, 2015, from
http://www.vievu.com/news-and-media/news-2015/
Wasserman, H. M. (2014). Moral Panics and Body Cameras. Wash. UL Rev. Commentaries
(Nov. 18, 2014), 14-31.

49
Wenzle, R. (2014). Wichita police: License plate scanners could help cut crime (VIDEO).
Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article395375
Whitcomb, D., ABT Associates Inc. & United States of America. (1979). SEATTLE (WA)-
FOCUS ON ROBBERY-THE HIDDEN CAMERAS PROJECT-AN EXEMPLARY
REPORT.
White, Michael D. (2013). Assessing the Evidence on Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras.
Paper for the U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center.
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic monthly, 249(3) 29-38.

Jason Potts Vallejo Police Department

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Jason Potts Vallejo Police Department

Semelhante a Jason Potts Vallejo Police Department (20)

Último

Último (20)

Jason Potts Vallejo Police Department