Boston PD prohibits officers from viewing footage immediately following officer-involved shootings or use of deadly force, but officers are allowed to view these recordings prior to making a statement about the situation. (§4.2)

The policy allows citizens to request that an officer stop recording, and gives officers some discretion as to whether to comply. Officers have discretion to stop recording upon request during “Optional Recording events” which includes interviews of victims, but the policy does not provide explicit protection for especially vulnerable individuals. (§IV.E.2)

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)

The policy requires officers to notify crime victims and civilians inside of their homes or “places of abode” that they are being recorded, unless such notification is “safe” or “unfeasible.” (§VIII.B)

The policy refers to retention categories, but fails to elaborate in how they affect retention periods. The policy notes that recordings will be retained for at least 90 days, but does not specify a maximum retention period after which footage must be deleted. (§§N.1.C; O.1)

Members of the Professional Standards Section (PSS) of Rochester PD are “authorized to access and copy” BWC recordings. (§V.B.1)

Cleveland Police expressly prohibits footage tampering and access for unauthorized use. Each time an officer accesses recorded footage, the officer must note the reason in the system. Cleveland Police also logs all access to footage. (§§I.C; VI.B-C; VII.A)

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)

The MPD BWC Coordinator must maintain “an audit log on the history of every recording,” but it’s unclear what this means. This could mean an audit log that details all files added to, and deleted from, the storage database — or it could mean an audit log of all access to stored footage. Until MPD clearly establishes the latter, full credit for this criterion is withheld. (§V.C.3)

The policy expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, and indicates that all access to recorded footage will be audited. (§§II.D.20; II.D.15; II.J.1.e; II.M.4)

The Saint Paul policy lists the retention periods for various types of recordings, but it is unclear whether the retention periods listed are minimums or maximums. Furthermore, Saint Paul PD does not appear to require footage deletion after any of the listed retention periods. (§24)

Chicago PD incorporates by reference policies from its department-wide data retention policy, as well the state’s recent Officer-Worn Body Camera Act. (§IX.A)

NYPD prohibits officers from recording individuals in certain sensitive situations, including victims of sex crimes and anyone engaged in political activities. (§10)

While the policy references a retention period for digital recordings, it does not specify whether unflagged footage must be deleted after the end of the retention period. (§3.24.9)

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.

The Information Services Division is responsible for ensuring that authorized CPD members and “authorized outside-agency personnel” have access to recordings “that relate to their official duties.” (§VI.A)

Tampa PD’s policy prohibits officers from tampering with BWC recordings. However, the policy does not provide that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§IV.C.10)

Ferguson PD does not expressly allow recorded individuals to view footage. Requests for footage by the public are handled in accordance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law. (§PR481.4(q))

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

Parker PD sharply 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). (§3.25.5.B)

DPD’s policy places no limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g. facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.

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.

In March 2017, the Tulsa Commission on Community Policing made a number of recommendations to improve local policing practices, including a recommendation that TPD implement BWC standards. The Commission identifies this as an area where “TPD is fully implementing this effort on an ongoing basis.”

Cincinnati PD does not expressly prohibit officers from viewing relevant footage before filing an initial written report or statement. For police-involved shootings, the Homicide supervisor decides when BWC footage may be reviewed. (§B.5)

Officers must state the reason for deactivation on camera before turning it off. If an officer fails to record a required event, the officer must justify this failure on camera after the fact. (§II.B)

However, the policy does not indicate that this database will be audited, though audits of the system are permitted. (§XI.11)

The policy does require supervisors and the precinct inspections lieutenant to randomly inspect videos periodically. (§8.A-B)

CSPD’s draft policy distinguishes recordings of “evidentiary value or where a case report number is generated,” recordings dealing with traffic violations, and other recordings of an “unclassified nature.” Recordings of an “unclassified nature” are stored for 30 days. While these retention periods are within our recommendations, it is unclear from the language of the policy whether these are maximum or minimum retention periods. (§.14)

The policy requires officers to continue recording “until the officer has cleared the scene of the incident or the transport is concluded.” (Required Activation of MAV (630.70))

The policy allows, but does not appear to require officers to deactivate recording at the request of victims and witnesses, and does not require officers obtain informed consent. (§§VI.D; L.3)

In other cases, officers may view footage “for exact quotes” by individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints. (§3.25.5.G.2)

The Fort Worth PD policies rely on Texas law governing the release of public records to make footage available. Nothing in either document allows complainants to view footage relevant to their complaint. (“Legal Aspects,” §IV.I; §506.03 Y)

Stamford PD does not make its BWC policy publicly available on its website, probably due to the recent nature of a recent agreement between the city and the department. The parties reached an agreement in April outlining policies for use of the body worn cameras, relaunching the program which had been discontinued in late 2016.

FCPD’s policy appears to allow officers to review footage prior to making a statement. (As worded, though, the policy appears to indicate this viewing should happen prior to the supervisor making a statement). (§VII.D).

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.

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

Even for incidents that require “immediate retrieval of Recorded Media,” such as “employee-involved incidents,” the policy still does not explicitly bar officers from viewing footage prior to writing reports or preparing testimony. The policy indicates that such media will be classified as “LOCKED” and restricted to specific employees, but does not define who these specific employees are nor under what circumstances they may access locked footage. (§VII.A)

For all other incidents (ambiguity aside), SFPD allows officers to review BWC footage before filing their initial reports. (§III.F.1)

The New Jersey Department of Public Safety’s policy on body worn cameras is accessible via the department website. One must search “body worn cameras” on NJDPS’s website in order to locate the policy. NJDPS’s most recent BWC policy is from July 28, 2015. This policy appears to be a statewide directive to apply standards for police departments across the state.

KeepgateClosedsignPrintable

Utilising farm gate signs in Australia to identify each area of the farm can help accurately inform livestock owners, staff and visitors on where they are, their direction of travel and the boundaries of each area to prevent accidents or confusion.

FCPD’s policy does mention the importance of personal privacy, but offers vague guidance and leaves the decision to record in “sensitive” situations up to officer’s discretion. (§§VI.C,I.1-4)

In general, MPD prohibits recording “in places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists,” and specifically prohibits recording of individuals with extreme injuries. (§IV.M)

Newark PD has a dedicated page on its website that displays a draft body camera policy. The site notes that it will be updated with a permanent policy “on a future date.” The policy also indicates that the BWC Administrator will review the policy on a quarterly basis during its pilot phase and an annual basis indefinitely thereafter. Currently, officers in the 5th Precinct are in the pilot phase of their body camera program. The draft policy is not dated, but appears to be active as of September 19, 2017.

The policy requires officers to activate their cameras in a wide range of situations, and gives officers discretion to activate the BWC during general citizen contact and anytime an officer feels it is appropriate to preserve audio/visual data while taking a statement from a victim or witness. (§§IV.E.1-2)

OCPD also requires that officers who fail to activate their body worn cameras will provide a “supplemental report” to document their failure to record. (§188.45)

However, the policy does not provide detailed guidance about when officers must not record, nor does it require officers to provide concrete justification for failure to record.

The policy also encourages (but does not require) officers to notify members of the public that they are being recorded. (§IV.A.12)

The policy does not explicitly prohibit footage tampering. It does, however, in limited circumstances, require supervisors to take possession of the BWC media for chain of custody purposes and to ensure that the BWC data remains “uncompromised.” (§6.b)

The Oklahoma City Police Department does not make its body worn camera policy publicly and readily available on their website. The latest avaialble version is from October 2015.

Officers are not required to deactivate recording victims or witnesses, but are given discretion to turn off their cameras if requested. (§3.3)

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a version of its policy was found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. This policy was last revised September 27, 2012.

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

The policy allows officers to view footage while completing their reports. The policy does not expressly require an initial written report or statement before any relevant footage is reviewed. (§§Policy; B.15; Regulations.10-11)

While the Saint Paul policy does allow for subjects of BWC footage, it contains exceptions to this rule, while not creating an explicit allowance for those filing complaints. (§19)

Both Fort Worth PD documents provide nearly identical lists of specific circumstances that must be recorded. The policies list relatively few selective incidents that officers are required to record and do not explicitly state when officers must activate their cameras in these circumstances. (§§II.A.1-6, B.1-2; §§506.03.L-M)

SAPD does not expressly allow complainants to view relevant footage, and requires a five step process to handle individual complaints “alleging misconduct.” (§.11.A)

Philadelphia PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access to footage. But the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§6-E, K; 9-B-4)

Officers are not required to notify subjects they are being recorded. The policy requires officers to notify occupants of a private residence that a body camera is in use, but indicates that merely wearing the camera provides sufficient notice. (p. 153)

Parker PD provides a webpage dedicated to its BWC program, which includes a link to its most recent publicly available BWC policy, last updated on November 1, 2016.

The policy 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. (Procedure §D.2, Procedure §E.1, Freedom of Information Act)

When an officer comes in contact with a “voluntary contact” the officer shall receive consent from them in order to continue recording. (§180.30.1)

However, the draft policy requires officers to state why they turned off the camera or why they failed to activate the camera. (§.20)

Officers must notify subjects that they are being recorded, but importantly, MPD does not allow subjects (in particular, crime victims or other vulnerable individuals) to affirmatively opt out of recording unless they wish to provide an anonymous tip. (§§IV.E; IV.M; V.A.8)

An officer is not required to advise a person they are being recorded unless “required by Procedure 188.30.1” (requiring officers to obtain informed consent in situations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy). (§§188.40; 188.30)

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)

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)

However, that chapter of the policy does not appear to lay out a process for people filing misconduct complaints apart from discussing general procedures for disclosure under public records laws.

Houston PD maintains a dedicated webpage about its BWC program, which includes its most recent publicly available draft BWC policy (dated August 11, 2017).

The policy does not expressly prohibit officers from tampering with or modifying BWC footage; the policy only states that recordings are “incapable of being altered or deleted” by officers and supervisors, without specifying how this is enforced. (§V.B)

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

Fairfax County PD expressly forbids officers from “manipulat[ing]…or delet[ing]” any information collected by the BWC. (§IV.F)

When officers are permitted to turn off their cameras before the contact ends (e.g., for privacy reasons), officers must state the reason on camera before turning it off. (§7-J)

The policy adds that recordings that have no “evidentiary value” will be handled by the Digital Evidence Management Unit. (§188.51)

St. Louis PD gives supervisors some discretion to allow complainants to view relevant footage, but does not require them to do so. (§Q.7.M)

Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD’s policy requires footage that is not related to a criminal charge or investigation to be deleted within 45 days. The policy requires footage classified as “Non-Citizen Involvement” (video that “does not contain an interaction with a citizen, suspect or associated with any other category. Ex: Pre shift test video, blue light and TASER spark test, accidental activation”) and “Non-Criminal Offenses” (“interaction with a citizen that is not related to a criminal charge or investigation”) to be retained for 45 days and specifies that the BWC storage system automatically deletes footage at the end of the assigned retention period. (§IV.F.19,21, §V.E-F)

The policy requires officers to record until the event has concluded. However, the policy appears to give officers some discretion to turn their cameras off, if they determine it necessary to “conserve available recording time” or if they have a “clearly articulable reason” for doing so. This vague guidance creates concerning loopholes. (General Procedure)

When officers deactivate recording prior to the completion of an event, they must justify the failure verbally on camera before deactivation. (§Guidelines for BWC Operation: Deactivation)

RPD provides a list of situations in which officers have the option to record if they believe it to be for a “legitimate law enforcement purpose.” (§IV.D)

MDPD publishes its most recently publically available BWC policy on its website under a section dedicated to BWCs. The latest available version was issued on April 20, 2016. The BWC policy is under the MDPD’s Departmental Manual at CHAPTER 33 – PART 1 – BODY-WORN CAMERA SYSTEM.

Rochester PD forbids officers from recording in “sensitive locations,” unless they are engaging in enforcement activity. (§IV.E.1.A.C)

Ferguson PD always allows officers to review their footage before filing their initial reports, even in critical and use-of-force incidents. (§§PR481.2(i), PR481.4(p), PR481.6(a)-(b))

The Saint Paul policy prohibits recording in certain sensitive cases, but does not specifically protect vulnerable individuals from being recorded without their informed consent. (§10)

In September 2015, the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) awarded a total of $20 million in grants, to 73 local and tribal law enforcement agencies, to expand the use of body-worn cameras. OJP announced additional rounds of grantees for FY 2016 and FY 2017. Grantee departments are required to establish a plan for implementing the program and create a robust training policy before purchasing the cameras. OJP expects that grantee department’s “policies and practices should at a minimum increase transparency and accessibility, provide appropriate access to information, allow for public posting of policy and procedures, and encourage community interaction and relationship building.” ↩

Officers must record “the entire duration of the event/encounter” and are prohibited from deactivating the camera prior to the point at which “the officer(s) or all citizens have departed the scene and the officer(s) have informed the dispatcher/communications or a supervisor that the event has ended.” (§VIII.C)

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

In March 2017, news outlets reported that conversations were ongoing about how to fund a body worn camera program. In 2015, Portland PD had been accepting feedback on the BWCs from the public through an online form, but it is unclear whether they are still doing so.

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.

Fresno PD prohibits officers from making personal copies of footage, but does not address tampering or unauthorized access to footage. The policy also does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§450.7)

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

The policy does provide officers discretion to not activate their camera in situations where “immediate activation of the BWC is not feasible due to an immediate risk to the safety of the officer or others.” However, the policy then requires officers to activate recording “at the first available opportunity” after the immediate threat has been addressed. (§3)

LAPD does not directly address footage retention. It only mentions that commanding officers are “responsible for . . . ensuring adherence to record retention protocols . . .” without reference to what those protocols are. (§XXVII)

The policy also allows officers to access any “police originated DME recording” before making a statement about the incident. (§.15.D)

The Buffalo Police Department (BPD) does not make its BWC policy publicly available on its website. The department started its pilot program for body-worn cameras in March 2018. While the official draft policy is not available on the BPD website or elsewhere on the internet, we obtained a draft policy (dated March 15, 2018) from local stakeholders who received it in response to public records requests.

Dallas PD requires officers to record “all contacts that are conducted within the scope of an official law enforcement capacity.” At the end of each recording, officers must verbally announce why the camera is being turned off. (§§332.04.A.1-3, B)

Seattle PD prohibits officers from intentionally recording in “sensitive areas” but does not address specific categories of vulnerable people. (§5.d-e; g)

The policy restricts access to stored footage to “authorized users” and restricts footage viewing to “legitimate law enforcement or administrative purposes.” (§10.b)

© 2019 The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights & Upturn. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

MDPD’s policy requires a minimum retention period for evidentiary data, but does not mandate a maximum period of retention. (§Addendum. 1-11)

FCPD’s new draft policy has blank spaces where retention periods will presumably be added. Until the policy is completed, we cannot be certain that unflagged footage will be deleted within a reasonable amount of time. (§XII)

However, the policy does not appear to prohibit unauthorized access, nor indicate that all access to the footage obtained from cameras is logged or audited.

The policy requires officers to note in their police reports whether a recording was reviewed prior to writing such reports. (§7.8.5.3(F))

The policy does not expressly allow individuals filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. It mentions victim and witness requests, but refers them to the Officer of the Legal Advisor and does not explain the process by which complainants would access footage. (§5)

During “serious incidents,” an uninvolved responding supervisor is responsible for taking possession of the involved officers’ BWCs, but the policy does not prohibit involved officers from watching footage in those situations. (§VIII.A.1.a-b)

When officers fail to record a required incident, they must provide a written justification in their Daily Report. Officers must also provide an explanation prior to deactivating their cameras. Notably, the policy also insists that supervisors investigate failures to record critical incidents. (§§VI.G,K; VII.6M)

The policy requires officers to continue recording until “the investigative or enforcement activity involving a member of the public has reasonably concluded.” In situations where officer or civilian safety is at immediate risk, officers are encouraged to begin recording once it is “safe to do so.” (§C.2, §C.5)

The policy describes situations and individuals who are allowed to view recordings, but does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (Review of MAV Recordings (630.70), Copies of Video Recordings (630.70))

In “critical incidents” (situations including deadly force, death, or great bodily harm) the policy notes that video access requires approval, but still does not prohibit officers from reviewing footage prior to writing reports. (§IV.J.3)

The policy mandates that cameras must be activated in the “course of performing or when present at any enforcement activity” and “police duties.” RPD’s policy is clear that there is no exception to this rule, and clearly defines what an enforcement activity is. (§IV.B.1; IV.C)

KeepGateClosedSignHome Depot

The policy also requires that officers give a “clear, articulable reason” for why they did not record or discontinued recording. This reason must be stated either on the video prior to turning off the camera, on the CADS report, or in the report submitted by the officer. (Procedure §C.5, Procedure §D.3)

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

The policy mentions the importance of individual privacy, and gives supervisors the option to allow officers to not record or to deactivate cameras in certain circumstances. (§V.D)

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)

Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BSO) implemented its first body-worn camera (BWC) program in 2016. That same year, the United States Department of Justice awarded BSO approximately $1 million to start its body-worn camera program. According to BSO, more than 700 deputies are now equipped with BWC. By the end of 2017, it is expected that all deputies will be wearing BWCs.

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)

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)

Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO) publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website under a section dedicated to body worn cameras. JSO’s most recent BWC Policy is dated July 28, 2017.

OCPD’s policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. However, OCPD will “provide copies of recordings” in “accordance with federal and state law.” (§188.71)

In addition, officers are not required to notify subjects they are being recorded, nor cease recording at a citizen’s request. They are, however, required to answer truthfully if a citizen inquires as to whether the officer is recording. (§449.5.8)

Tucson PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy online within the Tucson Police Department General Orders, found under a section called 3700 Specialized Department Equipment. The policy is “3760 BODY WORN CAMERA SYSTEM,” which was revised on February 7, 2017 and was current as of September 20, 2017.

Newark PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and access for “non-law enforcement purposes” and requires its system administrator to “establish and maintain a database” that logs access to BWC recordings. (§XI, §XII.1,3-4,17)

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

The MCPD policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage, only noting that recordings will be released under applicable public records law or with permission of the Chief of Police. (§§XI.A; XI.E)

The policy relies on existing public records law to make footage publicly accessible and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§§VII.A-B)

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.

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

Furthermore, the policy requires that requests for deletion are kept on file, and require approval before content is erased. (§F.3)

Oklahoma City’s body cameras were removed from June 2016 to November 2016, after an arbitrator ruled that the policy violated the contract between the city and the union. The parties came to an agreement in November 2016, but it is unclear what parts of the policy have changed as the new policy has not been published.

The creation of this Scorecard would have not been possible without the tireless work of our colleagues. Special thanks to Arish Ali, Alexander Antonio, Millie Bhatia, Francesca Callicotte, Gabe Colman, Claire Felten, Julia Franklin, Jason Gerson, Alex Hudgin, Logan Koepke, Isabella Leavitt, Andrew Manley, Jonathan Marcelo, Ariel Molk, Charlotte Resing, Aaron Rieke, David Robinson, Devon Schmidt, Alex Shwartzman, Ben Symons, and Jess Unger.

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)

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)

The policy does not require police to delete their BWC recordings after a certain amount of time. The retention and disposition schedule is determined by the BWC administrator and body camera vendor which notes that the retention period “shall not be less than 90 days.” The recordings may not be deleted until the “expiration of the statute of limitations” for individual requests who were the subjects of the video, or the resolution internal investigation. (§X)

The Orlando PD appears to expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, and indicates that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. However, the policy includes a concerning loophole indicating that members may erase or alter records when conducting “official law enforcement business that requires the member to use the BWC.” (§§3.4.g; 6)

The policy does not provide any protections for vulnerable individuals, and while the policy requires that officers inform individuals they are being recorded “as soon as reasonably practical,” it does not require informed consent to record. (§5.2.5)

The Orlando PD requires officers to record “any situation or incident that the member, through training and experience, believes should be audibly and/or visually preserved,” along with other listed scenarios, but only “if practical and without compromising the safety of the member or the public.” (§§3.2-3)

Officers must record the entire contact and must always announce the reason why the camera is being turned off before doing so. (§§II.B.1.e-h)

While this part of the policy is quite robust, the policy does not explicitly prohibit unauthorized access so we cannot give it a higher score.

The BWC policy for Fort Lauderdale PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. While footage may be available under public record laws, the FLPD policy does not describes any specific details about the footage request process. In addition, some BWC footage may be exempted from public record laws, which could undermine the ability for anyone to access these recordings. (§ F.1-2,4)

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

The policy does not allow complainants to view relevant footage, unless the Chief of Police or the designee approves the request. (§4)

When officers decide to turn off the BWC or fail to record required incidents, Orlando PD requires them to document and justify such failures. (§3.3)

In “critical incidents” the policy provides additional guidance about maintaining the integrity of footage immediately following the event, but does not explicitly prohibit officers from reviewing footage before writing a report or making a statement. (§X.I)

Newark PD notes that officers may deactivate recording as per civilian request where it appears that the person “will not provide information or otherwise cooperate” until the camera has been turned off, or if the requester is seeking emergency medical services. (§VIIII.F)

LAPD considers footage to be confidential department records, and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§VII)

Cleveland Police prohibits officers from recording in “[a]ny place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (§II.D)

Parker PD retains unflagged footage for a minimum of one year, and deletes unflagged footage within three years. (§3.25.10.A)

The policy allows, but does not require, officers to turn off their cameras when they encounter certain vulnerable individuals, like a victim of a sexual assault, and encourages officers to gain victims’ informed consent to record. Officers must also turn their cameras away (and only record audio) during strip searches. (§§IV.E.1.c, IV.F.2)

CSPD’s draft policy indicates that access to BWC footage is automatically audited. The draft policy prohibits officers from tampering with footage. The policy also mandates that requests for deletion are kept on record and requires approval before content is erased. (§.14, §.30)

Las Vegas Metropolitan PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, in August 2016, a department representative e-mailed us a copy of the latest policy, titled “5/210.01 Body Worn Cameras” and dated October 2015.

The policies allow officers relatively wide discretion to turn off cameras “when the purpose for activation is no longer present.” The policies do require officers to justify their decision to deactivate recording verbally on camera. (§§II.C.1-5; §§506.03 N.1-5)

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)

LVMPD prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized use and distribution — and it maintains an audit log of all access to recorded footage. (Upload and Storage Procedures; Recorded Data Access and Review)

NYPD publishes its BWC policy on its website as an appendix to a larger report responding to public and officer input on a draft of that policy. The most recent draft was issued on March 22, 2017.

The policy provides that Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD “may”— rather than must — allow individuals who are subjects of recordings (or their representatives) to view BWC footage. (§V.H.3.e)

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

While the New Jersey Department of Public Safety permits officer to show recorded individuals relevant footage related to a potential citizen complaint, the policy does not expressly allow those individuals to review all relevant footage. The policy lacks detail on how the viewing procedure works, including whether the recorded individual may be accompanied by his or her attorney. (§10.1.f)

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)

In addition, the policy requires a concrete justification for turning the camera off nor for failing to record a required event. (§3764.2)

The Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) posts several department policies online for public review online, however none of these policies specifically address the use of body worn cameras. A “Body Camera” section under “Public Information” on the website has two broken links: one for a Body Worn Camera survey and one for an informational video.

Honolulu PD had planned to launch a pilot BWC program in mid-September of 2017. The pilot program has been delayed, but the department still plans to roll out its BWC program “by the end of the year.”

Whether you require a biosecurity sign for a vehicle entrance, forestry work area or plant nursery – you can design personalised property signs that fit the exact needs of your operation. With this type of signage available from New Signs, safeguarding human life and agricultural infrastructure has never been easier. Contact us for a same-day quote today.

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.

Memphis PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a recent policy was published by local news station WREG. The policy is dated September 23, 2015.

Suffolk County PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website, and we were unable to obtain the policy from other sources. It is unclear whether there is a policy.

The policy does not appear to expressly allows individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view all relevant footage. The policy simultaneously states that recordings will be made avaialble to the public for review and notes that recordings are police records (a classification which is often used by departemtns as an exemption to freedom of information laws). (§§Policy; C.1; Regulations.4)

Once officers activate their BWC, they shall be left active until the “event has concluded.” If the officer deactivates the BWC they must verbally justify the reason for deactivation. (§IV.C)

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)

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.

LBPD launched a BWC pilot program on November 5, 2016. As of July 2017, the pilot program was ongoing, but it is unclear whether full funding will be authorized in the city’s 2018 budget.

In certain situations, Parker PD requires officers to complete an initial report before reviewing any relevant footage. (§3.25.5.F)

The policy requires recording “anytime an officer makes official contact with a citizen in the performance of his/her duties” and includes a short list of scenarios where recording is required. (Procedure §C.1,2)

Dallas PD relies on Texas public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§§332.03.A; 332.06.A, D, E)

The policy expressly prohibits footage tampering and defines a specific set of circumstances under which an employee may access footage. (§§IV.B.4, IV.I.1-5)

Raleigh Police Department’s (Raleigh PD’s) draft policy on body worn cameras is accessible via the department website. One must search “body worn cameras” on Raleigh PD’s website in order to locate the draft policy. The draft policy does not indicate an effective date. As of October 11, 2017, Raleigh PD was accepting public comments on its BWC program via email at RaleighBWC@raleighnc.gov.

LAPD hosts the most recent version of its BWC policy on its website, but it is not easy to find and doesn’t show up in the website’s search function. The policy does show up when searching “LAPD body worn camera policy” in external search engines. This version was approved by the Board of Police Commissioners on April 28, 2015.

Portland PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, but does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (Operation Protocols (630.70)(a), Media Duplication (630.70)(b))

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.

New Signs is the perfect choice when it comes to adding biosecurity signs to your property or business. Keeping everyone safe and protecting against biosecurity threats are essential components of successful farm management, and with our biosecurity signs for sale you can customise a sign for virtually any situation.

MPD provides a detailed table of footage retention periods for various categories of events. For instance, events in the category “Incident, No Arrest” shall be retained for 90 days. However, these retention periods appear to be minimum durations, and no requirement exists for footage deletion. (§V.G.H)

Shut the gate signfor sale

The policy requires officers to complete written reports “in conjunction with the BWC recordings,” but it’s unclear what this means. (§IV.12)

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)

Fayetteville PD’s BWC policy does not mention whether officers are permitted to view relevant footage before filing an initial written report or statement. Personnel are required to document in their reports when a “BWC was utilized.” (§3.24.6)

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)

Virginia Beach PD expressly prohibits officers from editing any footage. It also expressly prohibits officers from accessing a co-worker’s footage without authorization, and limits officers’ access to their own footage to specific scenarios, such as when completing their report. (§§ A.4-7; D.13-14; E.3,7)

Columbus PD prohibits personnel from tampering with and erasing footage. The policy mentions footage is stored in a system that allows limited access, but does not explicitly prohibot unauthorized access. (§III.U-W)

Even in a critical incident, like a weapon discharge or other serious use of force, the operational protocol specifies that the officer’s camera be taken by a supervisor to the district and uploaded as soon as possible — but it does not explicitly prohibit the officer from reviewing the footage in the field before that can happen. (§7-K)

Sacramento PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website under a section dedicated to body worn cameras. The policy is dated September 12, 2016.

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.3

The policy does not expressly require deletion of unflagged footage. Footage related to “Petty Misdemeanor(s)” and “Non-Evidentiary/General Recording(s)” are retained for one year. This appears to be a minimum duration, rather than a maximum. (§IV.A.9.c)

Cincinnati PD expressly allows a recorded individual to view footage during a citizen complaint investigation. This is a promising policy, although the policy lacks detail on how the viewing procedure works, including whether the recorded individual may be accompanied by his or her attorney. (§F.2.d)

A phone call to the Fort Worth PD on March 3, 2016 confirmed that both the General Order and Standard Operating Procedure currently govern the department’s use of body worn cameras. Since both documents cross-reference each other, the two documents seem to operate concurrently to govern the Fort Worth PD’s use of body cameras.

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.1 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).2 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.

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.

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. Rather, the policy relies on existing public records law to make footage available. (§§IV.I.1, 6, 7)

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)

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

Tampa PD publishes its most recent publicly available body worn camera policy on its website within its Standard Operating Procedures. The policy appears under the heading “BODY WORN RECORDING EQUIPMENT” starting on page 631 of the 1,079 page manual. The manual was last revised on September 1, 2016.

LBPD allows officers to review their footage and any footage “in which they appear or could have been heard” before filing their initial reports. For officer involved shootings or in-custody deaths, the policy indicates that approval may be required. (§7.8.5.8(1), §7.8.5.8(3))

Louisville PD publishes its most recent publicly available body worn camera policy on its website within its lengthy Standard Operating Procedures. The policy is numbered SOP 4.31, beginning on page 341 of the manual. It was last revised on August 7, 2017.

Philadelphia PD requires officers to record all contact with the general public, and the entirety of each contact. (§§7-D, 4-A, 4-B)

The policy does not address personal privacy concerns and actually encourages recording in sensitive medical situations (Recording Incidents with a Portable Video Camera)

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)

The policy prohibits tampering with or deleting BWC footage, but does not expressly prohibit unauthorized access. (§§5.3.2; 6.2,4)

While we realize the department’s policy uses the word “citizens,” we would prefer a term like “subjects” or “potential subjects” since not everyone captured by BWCs may be a citizen (e.g. lawful permanent residents or others).

MDPD’s policy later states that officers “should activate” their Body Worn Cameras prior to “engaging in any official law enforcement matter” which it goes on to list. (§VII.B)

Minneapolis PD publishes the most recent publicly available version of its BWC policy on its website. The policy can be found in the department’s online Policy & Procedure Manual as Section 4-223 on Body Worn Cameras. The most recent policy is dated July 29, 2017.

The New Jersey Department of Public Safety specifies a minimum retention period of 90 days, but does not appear to require footage deletion. (§8)

Montgomery County Police Department publishes its body worn camera policy on its website. MCPD’s most recent Body Worn Camera Policy is dated April 20th, 2016.

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.

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.

The policy encourages officers to view footage before filing an initial report to “ensure the accuracy of reports.” (§§IV.G.1; IV.I.4)

In the case of a police use-of-force investigation, officers must receive prior approval to review recorded footage of the incident. (§10.2)

While the policy prohibits officers from recording in places where “a reasonable expectation of privacy exists,” including patient care areas of healthcare facilities, the policy makes an exception for camera activation for “official law enforcement activity.” (§3.b.4)

LAPD allows (but does not require) officers to turn off their cameras when they encounter victims in sensitive circumstances, or patients in health care facilities. (§VI)

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

New Signs is a trusted name in farm signs, delivering right across Australia. From farm entrance signs to property signs that help visibly define boundaries, there's something for everyone. With the convenience of fast shipping and ordering from home, your business is sure to stand out with our custom signs, delivered right to your doorstep.

Philadelphia PD publishes its BWC policy on its website, linked from the Department’s manual of Directives. Directive 4.21 on “Body-Worn Cameras” was last updated on June 21, 2016.

Sacramento PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. The policy requires approval of the Chief of Police for any release of footage to the public and treats recordings as official records. (§A.4, §G.4)

Not only does the policy allow officers to review recordings of incidents before filing documentation — the policy requires it. Furthermore, the policy instructs officers to include in their reports a “detailed description” of the content of the video footage and “what may have been out of view” of the camera. (§IV.E.2)

Houston PD allows officers to exercise discretion to turn off their cameras with victims, and while officers and supervisors are instructed to go to great lengths to record, are required to cease recording long enough for victims of family violence to give a statement. (§11)

Mesa PD allows its officers to view footage “to assist” in completing their written reports. Even in officer-involved shooting (OIS) incidents and Internal Affairs investigations, officers may review footage before giving a statement. (§3/Review; §4/Documenting & Reporting)

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.

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

Philadelphia PD requires officers to turn off their cameras upon the request of a crime victim, and in certain sensitive locations and circumstances. (§§4-B, 4-C, 7-F)

SDPD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy online on its website under a section dedicated to Body Worn Cameras. This version, logged in section 1.49 in “Administration,” was issued and effective on July 20, 2016.

RPD supervisors have the power to allow civilians to view BWC footage in responding to “QSI’s, complaints, or other inquiries.” (§VI.7)

While the policy does not address general privacy issues, it does require officers to both inform and turn off their cameras upon the request of a crime victim when the officer interviews the victim. (§IV.C.4)

MDPD states that video will be considered in the public record and that the department it complies with the “applicable law[s]” and will release BWC data in accordance with these laws. (§§XIII.A-B)

The Chicago PD policy does expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. It incorporates by reference the state’s Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (50 ILCS 706), which requires flagged recording to be disclosed to footage subjects “in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.” (§IX)

FCPD’s policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to review footage. (§X.A,C-D)

The policy indicates that victims and witnesses are “generally” not recorded, and editorializes the reasoning for recording victims of violent domestic crimes. (§§J; K.7-8)

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)

Fresno PD provides list of situations that officers must record, when they have discretion to record, and when they are prohibited from recording. (§§450.4-5,7)

One laudable feature of MPD’s policy is that recording notices be made available in six languages — this policy is unique among major department policies we’ve seen. (§IV.G)

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage, and instead references various state, local, and federal public records law. (The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage, and instead references various state, local, and federal public records law. (§§II.J.1.d; II.R)

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

While the policy for this pilot program is not available on the department’s website, we were able to locate a draft copy of the policy online. This draft was released to the public in December 2016 as part of the public comment process taking place before the department deploys its body-worn camera pilot program, and may have changed since then.

When officers fail to record a required event, they must notify their immediate supervisor and document the reason why the event was not recorded. (§6-H)

Cincinnati PD requires officers to record “all law enforcement-related encounters and activities as defined in the procedure.” (Policy; §§A.2,4)

FCPD fails to specify who is authorized to access the information from the BWC. The policy mentions that footage should be audited, but does not indicate that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§VII.B)

Officers are encouraged to notify subjects that the camera is recording “as soon as possible,” but are under no obligation to turn off their cameras at the request of vulnerable individuals. (PROCEDURE (630.70))

MDPD relies on existing public records law to make footage available and only allows dissemination for “official purposes.” (§VII.K)

Long Beach PD expressly prohibits footage access “for other than official police department use.” However, the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited, nor does it explicitly prohibit footage tampering. (§7.8.5.2(6))

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)

Dallas PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, the policy was found within a presentation made to the City of Dallas Public Safety Committee on January 9, 2017. The policy is dated August 31, 2015.

Supervisors must ensure that officers document the fact that they viewed a BWC recording “prior to writing an arrest report.”(§V.A.1.e)

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)

Likewise, the policy requires officers to turn on the camera audible alert signal, but provides officers discretion to mute the signal for tactical situations. (§4.b.3)

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)

The PBP policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view all relevant footage. “Participants” on recordings may request that footage be preserved for use in civil or criminal proceeding against the department or officer. (§§9.2.2,4-6)

Memphis PD advises officers to avoid recording victims and witnesses in sensitive situations and locations. (§§IV.C.10; V.C)

Milwaukee PD prohibits officers from recording “in a places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.” But in other sensitive situations, including those that involve nude individuals or victims of sexual assault, Milwaukee PD gives officers full discretion over whether to record. (§747.25.D.1; §§747.25.E1-2)

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)

Philadelphia PD relies on Pennsylvania’s public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow complainants to view relevant footage. (§9-A-4)

Honolulu PD prohibits officers from recording “where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists…unless it is part of a law enforcement function.” Officers are also prohibited from recording conversations that would be “in violation of state or federal privacy laws.” (§II.D)

The policy does not explicitly prohibit unauthorized access, but does prohibit the viewing of footage for “anything other than approved departmental purposes” and, with certain limited exceptions, prohibits the copying and dissemination of BWC footage. However, the policy does not further define “approved departmental purposes.” (§IV.F.31,34, §V.A,C)

St. Louis PD prohibits officers from erasing or tampering with recordings and collected data, as well as from accessing, copying, or releasing footage for reasons “other than official law enforcement purposes.” (§§C.10-11)

The Saint Paul Police Department hosts its body-worn camera policy on the Police Department’s section of the City of Saint Paul website. The policy was revised October 2, 2017.

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)

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)

The policy does not expressly prohibit footage tampering nor does it indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.

While the policy states that commanders may restrict officers from viewing footage in some circumstances, it does not explicitly prohibit officers from viewing their footage in any cases.(§VIII.D)

Columbus PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a version of its policy was found on the City of Columbus (OH) website via an online search. This policy was effective December 30, 2016 and revised on August 15, 2017.

Officers involved in police shootings are not permitted to review recordings related to the case. In other cases (including use of force, in-custody death, or subject of criminal investigation) officers may view footage prior to submitting a report or being interviewed. (§V.E.3.1)

PGPD prohibits officers from destroying, altering, or releasing any recordings without permission of the Chief of Police. But there is no indication that unauthorized access is prohibited, nor that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§IV.10.a-b)

However, the policy does not seem to require officers to provide concrete justifications for failure to record a required event.

Cleveland Police specifies a retention period of 2 years days for “citizen encounters” and 90 days for “Alarms without citizen contact.” but no deletion requirement exists. (§VII.B.4)

The policy requires officers to continue recording until “the call for service or encounter has fully concluded” or until ordered to deactivate by a supervisor. (§II.B.2)

Mesa PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, in August 2016, a department representative e-mailed us a copy of the latest policy, titled “DPM 3.4.35 On-Officer Body Camera Program” and made effective June 7, 2016.

Officers must continue to use their BWC until the completion of the event or incident, and prior to deactivating their BWC officers are expected to record a “verbal statement” noting the end of the recording. (§VI.A.6).

Sacramento PD allows officers to view footage before completing their written reports, including “prior to giving a statement after being involved in a critical incident.” (§A.2.c, §B.4)

Fresno PD allows officer review of footage before filing their initial reports, including after critical incidents. (§450.10-11)

On the other hand, the General Order explicitly prohibits accessing, copying, editing, or releasing footage without proper authority. The policy forbids officers from showing footage to “non-sworn personnel” without the permission of the officer’s immediate superior – except to government employees directly involved in investigations related to specific footage. The order also bans officers from uploading BWC footage to any type of social media. (§§506.03 B; O.4-5)

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)

Ferguson PD instructs its officers to “be aware of and sensitive to civilians’ reasonable privacy expectations,” including in certain sensitive locations. The policy mentions the privacy and dignity of crime victims, but it does not expressly allow victims to opt-out of recording. (§§481.3(3), PR481.2(b), PR481.4(b))

Denver PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website. The web-based manual makes the policy very easy to find. The policy is Title 119.04, dated September 15, 2017.

The Research and Evaluation Section (R&E) within the administration of the RPD is responsible in administering RPD’s BWC program. R&E has various responsibilities including, but not limited to, “providing access or copies” of BWC recordings to RPD personnel. (§IX.A)

Oakland PD allows (but does not require) officers to turn off their cameras during certain sensitive situations, such as investigating a child abuse or sexual assault victim. (§§II.C.2, 4; §II.D.1.f)

The policy explicitly prohibits officers from modifying or tampering with footage as well as “any hardware/software component or part associated with the [BWC].” (§§4.31.15; 4.31.6)

The policy sets a minimum for how long Tampa PD should retain footage that is uncategorized or tagged as “non-event.” However, the policy does not indicate when Tampa PD must delete its BWC footage. (§IV.E.3)

SFPD has a webpage dedicated to the development of its BWC policy, which provides details about the department’s biweekly BWC working group meetings that occurred in 2015. The final version of the body camera policy was adopted on June 1, 2016.

The policy limits officers’ discretion to stop recording by requiring officers to continue recording required events “until the completion of the encounter or action, or until [the officers] have left the scene.” Also, when officers are involved in an incident where death or serious injury occurs or “where a Board of Inquiry may be convened e.g. an officer-involved shooting,” the policy prohibits them from stopping recording “until directed to do so” by a superior officer. (§3764.1)

Fresno PD retains footage between one year and an indefinite period of time, and does not appear to require deletion after that period. (§450.9)

SDPD does not require officers to cease recording at citizens’ request and specifies that “private citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when talking with police officers,” even when police are lawfully present in a private residence. (§V.H)

The policy provides that officers are not required to deactivate their body-worn camera solely on the basis of the request or demand of a citizen, but this section is followed by the above guidance on victim and witness statements which indicates those cases take precedence over this general guidance. (§5)

Although the policy prohibits officers from recording or allows them not to record in these situations, the policy encourages officers to record crime victim and witness statements and includes a procedure for doing so, recommending that officers develop a rapport with a victim/witness who is hesitant to be recorded. The policy provides that if the officer decides to use discretion to deactivate the camera, the officer may still record the audio of the victim/witness statement. (§9)

However, NOPD has no policy that requires officers to provide concrete justifications when they fail to record required incidents. According to the department’s Body-Worn Camera (“BWC”) Inadvertent Misuse and Non-Use policy, officers are encouraged to self-report BWC policy violations, which includes failure to record. (Body-Worn Camera (“BWC”) Inadvertent Misuse and Non-Use policy §14)

Footage is retained according to the department’s retention schedule, which appears to outline minimum retention durations rather than requirements to delete footage after the retention period. (pp. 152)

While the policy mentions the importance of personal privacy, it offers vague guidance on when officers must not record, and does not require informed consent from vulnerable individuals. (§§IV.10.e,g; V.5.d)

The policy requires officers to record the reason for deactivating recording on camera verbally and in a police report. If no police report is filed, the officer must record the reasons for deactivating the camera on the citation, Computer Aided Dispatch report, or Street Check report. (§6)

Oakland PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. All non-departmental requests are handled by existing department policy on public records request (DGO M-9.1), which is not published on the department’s website. (§VII.B)

While the policy does not explicitly prohibit unauthorized access, it does include several provisions controlling access to footage. (§§4.31.15; 4.31.5-6)

This project is led by Corrine Yu, Sakira Cook and, Leslie Paluch at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and Harlan Yu and Miranda Bogen at Upturn.

Dallas PD expressly prohibits tampering with cameras and footage, as well as unauthorized distribution of footage. However, the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§332.03.A.5-8)

Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website through the Interactive Directives Guide. The most recent policy is Departmental Directive 400-006, which was issued on June 8, 2016 and is current as of May 8, 2017.

The policy allows officers to deactivate their cameras in three specific situations, including when they “reasonably believe that doing so will not result in the loss of critical documentary information.” In these situations, the officer must note any decision to deactivate in the video recording and in the incident report; however, the officer does not explicitly require officers to document why they stopped recording. This category would have received a green classification had it included language to explicitly require justification (§IV.C.6)

The policy requires officers to document in writing a justification for failing to activate their BWCs or failing to complete a recording of a situation required by the policy. (§4.31.5)

When officers fail to record required incidents, PGPD requires them to document and justify such failures. (§§IV.4; IV.14)

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)

SFPD relies on existing public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§III.I.3.a)

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)

Members of the Professional Standards Section of Rochester PD may grant civilians access to view BWC recordings in reference to “complaints against department personnel.” (§V.B.1)

Officers can, but are not required to, deactivate their cameras in circumstances of a sensitive or private nature. (§C.1)

Rochester PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy online on the Body Worn Camera Project section of its website. The most recent policy is the RPD BWC Manual, which was issued on August 31, 2017.

Omaha PD notes that media will be retained for a period of two years, but this appears to be a minimum duration with no requirement to delete footage. (§§VIII.A-B)

Honolulu PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage, and requires public requests for recordings to be approved by the Office of the Chief of Police. The policy also refers to “federal, state, and local statutes and departmental policy” to govern the release of recordings. (§VI.B)

MDPD expressly forbids footage tampering and unauthorized access. Employees are forbidden from “access[ing], review[ing], [or] copy[ing]” any footage from body worn cameras. (§VIII.E-I)

The policy states that recordings should generally continue until an incident has concluded, and requires officers to provide concrete justification if they fail to activate their camera (§450.4,8).

Neither document explicitly requires officers to notify subjects that the camera is recording or to obtain informed consent from vulnerable individuals, such as victims of sex crimes, before recording interactions.

For requesters who are not recorded subjects, the policy relies on existing public records law to make footage available. Oddly, the policy contains an exception for OVI (Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence) incidents, which allows the prosecutor to withhold footage. (§§E.3-4)

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

Orlando PD prohibits officers from recording “in places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists” unless “the BWC is being used as part of an official law enforcement incident” or the officer is “conducting official law enforcement business that requires the member to use the BWC.” (§3.4)

The policy does not require officers to gain informed consent from victims or witnesses prior to recording. However, in some circumstances, the policy either requires officers to comply with a victim or witness’ request to not to be recorded or allows the officer to use his or her discretion not to record. (§§8; 9)

The Saint Paul policy explicitly allows officers to access BWC footage while preparing a report or for “any legitimate law enforcement purpose.” The policy requires an officer who is involved in a critical incident to meet with the “investigative entity” before he or she is permitted to view footage of that incident. (§§20, 24)

Parker PD requires officers to notify subjects that the camera is recording. In many circumstances, including interactions with apparent crime victims, officers must offer subjects the option to stop the recording. (§§3.25.4.H-L)

Before prematurely stopping a recording, officers must record a justification on camera before turning it off. (§§747.25.D.3)

The policy allows officers to view footage while completing their reports. The policy does not expressly require an initial written report or statement before any relevant footage is reviewed. (§§3764.1-2)

Officers may review footage before writing their reports for all incidents, except “during investigations involving the use of deadly force or in an in-custody death, where the officer was neither a witness nor directly involved in the incident.” (Operation Protocols (630.70)(c))

Fresno PD publishes its BWC policy on its website as part of its policy manual, located by searching the City of Fresno website. The most recent publicly available policy (Policy 450) was made effective on February 1, 2017.

The policy prohibits unauthorized copying and transmission of footage, but does not explicitly prohibit unauthorized access to BWC footage. The policy seems to allow any officer to access any BWC recording at any time for any reason. (§§VII.A, C, and D)

Prince George’s County PD (PGPD) does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a version of its policy was found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. This policy was effective April 18, 2015.

San Bernardino PD allows officers to review their own camera footage. (§449.5.16(b)) Officers are allowed to review footage before writing reports “when necessary to ensure accuracy” and are required to review footage prior to providing formal testimony. (§449.5.16(a))

St. Louis PD has a section on its website devoted to it body worn camera program, linked to clearly from the homepage. The page links to the draft policy, which appears to have been published or updated on March 9, 2016 (according to document metadata).

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)

While the policy states that the footage is regularly audited by its secure “cloud based solution” the policy does not expressly state that access to recorded footage will be logged. (§X.B)

The policy relies on Arizona’s public records law to make footage available and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. Under the policy, citizens can only access recordings through a public records request or if access is “approved by a supervisor.” The policy does not provide any criteria for supervisors to consider in determining whether or not to approve footage for public disclosure. (§§3764.3; 3765.3)

FCPD’s policy places no limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g. facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.

But, when officers stop recording or fail to record a required incident, there is no requirement to provide a concrete justification.

Boston PD prohibits officers who do not wear cameras from accessing footage without supervisor permission, but does not seem to apply the same restriction to officers with cameras. (§4.4)

Member of the public — which would presumably include victims — may request that officers deactivate their cameras for privacy reasons. Upon receiving such a request, officers “may” deactivate — which allows officers to turn their cameras off, but doesn’t require them to do so. The policy would be stronger if it said that officers “must” deactivate in such situations. (§9.b)

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)

The policy allows officers to review their own camera footage before writing reports and encourages officers to use the footage “to ensure accuracy” when writing reports.

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)

SLCPD prohibits recording “where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists,” and gives officers discretion to turn off recording at the request of victims, witnesses, and community members “who wish to report or discuss criminal activity.” (p. 151-52)

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)

The policy permits officers to review footage when completing their written reports in most cases, but requires officers to provide a statement first after “Significant Officer Involved incidents.” (§V.H.2.d-e)

The policy mentions that the Planning and Research department is responsible for providing copies of audit trails for recordings when requested, but the language is not sufficiently clear to convince us that the audit log relates to access to footage rather than simply recording metadata and chain of custody information. Were the policy to clarify this, the department would receive a green in this category. (§U.3)

The policy requires footage be retained in accordance with the Florida General Records Schedule GS2 for Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities and District Medical Examiners. Item #224 in the General Retentions Schedule requires audio and visual recordings to be maintained for a minimum of 90 days. While the General Retentions Schedule is unclear on whether unflagged footage must be deleted, the Jacksonville SO policy indicates that “the software is programmed to perform automated purges to delete recordings set to expire as provided in this directive.” (§§II.M.3; II.S)

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

The policy explicitly states that the personnel viewing BWC recordings must “manually document” their information in the “notes field in the BWC application” and indicates that access is logged automatically. (§.10.G, §.15.C)

We had originally scored this policy as green. However, it was pointed out to us that the language may only apply to the cameras themselves, and could still allow broad biometric searches of stored body camera footage. Until we get clarity from the Boston PD about this, we’ve downgraded their score to yellow.

MPD maintains a dedicated webpage about its BWC program. Not only does the page provide MPD’s most recent publicly available BWC policy (dated March 11, 2016), it also provides program context, relevant documents, answers to frequently asked questions, and even sample BWC footage.

For non-“‘live’-camera” images, the policy requires officers to establish a “reasonable suspicion” that a biometric search would identify a suspect. However, reasonable suspicion is a low standard that does not meet our requirement for “sharply limiting” the use of biometric technologies. (12.045-PRO-1)

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

The policy does not require officers to notify subjects that they are being recorded, nor does the policy require officers to obtain informed consent from victims or other vulnerable individuals prior to recording. The policy permits but does not require an officer to comply with a victim’s request to not be recorded and as such allows officers to continue recording despite a victim’s request not to record. (§3764.1)

The New Jersey Department of Public Safety allows officers to view footage before completing their written reports. (§10.1.d)

Notably, the policy requires that the NPD publicize the deployment of the BWC program on its website and create opportunities for public comment.

Among other factors that we considered including in this scorecard: prohibit the recording of First Amendment protected activities; prohibit the use of cameras not owned by the department; the quality of community input during the department’s policymaking process; and factors related to officer discipline and training. We may include one or more of these factors in future versions of the scorecard. ↩

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.

Virginia Beach PD does not place any limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to search footage. However, the policy does prohibit officers from identifying any civilians within the footage who were not engaged in illegal activity and from compiling a database comprised of the individuals in the videos. (§ §D.9; D.12)

While officers are not required to inform citizens they are being recorded, officers are encouraged to as a means to “de-escalate potential conflicts.” (§V.I.1.d)

SLCPD prohibits unauthorized copying of footage — but it does not expressly prohibit footage tampering (i.e., modification and deletion). (p. 153, Copies of Video)

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

If officers fail to record a required event, they must document the reason in either their report or in the CAD system. Officers must also document the reason for any deactivation, both aloud on camera and either in their report or the CAD system. (§§IV.E.1.d; IV.F.3; IV.G.2)

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. Supervisors are only required to categorize any footage as “associated with any citizen complaint” prior to the end of the officer’s shift. (§3.24.3.D)

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

Milwaukee PD requires officers to record “all investigative or enforcement contacts” through the completion of the event. (§§747.25.C.2.d, g)

Officers assigned a BWC are required to activate their cameras immediately after being dispatched, unless there is an “imminent threat to the member’s safety.” (§IV.A.2)

DPD’s policy provides details about how to weigh required recording circumstances with people’s reasonable expectations of privacy. (§304.6-3.2)

DPD specifies a retention period for unflagged of 90 days, but does not appear to require footage deletion after that period. (§304.6-8)

There appear to be two policy documents governing Fort Worth PD’s use of BWCs, and Fort Worth PD does not publish either document on its website. We located both documents on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. One document is titled “Officer-Worn Digital Recording Devices Standard Operating Procedure” (Standard Operating Procedure) and dated March 7, 2014. The other document is Fort Worth PD’s General Orders, which contain a General Order on Officer-Worn Digital Recording Devices (General Order). The Order mainly restates the Standard Operating Procedure, but also includes additional requirements. The Fort Worth Police Department General Orders includes a section (506.03) on “Officer-Worn Digital Recording Devices” but the only content in that section is the word “RESTRICTED.”

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.

RPD’s policy provides retention periods for unflagged footage in Appendix A: BWC Categories and Retention Schedule of their BWC Manual. (§§II.H; II.X)

The policy prohibits officers from attempting to “erase, edit, or otherwise alter any data captured by a BWC or MVR,” but does not prohibit unauthorized access nor indicate that access to footage will be logged or audited. (§Collection, Storage and Management of MVR and BWC Data: Officer Review of Recordings)

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.

While the policy does prohibit officers from tampering with BWC hardware and software, the policy does not expressly prohibit officers from tampering with footage. (§3)

The policy explicitly forbids officers from deactivating the camera in anticipation of using force or while engaging in a confrontational citizen contact. (§IV.C.9)

The policy does not require officers to provide concrete justification for failing to record events, except when the camera is deactivated because of “a battery, tape, or memory storage device change.” (Recording Incidents with a Portable Video Camera)

In addition, the policy requires concrete justification for turning the camera off or for failing to record a required event. (§B.7)

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

If officers deactivate their cameras before the conclusion of an incident, they must either seek supervisory approval or document their reasoning on camera. (§31)

The policy relies on Florida’s Public Records law for footage access and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. (§6.4.8.4-5)

Chicago PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy online on its Department Directives System. The most recent policy is Special Order S03-14, which was issued on June 9, 2017.

The policy requires Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD’s Chief of Police to release BWC footage to the public when doing so complies with state and federal law and “is in the best interest of public safety.” (§IV.A.2)

Milwaukee PD specifies various “recording management categories” and the minimum retention durations for each category. Unflagged footage is to be preserved for 130 days, but it is not clear whether this is a minimum or maximum period. (§747.25.G.2)

Quality ideas, backed by years of experience, make our made-to-order signs an excellent choice for any agricultural location. With our range, you'll have long-lasting signage options which are sure to get noticed. Browse our extensive range of options today.

Cincinnati publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy in its online Police Department Procedures Manual. The most recent policy is Procedure 12.540, dated April 27, 2017.

The policy allows officers to view relevant footage before filing a report or statement, but explains that recordings are not a replacement or substitution for written reports. (§§4.31.6; 4.31.14)

While the policy clearly states that BWC recordings must continue until the completion of an event and requires officers to provide concrete justification for deactivating during required events, the policy does not appear to require concrete justification for failure to record an event. (§§6.4.2.2.g; 6.4.3.1.d)

In May 2017, the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) had begun conducting a pilot program regarding the use of body worn cameras, and some details of the policy have been covered in the media. Cameras were initially placed on two officers in the Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) enforcement team. As of July 2017, SCPD planned to place cameras on all 10 members of the Safe-T team within the Highway Patrol Bureau.

Fort Lauderdale PD requires officers to activate cameras “if practical and without compromising the safety of the participants or others, prior to engaging in law enforcement activity with the public.” In addition, the Fort Lauderdale PD provides officers with a clear list of situations that must be recorded and when not to record. (§ E, E.1, E.5)

Philadelphia PD specifies a minimum retention period of 30 days for unflagged footage. The policy does not clearly indicate when unflagged footage must be deleted. (§§4-D, 9-A-1)

OCPD assigns the Digital Evidence Management Unit to “maintain recordings” among other things, but the policy does not prohibit unauthorized access or note that access will be logged. The policy assigns responsibility for “providing audit information” to the Body-Worn Camera Administrator but does not note what is audited in the system. (§§188.60; 188.15)

The policy also specifies that audio, images and media shall not be copied, released, or disseminated without express consent from the Chief of Police. (§3.b.2)

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

The NYPD policy states that the default retention period is one year, after which footage is deleted.. (§Operational Considerations)

St. Louis PD allows officers to view footage before completing their written reports and providing testimony. The policy also somewhat strangely editorializes the benefit of camera footage over human recollection. (§§Q.1-5)

If you’re looking for farm signage that is durable, long-lasting and affordable, then look no further than New Signs. We offer a large selection of farm signs Australia-wide – from farm gate signage to metal farm signs....

Mobile cameras operated by law enforcement may play a valuable role in the present and future of policing. Whether they’re worn by an officer or mounted on police equipment, cameras could help provide transparency into law enforcement practices, by providing first-hand evidence of public interactions.

The policy does not require informed consent from vulnerable individuals, nor does it require officers to inform citizens that they are being recorded. (§.06.A)

Officers are encouraged to record until “the entire incident has been brought to completion.” (Recording Incidents with a Portable Video Camera)

OCPD’s policy explicitly states when the cameras should not be activated, including for reasons of privacy, and officers are not permitted to knowingly record victims. (§188.32)

MPD’s policy allows officers to view relevant footage before filing an initial written report or statement, including in critical incidents. (§§6.4.4; 6.4.7.2.b)

LBPD’s policy mentions the importance of personal privacy concerns, but maintains that civilians have no reasonable expectation of privacy whenever talking to an officer “during the scope of an officer’s official duties.” (§7.8.5.5(5), §7.8.5.3(C))

Oakland PD publishes the most recent publicly available version of its BWC policy on its website, linked from its Departmental Policies and Procedures page. The policy is Departmental General Order I-15.1, effective July 16, 2015.

While the BWC policy itself is short on details, a LVMPD webpage4 provides specific details about the footage request process. Individuals can make a request to inspect footage5 either in writing, in person or over the phone. LVMPD classifies requestors into one of three categories — media, involved citizens, or general public — each with slightly different access procedures. For involved citizens, LVMPD will respond to a request within 5 days to arrange an appointment to inspect the footage at LVMPD Headquarters. An involved citizen may also request a copy of the footage, and could be charged a fee if redactions are necessary.

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

While we know that deputies are wearing body cameras in the neighborhoods of Broward County, we haven’t been able to locate a public version of the department’s policy.

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

The Standard Operating Procedure expressly forbids officers and other individuals from viewing footage without “need-to-know” authorization. (§III.F)

San Jose PD publishes its most recent publicly available body worn camera policy on its website’s homepage. San Jose PD welcomes public comment on the department’s BWC program, directing the public to a public opinion survey and an additional follow up survey for those who have made contact with an officer wearing a body worn camera. Additionally, the policy is translated into English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The website also has a Frequently Asked Questions page on the policy.

MPD expressly allows a recorded individual to request to view footage. The policy also, commendably, clearly lay out the process of requesting to view relevant footage, and is one of the few policies we have seen that does so. (§V.F)

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

Raleigh PD allows officers to view relevant footage before filing an initial written report or statement. (§Collection, Storage and Management of MVR and BWC Data: Officer Review of Recordings)

The Detroit Police Department does not appear to publish its policy on its website, but what appears to be a draft copy of the policy was found on the City of Detroit website by searching on Google. The policy is dated “2016” but document metadata indicates it was most recently updated on April 13, 2017.

The policy references mentions privacy, but does not require officers to obtain informed consent from video subjects, including victims and witnesses. (§§450.4;6-7)

MDPD requires officers to “make every effort” to record every encounter where “a law enforcement officer, acting in an official capacity, comes into contact with the general public.”(§§V.E; V.H)

SFPD proactively prohibits officers from recording three categories of sensitive victims, including sexual assault and child abuse victims. (§III.D)

Officers are required to provide justifications whenever they failed to record, or when recordings are interrupted. (§3/Use Guidelines)

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

When an officer fails to record a required event, the policy indicates that the incident “shall be reviewed at the divisional level,” but does not require officers to provide concrete justifications for failing to record. (§7.8.5.11)

Detroit PD’s policy describes when officers must record, and requires officers to provide concrete justifications both when officers fail to record and when recordings are interrupted or cameras are deactivated (§304.6-3.1-2)

Officers are required to provide justifications verbally on camera before deactivating recording prior to the completion of an event. If an officer fails to record a required event, the officer must justify this failure after the fact. (§§E.3,6)

New Signs combines the latest in signage production technology, fantastic customer service, and the ease and convenience of an online store...

Portland PD publishes its most recent publicly available body worn camera policy on its website, but it is not easy to find and doesn’t show up in the website’s search function. The policy is titled “Mobile Audio Video Procedure” and is filed under the heading “Field Operations” within the Portland PD Directives Manual, and was current as of October 17, 2017.

Seattle PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage, and the policy refers to a different part of the SPD manual to address questions of video release. (POL-2 §1)

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)

Please closethe GateSticker

SFPD requires officers to file initial statements before reviewing BWC for three categories of critical incidents: after an “officer-involved shooting,” after an “in-custody death,” and in a “criminal matter.” The latter category (“criminal matter”) is not clearly defined in the policy. Is an incident a criminal matter only after charges are filed? Does the policy apply to all criminal matters, or only those where the officer is the subject of the investigation?

Cleveland Police does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a version of its policy was found on the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team website. This policy, revised on December 16, 2016, was submitted to the Northern District Court of Ohio on December 19, 2016, pursuant to a consent decree between the Cleveland Police and the Department of Justice. On January 17, 2017, the policy was approved by the court, with the exception of Section I-G regarding officer access to BWC footage, Section VII-G regarding public access to BWC footage, and Section V regarding the use of BWCs while working for a private employer. As of September 25, 2017, only one other court document had been filed relating to the department’s BWC policy and it concerned only Section V. So presumably, Section I-G and VII-G are still in the process of being updated.

Tulsa Police Department does not publish its most up-to-date BWC policy on its website, but we obtained a copy of the policy from a local reporter, which was made effective on October 28, 2016. An earlier version of the mobile video recording policy from 2012, which does not cover BWCs, is available on the department website as part of the department’s Policies and Procedures Manual.

San Bernardino PD prohibits officers from tampering with BWC hardware and software and from accessing, copying, or releasing footage for “other than official law enforcement use” (449.5.2 (f)), but does not appear to prohibit unauthorized access to, tampering or deletion of footage. (§449.5.2(c))

The “Response to Resistance – Investigative Process for Use of Force Incidents Involving Serious Injury or Death” does not add any additional details about whether officers may view footage prior to making a statement following a serious incident.

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.

Officers must “record a brief verbal explanation for the deactivation” of their BWC before turning off the device. (§VI.E).

The policy notes that victim and witness interviews must be recorded, though they may, but are not required to, deactivate recording upon request of the interviewee. (§10)

Portland PD does not address personal privacy concerns and encourages its officers to record statements from victims and witnesses. (Members’ Responsibilities (630.70)(d))

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)

Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office prohibits officers from recording certain sensitive situations, including legally-privileged communications of sexual assault and domestic violence victims. (§II.D)

MDPD does not expressly allow recorded individuals to view footage when filing complaints. If citizens want to review the footage, the supervisor will “explain the procedure” necessary to obtain a copy of the footage, which it does not further spell out. (§VIII.C)

With help from our experienced team, you can create custom signs to meet the unique needs of your farm and other agricultural operations. Our selection includes identification markers, bright and colourful signs to attract attention, and even large banners that can be customised with images, logos, slogans and more.

Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) publishes its BWC policy on its website. One must search “body worn cameras” on LBPD’s website in order to locate the policy. The latest available version was last revised June 2, 2016.

We are also grateful to the many organizations that provided valuable feedback on this report, especially the signatories of the Civil Rights Principles on Body Worn Cameras.

San Antonio PD BWC policy places no limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g. facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.

MCPD allows officers to view their recordings while completing their reports as well as before court appearances. (§IX.A.2)

Seattle PD expressly prohibits unauthorized copying of footage, but does not address other forms of footage tampering or unauthorized access. The policy vaguely states that “[d]epartment policy” governs the uses of footage, but does not clearly identify which specific policies apply. (POL-2 §§1-2)

The policy mentions the importance of personal privacy, but offers vague guidance on when not to record. The policy prohibits recording “in places privacy would be expected” and only provides as examples “locker/dressing rooms or restrooms.” The policy also provides an exception for recording “in the official performance of a law enforcement function.” (§3764.3)

However, the policy does not receive a green because it gives officers significant discretion to not record when it would be “impractical” — which goes beyond more limited exceptions, such as situations where activating a camera would compromise officer safety.

The NYPD policy lists a specific set of actions that officers must record (§3). Officers are given the discretion to record other additional activities (§4), as long as those activities are not on the prohibited recordings list (§10).

The policy also lists monthly usage audits, video storage audits, viewing audits, and other audits under as a BWC System Administrator Responsibility. (§8.e)

The policy does not expressly allow individuals filing a complaint to review footage. Footage may be released in accordance with existing record release policies and statutes. (§VII.B)

The Fort Worth PD Standard Operating Procedure suggests that tampering with BWC recordings “may constitute a criminal offense and/or an administrative violation” but does not expressly prohibit tampering with footage. (“Legal Aspects”)

However, the policy does not expressly protect victims and witnesses from being recorded without their informed consent. (§III.H-I)

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)

If an officer fails to record a required event, the officer must “document the issue” in the incident report and notify his or her supervisor. Before stopping a recording, officers must record a reason on camera before turning it off. (§§II.B.7-8)

The Fort Worth PD Standard Operating Procedure does not prohibit officers from viewing footage prior to writing their incident reports, and the General Order explicitly permits officers to view the footage to assist with writing their reports. (§506.03.S)

Any request for deactivation must be “self-initiated” by the civilian. The policy expressly prohibits officers from asking whether a person would prefer that the officer deactivate the BWC or suggesting that the BWC should be deactivated. (§6.1)

Officers must record the entire event, and if they stop recording prematurely, they must document the reason in their report. (§5)

Newark PD prohibits officers from recording “where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy…unless enforcement action is required.” The policy specifically prohibits recording in school or youth facilities, places of worship, patient care areas, or during courtroom proceedings in certain circumstances. (§VIII.E)

Raleigh PD expressly allows a recorded individual to request to view footage “in certain circumstances.” The policy also, commendably, clearly lay out the process of requesting to view relevant footage, and is one of the few policies we have seen that does so. (§Audio/Video Recording Media Disclosure and Release)

Mesa PD does not appear to require the deletion of unflagged footage. (§4/Storage/ Evidentiary Guidelines; §4/Retention & Public Release)

The policy expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, and while Tucson’s policy for dashcams specifically indicates that “Each attempt to access the audio-video file is logged and tracked,” the body worn camera policy does not indicate that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§3764.3)

But police-operated cameras are no substitute for broader reforms of policing practices. In fact, cameras could be used to intensify disproportionate surveillance and enforcement in heavily policed communities of color. Without 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.

However, the policy does not specifically protect vulnerable individuals or victims. While subjects of recordings can expressly request to opt-out of recordings, the policy gives officers the discretion whether or not to honor that request. Furthermore, officers are not required to notify individuals that they are being recorded. (§§E.2.c; E.4)

In addition, the policy requires officers to provide concrete justifications for intentionally deactivating their BWC during events that officers are required to record. (§V.I.1-7.c,e)

However, the policy does suggest officers will be subject to discipline for repeatedly failing to activate their cameras according to the policy (§I.I)

LASD specifies a minimum retention period of 25 months and does not appear to require footage deletion. (Retention of Recordings, Unit Commander Responsibilities)

While the policy mentions the importance of personal privacy, it offers vague guidance on when officers must not record. (§.06.F, I)

Parker PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, and indicates that access to recorded footage will be logged and audited. (§§3.25.5.G.4; 3.25.5.G.3; 3.25.6; 3.25.7.F-G)

The policy states that non-evidentiary and non-administrative videos will be “expunged from [the] system” 30 days after being recorded. (Retention)

CSPD’s draft policy does not clearly describe when an officer must record or limit an officer’s discretion on when to record. This policy offers guidance recommendations on when to record, and lays out clear situations on when an officer may not record, however, it does not clearly state when an officer must record. (§§.04; .20)

The policy indicates that access to recorded footage will be audited by a system administrator for unauthorized access. (§IV.D)

But while officers must inform subjects that they are being recorded, the policy does not expressly allow subjects to opt out of recording. (§IV.C.5)

According to local news outlets, about 2,000 LASD deputies have bought BWCs for themselves, but the department itself continues to lack an updated, official BWC policy.

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.

Officers must record all events related to the “contact, stop, detention, interview and arrest of suspected violators.” (§.03.A)

When officers fail to record a required event, they must “report the incident to their supervisor,” who must then investigate and document the failure. (Policy; §§A.1.b; F.1.d)

The policy does provide some exceptions to footage that must be released under Freedom of Information requests, but notes that these are not categorical exceptions. (§XIII.C)

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.

The policy also indicates that access to recorded footage will be audited by a system administrator for unauthorized access. (Procedure §A.11)

Seattle PD allows officers to view recorded footage for a wide range of purposes, including for investigations. (POL-2 §3)

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. (§IV.10.c)

However, officers are not required to deactivate recording victims or witnesses, but are given discretion to turn off their cameras if requested. (§Guidelines for BWC Operation: Deactivation)

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)

Seattle PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website. While the policy is found within the Seattle Police Department Manual, the web-based manual makes the BWC policy reasonably easy to find. The policy is Title 16.090, effective July 19, 2017.

Milwaukee PD relies on existing public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§§747.25.J.4-6)

Phoenix PD’s most recent publicly available BWC policy is contained with the department’s Operations Orders which are readily available on the department website. The policy is Operations Order 4.49 and is dated May 2017.

CSPD’s draft policy allows officers to view their own recording prior to documenting an event and does not require that an officer make a written record or statement of an event before viewing footage. In limited circumstances, an officer is prohibited from accessing their own recording and must gain approval to view the recording. (§.40)

Fayetteville PD publishes its BWC policy on its website, linked from the department’s Written Directives and Operating Procedures Guide. Operating Procedure 3.24, on “Body Camera Systems” covers this. However, the policy is quite difficult to find: once one finds “Policies and Procedures,” visitors are taken to a page with had a document titled “WD and OP Interactive Directives Guide,” unusual acronyms with no indication this document will contain the body worn camera policy. The procedure was last updated on June 26, 2016 and has been effective since December 30, 2016.

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

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

The policy does offer officers specific guidance on when not to record. (§449.5.10) However, when officers fail to record a required incident, there is no requirement to provide a concrete justification.

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.”

The policy notes that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when interacting with police officers, but the policy does include some privacy safeguards for victims, witnesses, patients, and individuals involved in peaceful demonstrations. Officers are not required to notify citizens they are being recorded except in some limited circumstances, nor are they required to stop recording “solely at the demand of a citizen.”

RPD’s policy specifies a list of scenarios in which officers are prohibited from recording. While the policy protects individuals in a “locker room or bathroom,” there is no mention of vulnerable individuals such as victims of sex crimes. (§IV.F.4.8)

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)

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)

The policy does not require the department to delete unflagged footage. The policy states that BWC footage will be retained “for a period of time,” but does not define that period nor require deletion at the end of that period. (§1)

In addition, officers must terminate a recording “when recording at a hospital would compromise patient confidentiality.” (§III.E.3)

LAPD “encourages” officers to notify subjects that they are being recorded, but officers do not need to obtain consent. (§IX)

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.

For privacy reasons, officers are also instructed to take special precautions when recording victims of intrafamily incidents, and medical patients. (§§V.A.8-9)

MDPD allows victims to opt out of recording if they are “in locations where [they] have a reasonable expectation of privacy,” but only at the officer’s discretion. The policy does not explicitly require informed consent of vulnerable individuals to record. (§VII.H)

In addition, Portland PD allows officers to turn on their cameras “any time he/she believes its use would be appropriate and/or valuable to document an incident.” (Required Activation of MAV (630.70))

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.

Boston PD limits the use of facial recognition technologies together with cameras, mandating that cameras will not include any “technological enhancements.” This policy is unique among the major department policies we’ve reviewed. (§1)

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

The policy requires officers to make a reasonable effort to advise people that they are being recorded, but only at times when the officer is required to record. The policy also provides an exception for when the officer has reason to believe that advising that the camera is on will endanger the officer or another person, or will interfere with the investigation. The policy does not require officers to advise or obtain consent to record when the officer is in a public place or when the officer is lawfully present in a location where there is an expectation of privacy, unless the officer is performing a consent-based search of a residence. (§7)

Please closethe gatein Spanish

The policy states that the storage software currently used by the DPD documents footage viewing in an online audit trail.(§6.f)

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.

The BWC policy for Fort Lauderdale PD specifies a minimum retention period that is at least one year for all footage. The policy does not expressly require footage deletion. (§F.5)

VBPD’s policy mandates that officers activate their BWC “as soon as practical, during any encounter that becomes adversarial or in any situation where documenting the event will contain administrative or evidentiary value (best interest of the agency/officer).” (Procedure §C.3)

The policy does not require officers to inform subjects that the camera is recording in all cases. Officers are required to answer truthfully when specifically asked whether they are recording an encounter. (§§4.1-4)

The policy also requires that officers give a “clear, articulable reason” for why they did not record or discontinued recording. This reason must be stated either on the video prior to turning off the camera, on the CADS report, or in the report submitted by the officer. (Procedure §C.5, Procedure §D.3)

We define a department as a “major city department” if it’s a member of the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association. There are 69 member departments in the Association, including the 50 most populous cities in the United States. ↩

The policy encourages officers to justify any decision to deactivate the BWC and requires officers to document any failure to activate for safety reasons. However, the policy does not require justification for any failure to record required incidents. (§§C.2,7; D.2)

Officers can choose to turn off their BWC when dealing with individuals experiencing “matters of a personal nature,” but these matters are not defined. (§VII.I)

Honolulu PD retains BWC footage for 13 months, with limited exceptions that do not include unflagged footage. Honolulu PD also permits, but does not require, that the department’s BWC administrator delete recordings “in accordance with departmental retention schedules and policies.” (§§II.F.1-2,4)

The Saint Paul Police Department policy clearly outlines when an officer must record, and when an officer must not record. (§10)

Sacramento PD expressly prohibits employees from erasing, altering, or tampering with BWC recordings, and states that employees may not use recordings for personal use or distribute footage. (§G.2, §B.5)

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)

All farm signs can be shipped Australia Wide and we can provide same-day quotes for all farm sign orders so that you can receive your order as soon as possible.

The policy does not expressly allow individuals filing a complaint to review footage. Footage may be released in accordance with state public records laws. (§§II.C; III.X)

The policy requires officers to receive prior approval to view their own footage in circumstances involving use of force and other critical incidents. However, in both circumstances, the policy does not prohibit officers from viewing footage once approval is granted, and the policy is silent as to whether an officer must file a report or statement before viewing that footage. (§4.e)

Tampa PD’s policy provides a clear list of situations that must be recorded. Officers must provide written explanations when they fail to record an incident that the policy requires to be recorded. (§§IV.C.2-3)

Columbus PD classifies footage into three categories; only the “permanent” category includes explicit information about how long footage in that category must be retained. The policy does not require the deletion of any footage. (§II.A)

Tampa PD’s policy allows officers to not immediately record an incident if “doing so . . . place[s] them or others in danger.” However, in these situations, the policy requires the officer to begin recording as soon as possible after “the immediate threat has been addressed.” (§IV.C.5)

Honolulu PD publishes its BWC policy on its website, under a section dedicated to departmental policies. The latest available version was issued on March 29, 2017.

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

Fort Lauderdale PD prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized use and distribution—and it maintains an audit log of all access to recorded footage. (§§E.9.e,i; G.1.g.b)

The policy gives officers discretion to, but does not require them to, deactivate cameras when talking to victims. (§3.B.5)

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)

Dallas PD prohibits officers from recording where “individuals have an expectation of privacy.” The policy does not specifically protect vulnerable classes of individuals, and even in hospitals and doctors’ offices, only limited restrictions on recording exist. (§§332.05.A, B, E)

SLCPD makes its BWC policy readily available to the public on its website as a part of the Salt Lake City Police Department Policies and Procedures Manual, beginning on page 151, titled “III-535 BODY WORN CAMERAS.” The policy was current as of September 26, 2017.

The policy gives officers discretion (but does not require them) to discontinue recording when a victim requests it. (§3/Use Guidelines)

The policy expressly prohibits footage tampering, deletion, and misuse, but does not appear to prohibit unauthorized access to footage. While the policy indicates a system administrator will maintain a log of footage copying, deletion and release, it does not indicate that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. The policy does note that footage copied for evidence “shall be treated according to normal evidentiary procedure.” (§§Regulations.4-7,12; C.2)

The policy appears to allow officers to turn off cameras when a victim requests that the officer stop recording. (§§3.a.2; 4.d.1-2)

Officers are not required to deactivate recording victims or witnesses, but are given discretion to turn off their cameras if requested. Officers are not required to obtain consent to record in any situation. (§§II.B.3-5)

The policy does not require officers to obtain informed consent prior to recording in any circumstance. However, NJDPS officers are permitted, but not required, to deactivate BWCs upon the request of a civilian. When deciding whether to honor a request to deactivate a BWC, the policy encourages NJDPS officers to “consider the privacy and safety interests of the person requesting de-activation” as well as “whether the encounter is occurring in the person’s residence.” The officer is authorized to turn off the recording “under circumstances where it reasonably appears that the person will not provide information or otherwise cooperate with the officer unless that request is respected.” (§§6.1-2)

Officers are encouraged to use videos to aid in completing reports, and are allowed to review relevant footage in use of force incidents before writing a report or completing an interview. (p. 153, Review of Body Worn Camera Media)

The Virginia Beach Police Department’s (VBPD’s) draft policy on body worn cameras is accessible via the department website. One must search “body worn cameras” on VBPD’s website in order to locate the policy. VBPD’s most recent draft BWC policy is from September 23, 2016. As of September 29, 2017, VBPD was accepting public feedback on the BWC program via a form published on the VBPD website.

However, the policy does not explicitly require informed consent of vulnerable individuals to record. In fact, the policy encourages officers record in some instances that may be considered sensitive, such as domestic abuse or sex crimes. (§449.5.09(i))

SLCPD lists a set of situations in which “the body camera is utilized.” In order to ensure these events are recorded, the policy requires officers to activate their cameras for any public interactions and calls for service with some limited exceptions. (pp. 151-152)

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)

Farm signage is an excellent choice for any farm, property or rural setting. These are crafted from robust and durable metal that resists fading, rust and degradation. Not only do they look great in any farm environment, but they also bring a range of benefits with them.

While the Standard Operating Procedure does not require officers to deactivate cameras while in sensitive locations or circumstances, the General Order prohibits officers from recording footage of patient care areas of medical facilities unless the footage is for “official police business such as a criminal investigation,” as well as from recording juveniles unless the resulting footage would be “evidentiary in nature as authorized by the Family Code.” However, neither restriction is framed as a response to personal privacy concerns. (§506.03 O.6-7)

However, Portland PD does not require officers to provide concrete justifications when they fail to record required events.

Not only does LAPD allow officers to view recordings of incidents before filing documentation — they require it. (§§XVIII-XIX)

While not included in the policy, a page on the police department website called “Obtaining Police Reports & Disclosure” indicates that flagged footage is retained for 3 years for petty offenses, 25 years for misdemeanors and 109 years for felonies.

In serious incidents, employees are prohibited from viewing BWC footage “until the detail/s responsible for the investigation arrive/s on scene and the viewing can be done in conjunction with current serious incident protocols,” but neither the BWC policy nor the Serious Incident policy (Operations Order 3.1) explictly prohibits officers from reviewing their own footage prior to making a statement. (§7.B-C)

Aside from the above circumstances, when an officer is under investigation, officers may only view relevant footage upon approval by the Criminal Investigation Division or the Internal Affairs Division. (§IV.B.)

When officers decide to deactivate their cameras or fail to record an event, SLCPD requires them to document and justify their actions either on camera or in a written report. (p. 151-152)

The policy mentions the importance of preserving privacy and dignity, and gives supervisors the option to allow officers to not record or to deactivate cameras in certain circumstances. (§III.M; N.1)

The policy does explicitly protect certain vulnerable individuals, such as students and patients, and prohibits recording in places of worship and courtrooms. (§§7.1,4)

The policy also indicates that footage will be only be released through “a valid court order, approved public record request, or upon approval by the Chief of Police or his/her designee” and will be referred to different offices for processing, depending on the nature of the request. (Copies of Video Recordings (630.70), Public Records and Discovery Requests (630.70))

Officers do not need to obtain the consent of subjects to record, nor are they required to proactively notify subjects that the camera is recording. (§§332.04.A.4-6)

The Omaha PD publishes its most recent BWC policy online as part of its Policies and Procedures Manual, beginning on page 57, titled “Body Worn Cameras (BWC).” The most recent manual was issued on May 18, 2017.

If the officer declines the request, the officer must inform the individual of that decision and document the reasons for deactivation. (§§6.3-4)

The policy requires that the Department retain footage categorized as “Default/Infractions/Traffic Stop” for 90 days. However, it is not clear whether this is a minimum or maximum retention period, and the policy does not appear to require that footage be deleted. (§Collection, Storage and Management of MVR and BWC Data: Officer Review of Recordings)

Appendix A of the manual lists the required length of retention for unflagged footage. However, the policy does not specify whether the unflagged footage must be deleted. (§ Appendix A.5-10)

NYPD expressly prohibits footage tampering and unauthorized sharing of footage, and indicates that access to recorded footage will be logged and audited. (§Operational Considerations)

The policy prohibits officers from recording in places “where there is an expectation of privacy” but makes an exception for officers “present in an official capacity,” which it does not further define. (§IV.F.28)

The New Jersey Department of Public Safety expressly prohibits unauthorized access to recorded footage, and authorized footage access is limited. (§10.1)

The policy prohibits officers involved in or witness to an “Officer-Involved Incident” from viewing footage before making an initial statement, unless given permission to do so by the Chief or his or her designee. The policy defines “Officer-Involved Incidents” as including officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, and any intentional act by an officer which proximately causes injury likely to produce death to another. (§16)

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)

The San Antonio Police Department’s policy on body worn cameras is accessible via the department website. One must search “body worn cameras” on SAPD’s website in order to locate the policy. SAPD’s most recent BWC policy is from July 6, 2016.

LAPD requires officers to record the entire contact of “any investigative or enforcement activity involving a member of the public.” (§§III; V)

F.S. Chapter 119.071(2)(5) provides that “A law enforcement agency must retain a body camera recording for at least 90 days” but does not set a date for the purging of BWC footage. F.S. Chapter 119.021(2)(a) designates the Division of Library and Information Services of the Department of State as responsible for setting retention and disposal schedules for public records. While the office’s records schedule for law enforcement, effective August 2017, does include a schedule for body worn camera video it only requires a minimum retention period of 90 days and does not require deletion. Therefore, it remains unclear how Tampa ultimately disposes of recorded footage.

The policy does not require officers to obtain informed consent prior to recording, and does not require officers either to alert individuals that the camera is recording or to inform individuals that they may refuse to be recorded.

SFPD prohibits officers from deleting, tampering, accessing for personal use, or sharing footage without prior authorization from the Risk Management Office (RMO). (§§III.H.3; III.J.3)

SAPD uses a categorization label which helps determine the “minimum length of retention” of BWC footage. SAPD requires that recordings from BWC that are categorized as an “Event 0” (non-evidentiary) must be retained for at least 180 days, but does not appear to mandate a maximum retention period. (§12)

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

The policy references expectations of privacy, but this appears to refer to officer privacy rather than privacy interests of recorded individuals. (§5.2.7)

CSPD’s draft policy offers clear guidance on when officers should not record and specifically prohibits recording in “any location where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (§§.24; .22)

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

The policy does not require officers to provide concrete justification for failing to record events. However, any officer who “intentionally disables” their BWC is subject to “disciplinary actions.” (§3.24.2.F)

The policy prohibits “the abuse or misuse of the [BWC] system” and requires officers to “properly retain and store” footage. However, the policy never makes clear what constitutes abuse or misuse. (§IV.C.8)

LVMPD requires officers to obtain explicit permission from crime victims and witnesses (or a parent or legal guardian, in the case of a juvenile) before recording. In addition, LVMPD allows officers to cease recording in sensitive locations and situations. (General Procedure; Victims and Witnesses; Juvenile Recordings; Sensitive Locations)

Ferguson PD retains footage “in accordance with state law” but does not appear to require the deletion of unflagged footage. (§PR481.4(o))

Cleveland Police does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage (note that the court rejected clause VII.G; presumably this subsection is under review). (§VII)

If officers are required to record, and they either activate their cameras too late or deactivate their cameras too early, they must document the reason in their written reports. However, the policy does not require officers to always document outright failures to record required incidents — they are only required to document failures to record at medical facilities. (§§481.3.5, 481.5, PR481.2(k))

LASD officers are only encouraged to make “reasonable attempts” to record “significant incidents.” (Recording Incidents with a Portable Video Camera)

The policy indicates that access to footage will be audited, but the actual language of the relevant clause appears to apply to BWC use rather than footage access. (§4.6)

Cincinnati PD sharply 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.) (§G)

The policy describes different activation and deactivation requirements for statement taking, but we omit those requirements here for brevity. (§II.D.2)

The BWC policy for Fort Lauderdale PD requires officers to file an initial written report or statement before relevant footage is reviewed, but only for some incidents. The policy expressly prohibits pre-report viewing for incidents “in which a law enforcement response to resistance was required.” However, officers are allowed to view the recorded incident in all other matters. If the BWC recording is reviewed before authoring the report, then the officer must specify in their report the use of the BWC recording. (§E.15)

Ferguson PD expressly prohibits footage tampering and unauthorized access. However, the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§PR481.2(i)-(j), PR481.4(n), PR481.6)

The policy does prohibit officers from activating their cameras to record certain sensitive conversations or within certain sensitive places, and it prohibits officers from recording people or discussions unrelated to “a call for service or event.” (§IV.F.30)

The situations in which officers are required to activate their BWC “includes, but is not limited to, the following circumstances”: (§V.A)

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

The Orlando PD does not expressly allow individuals to view relevant footage when filing a police misconduct complaint. The policy provides that footage may be released “in response to an official inquiry or investigation” or requested via a public records request (§3.4.i, §4, §6)

The policy provides that the department’s storage system maintains an audit log of videos that have been viewed and “any actions taken by LMPD members.” (§§4.31.5)

The policy does not require officers to obtain informed consent prior to recording in any circumstance, nor does it require officers to inform subjects that the camera is recording. The policy does not explicitly protect vulnerable individuals. (§4.31.6)

The policy has a clear retention schedule for various categories of footage, but the policy appears to assign minimum, rather than maximum, periods, without required deletion. (§188.70)

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)

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.

Officers must notify a supervisor if they fail to record, but the policy does not indicate whether officers must provide a concrete justification for failing to record required events. (§II.B.2)

The policy does not expressly prohibit footage tampering. However, the policy does indicate that server rooms “shall not be accessed by unit personnel.” (Fixed Video Equipment Inspection)

Before turning their cameras off, officers must announce the reason on camera. When officers fail to record, they must document the reason in their reports. (General Procedure; Camera Deployment)

NOPD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, but does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§5-6; 50)

As of February 10, 2017, the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) had planned to implement its body-worn camera program before April 2017. Earlier this year, PGPD was criticized for not permitting the public to review or comment on the policy before it went into effect.

SPD’s policy refers to the Booking Photo Comparison Software section of the SPD manual to address questions of biometric technologies. (POL-2 §1). This policy does place some limitations on the use of facial recognition technology; specifically, it prohibits the use of biometric processing in “live” camera systems (which it does not explicitly define, but presumably means real-time recording on cameras including BWCs) (12.045-POL §1,4,6)

FPD’s policy mentions the importance of protecting privacy, but the policy does not require informed consent from vulnerable individuals. (§§3.24.4.H)

The policy prohibits tampering with and deleting footage, and specifies that “[a]llowing unauthorized personnel to view or listen to” media captured by the BWC is “[i]nappropriate and unauthorized” use. (§304.6-6-7)

The policy further states that all data will be retained according to state retention schedules, which can be found in the General Records Schedule GS2 For Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and District Medical Examiners. However, the schedule does not address footage from body worn cameras. (Florida Administrative Code R. 1B-24.003(1)(b))

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

The Miami Police Department publishes the latest BWC policy on its website, and maintains a dedicated page on its website about the department’s BWC program which is linked from the homepage. The policy is undated, but document metadata suggests it was last modified on July 27, 2017.

Officers may review footage before writing their reports for all incidents, except in the cases of critical incidents. Critical incidents are defined in department policy number 4.49 as incidents where “a fatal or serious bodily injury occurs.” In critical incidents, employees are explicitly required to complete “a public safety statement” “immediately after a critical incident has occurred,” as per policy number 4.49, and prior to reviewing any footage. (§III)

NYPD allows officers to view footage “in the performance of their duties.” In the event of a Level 3 use of force (deadly physical force), while officers may not view footage before turning it over to a supervisor, they may still review recordings prior to making an official statement. (§17)

The policy does not require officers to notify subjects that they are being recorded, but officers are encouraged to do so for the purpose of de-escalation or when interacting with certain vulnerable individuals. (§C.4)

We are encouraged that the department considered the needs of vulnerable individuals, but discouraged by the policy’s presumption against a right to privacy, as well as the policy’s confusing language. We believe the department is moving the in the right direction, but there is room for improvement. (§H)

Although the policy requires officers inform civilians when they are being recorded, the policy does not require informed consent from vulnerable individuals. (§Procedure C.4)

The policy also requires compliance with “existing state record retention law and evidence retention protocols.” The current retention schedule does not specifically address BWC recordings. (§3765.3)

The policy allows officers to turn cameras to “buffering mode” during private conversations with an officer, supervisor, doctor, nurse or paramedic. (§3.a.2.c)

In “critical incidents” (action resulting in great bodily harm or death) officers are not allowed to view recordings until investigators arrive, but are not prohibited from viewing footage prior to making a statement or writing a report. (§747.25.F.2)

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)

The policy instructs officers to use “reasonable judgment” in determining when to deactivate the camera. While the policy prohibits officers from intentionally terminating the recording until the “conclusion of the encounter,” the policy provides a vague exception for “tactical and safety reasons.” Without further guidance this language gives officers wide discretion to turn the camera off prematurely. (§6)

MPD requires that the department all digital media for a minimum of 90 days, but does not appear to require the deletion of footage (§6.4.8.1)

The current State of Colorado Municipal Records Retention Schedule (§100.080(AA)) requires video recordings made from officer recording systems to be maintained for 30 days, but does not specify when the media must be deleted.

San Jose PD’s body worn camera policy is not dated, but the URL includes “06-29-15” following the title, suggesting that the policy was released on June 29, 2015.

LAPD considers unauthorized use, release, modification and deletion of footage to be “serious misconduct and subject to disciplinary action.” But the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§VII-VIII; XII)

The policy prohibits “improper use” of footage, but does not expressly prohibit employees from erasing or altering recordings. (§7.2)

Once an officer activates his or her camera, it “shall remain on until the incident has concluded” and the policy clearly describes when officers shall deactivate their BWC. (§.07.A-B)

However, the policy does not appear to restrict access to footage, and does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.

In addition, because Pennsylvania is a “two-party consent” state, officers must inform subjects that they are being recorded, assuming “oral communications” are taking place. (§7-E)

The Saint Paul policy notes it will restrict access, maintain access logs, and require documented reason for access, but does not appear to prohibit footage tampering. (§21, 27)

The policy discourages officers from recording patients during evaluation and treatment and from recording “informal or casual encounters with members of the public.” Officers must also turn their cameras away (and only record audio) during strip searches, and officers may not record confidential informants. (§E, §C.6)

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

The New Jersey Department of Public Safety also provides detailed requirements to officers as to when a BWC should be activated and when BWC deactivation is authorized, including specific requirements for circumstances where use of force may be . (§§5.4,6-7)

Orlando PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a version of its policy was found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. This policy was effective October 21, 2015. As of September 7, 2017 the Orlando PD has fitted about 150 officers with body worn cameras.

The policy permits officers to view their recordings in order to assist in completing reports, unless the officer is submitting a BlueTeam report (officers have to submit a BlueTeam report if they have used force to take a civilian into custody). Officers may view the recording prior to speaking to a supervisor or making statements to Internal Affairs investigators about the incident, but this step appears to come after an officer would be expected to submit a Blue Team report. (Procedure §A.4, Procedure §§E.5,7)

SDPD allows and encourages officers to view footage prior to completing their reports, and requires them to do so prior to providing testimony at hearings, trials, or depositions. (§V.Q)

The policy does not appear to indicate that access to footage is logged, but does require ”BWC performance and usage” to be audited regularly. (§6.5.2)

Parker PD expressly allows recorded individuals (or their legal designee) to review footage of all incidents that include that individual. (§3.25.10.E)

LVMPD allows individuals who are seeking to file complaints (and others) to view relevant footage. (Data Storage, Security, and Access; Requests for Video/Audio Pursuant to Nevada’s Open Records Act)

The stated retention period for uncategorized footage is 180 days, but again the policy does to appear to require footage deletion at the end of the retention period. (§6.4.5.1.c.1.a)

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)

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)

Phoenix PD relies on existing public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§§5.A-B,E)

San Bernardino’s policy does mention privacy concerns, prohibiting recording in “places where persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy…unless such presence is directly relevant to the criminal investigation.” (§449.5.10(c)) The policy also discourages recording peaceful demonstrations and “informal or casual encounters with members of the public.” (§449.5.10(f), §449.5.10(g)).

Houston PD retains non-evidentiary footage for 180 calendar days, but does not appear to require deletion after that period. (§15)

While NOPD expects officers to “be aware of, and sensitive to, civilians’ reasonable privacy expectations,” the department nonetheless gives officers full discretion to record during sensitive circumstances. The policy also does not expressly allow subjects to opt out of recording. (§§10; 30)

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)

The policy requires officers to inform citizens they are being recorded. While officers have discretion to deactivate cameras at the request of victims, but allowing for discretion in such cases does not go far enough to specifically protect victims from being recorded without their informed consent. (§§304.6-3-1.5; 304.6-3.2.5)

The policy encourages officers to review footage when preparing reports, but requires officers include a disclaimer that footage was reviewed. (§4)

The MCPD’s policy prohibits the use of biometric technologies, with a narrow exception made for analyzing particular incidents using such technologies. (§IX.M)

However, only in limited circumstances does the Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD require that officers provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events. (§IV.E.3, §IV.F.29)

While SDPD prohibits officers from recording during Sex Crimes or Child Abuse investigations, it mandates that victims (and their children) be recorded when they are victims of domestic violence incidents. (§V.J.1)

Parker PD requires officers to record “all investigative or enforcement contacts” through the conclusion of the contact. (§§3.25.4.E-G)

When officers fail to record a required activity, they must document the reason in writing in various department reports and systems. (§VI)

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.

VBPD stated in January 2017 that it would initiate its body-worn camera program on June 1, 2017, with 110 cameras being activated. However, as of September 18, 2017, VBPD had not yet ordered the necessary equipment and had not announced a revised rollout date.

MPD prohibits officers from unauthorized access, copying and deletion of information from body worn cameras, but does not prohibit footage tampering. (§6.4.8.2)

The policy allows, but does not require, officers to notify subjects that they are being recorded, and the policy does not require officers to obtain informed consent from victims or other vulnerable individuals prior to recording. (§§Definitions; B.6)

Funnyshut the gate sign

SDPD requires all officers to record “enforcement related contacts.” Officers are required to activate their BWC “prior to actual contact with the citizen, or as soon as safely possible thereafter” and “continue recording until the contact is concluded or the contact transitions from an enforcement contact into intelligence gathering.” The policy has specific requirements for when to record during circumstances including enforcement related contacts; arrests; searches; transporting prisoners; suspect interviews; and special events. (§V.I.1-7)

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.

The policy requires officers to continue recording until the incident’s “adversarial action” ends or until the incident becomes a follow up investigation. (§IV.F.18, §IV.F.36)

NOPD publishes its BWC policy on its website within the Department’s Regulations Manual. The latest available version of the Regulations Manual is dated April 26, 2017. The BWC policy is Chapter 41.3.10, and was last revised November 6, 2016, and the department also has a policy governing inadvertent misuse and non-use of BWCs.

The policy prohibits officers from recording inside any medical facility where medical privacy is expected and recorded by law. However, the policy only instructs officers to “use their best discretion” in areas where a high level of privacy is expected. (Procedure §C.5.d, Procedure §§D.3,6,7)

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage, and refers to the department’s existing policy on public records requests (OMS 109.04 and 109.05) to make footage available. The department’s public records policy does not appear to treat BWC footage differently from other records. (§10.a-b)

The report’s outreach and rollout was coordinated by Shin Inouye, Tyler Lewis, and Patrick McNeil from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

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

Milwaukee PD prohibits unauthorized access to footage, but does not expressly prohibit officers from modifying, deleting, or otherwise tampering with footage. The policy also does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§747.25.J.2)

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

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)

Mesa PD does not expressly allow individuals alleging police misconduct to view relevant footage. Access to footage appears to be guided only by Arizona’s public records law. (§3/Restrictions; §4/Retention & Public Release)

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. Footage is classified as a “public record” under Michigan’s FOIA law. (§304.6-9)

Officers are also prohibited from recording patients during medical or psychological evaluations and in medical care facilities unless the officer is confronting a violent suspect or anticipating use of force. (§V.K.7)

Officers may record at their discretion when not otherwise required by policy, however all camera use must be documented in writing. (§II.E, §III.C.1)

MCPD’s policy states that there are “exigent circumstances” in which the officer may not be able to activate their BWCS. The officer is required to “document the reason” for their failure to use or delayed start of their BWCS. (§VI.F)

OPD does not expressly allow complainants to view footage, and forbids employees from playing back or disseminating footage outside the agency without prior authorization. (§§Disclaimer; VI.I; IX)

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).

The Fort Lauderdale Police Department does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, the City of Fort Lauderdale accepted $600,000 from the Department of Justice to start a body-worn camera pilot program in 2016. The City of Fort Lauderdale’s budget for FY 2018 indicates the pilot program is close to implementation and will last one year.

The San Bernardino Police Department publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on the front page of its website. It is dated July 13, 2017.

The policy expressly prohibits the recording of sexual assault victims, and encourages officers to avoid recording people who are nude or who request they not be recorded. (§V.C)

In 2015, TPD received $599,200 from the Department of Justice to develop a body worn camera program. TPD began field testing of BWC in November 2016. Following the initial pilot program, TPD purchased 450 BWC to outfit its officers, and is currently in the process of carrying out officer training and hardware updates.

Ferguson PD requires officers to record “[a]ll field contacts involving actual or potential criminal conduct.” While the policy covers a wide range of situations, it requires officers in some cases to predict whether a field contact will involve “potential criminal conduct,” which may be difficult to do. (§§481.3)

The policy requires officers to record in a wide range of law enforcement situations, including searches of suspects and buildings, service calls, and citizen interactions performed “in an investigative or enforcement capacity.” (§3764.1)

Officers are required to make a “recorded announcement” prior to deactivating regarding the reason the camera is being deactivated. (§188.33)

Memphis PD expressly prohibits footage tampering and unauthorized access, but does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§5.E-H)

Officers may review footage before writing their reports for all incidents, except in the cases of use of force that are under investigation. In use of force incidents, employees are prohibited from reviewing footage until authorized to do so by the agency investigating the incident, but are not prohibited from viewing footage before writing a report or making a statement. (§§XI.4; XI.15)

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

However, we are concerned that the policy limits the restriction to “video files” and “stored video and audio,” which leaves room for the incorporation of facial recognition technology into live video capture and situational awareness technology, and to “passive searches of the public,” which may be too vague to meaningfully restrict real-time biometric analysis.

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)

The policy is not clear how and when stored media is purged. The policy notes that media is to be purged in accordance with the current City and County of Denver General Records Retention schedule, which is not readily available online. (§9.a)

The policy references a retention period for digital evidence but does not specify what that period is, nor does it require unflagged footage to be deleted. (§V.O)

The policy encourages officers to activate their BWC “prior to contact with citizens, or as soon as safely possible thereafter” and to continue recording until the contact “is concluded.” (§7.8.5.3(B))

Each time department members view footage, they must document the reason why the footage is being accessed, indicating that all viewing is logged. (§V.B)

Prior to each camera deactivation, officers must state the reason for termination of the recording. Officers must also document any failures to record in their report. (§§IV.C.6-9; IV.E)

SFPD retains all BWC footage for a minimum of 60 days. After this duration, recordings “may be erased, destroyed or recycled” — but there is no requirement to do so. (§III.J)

The policy requires that officers tag any recordings that raise special privacy or safety issues and prohibits access and use of those recordings without permission. (§9.3-4)

For non-permanent footage, the policy refers to the City of Columbus Division of Police Records Retention Schedule. (§III.X)

The policy requires officers to record until the conclusion of the event. The policy also specifies certain contacts where officers may, but are not required to, deactivate the BWC. (§§IV.F.1-2)

The policy does not require informed consent from vulnerable individuals, but permits deactivation upon request if an officer determines that recording will “impede or limit the cooperation of a victim or witness during an investigative contact.” (§7.8.5.3(E), §7.8.5.5(6))

Newark PD suggests that BWC footage can be shown to civilians who “intends to file a complaint against an officer to demonstrate what actually occurred.” However, while such access is “permitted,” it does not appear to be required. (§XI.6)

While it is true that Evidence.com logs and audits access to footage, the policy does not indicate that, nor mention any other source logs or audits footage access.

San Jose PD’s policy encourages officers to view footage prior to writing initial reports, with the exception of officers involved in or witness to an “Officer Involved Incident.” (§13)

Portland PD specifies a minimum retention period of six months and does not appear to require footage deletion. (Video Media Storage and Integrity (630.70), Retention Of Recordings (630.70)(c))

While the policy governing BWC use is not available on the CSPD’s website, we were able to locate a draft copy of the policy online. This draft was released to public in March 2016 as part of the public comment process that took place prior to the department deploying the cameras. However, it is not clear whether the policy has been updated since.

Displaying business images and messages through farm signage will help better establish your brand, improve customer service, promote safety and create a good first impression. In addition to this, you can use custom farm signs to advertise upcoming events at your property.

The policy does mention the importance of privacy within residences, though most mentions of privacy appear to reference the interests of police personnel. (§§Policy; Regulations.8-9,12)

Ferguson PD publishes its BWC Policy from February 26, 2016 on its website and is listed under the department’s General Order number 481.00 “Officer Audio and Video Recording Equipment.”

The policy acknowledges that in some circumstances “an individual’s privacy or dignity outweighs the need to record an event.” Officers have discretion to deactivate recording those circumstances, but are not required to do so. (§5.f)

Milwaukee PD suggests — but stops short of requiring — that officers inform subjects that they are being recorded. The policy does not expressly allow subjects to opt out of recording. (§747.25.C.2.h)

The Fairfax County Police Department’s draft policy on body worn cameras is accessible via the department website. One must search “body worn cameras” on FCPD’s website in order to locate the policy. FCPD’s most recent BWC policy is from January 2017.

Honolulu PD requires officers to record calls for service and “law enforcement or investigative encounter[s]” between officers and a member of the public. (§II.B.1)

Cleveland Police allows officers to view relevant footage while completing their reports (note that the court rejected clause I.G; presumably this subsection is under review). (§I.D,G)

SDPD prohibits officers from tampering with “hardware and software component[s],” and notes that digital evidence is to be used for official purposes only, but the policy does not expressly prohibit tampering with footage. (§V.C)

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)

The Department’s Forms Retention Schedule does not provide a specific schedule for BWC recordings. However, the Illinois Officer-Worn Body Camera Act requires unflagged recordings to be retained for 90 days. After this 90-day storage period elapses, unflagged recordings must be destroyed. (50 ILCS 706/10-20(a)(7))

Raleigh PD clearly describes when officers must record and requires officers to continue recording “until the conclusion of the officer’s involvement in an event.” (§Guidelines for BWC Operation: Use of the Body Worn Camera, §Guidelines for BWC Operation: Deactivation)

The BWC policy for Fort Lauderdale PD offers some guidance on when not to record and prohibits officers from recording “where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.” (§§E.5,9)

Oakland PD requires officers to file an initial written statement before relevant footage is reviewed, for some critical incidents, like when officers use force that results in death or serious bodily injury. Oakland PD institutes a two-step process. First, before viewing the footage, the involved officer must submit an initial report to the investigator. Second, once the initial report is approved, the officer may view the footage, and be given an opportunity to supplement the initial report (presumably, with a clear delineation of the parts of the report that were written before and after footage was reviewed). (§§IV.A.2-3)

The policy does not expressly require that unflagged footage be deleted. It requires that unflagged footage be retained for a minimum of 90 days. (§XIII.D)

Milwaukee PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website as part of its Standard Operating Procedures. The policy is SOP 747, effective July 15, 2016.

The policy does indicate that footage is audited to ensure “the camera is being utilized in accordance with this policy”, but does not indicate that audit includes access to or modification of footage. (§450.17)

Phoenix PD prohibits unauthorized distribution of footage, but does not expressly prohibit unauthorized access, footage modification or deletion. The policy also does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§5.A)

Raleigh PD prohibits recording in certain sensitive locations and circumstances such as within medical facilities and during privileged communications, as well as “in places where a heightened expectation of personal privacy exists…unless there is a need to capture criminal activity or a physical arrest.” (§Guidelines for BWC Operation: Restricted Uses)

The policy requires officers to record “any call for service” and activate their camera prior to engaging in “any law enforcement activity or encounter.” The policy provides an exception “for extremely rare situations” involving exigent safety concerns but requires the officer to activate the camera “at the first opportunity when it is safe to do so” afterwards. (§4.31.5)

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)

Chicago PD expressly permits victims to opt-out of recording. But “if exigent circumstances exist” exist, or “if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion” of a crime, the officer may continue to record, despite the request to opt-out, after announcing the reason on camera. (§§II.B.1)

The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police does not publish its BWC policy on its website. The ACLU of Pennsylvania obtained a copy via Pennsylvania Right-To-Know-Law. The policy was issued on, and appears to be effective as of, July 30, 2014.

CSPD’s draft policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage and prohibits subjects of the recording who are not law enforcement from viewing the recording on the scene. According to the draft policy, requests for footage will be subject to the CSPD’s internal policies, the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), and the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA). CSPD’s internal policies are not available on the department’s website. (§§.14; .24)

Denver’s policy includes a detailed list of situations that must be recorded and instructs officers to exercise “good judgment when activating and deactivating the BWC.” (§3)

In addition to specifying when officers shall terminate their recordings (§III.E), SFPD requires officers to document the reasons for any failures to record. (§III.G)

Please Closethe Gate SignDog

The policy is not clear how and when stored media is purged, only that it will be “preserved in accordance with the law.” (§7.8.5.7)

The policy indicates that records or logs of access to footage are retained permanently but does not say whether those logs are audited. (§449.5.15(b)). In fact, the policy appears to bar the department from auditing the system for policy violations (§449.5.16(d)).

Portland PD provides officers with a clear list of situations that must be recorded. (Required Activation of MAV (630.70))

The New Jersey Department of Public Safety (NJDPS) provides officers with a clear list of situations that must be recorded, including when “circumstances develop so that an officer is authorized to use force.” (§§5.2; §6.8)

Dallas PD encourages officers to view incident recordings before writing their reports, and the policy indicates that Texas state law entitles officers to do so. (§§332.04.A.1.m; 332.06.F)

Houston PD relies on Texas public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow complainants to view relevant footage. (§23)

An archived version of the LVMPD Body-Worn Camera Video Public Records Request form can be found here. (August 17, 2016) ↩

Shut the gate signtemplate

Officers are allowed discretion if “they are able to justify such a deviation” and the policy requires officers to provide concrete reasons in their incident reports. (§3.B.5)

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.

The policy does take privacy into consideration to a limited extent by requiring that the camera not be used “where an exceptional expectation of privacy exists” (emphasis added) and requiring that cameras be turned off when officers enter juvenile detention facilities. The policy requires that officers limit recording to “legitimate law enforcement activities while on school property” or at school events, and to “specific law enforcement activity” in bathrooms, locker rooms, and other highly private areas. The policy permits discretionary deactivation when hospital medical staff request it. The policy also requires officers to make a full recording of consent searches, including the giving of consent by the subject, and requires audio-only recording of strip searches. (§4.31.5)

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)

The policy gives officers discretion to deactivate the BWC in sensitive circumstances but does not require officers to obtain informed consent from victims or other vulnerable individuals prior to recording. (§D)

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

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. The policy provides that footage may be requested via an open records request and allows Louisville PD to redact footage that “may compromise an investigation” or “that infringe on an individual’s privacy rights.” (§4.31.15)

Mesa PD requires officers to activate their cameras “when responding to a call or have any contact with the public.” (§3/Operational Guidelines; §3/Use Guidelines)

The policy does not expressly prohibit footage tampering or unauthorized access. Employees and officers are prohibited from copying or disseminating any footage to non-PFD employees. (§§3.24.8.A-B)

Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office requires officers to turn off their cameras upon request when “invited into a location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the Officer otherwise has no lawful right to occupy that space.” An officer need not provide notification nor honor a request to terminate recording when “an Officer is lawfully present…at a location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy,” except when interacting with victims of sexual assault. (§II.E, §II.B.6, §II.C.2.f)

Long Beach PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage, and refers to the LBPD Public Records Request Act Policy to govern the release of recordings. While certain department personnel may show footage to compplainents, they do not appear to be required to do so. (§7.8.5.2(5))

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.

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.

Oakland PD also provides specific guidance on statement taking, but the policy is vague as to whether officers simply need to notify subjects that the camera is on, or whether officers actually need to obtain consent. (§II.D.2.a)

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)