Download On-Officer Body Camera System

ON-OFFICER BODY CAMERA
SYSTEM
Mesa Police Department
Chief John Meza
On-Officer Body Camera System
Purpose
– MPD initial use October 2012
• 50 Cameras
–
–
–
–
System’s impact on reducing civil liability
Impact on departmental complaints
Impact on criminal prosecution
Ease of use, durability and comfort
Presidents Task Force on 21st Century
Policing
• Pillar Three: Technology and Social Media
– 3.2 Recommendation: The implementation of
appropriate technology by law enforcement
agencies should be designed considering local
needs and aligned with national standards.
– 3.3.3 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies
should review and consider the Bureau of Justice
Assistance’s (BJA) Body Worn Camera Toolkit to
assist in implementing BWCs.
On-Officer Body Camera System
• Challenges
– Costs $350,000
• Storage
– 150 cameras = 7.7 TB storage
– 10 GB per officer per month
• Retention & Redaction
– Public Records Request
– Officer Acceptance
• Academy / Senior Officers
Policy Development
•
“Exercise discretion and activate the on-officer body camera when
they deem it appropriate.”
•
“When practical, officers will make every effort to activate the onofficer body camera when responding to a call or have any contact
with the public.”
•
“Officers will activate the On-Officer Body Camera when responding
to a call or have any contact with the public.”
Policy Development
• Would you review your Video?
Policy Development
• You are about to view a camera recording of a use-of-force event. Understand
that while this recording depicts visual information from the scene, the human eye
and brain are highly likely to perceive some things in stressful situations differently
than a camera records them, so this photographic record may not reflect how the
involved officer actually perceived the event.
• The recording my depict things that the officer did not see or hear. The officer
may have seen or heard things that were not recorded by the camera. Depending
on the speed of the camera, some action elements may not have been recorded or
may have happened faster than the officer could perceive or absorb them. The
camera has captured a 2-dimensional image, which may be different from an
officer’s 3-dimensional observations. Lighting and angles may also have contributed
to different perceptions. And, of course, the camera did not view the scene with the
officer’s unique experience and training.
• Hopefully, this recording will enhance your understanding of the incident. Keep
in mind, though, that these video images are only one piece of evidence to be
considered in reconstructing and evaluating the totality of the circumstances. Some
elements may require further exploration and explanation before the investigation is
concluded.
Conclusion