Future Law Enforcement Technology

Introduction

In the past few years, there have been rapid advancements in technology used by law enforcement agencies in executing their functions. Several police executives are embarking on the adoption of technologies that were inexistent when they commenced their careers. Examples of such technologies include global positioning systems (GP), handheld devices, facial recognition software, systems for detecting gunshots, and automated systems for reading license plates, among others (Erpenbach, 2008). With technological advancements, the manner, in which crimes are committed, increasingly becomes sophisticated. This generates the need for law enforcement agencies to be at the forefront in adopting newer technologies that can be used to detect and prevent sophisticated criminal activities. There is no doubt that technological innovation has played a crucial role in redefining various policing aspects such as extend the ability of police officers with respect to the use of force (facilitated by the Taser), aiding in criminal investigation such as DNA testing, and enhancing overall policing effectiveness and efficiency (Miller & Toliver, 2014). One of the policing aspects that has benefited significantly from technological innovation is surveillance. In this respect, technological advancements have helped in the development of effective tools for observation and surveillance, for both law enforcement personnel and common citizens. One of such surveillance tools is the Body-Worn Camera (BWC), which is a relatively novel technology yet to be fully adopted by law enforcement agencies in the US and across the world (White, 2014). This paper explores the pros and cons associated with the BWC including its impact on stakeholders.

Use of BWC in Law Enforcement

Police-citizen encounter is an important aspect of policing functions; as a result, numerous technologies have been developed with the aim of capturing interactions between police officers and the public. One of the earliest technologies adopted for this purpose was the dashboard camera, which was implemented by law enforcement agencies during the early 1990s. Although officers initially resisted this technology, research studies conducted at the time pointed that dashboard cameras helped enhance the accountability of law enforcement personnel while, at the same time, lessening the liability of the agency (Pilant, 1995). Thus, dashboard cameras were extensively embraced by policing agencies.

Another surveillance technology that is common in law enforcement is close circuit television surveillance systems (CCTV). CCTV is used for surveillance purposes (preventing crime) and assisting in criminal investigations. In addition, the increase in the number of smartphones has enhanced the ability to capture events as they take place, particularly the interactions between police and the public. As Miller and Toliver (2014) explained, recording of audio and video is a key feature of the 21^st century. Miller and Toliver further stated that the typical encounter between a law enforcement officer and the public in urban settings can be captured in various ways. For instance, the citizen may decide to record the interaction using his/her phone. In the event of a disagreement, other witnesses in the vicinity are likely to record the encounter. In addition, numerous fixed security cameras exist that are likely to record the interaction. However, it is more logical to state that, if officers’ accountability is to be strengthened, it is important to have the recording from the perspective of the officer. As a result, BWCs were developed. It is considered the newest technological innovation for law enforcement with respect to surveillance (White, 2014).

BWCs are used by law enforcement officers to capture their encounters with citizens and collect evidence at the scenes of crime. BWCs have been reported to play a crucial role in enhancing the accountability of both the public and the officer (Clark, 2013). They are outstanding due to their placement, which in most cases is on the shirt’s front. This serves to offer a first-person view as well as a more comprehensive evidence chain. The use of BWCs by law enforcement officers attracted substantial attention from the media in 2013. This was after the Federal District Court in Manhattan made a ruling declaring it the Stop, Question and Frisk (SFQ) program at New York Police Department as being unconstitutional (White, 2014). The ruling judge ordered police officers operating in high SQF zones to wear BMCs in order to help curb racial profiling. In fact, a number of cities in the US require their police to wear BWCs including San Diego, Oakland, Miami, Atlanta, Washington DC, Columbus, Detroit and Indianapolis, among others (Abigail, 2014). However, police unions in numerous cities in the US have expressed their opposition to the use of BWCs, and have articulated concerns associated with safety issues, probable distraction, and cost impacts of the BWCs (White, 2014).

Pros of BWCs

Various benefits of BWCs have been acknowledged in literature. It is imperative to note that research on BWC is scanty due to the fact that it is an emerging technology. The first benefit of using BWC technology in law enforcement relates to improved police legitimacy and transparency. Transparency relates to the readiness of a law enforcement agency to embrace external scrutiny. For White (2014), transparency plays an integral role in confirming the community that law enforcement officers seek to observe procedural justice in the course of their interactions with the public. Transparency helps in increasing the perceived legitimacy of the law enforcement agency. As White (2014) explained, BWC is an indication of transparency in policing organizations. Additionally, transparency helps in cementing the public’s trust in law enforcement agencies (Clark, 2013). Recording interactions between police officers and citizens can help in lessening the likely mistrust existing between citizens and law enforcement officers. This is especially important owing to the increase in the cases of racial profiling among police officers targeting members of specific communities through unjustifiable frisks.

Few studies have explored the relationship between transparency and the use of BWCs by police officers. For instance, a study conducted by ODS Consulting (2011) in Aberdeen and Renfrewshire in Scotland showed that 64-76% citizens in both cities supported the use of BWC technology by police officers. Another study by Goodall (2007) surveying crime victims reported that 72% of the crime victims stated that the BWC was beneficial during their interaction with the police. The study also revealed that 81% of the surveyed indicated that they felt safer due to the fact that officers were wearing BWCs.

The second benefit associated with officer BWCs is the improvement on the behavior of law enforcement personnel. Those supporting the adoption of the BWC technology in law enforcement are of the view that this technology is supposedly to result in significant improvements of police behavior during their interactions with the public (Draisin, 2011). Police officers who are inclined to use offensive language and brutal force are less likely to exhibit such behavior when wearing BWCs. According to Harris (2010), the BWC technology is capable of fostering compliance to the provisions in the Fourth Amendment in regard to seizure and search. A number of empirical studies have studied the impact of BWCs on officers’ behavior. For instance, Farrar (2013) found that the adoption of the BWC technology resulted in a significant drop in complains directed towards police officers by 88%. The same study reported a decline in the use of brutal force by police officers by 60%. Another study conducted by the Mesa Police Department (MPD) in Arizona in relation to the effect of BWCs on the behavior and attitude of police officers revealed that police officers, in general, have positive attitude regarding the potential impact associated with BWCs in the sense that they believed that BWCs would result in more professional behavior from police officers (MPD, 2013). White (2013) also reported significant progress in the attitude of police officers after using BWCs for three months.

The third possible benefit of officer BWCs relates to improvements in the conduct of citizens. Those supporting the use of officer BWCs maintain that this technology is capable of enhancing citizens’ behavior during their interactions with police officers (Draisin, 2011). In this respect, BWCs is likely to cause citizens to behave in a compliant as well as respectful way. This assertion is yet to be empirically evaluated. According to Miller and Toliver, (2014), it has been argued that officers wearing BWCs in crime prone areas can significantly lessen criminal behavior among citizens. This stems from the fact that CCTV has a similar effect. In addition, Miller and Toliver argued that BWCs could have a greater effect when compared to dashboard cameras and CCTV owing to the fact that they can be used at any position since they are not fixed. BWCs are also more visible than CCTV, which can be blended into the setting after a while. A research by ODS Consulting (2011) tried to explore the effect of BWCs on citizen conduct. The findings of the research showed that assaults on officers wearing BWCs were significantly lower than assaults on those not wearing BWCs. Farrar (2013) attributed the significant decline in the use of brutal force by police officers to improvements in citizens’ behavior. In other words, citizens are likely to change their behavior after realizing that their actions are being recorded on camera.

The fourth benefit of officer BWCs is the accelerated resolution of lawsuits and complaints raised by citizens. Those supporting the adoption of BWCs in law enforcement maintain that this technology will play a crucial role in facilitating a speedy resolution of the lawsuits and complaints filed by the public against police officers (Clark, 2013). Despite the fact that no study has been conducted to explore the effect of BWCs on lawsuits and complaints filed against police officers, the positive effect that BWCs have on determining complaints is empirically supported (White, 2014). There is no doubt that police departments often dedicate a significant amount of resources towards investigating complaints raised by citizens. Nevertheless, citizens’ complaints filed against police officers are often ruled out as “not sustained” due to the fact that they usually involve no witnesses (White, 2014). In addition, the complaint typically involves the word of the citizen against the word of the police officer. BWCs can offer evidence to be utilized to change the nature of citizen complaints. Essentially, the complaint resolution process is facilitated by the video evidence captured by BWCs, which will help in reducing the time consumed in complaint resolution as well as the police time involved. Furthermore, the video evidence captured by BWC can provide the public with extra information required for them to have an understanding of the police behavior. Harris (2010) asserted that BWCs is likely to reduce the chances of citizens filing untruthful complaints.

Another advantage of officer BWC technology is that it can be used in gathering evidence for making arrests and subsequent prosecution. Those in support of adoption of BWCs in law enforcement argue that this technology will help facilitate the process of arresting and prosecuting offenders owing to the fact that it provides a real-time long lasting record of the occurrence (Miller & Toliver, 2014). Studies in the UK support this assertion. For instance, Goodall (2007) highlighted that BWCs have increased the ability of law enforcement officers to document the occurrence of violence crimes. Along with that, crimes recorded using BWCs are more likely to end in guilty pleases instead of criminal trials. The adoption of BWC technology can help in reducing the officer time allocated to preparing files and paper work, which can in turn be helpful in increasing the time allocated in conducting patrols. ODS Consulting (2011) estimated that BWCs can result in additional 50 minutes in patrols for a 9-hour shift. Speedy resolution of cases through guilty pleas has also been documented in other studies.

BWC also provides opportunities to train and develop police officers. In this respect, those supporting the adoption of this technology in policing argue that it can be used as a crucial training tool. Reviewing the conduct and performance of a police officer might be helpful when critical occurrences such as police brutality are recorded. Professional training and development has been identified as one of the crucial benefits associated with BWC (Miller & Toliver, 2014). BWC enables detailed performance reviews of police behavior, which can act as an efficient tool for highlight effective as well as ineffective actions of officers. Along with that, experienced police officers are in a position to review their behavior and adopt measures that can help improve their professional performance. A case study of this application is the Miami Police Department, which is using BWC as a tool to train its officers. Under this program, a training scenario is recorded and later reviewed with the aim of informing the student officers about the areas that require improvement (Miller & Toliver, 2014).

Cons of BWC

Regardless of the potential and benefits associated with BWC, it has a number of downsides and costs that have to be addressed when used as a policing technology. The first disadvantage of BWC relates to the privacy concerns of citizens. Despite the fact that the adoption of BWC in law enforcement has received support from civil rights advocates, its effect on the privacy of citizens is an issue that is yet to be comprehended fully (Clark, 2013). State and federal laws on privacy impose a number of restrictions on tape recording. In addition, BWCs record instantaneous traumatic experiences of people who are can also be crime victims, people who are being arrested, or people involved in accidents and medical emergencies. Recording such incidences is likely to increase trauma among the public (Goodall, 2007). When using BWC, police officers have to be cautious of the intrusive nature of this technology, especially with respect to communications subject to legal privilege, crime victims, confidential informants, witnesses, and intimate searches. Officers have also expressed concerns related to the possibility of their supervisors relentlessly looking at the recordings in order to try to find behaviors that are likely to land the police officer in some trouble (Miller & Toliver, 2014).

The second issue of concern associated with the use of officer BWC relates to the privacy aspect of the police officers. BWC technology is yet to be universally accepted in all law enforcement agencies. In most cities, police unions have been very vocal against the adoption of this technology on grounds that BWCs alter the work environment of police officers; as a result, these changes have to be discussed in the contract negotiations. Other concerns have been raised in regard to the assumption that BWCs subjects police officers to the probability of unintentionally forgetting to record some unwarranted events not related to police work (Goodall, 2007).

Thirdly, BWC raises concerns associated with the safety and health of the police officer. Goodall (2007) outlined a number of likely safety and health concerns associated with BWCs including electrical shock, possibilities of assaults from citizens due to the camera, and injury in the neck attributed to the camera’s weight. Most of these concerns are considered low risk. Others have been considered medium risk such as the possibility of head injury associated with the camera hitting the head of the officer in the event of an assault, headaches and soreness stemming from the headband used to attach the camera, and probable transference of bodily fluids when cameras are shared among police officers. Nevertheless, this potential risks can be eliminated when the BWC is worn as a part of the uniform rather than on the head (Goodall, 2007).

The BWC technology also requires significant investments with respect to policy development and officer training. Officers wearing BWCs require sufficient training on various aspects of their use such as recording video, downloading video, and maintaining the camera (Goodall, 2007). In addition, police agencies ought to craft precise administrative policies that guide police officers on various issues including when and when not to record, whether to inform the public of the recording of the interaction, and supervisor review of the video. These administrative policies should also cover such aspects as management and storage of data, using the video for purposes of prosecution and download procedures.

Another disadvantage of BWCs is the need significant commitment with respect to logistics, resources and funds. A BWC costs about $800-1000 in addition to the replacement costs following the breaking down of components. In addition, the management and storage of data is a significant resource issue in the adoption of BWC technology in law enforcement. BWC yields vast amounts of data requiring secure storage and handling. In fact, cloud-based storage is expensive (White, 2014).

Impact of BWC on Stakeholders

There is no doubt that the adoption of BWC needs significant commitment from policing agencies, which extends just beyond financial commitment to acquire BWCs. Substantial groundwork must be undertaken before BWC can be deployed, including vendor selection, overcoming resistance from unions and officers, and development of administrative policy and officer training to deal with the important issues. Storing and managing the data is a significant resource requirement (Goodall, 2007). Police departments opting for local storage of data are compelled to mitigate the various challenges associated with effective management of vast data recorded by police officers, as well as responding to requests from prosecutors and citizens for the data. Draisin (2011) recommended that agencies have to fully communicate the goals and objectives they seek to achieve using BWCs, and be deliberate with respect to their decision-making process owing to the fact that BWC has an impact on all aspects associated with law enforcement and other stakeholders’ agencies, such as civil rights organizations, police unions, the public, and professional law enforcement institutions.

Conclusion

From the discussion, it is evident that BWC has both positive and negative impacts on law enforcement agencies and the public. BWCs help in improving police and citizen behavior, facilitating speedy resolution of complaints raised by citizens, enhancing policing efficiency by lessening officers’ time allocated to paper work, and increasing the possibility of cases ending in guilty pleas. Despite these advantages, a number of issues need to considered when adopting BWC for law enforcement including officer privacy, citizen privacy, resource considerations, officer training and policy development, and officer health and safety concerns.