Police Body Worn Cameras:

A Policy Scorecard

November 2015

Policy Scorecard

Policy
Available

Officer
Discretion

Personal
Privacy

Officer
Review

Footage
Retention

Footage
Misuse

Footage
Access

Biometric
Use

Purpose

In the wake of high-profile incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, North Charleston, Baltimore, and elsewhere, law enforcement agencies across the country are rapidly adopting 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.

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.”

This scorecard evaluates the body-worn camera policies currently in place at more than two dozen 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.

Methodology

For our initial release, we chose to examine the body-worn camera programs in 25 local police departments. First, we looked at the 15 largest departments in the country that have already equipped — or will very soon equip — some officers with body cameras.1 Then, we hand-selected the remaining 10 departments based on other factors, including whether they recently received DOJ funding for cameras (as indicated by on the scorecard),2 whether they have been in the national spotlight for recent incidents, and whether they have adopted certain promising policies that we wanted to highlight.

Over time, as departments learn from their initial experiences with cameras, their policies will necessarily evolve — and hopefully improve. As we become aware of policy changes, we will do our best to keep our scorecard current and update our analysis. If you see anything that looks out of date, please let us know.

Evaluation Criteria

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

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 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.

Our eight criteria examine whether a department:

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

The department publishes the most recent publicly available version of its policy on its website, in a location that is easy for members of the public to find.
The policy posted on the department’s website either is outdated, or is difficult for members of the public to find.
The department's policy is not available on its website.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

The policy clearly describes when officers must record, and requires officers to provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events.
The policy clearly describes when officers must record, but does not require officers to provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events.
The policy does not clearly describe when officers must record.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy specifically protects categories of vulnerable individuals (e.g., victims of sex crimes) from being recorded without their informed consent.
The policy mentions the importance of personal privacy, but either offers vague guidance on when not to record, or does not require informed consent from vulnerable individuals.
The policy does not address personal privacy concerns.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy requires officers to file an initial written report or statement before relevant footage is reviewed, for all incidents.
The policy requires officers to file an initial written report or statement before relevant footage is reviewed, for some incidents.
The policy allows — or even encourages — officers to view relevant footage before filing an initial written report or statement.

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy requires the department to delete unflagged footage within six months.
The policy requires the department to delete unflagged footage — but after more than six months.
The policy does not require the department to delete unflagged footage, or we are unable to determine whether the unflagged footage must be deleted.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

The policy expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, and indicates that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.
The policy expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, but does not indicate that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.
The policy does not expressly prohibit both footage tampering and unauthorized access.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy expressly allows individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view all relevant footage.
The policy expressly allows individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view some relevant footage.
The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage.

Limits the Use of Biometric Technologies

The policy sharply limits the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.
The policy places some limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.
The policy places no limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.

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.

Findings

Departments are moving quickly to deploy body-worn cameras, and are experimenting with a wide range of policies in each of the dimensions we studied. 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.

We found that:

  1. We selected the largest departments based on the number of full-time sworn personnel. Four large departments — Suffolk County (14th), Nassau County (17th), Boston (19th), and Honolulu (20th) — do not appear to have concrete plans to outfit their officers with cameras. 

  2. In September, 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. The grants require the applicants 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.” 

  3. 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. 

Department Policies

New York Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

NYPD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, the most recent publicly available policy is available from other sources, e.g., Appendix A of the NYPD Inspector General’s BWC report from July 2015. The policy is Operations Order 48, issued on December 2, 2014.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

NYPD lists a specific set of police actions that officers must record. (Step 6)

When officers fail to record, NYPD requires them to document and justify such failures. (Note after Step 6; Step 11)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

NYPD prohibits recording “where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists,” and allows victims and witnesses to opt out of recording in non-confrontational situations. (Step 8)

Officers must notify subjects that they are being recorded. (Step 10)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

NYPD allows officers to request and review footage before giving testimony or an interview. While the policy does ask officers to “distinguish between facts recalled independently, recollection refreshed by review of video and other sources, and facts not previously known but learned by reviewing the video,” it does not expressly require that officers make initial statements before they reviewing. (Step 14)

Limits Retention of Footage

NYPD deletes “non-archival” footage automatically after one year. (Additional Data at the end)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

NYPD expressly prohibits footage tampering and unauthorized sharing of footage, but does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (Additional Data at the end)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

NYPD expressly prohibits footage tampering and unauthorized sharing of footage, but does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (Additional Data at the end)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Chicago Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Chicago PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy online on its Department Directives System. The most recent policy is Department Notice D15-01, which was issued on January 30, 2015, and was current as of June 5, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Chicago PD provides officers with a clear list of situations that must be recorded. (§VI.E)

Chicago PD gives its officers discretion to turn off the camera “when further recording of the incident will not serve a proper police purpose.” But in those cases, officers must state the reason on camera before turning it off. (§VI.G)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Chicago PD prohibits officers from recording “where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists,” and specifically protects both medical patients and exposed individuals. (§VI.H)

In addition, officers must notify all individuals that they are being recorded, and victims may opt out of recording. (§VI.B, §VI.E.8 NOTE)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Chicago PD allows officers to view their own recordings without restriction. (§V.H)

Limits Retention of Footage

Chicago PD relies on its department-wide data retention policy for BWC videos. (§V.G)

In the Forms Retention Schedule, the retention period for “Body Worn Camera Video” is “90 days unless extended hold requested.” Based on the accompanying guidance, this appears to be a minimum retention duration, rather than a requirement to delete footage after 90 days.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Chicago PD prohibits unauthorized copying and dissemination of footage — but it does not expressly prohibit footage tampering (i.e., modification and deletion). (§VIII)

Also, Chicago PD mentions that it logs all access to recorded footage. (§V.H)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Chicago PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Los Angeles Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

LAPD publishes the most recent version of its BWC policy on its website. This version was approved by the Board of Police Commissioners on April 28, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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 Exceptions)

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Philadelphia Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: January 14, 2016

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Philadelphia PD publishes its pilot BWC policy on its website, linked from the Department’s manual of Directives. Directive 4.21 on “Body-Worn Cameras — Voluntary Pilot Program” was issued and effective on April 20, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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)

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)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

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)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Philadelphia PD allows officers to review footage when writing their reports. (§9-B-2)

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)

Limits Retention of Footage

Philadelphia PD specifies a retention period of 15 days for unflagged footage, but that appears to be a minimum retention period. The policy does not clearly indicate when unflagged footage must be deleted. (§§4-D, 9-A-1)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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-5)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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)

Any public release of footage must be authorized by the Commissioner. (§9-B-6)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Houston Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 30, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Houston PD maintains a dedicated webpage about its BWC program, which includes its most recent publicly available draft BWC policy (dated October 1, 2015).

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Houston PD requires officers to record “any law enforcement related activities.” (§9, §12(j), §14)

Officers must provide concrete justifications if they fail to record a required event. (§9)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Houston PD allows officers to exercise discretion to turn off their cameras at “sensitive scenes” and in “non-confrontational situations.” (§9)

Officers are not required to turn off the camera “solely at the demand of a citizen,” (presumably, including crime victims) but should exercise caution in medical and psychiatric facilities, and in restrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms. (§11)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Houston PD expressly allows officers to view footage while completing their reports, including in weapon discharge incidents. While the policy states that “[h]omicide investigators may limit, restrict, or prohibit review,” it does not state under what conditions they limit review. (§§10, 16, 18)

Limits Retention of Footage

Houston PD deletes non-evidentiary footage after 90 days. (§20)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Houston PD prohibits unauthorized footage sharing, and prohibits tampering of “BWC equipment and software” — but footage is neither “equipment” nor “software.” (§§2, 12)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Houston PD relies on Texas’s public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow complainants to view relevant footage. (§26)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

MPD maintains a dedicated webpage about its BWC program. Not only does the page provide MPD’s most recent publicly available BWC policy (dated June 29, 2015), it also provides program context, relevant documents, answers to frequently asked questions, and even sample BWC footage.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

MPD provides a long and detailed list of situations that officers must record. (§§V.3-4)

Officers must document “any delay or failure” to record in their written reports. (§§V.14.b)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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)

For privacy reasons, officers are also instructed to take special precautions when recording victims of intrafamily incidents, and medical patients. (§§V.A.7-8)

Officers must notify subjects that they are being recorded, but importantly, MPD is silent on whether subjects (in particular, crime victims or other vulnerable individuals) can affirmatively opt out of recording. (§IV.E)

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)

Finally, MPD requires periodic privacy audits of recorded footage. (§§VI.J.1.a)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

MPD allows officers to view their recordings while completing their reports. (§V.D.1)

Limits Retention of Footage

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.1)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

MPD expressly prohibits officers from tampering with BWC hardware, software and recorded footage. (§IV.M.1-5)

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)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

MPD expressly allows a recorded individual to view footage — but only if the individual is the only person in the recording. This means that individuals would be denied access to footage in many situations — for example, any time the recorded incident happens in a busy public place. (§§VI.B.1(a), (c))

All other public requests for footage are handled by the DC FOIA Office. (§IV.F.1)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Dallas Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Dallas PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a draft policy was found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. The policy was presented by the Dallas Chief of Police to the City Council’s Public Safety Committee on May 26, 2015. It’s the most recent policy we could locate.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Dallas PD requires officers “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. (§§3XX.04.A.1-3, B)

When officers fail to record a required incident, they must document the failure in their report. (§§3XX.04.C-D)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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. (§§3XX.05.A, B, E)

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. (§§3XX.04.A.4-6)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Dallas PD encourages officers to view incident recordings before writing their reports. (§3XX.04.A.1.m, §3XX.06.F)

Limits Retention of Footage

Dallas PD automatically deletes unflagged footage after 90 days. (§3XX.06.B)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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. (§§3XX.03.A.5-8)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Dallas PD relies on Texas’s public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§3XX.03.A; §§3XX.06.A, D, E)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Phoenix Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Phoenix PD most recent publicly available BWC policy is dated April 2013. Oddly, we found the policy on the website of the city of Spokane, WA. In July 2015, we confirmed with a Phoenix PD official that this policy is current and is the only one they’ve released to date.

Phoenix PD offers a brief, one-paragraph description of its BWC program on its website, but the page does not link to this policy or any other relevant documents.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Phoenix PD requires officers to record “all investigative or enforcement contacts.” (§5.B.4)

Officers that are allowed discretion if “they are able to justify such a deviation” — but the policy does not specify how, or even whether, officers must provide such a concrete justification. (§5.B.5)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Phoenix PD prohibits officers from recording “where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists,” but does not specifically protect categories of vulnerable individuals. (§5.C.1)

Phoenix PD has no policy that requires officers to inform subjects that the camera is recording.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Phoenix PD allows officers to view footage before completing their reports. (§5.B.6)

Limits Retention of Footage

Phoenix PD specifies a minimum duration for footage retention, but does not appear to require footage deletion. (§5.H)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Phoenix PD prohibits unauthorized access and distribution of footage, but does not expressly prohibit footage modification or deletion. The policy also does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§5.D.1)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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.D.2, 5.D.5)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Baltimore Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 30, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Baltimore PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, the Baltimore Sun obtained a copy of the policy and published it online. The policy is dated October 26, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Baltimore PD requires officers to record all activities that are “investigative or enforcement in nature.”

Before stopping a recording, officers must record a reason on camera before turning it off.

However, when officers fail to record a required incident, there is no requirement to provide a concrete justification.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Baltimore PD allows officers to deactivate the camera when “sensitive circumstances are present,” providing only vague guidance (through one example) as to what this means.

Officers must always notify subjects that the camera is recording. But officers are under no obligation to turn off their cameras, even when a crime victim requests that the recording stop. (And only when the victim “wishes to make a statement or share information” can the officer even consider turning the camera off.)

Baltimore PD provides special privacy considerations when recording in health care and detention facilities, but not in private residences.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

For certain serious incidents, Baltimore PD only allows officers to review the BWC recording if certain conditions are met, such as if an officer “has been compelled to make a statement.” For other routine matters and administrative investigations, officers can view footage before writing their reports.

Limits Retention of Footage

Baltimore PD does not address, and thus does not require, the deletion of any footage.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Baltimore PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, and logs all access to footage.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Baltimore PD relies on Maryland’s public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow complainants to view relevant footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

Commendably, Baltimore 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.) This policy is unique among the major department policies we’ve reviewed.

Return to Scorecard

Miami-Dade Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Miami-Dade PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a draft policy was found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. While the policy itself is undated, the name of the file from BJA suggests that the policy is current as of April 24, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Miami-Dade PD requires officers to record a wide range of law enforcement activities. (§§VII.B-D)

When officers fail to record, officers must justify the failure in writing and notify their supervisor. (§VI.E)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Miami-Dade PD allows victims to opt out of recording, but only if they are “in locations where [they] have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” This means that victims and other vulnerable individuals, who are found in public and semi-public places, could not opt out of recording. (§§VII.G-I, VIII.B-C)

Miami-Dade PD also has no policy that requires officers to inform subjects that the camera is recording.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Miami-Dade PD allows officers to view relevant footage while completing their reports. (§VII.E)

Limits Retention of Footage

Miami-Dade PD retains non-evidentiary data for a minimum of 60 days, then purges the data per the retention schedules published by Florida’s records management office. The office’s records schedule for law enforcement, effective February 19, 2015, does not appear to include a schedule for body-worn video. It’s unclear how Miami-Dade ultimately disposes of recorded footage. (§§XIII.D-E)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Miami-Dade PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, but does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§VIII.E-I)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Miami-Dade 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. (§§XIII.A-C)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $250,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

LVMPD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a draft policy was found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. The policy is dated December 2014, and is §5/210.01 of the LVMPD Department Manual.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

LVMPD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a draft policy was found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. The policy is dated December 2014, and is §5/210.01 of the LVMPD Department Manual.
LVMPD requires officers to record “all contacts with citizens in the following occurrences”:

LVMPD gives officers discretion to turn off their cameras in certain situations. Whenever officers exercise discretion, they must record the justification on camera before turning it off. When officers fail to record, they must document the reason in their reports.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

LVMPD permits officers to view footage before completing their statements, even in cases of officer-involved shootings.

Limits Retention of Footage

LVMPD deletes unflagged footage in exactly 45 days.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

LVMPD prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized use and distribution — and it maintains an audit log of all access to recorded footage.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

LVMPD permits — but does not require — the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) to show footage to potential complainants. But the policy does not detail how requests to view footage should be made or handled.

All other requests for footage must be made pursuant to Nevada’s Open Records Act.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Detroit Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

As far as we can tell, Detroit PD has never made a BWC policy available to the public. Detroit PD has tested BWCs in two different pilot programs: one in April 2014 and another from March to July 2015. Detroit Police Assistant Chief James White says that the Detroit PD is using “‘common sense’ policies that are accepted best practices across the nation.” In August 2015, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan and Police Chief James Craig announced that Detroit would be implementing the “nation’s first law enforcement video system that would integrate body cameras and in-car dashboard cameras,” to begin in early 2016 with full deployment of BWCs within three years.

Return to Scorecard

Memphis Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Memphis PD requires officers to record a wide range of on-duty activities. (§IV.C.4)

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)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

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)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Memphis PD permits officers to review footage when completing their written reports. (§IV.F)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy does not require Memphis PD to delete unflagged footage.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Memphis PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Milwaukee Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: November 17, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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 October 16, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

However, when officers fail to record a required incident, there is no requirement to provide a concrete justification.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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)

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)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Milwaukee PD allows officers to review footage when writing their reports. (§747.25.I.1.b)

Limits Retention of Footage

Milwaukee PD specifies various “recording management categories” and the minimum retention durations for each category. (§747.25.G.2) For example, for unflagged footage:

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

San Antonio Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

As far as we can tell, San Antonio PD has never made a BWC policy available to the public. The San Antonio PD launched a six-month BWC pilot program in March 2014. Though San Antonio Chief of Police William McManus outlined the police department’s BWC policy at City Council meeting in December 2014, noting that the policy addressed “the following key issues: 1) When to begin and end a recording; 2) When not to record; 3) Who can access stored records; 4) Who can authorize requests to view videos; and 5) Video retention and deletion time table,” we could not find a record of that policy.

San Antonio will deploy BWCs in three phases over the next three years: “The first phase will involve 251 cameras for bicycle and park police officers. The second phase, beginning later in FY 2016 and continuing through FY 2017, will involve an incremental roll out of cameras to police substations.”

Return to Scorecard

San Francisco Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

SFPD has a webpage dedicated to the development of its body worn camera policy, which provides details about the department’s biweekly BWC working group meetings. The group publishes the latest iteration of the draft policy for each meeting. The most recent publicly available draft policy is dated August 11, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

SFPD requires officers to record a wide range of law enforcement activities. (§III.C)

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)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

SFPD prohibits officers from recording two categories of sensitive victims. (§III.D)

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

SFPD allows members to review footage prior to preparing incident reports or other statements, even in critical incidents. (§III.F.1)

Limits Retention of Footage

SFPD retains all BWC footage for at least two years. After this duration, for unflagged footage, deletion is “authorized” but not required. (§III.J)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

SFPD prohibits the deletion of footage without prior authorization. (§III.J)

In addition, SFPD prohibits footage access for purposes unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement. But the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§III.F.2)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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.2.a)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Atlanta Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: November 12, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

When this scorecard was initially released, on November 9, 2015, we scored a version of Atlanta PD’s body-worn camera policy that was available through the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. This was Special Order 14.05 from the Department’s Policy Manual, titled “Body Worn Cameras Pilot Program (BWCPP).” The Order was effective September 1, 2014.

On November 10, 2015, a representative of the Atlanta PD contacted us to say that the policy we had originally reviewed was for an early pilot test, and was “no longer in effect.” Although there was no public notation to suggest that the policy was out-of-date, we agreed to remove our score for the department, pending the release of a new policy.

From public reports, it appears that the department plans to launch a second pilot in the coming weeks, with a new policy in place. We look forward to reviewing the new policy as soon as it’s made publicly available.

Return to Scorecard

Austin Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Austin PD publishes its BWC policy on its website, but it’s only found buried deep within the Department’s 725-page Policy Manual. The latest available version of this manual was adopted on May 4, 2015. The BWC policy is Policy 303, starting on page 125.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Austin PD requires officers to record in a wide range of law enforcement situations. (§303.2.1(a)-(d))

Officers must keep their cameras activated “until the incident has concluded,” but does not require a concrete justification for failures to record. (§303.2.2)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Austin PD does not address personal privacy concerns.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

Austin PD deletes non-evidentiary footage after 45 days. (§303.2.4(b))

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Austin PD expressly prohibits footage tampering, but does not address unauthorized access to footage. The policy also does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§303.2(c))

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Austin PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Cleveland Division of Police

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Cleveland Police 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 February 2, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Cleveland Police requires officers to record “any police related action.” (§IV.G)

Officers must record the entire contact and must always announce the reason why the camera is being turned off before doing so. (§IV.H.3., §IV.J)

Officers must notify a supervisor if they fail to record, but the policy does not indicate whether officers must provide a concrete justification (or how that information should be handled by the supervisor). (§IV.D)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Cleveland Police prohibits officers from recording in “[a]ny place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.” It specifically protects exposed individuals and those who have suffered extreme injuries. (§§V.D-H)

Officers must notify citizens that the camera is recording. (§IV.H.2)

In two limited circumstances — when police are entering a private home or building, or recording a victim or witness — the officer may be allowed (but is not required) to turn the camera off if the subject opts out. (§IV.I)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Cleveland Police allows officers to view relevant footage while completing their reports. (§X.B)

Limits Retention of Footage

Cleveland Police specifies a retention period of 180 days for unflagged footage, but no deletion requirement exists. (§X.A., §XVII.E)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Cleveland Police expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access. 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-II, §§X.C-D)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Cleveland Police does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage, and expressly prohibits officers from allowing anyone outside the department to view footage. (§§XIV.D-F)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Seattle Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $600,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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 16.091, effective April 1, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Seattle PD requires officers to record a clearly defined set of policy activity. (§4)

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

Any failure to record required events must also be documented. (§7)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Seattle PD prohibits officers from intentionally recording “places where a heightened expectation of privacy exists,” but does not address specific categories of vulnerable people. (§4)

Officers must notify all subjects that they are being recorded, but no consent is required unless the recording would take place in a residence or other private area. (§4, 6)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

Seattle PD does not address, and thus does not require, the deletion of any footage.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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, 5)

Promisingly, each time footage is viewed, Seattle PD employees must state the reason they are doing so. (POL-2 §4)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Seattle PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

New Orleans Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $237,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

NOPD publishes its BWC policy on its website, but it’s only found buried deep within the Department’s 1075-page Regulations Manual. The latest available version of the Regulations Manual is dated August 24, 2015. The BWC policy is Chapter 41.3.10, starting on page 65, and was effective April 5, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

NOPD requires officers to record a wide range of situations. (§§9-13)

If officers deactivate their cameras before the conclusion of an incident, they must either seek supervisory approval or document their reasoning on camera. (§30)

However, NOPD has no policy that requires officers to provide concrete justifications when they fail to record required incidents.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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. (§§9, 29)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

NOPD allows officers to view footage before completing their written reports. (§§48-49)

Limits Retention of Footage

NOPD specifies minimum retention durations, but does not require footage deletion. (§8)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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, 47)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

NOPD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Albuquerque Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $250,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: November 9, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Albuquerque PD publishes its BWC policy on its website, linked from the department’s General Orders Manual. Order 1-39, on the “Use of Tape/Digital Recorders,” applies to body-worn cameras. While the Order is dated January 22, 2013, it appears to be the department’s current policy.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Albuquerque PD requires officers to record certain categories of citizen contact. (§§1-39-1-A, 1-39-2-B)

Officers may use discretion in certain “proactive (non-dispatched)” circumstances, if activating the recorder puts the officer or others in danger. (§1-39-1-B)

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Albuquerque PD does not address personal privacy concerns.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Albuquerque PD does not address, and thus does not prohibit, officer review of footage before filing their initial reports.

Limits Retention of Footage

Albuquerque PD specifies a minimum retention period, but does not appear to require footage deletion. (§1-39-2-B)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Albuquerque PD does not expressly prohibit footage tampering and unauthorized access.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Albuquerque PD does not expressly prohibit footage tampering and unauthorized access.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Oakland Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Oakland PD requires officers to record a detailed and lengthy set of circumstances. (§II.A)

Once activated, officers must not turn off their cameras until one of the defined circumstances occurs. (§II.D.1)

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

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)

When officers fail to record, they must also document the reason in writing. (§III.C.2)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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)

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)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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)

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.)

For all other cases, officers may review relevant footage. (§IV.E)

Limits Retention of Footage

Oakland PD retains all footage for a minimum of two years, with no apparent deletion requirement. (§VI.A.3)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Oakland PD expressly prohibits footage tampering and unauthorized use. (§§I.C-E)

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)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Ferguson Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Ferguson PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a version of its policy was found online from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This policy is effective August 28, 2014, and is the most recent publicly available version we could find.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Ferguson PD requires officers “to record contacts with the general public” while performing official patrol duties. (§481.05.A)

But the policy does not specify when officers may turn off their cameras, nor does it require officers to provide concrete justifications when they fail to record.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Ferguson PD does not address personal privacy concerns.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Ferguson PD does not address, and thus does not prohibit, officer review of footage before filing their initial reports.

Limits Retention of Footage

Ferguson PD does not address, and thus does not require, the deletion of any footage.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Ferguson PD does not expressly prohibit footage tampering and unauthorized access.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Ferguson PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Parker Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: October 15, 2015

We included the Parker (Colorado) Police Department in our report because the ACLU recently hailed their BWC policy as one of the best in the nation.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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 September 4, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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 an entire contact, they must document the reason why that occurred. (§3.25.6)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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)

In addition, officers are prohibited from recording at schools or medical facilities, with few exceptions. (§3.25.5.D)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

In other cases, officers may view footage “for exact quotes” by individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints. (§3.25.5.F.1)

Limits Retention of Footage

Parker PD retains unflagged footage for a minimum of one year, and deletes unflagged footage within three years. (§3.25.8.A)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Parker PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access. However, the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§3.25.6; §3.25.5.F.2; §§3.25.7.F-G)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Parker PD expressly allows recorded individuals (or their legal designee) to review footage of all incidents that include that individual. (§3.25.9.E)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Appendix

Civil Rights Principles on Body Worn Cameras

May 2015

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.

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.

To help ensure that police-operated cameras are used to enhance civil rights, departments must:

  1. Develop camera policies in public with the input of civil rights advocates and the local community. Current policies must always be publicly available, and any policy changes must also be made in consultation with the community.
  2. Commit to a set of narrow and well-defined purposes for which cameras and their footage may be used. In particular, facial recognition and other biometric technologies must be carefully limited: if they are used together with body cameras, officers will have far greater visibility into heavily policed communities—where cameras will be abundant—than into other communities where cameras will be rare. Such technologies could amplify existing disparities in law enforcement practices across communities.
  3. Specify clear operational policies for recording, retention, and access, and enforce strict disciplinary protocols for policy violations. While some types of law enforcement interactions (e.g., when attending to victims of domestic violence) may happen off-camera, the vast majority of interactions with the public—including all that involve the use of force—should be captured on video. Departments must also adopt systems to monitor and audit access to recorded footage, and secure footage against unauthorized access and tampering.
  4. Make footage available to promote accountability with appropriate privacy safeguards in place. At a minimum: (1) footage that captures police use of force should be made available to the public and press upon request, and (2) upon request, footage should be made available in a timely manner to any filmed subject seeking to file a complaint, to criminal defendants, and to the next-of-kin of anyone whose death is related to the events captured on video. Departments must consider individual privacy concerns before making footage available to broad audiences.
  5. Preserve the independent evidentiary value of officer reports by prohibiting officers from viewing footage before filing their reports. Footage of an event presents a partial—and sometimes misleading—perspective of how events unfolded. Pre-report viewing could cause an officer to conform the report to what the video appears to show, rather than what the officer actually saw.

Signed by:

Close

Return to top