MEMORANDUM
Response & Operations: National Office
Date:
6 March 2019
To:
Geoff Logan, Operations Manager, Response & Operations;
Paddy Hannon, Operations Coordinator, Response & Operations;
Darrin Putt, Project Officer: Deployable Assets, Response & Operations.
From:
s9(2)(a)
Research Analyst, Response & Operations Research and Evaluation team
Subject: Body-Worn Camera evidence review and recommendations
Body-Worn Camera Evidence Review and Recommendations for NZ
ion Act 1982
Section 9(2)(a) Official Information Act 1982
BACKGROUND
Police organisations around the World are increasingly turning to body-worn cameras to record police-
civilian interactions. Response and Operations have commenced planning for a body-worn camera
trial for NZ Police in 2019.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the existing evidence around BWCs and to
make recommendations for a BWC implementation trial and evaluation in NZ.
OVERVIEW
There has not yet been any research examining body-worn cameras (BWC) in New Zealand. The vast
majority of the literature is based on research conducted in the USA and UK, but there has also been
Pursuant to the Official In
some research conducted in Australia, Canada, Norway and Turkey. In total, we have reviewed 86
articles/reports relating to body-worn cameras1; 49 articles/reports focused specifical y on evaluating
some aspect of police officers using BWCs (see bibliography for details). Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
leased
R
• Overall, the outcomes of existing BWC programs vary widely, with some findings in
opposite directions in different studies.
• The context and goals of BWC programs vary widely, and it is not necessarily
appropriate to generalise expectations to the NZ context.
1 From KAI literature search 72 articles/reports and 1 abstract reviewed; 62 articles excluded—5 due to repeated
publication of same study, 57 judged not relevant. Thirteen additional articles/reports sourced and reviewed.
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
There are several reasons for the inconsistent outcomes:
• Different policy regarding officer discretion around what is recorded (and officer adherence to
the policy);
• Different policy around notifying the public that they are being recorded;
• Improvements can only be seen if there is a problem. In some places, BWCs have been
brought in as a means to address problems—misconduct, excessive use of force, assaults on
police, frivolous complaints against police, and poor police-community relations—through
increased transparency and accountability. In other places, BWCs are brought in in the
absence of specific problems to address, so there is less room for BWCs to have an effect on
these measures.
• Spil -over effects: many implementation trials have not adequately separated BWC and control
conditions, so comparisons between them are not meaningful, or become diluted. Spil -over
can occur because the same officer wears a BWC in some shifts but not in others, or because
officers wearing BWCs attend the same incidents as officers not wearing BWCs, as wel as
through poor adherence to the protocol (e.g. officers in the control condition choosing to wear
a BWC or vice versa).
• Many studies have very low base rates of the key measures (e.g. complaints, use of force,
assaults on police) which makes it difficult to detect whether BWCs cause change, and
whether any differences are robust or due to random variation. This problem is further
exacerbated because many studies only have smal numbers of police officers participating,
and/or short trial durations.
• Some studies only compare pre-BWC and post-BWC time periods, so any changes are not
necessarily due to the BWCs, but may be caused by other factors, random variation, or
changes already occurring over time.
the Official Information Act 1982
KEY FINDINGS
Many of the findings reported are only descriptive differences (i.e. higher or lower rates), not
statistical y robust effects; at least some differences are likely to be due to chance.
Use of force
• Most studies showed either no differences (7 studies) or less use of force (5 studies) by BWC
Pursuant to
officers compared to no-BWC officers. However, BWC officers had higher rates of use of force
when they had complete discretion over what to record (1 study).
• BWC officers had higher rates of compliant handcuffing than no-BWC officers (2 studies).
• Four studies showed decreases in use of force from pre- to post- implementation for both
BWC and no-BWC officers; in 3 studies the decrease was greater for BWC officers than no-
Released
BWC.
• One study found that initial decreases persisted over 3 years, but another found use of force
returned to baseline rates after 3 years.
• Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
• The results are mixed and do not easily generalise to the NZ context; we do not expect BWCs to
cause compel ing reductions in use of force in NZ.
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
Assaults on police/Police injuries
• Two studies showed no differences in rates of assaults or officer injuries for BWC compared to
no-BWC officers.
• Three studies showed higher rates of assault on BWC officers; one study suggested that this
result only occurred when officers had no discretion about what to record. One explanation is
that the monitoring deterred officers from actions that would not come across wel on camera
(such as using loud aggressive commands) and as a result they had reduced control of the
situation and were at higher risk of assault.
• Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
• It would be good for training around BWC use to discourage officers from inaction, and make it
clear that the footage wil not be used for general monitoring and scrutiny, but as evidence
and for review if complaints arise.
Complaints
• Comparisons showed no differences (4 studies) or fewer complaints for BWC officers than no-
BWC officers (6 studies). One study found that although use of force complaints were lower
for BWC officers, complaints regarding misconduct were higher.
• Eight studies showed overal decreases in rates of complaints from pre- to post-
implementation, with one study showing the decrease was stil evident after 3 years. In two
cases the decrease was bigger for BWC than no-BWC officers. Even though the reductions also
occurred for no-BWC officers, it is possible that they were caused by introducing BWCs, either
through “contagious accountability” whereby al staff changed their behaviour in the climate
of increased accountability, or alternatively through contagious transparency, whereby public
perceptions of increased accountability decreased dissatisfaction and complaints.
• One further study showed a decrease in rates of complaints from pre- to post-
implementation for BWC officers, but an increase for no-BWC officers.
• Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
ant to the Official Information Act 1982
Pu
Guilty pleas/judicial outcomes
• BWC footage was associated with either no difference (2 studies) or a slight increase (2
studies) in guilty pleas and guilty judicial outcomes.
• In NZ, recording victim video statements (VVS) for family harm incidents has been linked with
Released
a higher rate of early guilty pleas, although there may be a selection bias in who agreed to
record a VVS in this study.
• Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
Officer Activities
• BWCs have been associated with a higher arrest rate (3 studies), a lower arrest rate (3 studies)
and no change to the arrest rate (4 studies).
• Three studies showed BWC officers laid more charges/issued more citations; in one study,
domestic assault rates increased by 600%.
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
• Two studies found that BWC officers conducted less stop and searches than no-BWC, but
another found no differences. (Note that the goal of these studies was to reduce unfair stop-
and-searches).
• Two studies reported a higher number of self-initiated cal s by BWC officers compared to no-
BWC officers, and another found no differences.
• Two studies reported no differences between BWC and no-BWC officers across al activities.
• Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
Officers’ Attitudes about BWCs
• Most studies found officers were general y positive about BWCs (9 studies), but in some cases
officers were very negative (3 studies); this pessimism tended to occur in agencies where BWC
footage was used for general performance oversight and management.
• One common perceived advantage of BWCs was the increased amount and quality of
evidence, such as through capturing context and atmosphere of incident. As a result, officers
felt more protected in having evidence to justify their actions, protected from frivolous
complaints, and more confident of convictions.
• Some officers reported that increased video monitoring led to increased hesitancy to act, and
avoidance of risky situations.
• These results highlight the importance of identifying the purpose of our BWC program and
goals that wil maximise officer buy-in. We suggest framing the BWC program as protecting
officers and improving evidence and not for general oversight.
Public Attitudes about BWCs
• In general, people were very positive about police using BWCs (10 studies), specifical y for
improving fairness, accountability, transparency and procedural justice.
• People who interacted with an officer wearing BWC were often not aware of the BWC (2
studies), but when they were aware of the BWC, it enhanced perceptions of procedural justice
(1 study).
• In Australia, pol ce detainees reported being general y positive about BWCs, for protection of
police, public and arrestees, and for improved police accountability and fairness. They
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
reported some concerns about privacy and consent, as wel as around officers’ discretion to
stop/start/edit recording to distort the context.
BWC activation
Released
• Four studies reported low levels of BWC activation, even when required by policy.
• BWCs were more likely to be activated when officers were also required to notify civilians that
they were recording (1 study).
• Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
• Consider automatic activation of BWCs when officers respond to cal for service (and/or other
appropriate situations) with discretion to stop recording in certain situations according to
policy.
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
situation. It is also difficult for officers to remember to start recording while they are already
managing a difficult interaction, meaning recording may be missed altogether. Starting
recording before the interaction begins is safer for everyone and wil capture a more complete
record of the context and communication leading up to any use of force.
• Chal enges
- More incidents captured – requires more storage, potential y subject to more
requests for release, privacy concerns about what is captured.
2. Consider automatic activation of recording under certain circumstances, with officers having
discretion to stop recording under certain circumstances.
• Makes it easier for officers to continue their work as normal, while capturing complete
footage of incidents.
• Removes the mental burden on officers to repeatedly evaluate whether or not they should be
recording and remembering to start recording.
• Reduces element of human error, decreasing the risk of failing to capture important incidents.
• Research has shown widely varied rates of recording by individual officers, even working
under the same policy. Making recording automatic wil provide consistency and clear
expectations about what wil be captured.
• Increases transparency by making it clear in which circumstances we can expect footage to be
captured.
• Addresses public concerns about police discretion to start/stop/edit recordings to manipulate
context, potential y improving trust (or at least not damaging trust).
• Automatic activation should only be for spec fic circumstances that are identified and made
clear to officers. Cameras should not run continuously; officers’ conversations with col eagues,
administrative work, and meal breaks etc. should not be captured by BWC.
• Circumstances to start recording might include responding to a cal for service, getting out of
the patrol car, or other appropriate situations as determined by policy. Circumstances to stop
recording might include speaking with an informant, if a victim does not want to be recorded,
if there is nudity, if a homeowner/tenant doesn’t give consent to record inside their house, or
other appropriate situations as determined by policy.
• Chal enges
- Officers may feel that discretion is being limited;
- Officers may feel that they are not trusted to do their work, and that they are being
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
monitored;
- Privacy concerns around what is captured.
3.
When officers decide to stop recording, they should capture the explanation/justification on
camera before recording is stopped.
Released
• Puts the onus on officers and ensures they consider in advance and justify why an incident (or
part of it) is not recorded.
• If it is appropriate, BWC should capture victim or witness request for recording to stop.
4.
Consider notifying members of the public that they are being recorded.
• Notifying people that they are being recorded maximises any chance that the BWC wil have a
civilising effect on their behaviour.
• Multiple studies showed that people were typical y not aware that their interaction with the
police was being captured by BWC, limiting any deterrent effects the BWC might have.
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
• When people were aware that their interaction was captured by BWC, they saw the
interaction as more procedural y just; notifying civilians that they are being recorded may
work to improve public perceptions of police.
• The studies with the largest effects in reduced use of force, assaults on police, and complaints
al required officers to notify the public about BWC recording, and the authors (Ariel and
col eagues) argue strongly that the notification is essential for BWC to improve outcomes on
these measures.
• In addition, officers who were required to verbal y notify civilians about recording at the start
of an interaction had much higher rates of recording, probably because it worked as a
memory prompt.
• Notification could either be a verbal announcement, or officers could wear a bright lapel pin
to make it clear that interaction was being recorded (or similar).
• Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
982
• Chal enges
- Extra burden for officers to remember (if verbal notification);
- Some people may not respond wel .
5.
Do not use BWC footage for general oversight and scrutiny of staff behaviour in the absence of a
complaint or other concern.
- If staff feel the cameras are being used to monitor their behaviour, they may feel that they are
not trusted or valued by the organisation, which can be demotivating and lead to de-policing.
- Some research suggests that frontline staff members’ concerns about increased oversight lead
to increased reluctance to act, opening themselves up to the risk of assault, or skipping
directly over lower levels of force directly to higher level tactics, because they do not seize
control of dangerous situations.
6.
The goals and purpose of the BWCs should be very clear to officers involved, highlighting the
benefits, and the ways in which BWC footage wil be used and not used.
•
Frontline officer buy-in is essential for any BWC program to succeed.
•
We suggest framing BWCs as having both a protective and an evidentiary purpose. Officers
are protected from unreasonable complaints and from enduring long complaints
Pursuant to the Official Information Ac
investigation/resolution processes, with BWCs providing evidence as to what actual y
happened, and justifying their actions. In addition, BWCs improve evidence capture which
should be beneficial for officers in achieving prosecutions (overcoming the common issue of
relying on one person’s word against another’s).
•
It should be made clear that BWC footage wil not be used for general oversight of performing
Released
duties, but wil be reviewed if a complaint/concern arises.
•
Consider discussing BWC usage with Police Association representative to pre-empt and
address any issues and ensure support.
7.
Officers should be encouraged to use BWCs pro-actively in capturing evidence, such as through
explaining out loud what is happening on the way to an incident, background information, and
PCA/TEN-R judgments. If possible, after the incident has ended, officers should also record a
description and explanation about what occurred.
•
This additional information wil improve the quality of the evidence, capturing the officer’s
subjective understanding and evaluations in the immediate situation. This record wil be more
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
accurate than any later reporting, avoiding any biases from hindsight, post-hoc justifications,
or information learned after the incident.
•
This kind of record would provide higher quality evidence than post-hoc statements or
testimony. (
Could footage be used as Evidence in Chief, replacing police statements and/or
testifying, like Victim Video Statements have been?)
•
Narration wil make it clearer to other observers what is happening in the footage, improving
the value of the evidence (e.g. for a judge/jury).
•
Stating their thinking out loud would ensure officers made necessary evaluations in advance
(e.g. TEN-R), and would make it easier for them to recal this information later for reporting
purposes.
•
Narration might also be useful for officer’s professional development, looking back at the
incident and their perceptions at the time (but see Recommendation 8).
8.
Officers should not review any evidentiary BWC footage (or other officers’ footage from the
incident) until after testifying, or at a minimum until after preparing a written statement and al
relevant reporting (e.g. TOR form).
•
Each victim, witness and offender has a unique perspective and understanding of the incident
and what happened; the same is true of each officer. Each person’s perspective offers
something different to our overal understanding of an incident, and should be kept as
separate lines of evidence, independent of the BWC footage. Reviewing the footage is very
likely to change what the officer remembers and reports, narrowing their focus to only what
was included in the video, as wel as adding in information from the video that was not initial y
noticed or considered. If the officer does not view the footage, the two lines of evidence (BWC
and officer’s perspective) are kept separate pristine, and importantly above criticism.
•
Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
Official Information Act 1982
•
Preventing officers from reviewing their BWC footage would be a transformational and World-
leading move, and is the best practice based on very strong and substantial scientific evidence
about the reconstructive nature of memory.
•
The argument that officers should not view BWC footage has been raised by civil liberties
groups and academics, and has led at least one BWC program to stop completely, unable to
find a satisfactory solution.
Pursuant to th
•
Keeping the lines of evidence separate should contribute to improved public trust and
confidence, and increased credibility of officer’s evidence.
•
This approach would also overcome the administrative burden of managing BWC footage, in
terms of officers reviewing footage and flagging incidents for evidence. Incident times and
dates should be reported elsewhere (e.g. in a TOR form), and these could be used by someone
Released
in an administrative role to identify and flag the relevant footage.
•
Chal enges
- Officers may be upset about not being able to view the footage, and feel as though it
is to catch them out or question their credibility. Appropriate framing and explanation
wil be essential.
- Restricts the use of BWC footage for reflection and professional development.
However, this could be limited to footage flagged as evidentiary, which could be made
available for viewing after the evidence had been used, or after it has been
determined an officer would not be required to testify.
- May chal enge organisational culture and expectations.
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
9.
Officers should not have the ability to edit or redact footage at any time.
•
This restriction is essential to transparency, in order for BWC footage to stand up to scrutiny
and build public trust.
•
Addresses public concerns about police discretion to start/stop/edit recordings to manipulate
context, potential y improving trust (or at least not damaging trust).
10.
Consider using BWCs to capture initial interviews as evidence in family harm and other
appropriate incidents.
•
Increased quality, amount, and scope of evidence, including context, physical damage, and
emotional state of victim.
•
Several studies have demonstrated higher rates of guilty pleas and guilty verdicts as a result of
video victim statements in family harm. Similarly, research has shown substantial y more
details are reported in victim interviews recorded soon after the incident, compared to in-
court testimony. Recording initial interviews very soon after an incident wil increase the
amount and quality of evidence gathered, and should contribute to obtaining more just court
outcomes.
•
Chal enges
- Consequences for victims if video is used as evidence when they do not want to
pursue charges.
11. In developing policy, consider the eight recommendations and examples from BWC Scorecard
developed in association with the American Civil Liberties Union.
• Fol owing these recommendations/criteria wil maximise public perceptions of transparency,
trust, and procedural justice, and protect NZ police from public scrutiny on the basis of any of
these key BWC issues.
• Meeting al eight criteria would be World-leading. Of the 75 BWC programs reviewed in 2017,
the highest score achieved was 5 out of 8 criteria; there was considerable variation in which
criteria were met.
• The eight criteria are based on: [1] policy availability; [2] officer discretion around recording;
[3] personal privacy concerns; [4] pre-report viewing; [5] retention of footage; [6] protection
of footage; [7] footage availability; and [8] biometric technology.
• The scorecard is available at this link:
https://www.bwcscorecard.org/static/pdfs/LCCHR%20and%20Upturn%20-
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
%20BWC%20Scorecard%20v.3.0.pdf
Specific Recommendations for Implementing a BWC Trial in NZ Police
Released
1.
To best identify the effects of BWCs in the trial, BWCs should be assigned through block
randomisation, where several sections at a station wear BWCs, and other sections at the same
station do not. For example, at each trial station, officers in sections 1, 3, and 5 wear BWCs for the
duration of the trial, while officers in sections 2 and 4 do not wear BWCs at any point during the
trial. The officers who do and do not wear BWCs should not typical y attend the same incidents.
• This al ocation strategy wil provide the strongest differentiation between the BWC and no-
BWC officers, best enabling us to compare groups and identify effects caused by BWCs.
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
• Alternate al ocation strategies (and why they wil not work as wel ) include:
- Assigning BWCs by station would make it hard to draw any firm conclusions about the
effect of BWCs; any differences between groups could be due to environmental
differences.
- Comparing outcomes only over time also makes it hard to draw firm conclusions; changes
may be caused by other factors, random variation, or changes already occurring over
time. However, we can include pre- and post-trial comparisons in combination with the
recommended between groups comparisons.
- Assigning individual officers to wear BWCs on some shifts but not on others causes spil -
over effects, whereby any behaviour change that becomes ingrained wil affect both
conditions, diluting BWC effects, and limiting our ability to draw conclusions.
- Randomly assigning individual officers to wear BWCs or not wil risk spil -over effects
between officers. For example, an officer’s partner may wear a BWC that affects the
officer’s and/or the subject’s behaviour, even though the officer is in the no-BWC
condition.
• Chal enges
- Depends on how rosters work – may not be possible to al ocate in this way;
- Makes the trial set-up more difficult;
- Difficult to manage people changing sections during trial;
- May lead to dissatisfaction among frontline staff who are not al ocated to their preferred
group. Wil need to ensure staff adhere to al ocation for duration of trial (i.e. that officers
assigned to the no-BWC group do not use BWCs at al , and that officers assigned to the
BWC group always wear BWCs).
2.
Consider recruiting BWC leaders to champion BWC usage among teams.
•
Previous studies have maximised frontline staff buy-in and commitment by recruiting BWC
champions to encourage and motivate officers to use BWCs, as wel as through celebrating
success stories throughout the trial.
3.
Consider initial testing period with several staff members before the trial begins to identify and
address issues with BWCs and processes.
•
Fixing any teething problems before the trial begins means the trial should run more smoothly
and staff wil be less likely to be put off using BWCs.
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
•
Recruiting champions to test out the BWCs first wil put them in an excel ent position to
support and encourage other staff members (Recommendation 2).
4.
Ask champions to record a brief reflection at the end of each shift, tel ing us about how the BWC
worked for them and other officers on their section, outlining any difficulties and successes.
Released
•
These short videos wil help us to monitor what is happening in the trial as it is happening,
without adding much of a reporting burden.
•
Champions wil have a clear role in finding out from their fel ow officers how the BWCs
worked, and feeding information back to us.
•
The reflections wil capture any good news stories in a timely and authentic way that could
potential y be used for promoting BWCs to other trial staff or in future.
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
RECCOMENDED EVALUATION MEASURES
Below we outline measures that we recommend using to evaluate the trial. Depending on decisions
surrounding goals/policy/design, these recommendations may change.
Compare outcomes between BWC and no BWC officers, and for trial period vs. same 6-month period
in previous year:
• Use of force (overal )
• Arrests
• Tactical options utilised
• Charges laid (overal and by offence type)
• Injuries (subject and officer)
• Guilty pleas and verdicts
• Assaults on police
• Complaints received
• Responses to cal s for service
• Time to resolve complaints
• Self-initiated activities
• Time to resolve internal investigations
BWC footage usage
• amount captured
• used in prosecution
• used to resolve complaints
• used for internal investigation
• used for IPCA investigation
• requested for release by involved parties
BWC footage analysis
• Champions’ self-reflection at end of shift
• Evidentiary quality and usefulness – can an outsider understand what the footage shows? (see
Edmonton Police Service, 2015)
• Compare prosecutor, police officer, public view of evidence contained in BWC footage
• Compare amount and type of information included in footage to officer’s testimony or written
statement (see Westera, 2013)
Public perceptions
• Fol ow-up interview/survey with people who had a recent interaction with police (see McClure
et al. 2017; White et al., 2017); awareness of BWCs, perceptions of: officers wearing BWCs,
civilising effect, procedural justice in interaction etc.
Officer survey and/or interview. Ask about:
• Overal reflections of BWC
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
• Should BWCs be a standard appointment?
• What works when using BWCs? What does not work?
• Are BWCs empowering? Why or why not?
• Instances where stopped disorderly behaviour?
• Instances where prompted or aggravated disorderly behaviour?
Released
• Instances where could proceed with charge wouldn’t otherwise have proceeded with because
had evidence (instead of officer’s word against subject’s word)?
• Instances where made no difference to offenders’ behaviour?
• Other benefits?
• Problems?
• Recommendations for future?
• Katz et al. (2014) 33-item measure of officers’ perceptions of BWCs. Six scales: [1] comfort; [2]
completion of incident reports; [3] evidence in court; [4] citizen behaviour; [5] officer
behaviour; and [6] other benefits and limitations. Rate level of agreement with statements.
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, I., & Mastracci, S. (2019). Police body-worn cameras: effects on officers’ burnout and
perceived organizational support.
Police Quarterly,
22, 5-30. doi: 10.1177/1098611118783987
Ariel, B. (2016a). Police body cameras in large police departments.
Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology,
106, 729. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1902638002/ful textPDF/E78FA06780E94F0FPQ/9?acc
ountid=44840
Ariel, B. (2016b). Increasing cooperation with the police using body worn cameras.
Police quarterly,
19, 326-362. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1098611116653723
Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force
and citizens’ complaints against the police: a randomized control ed trial.
Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 31, 509-535. doi: 10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R.
(2016a). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce use of
force: Results from a global multi-site experiment.
European Journal of Criminology, 13, 744-
755. doi: 10.1177/1477370816643734
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R.
(2016b). Report: Increases in police use of force in the presence of body-worn cameras are
driven by officer discretion: a protocol-based subgroup analysis of ten randomized
experiments.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12, 453-463. doi: 10.1007/s11292-016-
9261-3
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R.
(2016c). Contagious accountability: a global multisite randomized control ed trial on the effect
of police body-worn cameras on citizens’ complaints against the police.
Criminal Justice &
Behavior, 44, 293-316. doi: 10.1177/0093854816668218
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R.
(2018). Paradoxical effects of self-awareness of being observed: Testing the effect of police
body-worn cameras on assaults and aggression against officers.
Journal of Experimental
Criminology,
14, 19-47. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-017-
9311-5
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A. Henstock, D., Young, J., & Sosinski, G. (2017). The deterrence spectrum:
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
Explaining why police body-worn cameras ‘work’ or ‘backfire’ in aggressive police–public
encounters
Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice,
12, 6-26. Retrieved from
https://academic.oup.com/policing/article/12/1/6/2965583?rss=1\
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A. & Sherman, L.W. (2018). Preventing treatment spil over contamination in
criminological field experiments: the case of body-worn police cameras.
Journal of
Experimental Cr
Released
iminology, 1-23. doi: 10.1007/s11292-018-9344-4
Barela, B. P. (2017)
Understanding the effects of body worn cameras on police interactions with the
public: impact on number of assaults on officers and use of force complaints against officers
(Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University). Retrieved from
https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/bitstream/handle/10976/166727/Barela uccs 0892N 10
292.pdf?sequence=1
Boivin, R., Gendron, A., Faubert, C., & Poulin, B. (2017). The body-worn camera perspective bias.
Journal of Experimental Criminology,
13, 125-142. doi: 10.1007/s11292-016-9270-2
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
Braga, A. A., Barao, L., McDevitt, J. & Zimmerman, G. (2018a).
The impact of body-worn cameras on
complaints against officers and officer use of force incident reports: preliminary evaluation
findings: Report to the Boston Police Department. Retrieved from
https://news.northeastern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/BPD-BWC-RCT-Ful -Report-
07272018.pdf
Braga, A. A., Barao, L., McDevitt, J. & Zimmerman, G. (2018b)
The Impacts of Body-Worn Cameras on
Police-Citizen Encounters, Police Proactivity, and Police-Community Relations in Boston: a
Randomized Control ed Trial. (Report to the Boston Police Department). Retrieved from
https://www.northeastern.edu/csshresearch/irj/wp-
content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/Boston-Police-Body- Worn-Camera-Inititiave-Preliminary-
Report.pdf
Braga, A., Coldren, J. R., Sousa, W., Rodriguez, D. & Alper, O. (2017).
The benefits of body-worn
cameras: new findings from a randomized control ed trial at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department. Retrieved from https://www.cna.org/cna files/pdf/IRM-2017-U-016112-
Final.pdf
Braga, A. A., Sousa, W. H., Coldren, J. R., Jr., & Rodriguez, D. (2018). The effects of body-worn cameras
on police activity and police-citizen encounters: A randomized control ed trial.
Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, 108, 511-538. Retrieved from
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol108/iss3/3
Bui, J. (2017). Body-worn cameras: reducing citizen complaints and improving relationships. Themis:
Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 5, 1. Retrieved from:
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/themis/vol5/iss1/1
Crow, M.S., Snyder, J. A., Crichlow, V. J., & Smykla, J. O. (2017). Community perceptions of police body-
worn cameras: the impact of views on fairness, fear, performance and privacy.
Criminal Justice
& Behavior, 44, 589-610. doi: 10.1177/0093854816688037
Cubitt, T. I., Lesic, R., Myers, G. L., & Corry, R. (2017). Body-worn video: A systematic review of
literature. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 50(3), 379-396. doi:
10.1177/0004865816638909
Culhane, S.E., Boman, J.H., & Schweitzer, K. (2016). Public perceptions of the justifiability of police
shootings: the role of body cameras in a pre- and post-Ferguson experiment.
Police Quarterly,
19, 251-274. doi: 10 1177/1098611116651403
Culhane, S.E. & Schweitzer, K. (2018). Police shootings and body cameras one year post-Ferguson.
Policing & Society, 28, 1038-1049. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2016.1275624
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
Dawes, D., Heegaard, W., Brave, M., Paetow, G., Weston, B., & Ho, J. (2015) Body-worn cameras
improve aw enforcement officer report writing accuracy.
Journal of Law Enforcement, 4, 1-21.
Retrieved from
http://ipicd.com/ceer/files/Dawes,%20D.,%20et.%20al.%20BWCs%20Improve%20LEO%20Rpt
%20Writing%20Accuracy.%20J%20Law%20Enf.%20Vol.%204,%20No.%206.%20Aug%202015.
Released
%20ISSN%202161-0231%20(ONLINE).pdf
Demir, M. (2018) Citizens’ perceptions of body-worn cameras (BWCs): Findings from a quasi-
randomized control ed trial.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 60, 130-139. doi:
10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.09.009
Drover, P. & Ariel, B. (2015). Leading an experiment in police body-worn video cameras.
International
Criminal Justice Review, 2, 80-97. doi: 10.1177/1057567715574374
Edmonton Police Service (2015).
Body Worn Video: Considering the Evidence (Final report of the
Edmonton Police Service body worn pilot project June 2015). Retrieved from
https://issuu.com/edmontonpolice/docs/bwv final report
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
El is, T., Jenkins, C., & Smith, P. (2015).
Evaluation of the Introduction of Personal Issue Body Worn
Video Cameras (Operation Hyperion) on the Isle of Wight (Final report to Hampshire
Constabulary) Retrieved from
https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/files/2197790/Operation Hyperion Final Report to
Hampshire Constabulary.pdf
Gannoni, A., Wil is, M., Taylor, E., & Lee, M. (2017).
Surveil ance Technologies and Crime Control:
Understanding Police Detainees’ Perspectives on Police Body-Worn Video (BWV) and CCTV
Cameras (Report to the Criminology Research Advisory Council, Australia). Retrieved from
http://crg.aic.gov.au/reports/1718/31-1415-FinalReport.pdf
Garrison, R. (2015, July). The costs and benefits of body worn cameras.
Law and Order.
Gaub, J. E., Choate, D. E., Todak, N., Katz, C. M., & White, M. D. (2016) Officer perceptions of body-
worn cameras before and after deployment: a study of three departments.
Police Quarterly,
19, 275-302. doi: 10.1177/1098611116653398
Gramaglia, J. A. (2016) Police officers’ perceptions of body-worn cameras in the Buffalo and Rochester
Police Departments (Master’s thesis). Buffalo State Col ege, Buffalo, USA Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/mpa projects/20
Gramaglia, J. A. & Phil ips, S. W. (2018). Police officers’ perceptions of body-worn cameras in Buffalo
and Rochester.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 313-328. doi: 10.1007/s12103-017-
9403-9
Grossmith, L., Owen, C., Finn, W., Mann, D., Davies, T., & Baika (2015).
Police, camera, evidence:
London’s cluster randomized control ed trial of body worn video. Retrieved from
http://whatworks.col ege.police.uk/Research/Documents/Police_Camera_Evidence.pdf
Harris, D. A. (2010). Picture this: body worn video devices (“head cams”) as tools for ensuring fourth
amendment compliance by police (Legal Studies Research Paper Series Working Paper No.
2010-13). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1596901
Headley, A. M., Guerette, R. T., & Shariati, A. (2017). A field experiment of the impact of body-worn
cameras (BWCs) on police officer behavior and perceptions.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 53,
102-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.10.003
Hedberg, E.C., Katz, C.M, & Choate, D.E. (2017). Body-worn cameras and citizen interactions with
police officers: estimating plausible effects given varying compliance levels.
Justice Quarterly,
34, 627-651. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2016.1198825
Henstock, D. & Ariel, B. (2017). Testing the effects of body worn video on police use of force during
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
arrest: a randomized control ed trial in a large British police force.
European Journal of
Criminology, 14, 720-750. doi: 10.1177%2F1477370816686120
Hickman, K C. (2017). From Behind the Lens: Police Officer Perceptions as Body-Worn Cameras are
Introduced into the New York City Police Department (Doctoral dissertation). St John Fisher
Col ege, Rochester, NY. Retrieved from
Released
https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1301&context=education etd
Jennings, W.G., Fridell, L., & Lynch, M.D. (2015). Cops and cameras: officer perceptions of the use of
body-worn cameras in law enforcement.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 549-556. doi:
10.1016/j.jcrimjus
Jennings, W. G., Fridel , L. A., Lynch, M., Jetelina, K. K., & Reingle Gonzalez, J. M. (2017). A quasi-
experimental evaluation of police body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance in a
large metropolitan police department.
Deviant Behavior, 38, 1332-1339. doi:
10.1080/01639625.2016.1248711
Jennings, W. G., Lynch, M. D., & Fridel , L. A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn
cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized control ed
experiment.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 480 – 486. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.10.003
Jones, K. A., Crozier, W. E. & Strange, D. (2017). Believing is seeing: Biased viewing of body-worn
camera footage
. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 460-474. doi:
10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.007
Jones, K. A., Crozier, W. E. & Strange, D. (2018). Objectivity is a myth for you but not for me or police: a
bias blind spot for viewing and remembering criminal events.
Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 24, 259-270. doi: 10.1037/law0000168
Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D. A., & Braman, D. (2009). Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? Scott v.
Harris and the Perils of Cognitive Il iberalism.
Harvard Law Review, 122, 837-905.
Koen, M. C. & Wil is, J. J. (2019). Making sense of body-worn cameras in a police organization: a
technological frames analysis.
Police Practice and Research, doi:
10.1080/15614263.2019.1582343
Koen, M.C., Wil is, J.J., & Mastrofski, S.D. (2018). The effects of body-worn cameras on police
organisation and practice: a theory-based analysis.
Policing & Society, 1 – 17. doi:
10.1080/10439463.2018.1467907
Kopp, P., & Gardiner, C. (2017).
Santa Monica Police Department’s Pilot Body-Worn Camera Program
Final Report. Retrieved from http://cpp.fullerton.edu/projects/SMPD%20BWC-
Pilot Final%20Report 1709.pdf
Koslicki, Makin & Wil its (2019): When no one is watching: evaluating the impact of body-worn
cameras on use of force incidents.
Policing and Society. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2019.1576672
Laming, E. (2018): Police use of body worn cameras,
Police Practice and Research. doi:
10.1080/15614263.2018.1558586
Lawrence, D. S., Peterson, B. E., & Thompson, P. S. (2018).
Community Views of Milwaukees’s Police
Body-Worn Camera Program. Retrieved from
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98922/mpd bwc community attitude
s brief 1.pdf
Lum, C. M., Koper, C. S., Merola, L M., Scherer, A., & Reioux, A. (2015).
Existing and ongoing body
worn camera research: Knowledge gaps and opportunities. George Mason University.
Retrieved from http://cebcp.org/wp-content/technology/BodyWornCameraResearch.pdf
Maskaly, J., Donner C., Jennings, W. G., Ariel, B., & Sutherland, A. (2017). The effects of body-worn
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
cameras (BWCs) on police and citizen outcomes: A state-of-the-art review.
Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 40, 672-688. doi: 10.1108/PIJPSM-
03-2017-0032
McClure, D., La Vigne, N., Lynch, M., Golian, L., Lawrence, D., & Malm, A. (2017).
How body cameras
affect community members’ perceptions of police. Results from a randomized control ed trial
Released
of one agency’s pilot. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/91331/2001307-how-body-cameras-
affect-community-members-perceptions-of-police 5.pdf
Mil er, L. & Tol iver, J. (2014)
Implementing a body-worn camera program: recommendations and
lessons learned. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved
from https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
Morgan, J., & Silverstone, D. (2017).
Trial ing Body-Worn Video Cameras for City of London Police:
Officer Perceptions and Justice Outcomes (Report for City of London Police). London: London
Metropolitan University. Retrieved from https://www.londonmet.ac.uk/media/london-
metropolitan-university/london-met-documents/professional-service-
departments/engagement/pr-and-communications/press-release-pdfs/Trial ing-body-worn-
video-cameras-for-City-of-London-Police-officer-perceptions-and-justice-outcomes.pdf
Morrow, W. J., Katz, C. M., & Choate, D. E. (2016). Assessing the impact of police body-worn cameras
on arresting, prosecuting, and convicting suspects of intimate partner violence.
Police
Quarterly, 19, 303-325. doi: 10.1177/1098611116652850
Nawaz, A., & Tankebe, J. (2018) Tracking Procedural Justice in Stop and Search Encounters: Coding
Evidence from Body-Worn Video Cameras.
Cambridge Journal of Evidence Based Policing 2,
139-163. doi: 10.1007/s41887-018-0029-z
Owens, C., & Finn, W. (2018). Body-worn video through the lens of a cluster randomized control ed
trial in London: implications for future research.
Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12,
77-82. doi: 10.1093/police/pax014
Owens, C., Mann, D., & McKenna, R. (2014).
The Essex Body Worn Video Trial: The Impact of Body
Worn Video on Criminal Justice Outcomes of Domestic Abuse Incidents. London: Col ege of
Policing. Retrieved from https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/BWV ReportEssTrial.pdf
Palm Beach County Criminal Justice Commission. (2016).
Palm Beach County Criminal Justice
Commission Body-Worn Camera Committee: Studies and Reports. Retrieved from
http://discover.pbcgov.org/criminaljustice/BodyWorn%20Camera%20Clearinghouse/Studies-
and-Reports.pdf
Palmer, D. (2016). The mythical properties of police body-worn cameras: a solution in search of a
problem.
Surveil ance & Society, 14, 138-144. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1802200615/abstract/846840EB5C754B50PQ/2?accou
ntid=44840
Peterson, B. E., Yu, L., La Vigne, N., & Lawrence, D. S. (2018).
The Milwaukee Police Department’s
Body-Worn Camera Program: Evaluation Findings and Key Takeaways. Retrieved from
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98461/the milwaukee police departm
ents body worn camera program 1.pdf
Pezdek, K. (2015a). Should cops get to review the video before they report?
The Marshall project.
Retrieved from https://www.themarshal project.org/2015/08/13/should-cops-get-to-review-
the-video-before-they-report
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
Pezdek, K. (2015b). Viewing body cam video can taint officers’ memories: Guest commentary.
Daily
Bul etin. Retrieved from http://www.dailybul etin.com/opinion/20150908/viewing-body-cam-
video-can-taint-officers-memories-guest-commentary
Phelps J M. (2016). Experiential learning and simulation-based training in Norwegian police
eEducation: examining body-worn video as a tool to encourage reflection.
Policing: A Journal
Released
of Policy & Practice. 12, 50-65. doi: 10.1093/police/paw014
Phil ips, S. W. (2018). Eyes are not cameras: the importance of integrating perceptual distortions,
misinformation, and false memories into the police body camera debate.
Policing: A Journal of
Policy & Practice. 12, 91-99. doi: 10.1093/police/paw008
Police Executive Research Forum (2017).
Citizen Perceptions of Body-Worn Cameras: A Randomized
Control ed Trial. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
https://perf.memberclicks.net/assets/bodyworncameraperceptions.pdf
Police Executive Research Forum (2018).
Costs and Benefits of Body-Worn Camera Deployments: Final
Report. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/BWCCostBenefit.pdf
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
Ramirez, E.P. (2013).
A Report on Body Worn Cameras. Los Angeles. Retrieved from
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/14-005 Report BODY WORN CAMERAS.pdf
Ready, J.T., & Young, J. T. N. (2015). The impact of on-officer video cameras on police-citizen contacts:
Findings from a control ed experiment in Mesa, AZ.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11,
445-458. doi: 10.1007/s11292-015-9237-8
Sousa, W.H., Miethe, T.D., & Sakiyama, M. (2018). Inconsistencies in public opinion of body-worn
cameras on police: Transparency, trust, and improved police–citizen relationships.
Policing: A
Journal of Policy and Practice. 12, 100-108. doi: 10.1093/police/pax015
Sutherland, A., Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & De Anda, R. (2017). Post-experimental fol ow-ups—Fade-out
versus persistence effects: The Rialto police body-worn camera experiment four years on.
Journal of criminal justice,
53, 110-116. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.09.008
Taylor, E. (2016). Lights, camera, redaction: police body-worn camera: autonomy, discretion and
accountability.
Surveil ance & Society, 14, 128-132. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=115474298&site=ehost-live
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. (2017).
Police Body-Worn Cameras: A Police
Scorecard. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
https://www.bwcscorecard.org/static/pdfs/LCCHR%20and%20Upturn%20-
%20BWC%20Scorecard%20v.3.0.pdf
Todd, H. E. M. (2015).
The Effects of Citizen Monitoring on the Police: An Examination of Citizen
Monitoring and Police Use of Justified Force (Master’s thesis). Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, BC. Retrieved from http://summit.sfu.ca/item/15420
Volgt, R. & Camp, N. P. (2017) Language from police body camera footage shows racial disparities in
officer respect.
PNAS, 114, 6521-6526 doi: 10 1073/pnas.1702413114.
Wal ace, D., White, M. D., Gaub, J. E., Todak, N. (2018). Body-worn cameras as a potential source of
de-policing: testing for camera induced passivity.
Criminology, 56, 481 – 509. doi:
10.1111/1745-9125.12179
Walton, D., Brooks, R., & Li, J. (2019). The use of victim video statements in family violence cases
increases the rate of early guilty pleas.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13. doi:
10.1177%2F0886260518817065
Westera, N. (2016) Want the best evidence from victims of domestic violence? Press the record
button.
Australian Police Journal, 70, 8-15.
Westera, N., Kebbel , M., & Milne, R. (2013) Losing two thirds of the story: A comparison of the vide
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982o-
recorded police interview and live evidence of rape complainants.
Criminal Law Review, 4,
290-308.
White (2014) Police officer body-worn cameras: assessing the evidence. Washington. D.C.: Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.683.3623
Released
White, M. D., Todak, N., & Gaub, J. E. (2017). Assessing citizen perceptions of body-worn cameras
after encounters with police.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, 40, 689-703. doi: 10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2016-0105
White, M.D., Todak, N., & Gaub, J.E. (2018a). Examining body-worn camera integration and
acceptance among police officers, citizens, and external stakeholders.
Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 649 – 674. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12376
White, M. D., Todak, N., & Gaub, J. E. (2018b) Exploring the potential for body-worn cameras to
reduce violence in police-citizen encounters.
Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice, 12, 66-76.
doi: 10.1093/police/paw057
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only
Wil its, D. W., & Makin, D. A. (2017). Show me what happened: Analyzing use of force through analysis
of body-worn camera footage.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55, 51-77. doi:
10.1177/0022427817701257
Yokum, D., Ravishankar, A., & Coppock, A. (2017).
Evaluating the Effects of Police Body-Worn Cameras:
A Randomized Control ed Trial. (DC Lab working paper). Government of the District of
Columbia. Retrieved from
https://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/TheLabDC MPD BWC Working Paper 10.20.17.pdf
Young, J. N. T., & Ready, J. T. (2016). A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between administrative
policy, technological preferences, and body-worn camera activation among police officers.
Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. 12, 27-42. doi: 10.1093/police/paw005
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
Released
SENSITIVE – for NZ Police use only