Week 2 - Assignment: Compose a Problem Statement
Police Body-Worn Cameras in Texas:
A Case Study Documenting Implementation
and Issues of Concern to Law Enforcement Leaders
Dissertation Manuscript
Submitted to Northcentral University
School of Business and Technology Management
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
by
JEFFREY C. MONK
San Diego, California
October 2018
ii
Abstract
This qualitative case study examined the perceptions of police employees involved in a large-
scale deployment of body-worn cameras at an urban police department in Texas. Many law
enforcement and community leaders believe body-worn cameras may help improve relations
between police officers and community members and may reduce use-of-force incidents. The
problem addressed by this study was while the public expects more insight into police activities,
which will be provided by body cameras, police leaders need more evidence for guidance when
developing policy, implementing body-worn camera programs, and releasing videos to the
public. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to provide timely information about issues
and problems surrounding the implementation of body-worn cameras to law enforcement leaders
who are considering deploying the technology within their own organizations. Five body-worn
camera implementation managers and five police officers participated in a semi-structured
interview developed to answer the research question: “What major obstacles and privacy
concerns are encountered by police department leaders and officers during body-worn camera
implementation?” The results of the study revealed participants felt the selected department
should have proceeded more slowly during implementation in order to identify issues with
equipment and policy concerns. Participants were divided as to whether body-worn cameras
have an impact on citizen and officer privacy. The findings led to recommendations that law
enforcement leaders convene a group of internal and external stakeholders before and during the
implementation of a body-worn camera program for advice and identification of issues unique to
the agency. Future researchers should consider study designs that allow for larger samples and a
more diverse set of participants including external stakeholders such as prosecutors and
community leaders.
iii
Acknowledgements
This work is dedicated to the memory of my father, Dr. Larry E. Monk, and the memory
of my brother, Timothy D. Monk, who both inspired me with their amazing talent. I wish they
were both still here. I have always been and will always be so proud of them both.
I want to express deep gratitude to Dr. Lori Demeter, my Chair, whose help and
encouragement guided me through this process. I’m also grateful to my committee, Subject
Matter Expert Dr. Stephanie Menefee and Academic Reader Dr. Sharon Kimmel, for their
invaluable feedback and rapid turn-arounds. Thanks to Dr. Michael Brizek for getting me
started. And thanks to Dr. Vanessa Claus for her guidance and crucial contributions. I am also
grateful for the significant impact the NCU Dissertation Boot Camp in New Orleans had on my
learning. I highly recommend such a boot camp for any dissertation writer. Thanks to Dr.
Patricia Henry, Dr. Andy Riggle, Dr. John LaNear, Molly Migliaccio, MBA, and Chelsea
Young, MBA, for your selfless help. Thanks to the Northcentral University advisors, library
staff, and my professors.
A doctorate is not possible without a supportive network of family, friends, and
colleagues. I am grateful for the support from my boss, colleagues, and staff, and for the
contributions the site participants and expert consultants made to the dissertation. I am also
grateful to my clients who allowed me so much scheduling flexibility, and to my friends and
family, who forgave me for all the last-minute cancellations and lost time.
Special thanks to my mom, for encouraging me, and to Gama, for helping me. This
would never have been possible without your help. I am deeply grateful.
iv
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 7
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 9
Nature of the Study ................................................................................................................. 11
Research Question .................................................................................................................. 12
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................ 13
Definitions of Key Terms ....................................................................................................... 15
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 19
Documentation ........................................................................................................................ 20
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 21
Technology in Law Enforcement............................................................................................ 27
The History of Video in Law Enforcement ............................................................................ 32
The Introduction of Body-Worn Cameras in Law Enforcement ............................................ 37
The Rialto Study Encourages Adoption of BWC Technology ............................................... 40
Anticipated Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras ........................................................................ 44
Concerns and Challenges ........................................................................................................ 47
Officer Acceptance and Operational Problems ....................................................................... 47
Privacy Concerns .................................................................................................................... 49
Perceptions and Tactics........................................................................................................... 51
Policy Development Issues ..................................................................................................... 52
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 57
Chapter 3: Research Method ......................................................................................................... 61
Research Methodology and Design ........................................................................................ 65
Population and Sample ........................................................................................................... 70
Materials/Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 73
Study Procedures .................................................................................................................... 75
Data Collection and Analysis.................................................................................................. 76
Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 80
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 81
Delimitations ........................................................................................................................... 82
Ethical Assurances .................................................................................................................. 83
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 84
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 87
Trustworthiness of the Data .................................................................................................... 88
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 90
v
Evaluation of the Findings .................................................................................................... 111
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 112
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions .................................................. 113
Implications........................................................................................................................... 115
Recommendations for Practice ............................................................................................. 118
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................ 122
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 124
References ................................................................................................................................... 127
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 140
Appendix A: Interview Guide ..................................................................................................... 141
Appendix B: Letter of Informed Consent ................................................................................... 142
Appendix C: Introductory Email to Participants ........................................................................ 144
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Police Body-worn Camera Policies ……………………………... 57
Table 2. Demographic Profile of Implementation Managers ……………………………... 92
Table 3. Demographic Profile of Police Officers …………..……………………………... 93
Table 4. What Tools Guided Decision-Making Regarding Implementing BWCs? ..……... 98
Table 5. Do BWCs Impact the Privacy of Citizens and/or Police Officers? ……………...106
Table 6. What is the Greatest Benefit of BWCs to Your Department? …………………...108
Table 7. What is the Biggest Drawback of BWCs? ……………………………………….111
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Major Technology Advances in Eras of American Policing…………….. …….. 32
Figure 2. The History of Video in Law Enforcement …………………………………….. 36
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Police officers must sometimes use physical force in the course of their duties (Boivin &
Lagacé, 2015; Gerber & Jackson, 2017). Use-of-force is a term utilized to describe the physical
actions taken by a law enforcement officer to compel a person to comply with the officer’s
objectives/commands (Boivin & Lagacé, 2015; Gerber & Jackson, 2017). Use-of-force
describes a continuum of physical actions (Gerber & Jackson, 2017; Prenzler, Porter, & Alpert,
2013), which are actions that may include placing hands on a suspect to guide or restrict
movement, restraining a suspect with handcuffs, deploying tools such as batons or conducted
energy devices against a suspect, or even using deadly force (Gerber & Jackson, 2017; Prenzler
et al., 2013).
Recent police use-of-force events, such as those occurring in Ferguson, MO, Chicago, IL,
Baton Rouge, LA, and New York City, NY, exposed a growing nationwide concern related to
the interactions of citizens and law enforcement officers (Ariel, 2016a; Simmons, 2014; Stalcup
& Hahn, 2016; White & Coldren, 2017; Zansberg, 2016). One response to the issue of use-of-
force is a call for officers to be equipped with body-worn cameras (BWCs) to record interactions
between police officers and the public (Ariel, 2016a; Jennings, Lynch, & Fridell, 2015; Miller &
Toliver, 2014). BWCs are small devices attached to police uniforms that record audio, as well as
provide video, of interactions between officers and citizens (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012).
Several companies manufacture different types and styles of BWC devices, which can be
mounted in various locations on the police uniform, including lapel collars, chest pockets, duty
belts, or glasses (Ariel, 2016a; U.S. Department of Justice, 2012). The recordings provided by
these BWCs offer an officer’s point of view regarding interactions with the public (Ariel, 2016a;
Jennings et al., 2015; Miller & Toliver, 2014). A significant intent of capturing police officer
2
video is to provide an objective view of interactions and allow reviewers to determine whether
an officer’s reactions to an incident were appropriate (Ariel, 2016a; Jennings et al., 2015; Miller
& Toliver, 2014).
Body-worn cameras are often marketed as tools capable of reducing police use-of-force,
discrimination and harassment of citizens, and officer corruption (Ariel, 2016a; Coudert, Butin,
& Le Metayer, 2015; Lippert & Newell, 2016). Many community leaders and advocates for
BWCs believe that BWCs will deter issues among officers and citizens, specifically since these
cameras may cause officers to resort less frequently to the use-of-force (Ariel, 2016a; Coudert et
al., 2015; Lippert & Newell, 2016). Furthermore, it is believed that BWCs will cause citizens to
behave better, especially since cameras are capturing interactions (Ariel, 2016a; Miller &
Toliver, 2014; Willits & Makin, 2017). The cameras often reduce citizen complaints against
officers (Miller & Toliver, 2014), as well as reduce liabilities among law enforcement agencies
(e.g., police and sheriff’s departments: Ferrell, 2013). Some law enforcement leaders believe
that this form of technology may solve a variety of problems within their organizations (Ariel,
2016a; Coudert et al., 2015; White & Coldren, 2017). In 2014, President Obama directed the
Justice Department to distribute $75 million to law enforcement agencies for the purchase of
body cameras (Lippert & Newell, 2016; Ziv, 2014).
Since BWCs are a new technology, there are few scholarly studies discussing the use of
this technology (Ariel, 2016a; White, 2014; White & Coldren, 2017). In 2014, the Justice
Department requested that researchers and law enforcement agencies address the lack of
information by thoroughly documenting any implementation of body cameras and attempting to
define best practices for using these cameras (White, 2014). As more agencies begin to use body
3
cameras, the knowledge and literature about the BWC technology, implementation, benefits, and
best practices will grow (Feeney, 2015).
Miller and Toliver (2014) surveyed agencies in the United States currently using the
technology to inform law enforcement leaders of the benefits and concerns surrounding body
cameras. Anticipated benefits include greater transparency and accountability to the public
(Harris, 2010; Palmer, 2016; Taylor, 2016), fewer complaints against officers (Ariel, 2016a;
Harris, 2010), improved evidence when such complaints (e.g., video evidence related to a use-of-
force complaint) are made (Ferrell, 2013), a decrease in use-of-force incidents (Ariel, Farrar, &
Sutherland, 2014), improved community relations (Jennings, Fridell, & Lynch, 2014), and
increased training opportunities (Broome, 2011). Ferrell (2013) argues the cameras will
ultimately reduce liability for police departments.
Yet, the benefits associated with BWCs does not mean that issues do not exist. For
example, privacy concerns will likely become an issue of much debate (Capps, 2015; Lippert &
Newell, 2016; Palmer, 2016; Taylor, 2016). Individuals not convicted of crimes will often
appear as criminal suspects in images captured by body cameras (Lippert & Newell, 2016;
Palmer, 2016; Taylor, 2016; Wolfe, 2013). Witnesses, complainants, and bystanders unrelated
to the incident will also appear in videos that agencies will release to the public (Lippert &
Newell, 2016; Palmer, 2016; Taylor, 2016).
Governance regarding the release of BWC video to the public differs by state (Joh, 2016;
Zansberg, 2016). The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is the primary mechanism for
citizens to guarantee government transparency (Lamdan, 2012). The FOIA allows citizens to
request information from the government and requires the government to respond (Lamdan,
2012; Paxton, 2018). The FOIA defines information created or maintained by the government as
4
public information, unless it falls within certain categories of exceptions, including information
pertinent to the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crimes (Lamdan, 2012; Paxton, 2018).
Though the FOIA applies to federal agencies, the basic concepts of the law are adopted by states
when developing their own public information laws (Zansberg, 2016). Since each state legislates
its own unique public information law, these differing laws create a patchwork of inconsistent
access to information throughout the U.S. (Joh, 2016; Zansberg, 2016).
In Texas, police and sheriff’s departments must develop policies addressing the release of
video and the redaction of private or confidential information in compliance with the Texas
Public Information Act (TPIA; Paxton, 2018). Like the FOIA, the TPIA assumes most
information is public, unless it falls within certain categories of excepted information (Paxton,
2018). The TPIA allows Texas government agencies to seek rulings from the Attorney General
regarding information the agencies wish to withhold in response to public information requests
(Paxton, 2018). Texas law enforcement leaders need to be flexible when writing policy
regarding the release of BWC video, since the Attorney General will ultimately interpret the
TPIA as it applies to the release or the withholding of video (Paxton, 2018).
In one large Texas county, the District Attorney allocated $1 million for a large police
department to begin equipping officers with body cameras (George, 2014). The department
already had a limited pilot program in place, involving approximately 100 officers testing several
different camera models (Pinkerton, 2014). According to Pinkerton (2014), the department is
struggling with securing funding to purchase more cameras and storage for the vast amounts of
data created. The department is also developing policies related to the release of BWC videos
pursuant to public information requests (Pinkerton, 2014). Despite the anticipated benefits, the
selected department, like other departments nationwide, faces many challenges in implementing
5
the BWC technology, thus warranting further study to prepare department leaders for potential
problems and concerns.
Eventually, many of the interactions captured on BWC videos will be released to the
public (Wood, 2017; Zansberg, 2016). In Texas, the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA)
creates a statutory framework that defines, for governmental bodies, what must be released to the
public and what must (or may) be withheld (Paxton, 2018). Once a criminal investigation is
adjudicated, the video related to that investigation is typically considered public information
(Paxton, 2018).
Most members of the public do not see the daily interactions of police officers as they
encounter victims, witnesses, and suspects (Arntfield, 2011; Bruzzi, 2016). Until the advent of
body cameras, agencies had the opportunity to produce highly edited community service and
public service announcement videos and had editorial input on video broadcasts on television
programs such as Cops (Bruzzi, 2016; Prosise & Johnson, 2004). Public information laws in
most states will require agencies to release BWC videos in response to open records requests
(Wood, 2017; Zansberg, 2016). Agencies using body cameras will not have the luxury of editing
out footage, which might upset viewers who do not have an understanding of how officers
interact with the public (Joh, 2016; Wood, 2017). Therefore, police leaders will need to manage
the public’s perception of the information and should be proactive in explaining to the public
why officers use certain tactics when interacting with citizens (Joh, 2016; Wood, 2017).
It is unknown if BWCs influence the behavior of police officers or change the outcomes
of interactions with citizens (Timan, 2016). Police leaders must understand influences and
implications that the technology may have when deciding whether or not to utilize/implement
these technological advancements/devices (Miller & Tolivar, 2014; Timan, 2016). Additionally,
6
in order to make sound decisions, regarding implementation and policy development, leaders
should have access to detailed information regarding technological implementation problems,
outcomes, and concerns, as well as best practices for use (Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Tolivar, 2014;
Timan, 2016).
Statement of the Problem
The problem addressed by this qualitative case study was while the public expects more
insight into police activities, which will be provided by body cameras, police leaders need more
evidence for guidance when developing policy, implementing BWC programs, and releasing
videos to the public (Capps, 2015; Lamdan, 2012). The lack of information regarding issues
surrounding BWC implementation and policy development affects law enforcement leaders
nationwide (Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Toliver, 2014). As law enforcement agencies implement
BWC programs, leaders must determine effective policies governing their use (Miller & Toliver,
2014). Law enforcement leaders are implementing the technology without a complete
understanding of how it will impact the privacy concerns of individuals captured by BWC video
(Coudert et al., 2015; Joh, 2016; Lippert & Newell, 2016).
If the problem of insufficient information and lack of documentation is not addressed,
police chiefs and sheriffs will continue to deploy BWC technology without a full understanding
of the consequences, both positive and negative, to the police force, as well as the community’s
perspectives of these technologies (Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Tolivar, 2014; Timan, 2016).
Nationwide, as agency leaders rush to deploy this new technology, they are doing so without a
full understanding of the impact it will have on their organizations (Miller & Tolivar, 2014).
Without knowing the potential pitfalls and addressing those potential pitfalls in advance of
implementation, leaders may deploy the technology in a way that will not achieve intended goals
7
(Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Tolivar, 2014). For example, a lack of understanding surrounding the
possible privacy implications could cause law enforcement leaders to develop policy that does
not adequately protect the privacy of subjects captured by BWCs (Joh, 2016; Lippert & Newell,
2016).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the perceptions of managers
and police officers charged with the deployment and use of BWCs within a large Texas police
department, specifically to provide timely information about issues and problems to law
enforcement leaders considering the technology within their own organizations. The study
examined the perceptions of five BWC implementation managers and five police officers
involved in the large-scale deployment of BWCs, specifically examining issues of policy
development and investigating the public release of BWC video. Although larger samples may
provide for greater generalization of results (Shenton, 2004), the data gathered from these
participants documented the perceptions of those who participated in this specific BWC
deployment, a single event, with results that might transfer to a larger population (Yin, 2014).
While determining an ideal sample size in order to achieve data saturation is difficult, many
scholars recommended a minimum of five to six interview participants for case study research
(Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). In this study, the number of potential participants was limited
due to the eligibility of candidates, at the chosen site, which is a common limitation of qualitative
research (Fusch & Ness, 2015).
White (2014) recommends surveying BWC managers and police officers because they
will have a first-hand perspective on the implementation and use of the technology. Managers
responsible for the deployment of the technology addressed potential concerns related to
8
implementation and policy development, while officers using the equipment addressed potential
privacy issues that may occur when utilizing BWC, as based upon their perception of the
concerns of those with whom they come into contact. Purposive sampling allowed the researcher
to recruit participants with adequate knowledge of the BWC deployment and surrounding issues
to reach data saturation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Patton, 2015).
Researchers, police chiefs and sheriffs, and the Justice Department have acknowledged a
lack of understanding regarding the implementation and consequences surrounding BWCs
(Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Tolivar, 2014). This research study helps to address the lack of
information about policy development and privacy concerns, by examining the perceptions of the
police managers and officers involved in a deployment of BWCs within a large agency, which
was recommended as important by Ariel (2016a) and Miller and Tolivar (2014). The research
project also addressed a gap in the field of qualitative studies regarding the implementation of
BWCs by police departments.
This case study may help leaders anticipate issues that may arise during implementation
of a large-scale BWC program by revealing some of the problems encountered and addressed by
managers and officers, of a large Texas department, during deployment of the technology.
Interviews with several BWC project managers examined management decisions and issues
related to the deployment and the development of policy. Interviews with several officers
assigned to use the equipment revealed perceptions relating to the privacy implications of the
cameras in the field. Reviewing the experiences of individuals within this large department can
save time and duplication of effort regarding deployment and policy development, as well as
identify problems regarding public information requests before they occur/become problematic
for other departments (Joh, 2016; Miller & Toliver, 2014).
9
According to Miller and Toliver (2014), police leaders need guidance when developing
agency policy regarding the rollout of the equipment, the infrastructure commitment, and the
public release of videos captured by body cameras. Policies will vary by state, since different
public information laws govern each state (Joh, 2016; Zansberg, 2016). Several states have
enacted legislation to address BWCs (Zansberg, 2016). In Texas, the Public Information Act
defines what must and must not be released under the request for information from a
governmental body (Paxton, 2018). This case study explored the perspectives of managers
charged with the deployment of body-worn cameras, in a large Texas city, and examined the
factors surrounding the privacy concerns of BWC video by interviewing police officers assigned
to wear the cameras.
The research population for this study included the leaders and members of law
enforcement agencies in Texas. The selected department is typical of other large police and
sheriff’s departments in Texas. The sample chosen for this study represents BWC
implementation managers and police officers assigned to wear the cameras within a large, urban
police department.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Deterrence theory, in law enforcement, attempts to describe the deterrent effect laws and
punishment have on the commission of crime (Ariel et al., 2014). Deterrence theory explains
that the knowledge of a swift and severe punishment resulting from a criminal action deters
would-be criminals from committing crime (Witherspoon, 2014). Deterrence theory can also be
used to predict whether police officers will behave differently when wearing BWC equipment or
whether citizens will behave differently when being captured on video by an officer wearing a
BWC (Witherspoon, 2014).
10
Deterrence theory establishes a framework for understanding why people on both sides of
the camera might behave differently when they know they are being recorded (Ariel, 2016a). It
is possible that suspects, knowing that BWCs are capturing their actions, will be less likely to
resist commands from law enforcement officers (Ariel, 2016a). It is also possible that officers
wearing the BWCs will be more likely to act in a procedurally just manner (Ariel, 2016a). The
technology could become a way for police departments to reinforce and uphold the authority of
their officers by showing the officers acted appropriately at controversial scenes (Wood, 2017).
This framework contributes to the call to implement the technology, both by law enforcement
leaders and community leaders (Ariel, 2016a).
Procedural justice as it relates to law enforcement is the concept of fairness in the
application of justice and the allocation of police resources and responses (Bell, 2017; Gau,
2015). Procedural justice is the means by which policing in general achieves legitimacy (Bell,
2017; Gau, 2015). Legitimacy is earned by officers who treat citizens with respect and dignity,
do not allow bias to influence their decisions, and genuinely seek to help those with whom they
interact (Bell, 2017; Gau, 2015). Transparency, accountability, and responsible administration of
police organizations contribute to police legitimacy, which is the belief, by the public, that the
police hold legitimate authority and the ability to demonstrate the rightful exercise of power
(Bell, 2017; Sabel & Simon, 2016).
BWCs will allow police leaders, researchers, and the public to analyze officer behavior
during encounters through the lens of procedural justice in order to determine the legitimacy of
such encounters (Ariel, 2016a; Gau, 2015; Joh, 2016). It is anticipated by many law
enforcement leaders that the effect of deterrence delivered by BWCs will cause greater
adherence to procedural justice, thereby increasing police legitimacy (Ariel, 2016a). The
11
conceptual framework created by the synthesis of deterrence theory and procedural justice
guided the development of the research question for this study.
Nature of the Study
Qualitative methods work best for researching information not easily captured by
numerical data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Starr, 2014; Yin, 2014). Qualitative research, as
opposed to quantitative research, was preferable for this study because there is a lack of research
regarding perceptions of law enforcement leaders responsible for implementing BWC
technology, which means that leaders are unaware of many of the problems they may encounter
during implementation (Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Toliver, 2014). The use of a qualitative design
more adequately supported the capturing of data that is not easily quantified (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Starr, 2014; Yin, 2014), such as the perceptions of officers and managers regarding BWC
technology. The case study design supported the purpose of this study by allowing the
researcher to investigate the perceptions of officers and BWC managers charged with the
implementation and use of BWC technology at a large police department in Texas.
A case study is a type of qualitative design that allows a researcher to take a
comprehensive look at a specific study subject for a set time period (Eriksson & Kovalainen,
2012; Molloy, 2012; Yin, 2014). The case study design was an appropriate design for this
research because it allowed the exploration of a single implementation of body cameras at a
Texas law enforcement agency. Case study aligned well with the intended purpose because it
supports the exploration of data using an interpretative, narrative process rather than numerical
parameters (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2012; Molloy, 2012; Yin, 2014). Case study embraces the
researcher as an active participant in the collection and analysis of data, as well as the
interpretation of the results (Porter, 2012; Yin, 2014). In this case study, the researcher used
12
interviews to gather data, and used professional knowledge, gained through experience in
policing and public information to help analyze and interpret the data (Porter, 2012).
After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained, data collection included
open-ended interview questions that focused on BWC project implementation managers’
perceptions and the perceptions of police officers assigned to wear the cameras, which allowed
the researcher to address the purpose of the study. In order to ensure germane perspectives,
participants were selected from the population using purposive sampling (Patton, 2015).
Additionally, using the Texas Public Information Act, relevant documents from the selected
department were obtained and examined at minimal cost (Paxton, 2018).
The interviews took place at locations near the selected department offices, for the
convenience of the participants and to allow them to remain in a familiar setting (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). The researcher took detailed notes during the interviews to ensure accurate
documentation. Immediately following each interview, the researcher prepared a memo using
handwritten and typed notes to identify major themes in the discussion (Saldaña, 2013). Detailed
notes and transcripts help in the analysis of data (Yin, 2014). The data was labeled and archived
as soon as possible after the interview, and the researcher then analyzed the data searching for
themes in order to answer the research question (Saldaña, 2013).
Research Question
In order to provide useful information to law enforcement leaders examining large
implementations of body-worn cameras, a single research question was developed. Currently,
law enforcement leaders have very few resources available for reference when implementing
body cameras and developing policies (White, 2014). Leaders need more guidance regarding the
use of the new technology (Miller & Toliver, 2014). The research question examined the
13
perceptions of leaders in the selected department, who were charged with implementing the
BWC program and developing related policies.
RQ1. What major obstacles and privacy concerns are encountered by police department
leaders and officers during BWC implementation?
Nationwide, agency leaders are attempting to determine whether the equipment works,
whether it will stay on an officer’s uniform during periods of extreme activity throughout a
typical shift, and whether the video captured is of acceptable quality. Leaders are also exploring
the infrastructure needed to store and retrieve vast amounts of video data, and how to share that
data with stakeholders such as district attorneys and courts. These types of operational issues are
of primary importance for agencies at this stage of implementation; however, issues surrounding
the development of policy instructing employees on BWC use were also explored. This question
was answered by interviewing managers charged with implementing and deploying BWCs at the
selected department.
Privacy concerns also continue to be an issue for law enforcement leaders implementing
BWCs (Coudert et al., 2015). This question will help leaders determine what types of issues will
occur when releasing video to the public and in developing policies surrounding the release of
video. This research question was answered by interviewing several officers assigned to use the
equipment to determine their perspectives regarding privacy concerns of those they encounter
during their tours of duty.
Significance of the Study
As law enforcement agencies rapidly deploy the new technology surrounding BWCs,
leaders and stakeholders need more information about infrastructure requirements, policy
development, privacy concerns, data storage and control, and a variety of other issues (Joh, 2016;
14
Miller & Toliver, 2014; White, 2014). This case study has contributed knowledge in the field by
documenting a BWC implementation in a large, urban police department. Police chiefs and
sheriffs with similar agencies will benefit from an understanding of the issues faced by the BWC
project team at a large Texas police department. Leaders in all departments in which BWCs are
being considered or implemented need to know what types of IT problems they are likely to
encounter (Coudert et al., 2015), supervision and operational challenges they may experience
(Miller & Toliver, 2014), cloud versus local storage concerns (Chang, Sun, & Cheng, 2015; Joh,
2016), and whether their officers will acclimate to the technology implementation (Jennings et
al., 2014). An understanding of the factors surrounding the public release of BWC video is also
essential when deciding on implementation and developing policy (Joh, 2016; Miller & Toliver,
2014; Wolfe, 2013). For example, law enforcement leaders need to know if privacy concerns
outweigh capturing all interactions between officers and citizens on video (Joh, 2016; Palmer,
2016).
The Justice Department, as it issues grants to agencies for BWC-related purchases, called
upon agencies to meticulously document local implementations (White, 2014). This case study
helps fulfill that request by researching the problems encountered, as well as solutions
discovered, in a large Texas police department. Nationwide, although specific laws and policies
will vary by state, police decision-makers can use the information presented in this study to
inform their deliberations.
Lawmakers will also benefit from an understanding of the issues presented in this study.
As the public demand for BWCs increases, states are passing laws regarding, and sometimes
requiring, implementation of the technology and defining what types of video must be released
(Taylor, 2016; Zansberg, 2016). In Texas, the law now requires agencies that adopt BWC
15
technology to develop internal policies regarding the public release of the video, which are
consistent with the state law (Zansberg, 2016). However, not all states create a consistent legal
framework (Zansberg, 2016). Understanding the challenges encountered in the field might
prevent the passage of legislation that could damage an agency’s ability to effectively implement
BWC technology (Miller & Tolivar, 2014; Zansberg, 2016). Lawmakers must also understand
that a single statewide policy may not work for all agencies within the state because of varying
infrastructures, personnel concerns, union demands, and other factors (Miller & Tolivar, 2014;
White & Coldren, 2017). This study documents issues encountered during implementation and
policy development and reveals some of the privacy concerns surrounding the technology
implementation from the perspective of officers wearing the cameras for lawmakers to review
when considering legislation (White, 2014).
Definitions of Key Terms
The definition of key terminologies used in this case study was necessary to ensure a
common understanding of the main concepts and vocabulary surrounding the use of body-worn
cameras (BWCs). This section provides explanations for terms used in this study that might not
be familiar to the reader. Some of the following terms provided are commonly used/known in
the law enforcement field, while others are commonly used/known in the technology field.
Automatic license plate reader (ALPR). ALPRs are infrared cameras, used by law
enforcement, to capture and recognize vehicle license plates and to automatically search
databases to identify vehicles that may have been used in crimes (Ozer, 2016).
Body-worn camera (BWC). BWCs are small cameras worn by law enforcement officers
to capture interactions with the public (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012). BWCs vary in
16
shapes, sizes, and attachment methods, and are manufactured by a growing number of
companies (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012).
Closed circuit television (CCTV). CCTV systems include cameras placed in strategic
locations throughout an urban area intended to deter and detect crime (Piza, Caplan, &
Kennedy, 2014; Taylor, 2016). CCTV systems are widely used in the United Kingdom,
particularly in densely populated areas such as London (Piza et al., 2014; Taylor, 2016).
Introduced in the 1960s, CCTV systems were installed in fixed locations, which were
identified as high crime areas (Taylor, 2016). The technology later became more mobile
as portable CCTV systems were introduced to respond to changing crime patterns
(Taylor, 2016).
Cloud storage. Cloud storage is a method of storing digital data in which the data is
stored across many servers and locations and made available to users via a network
(Gleeson & Walden, 2016). A hosting company owns the servers, and data security is
often a concern to businesses that utilize cloud storage (Chang, Sun, & Cheng, 2015).
Dashboard camera, dashcam, or in-car video (ICV) system. In-car video systems,
commonly referred to as dashcams, are video systems installed in police cars capable of
recording images and audio, which have been widely used in the United States since the
1990s (Stitilis & Laurinaitis, 2016). Dashcams became mainstream in the 2000s in an
attempt to identify and deter traffic stops based on the race of the driver (Taylor, 2016).
ICV systems often include front- and rear-mounted cameras facing both inside and
outside the police vehicle (Stitilis & Laurinaitis, 2016).
17
Facial recognition technology (FRT). FRT is a biometric identification technique
allowing law enforcement to use surveillance systems to scan, photograph, and match
faces with facial images in police databases (Hassaballah & Aly, 2015).
Officer involved shooting (OIS). An officer involved shooting (OIS) occurs when a
police officer discharges a firearm while acting in an official capacity (Alpert, 2016). An
officer involved shooting may or may not result in a fatality (Alpert, 2016).
Sousveillance. Sousveillance is the phenomenon in which the participant is both involved
in an event and captures the event on video, which is made possible by wearable and
vehicle mounted cameras (Mann, Nolan, & Wellman, 2002).
Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). Similar to the federal Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), the TPIA is the state law that gives citizens access to information created,
collected, and stored by Texas governmental bodies (Paxton, 2018).
Summary
In response to calls for greater transparency and community involvement in police use-
of-force incidents, many law enforcement agencies in the United States are incorporating body-
worn camera technology (Miller & Toliver, 2014). Police and sheriff’s department managers are
deploying equipment rapidly, and without much guidance (Miller & Toliver, 2014). Best
practices, regarding the implementation and use of BWCs, have not yet been well documented
(Capps, 2015). Since BWC technology is so new, law enforcement leaders, BWC
implementation managers, and officers do not have an understanding of many issues they will
likely experience when implementing the technology and developing policy surrounding its use
(Miller & Toliver, 2014).
18
This case study documented a single large-scale implementation of BWCs during a
specific time frame at a large Texas police department. Issues investigated include obstacles
encountered during rollout and policy development and any lessons learned regarding privacy
concerns and public release of the video captured by the BWCs. To answer the research
question, interviews were conducted with department managers responsible for BWC
deployment and officers assigned to wear the cameras.
The results of this study may be useful to local and regional law enforcement leaders who
might be considering implementation of BWCs in a similar environment (White, 2014). The
case study might also be a valuable resource nationally, as leaders throughout the United States
seek information about challenges, solutions, and best practices for BWC implementation
(White, 2014). The Justice Department called on scholars to conduct research to inform the
entire field and expand knowledge about BWC technology and its effects (White, 2014). This
study answers part of that call, noted by White (2014), through documenting the perceptions of
BWC managers and officers using the equipment in a large Texas police department.
This chapter provided an introduction to police BWCs and a brief background on their
current use in the law enforcement field. The chapter described the problem and purpose of the
study and gave an overview of the theoretical and conceptual framework. Additionally, relevant
terminology was defined and the significance of the study was explained. Chapter 2 presents a
thorough review of the literature surrounding BWCs.
19
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to document the implementation of body-
worn cameras (BWCs) within a large Texas police department to provide useful information
about potential concerns for police executives, who are considering implementation within their
agencies. The information gathered for the literature review helped describe the current
understanding of the issues surrounding the technology. Because the technology is so new, there
are limited resources examining the issues related to BWCs (Ariel, 2016b; White, 2014; White &
Coldren, 2017). The Justice Department has asked researchers and agencies to address the lack
of information regarding BWCs by thoroughly documenting any implementation of body
cameras and attempting to define best practices (White, 2014). As more agencies begin to use
body cameras, the knowledge and literature will grow (Feeney, 2015). While scholars and
leaders acknowledge the lack of BWC research, most still argue for implementation (Feeney,
2015).
Miller and Toliver (2014) surveyed agencies in the United States currently using the
technology to inform law enforcement leaders of the benefits and concerns surrounding body
cameras. Some of the best documentation regarding the use of the technology has been
conducted in Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, and Rialto, California (Ariel, 2016a; Capps,
2015). Anticipated benefits of BWC implementation include greater transparency and
accountability to the public (Ariel, 2016a; Harris, 2010), fewer complaints against officers
(Harris, 2010), better evidence when such complaints are made (Ferrell, 2013), a decrease in use
of force incidents (Ariel et al., 2014), improved community relations (Jennings et al., 2014), and
training opportunities to improve tactics, citizen interactions, and reduce use of force incidents
20
(Broome, 2011). Ferrell (2013) argues the cameras will ultimately reduce liability for police
departments.
Documentation
The information for this literature review was collected using a combination of resources
provided by Northcentral University’s (NCU) Library and Google Scholar alerts. NCU provides
access to databases such as the Roadrunner Search Discovery Service and the EBSCO Host
Database. Searches for peer-reviewed sources were conducted regularly during 2016, 2017, and
2018 using the following keywords: BWC, body-worn camera, law enforcement camera, law
enforcement video, police video, and police camera. These keywords were selected after an
initial review of BWC literature revealed search terms that are related to the topic.
An automated daily Google Scholar search was also set up using the same keywords, in
order to rapidly capture information on a regular basis. Google Scholar is an academic web
search engine that has gained popularity in recent years among researchers (Condit Fagan, 2017).
Google Scholar indexes millions of journal articles, university publications, court opinions, and
professional society publications across a broad range of disciplines (Condit Fagan, 2017), and
keyword alerts can be set to automatically notify users, by email, as new articles are published.
Articles located by the Google Scholar alerts were retrieved using the NCU library’s database
tools. The books referenced in this literature review are either in Amazon Kindle format or print.
Scholarly, peer-reviewed sources were used for the majority of literature review sources;
however, federal government research papers, local agency documentation, and current news
articles also provided relevant and important information and have been included in the literature
review in order to ensure a comprehensive review.
21
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Deterrence theory has long been used by scholars to attempt to explain how punishment,
or the fear of punishment, prevents crime (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2014; Williams &
McShane, 2010). Proponents of utilitarianism argue that the act of punishment by a society is
wrong, and therefore, punishment should only be used to prevent a greater harm to society
(Williams & McShane, 2010). The utilitarianism view of punishment holds that the only
justification for punishment is to deter future crime (Williams & McShane, 2010). Deterrence
theory in law enforcement tries to explain the effect, if any, laws and punishments will have on
acts of crime (Ariel et al., 2014). When contemplating a criminal act, a potential criminal, who
knows in advance the severe consequences of such act, will be less likely to commit the crime
(Witherspoon, 2014).
Deterrence theory adds to the understanding of the field of law enforcement and policing.
According to Cullen and Pratt (2016), the fiercest debate in criminology is whether police make
a difference in controlling crime. Deterrence theory attempts to address that debate by
addressing the possible link between the function of law enforcement and the commission of
crime (Cullen & Pratt, 2016). The fields of law and criminology have established a well-
regarded theory of human behavior known as the rational choice theory (Akers, 2013). The
rational choice theory assumes that humans think rationally by nature (Akers, 2013). When a
human contemplates an action, a rational choice is made based on a subconscious cost-benefit
analysis (Akers, 2013). The action is weighed against all consequences, whether positive or
negative, and then a decision upon the action is made (Akers, 2013). If performing the action
will result in a positive outcome, the person will likely decide to perform the action (Akers,
2013). The opposite holds true if the action would result in a negative outcome (Akers, 2013).
22
Deterrence theory expands rational choice theory into the realm of crime by attempting to
address how rational choice applies to the commission of crime (Akers, 2013). Deterrence
theory explains that the reason people obey laws is that they are afraid of being caught and
punished for not obeying the laws (Akers, 2013; Witherspoon, 2014). This theory states that
instead of deep moral values, the motivation for obedience to law is the fear of punishment
(Akers, 2013). Furthermore, the swifter, more certain, and more severe the punishment, the less
likely a person is to commit a crime (Ariel et al., 2014; Witherspoon, 2014).
In order for the theory of deterrence to work, it assumes that someone contemplating a
crime knows what the penalty is for committing the crime, has control over their own actions,
and uses rational thought during contemplation, rather than passion (Akers, 2013). However,
sometimes these assumptions are not valid, which is why deterrence theory has faced a great deal
of criticism (Akers, 2013). For example, the existence of punishment clearly does not always
prevent the commission of crime (Akers, 2013; Banks, 2016).
According to Banks (2016), our entire criminal justice system has been built around the
belief that deterrence theory is sound. Our society sets up a system of laws and then defines
punishments for breaking those laws (Banks, 2016). The threat of punishment is believed to act
as a deterrent to breaking the law (Akers, 2013; Banks, 2016). When a potential criminal knows
that the severity and certainty of punishment outweighs the crime, rational choice theory holds
that the person will choose not to commit the crime (Akers, 2013).
According to Akers (2013), the theory of deterrence remains a constant source of debate
for criminal justice and legal scholars. Despite decades of studies/research, definitive proof does
not exist to show deterrence theory is the correct explanation for why some choose not to commit
crime (Akers, 2013; Banks, 2016). Those who strongly support the theory have been constantly
23
compelled to reimagine it in order to defend it from detractors, because controversy surrounds
the theory (Akers, 2013; Banks, 2016). Because of this controversy, researchers continue to
have current interest in the theory (Akers, 2013).
Deterrence theory holds that there are three main categories of deterrence (Akers, 2013).
Specific deterrence relates to the deterrent effect of punishment on a single individual
contemplating a specific crime (Akers, 2013). The individual weighs the costs and benefits of a
crime and then makes a rational choice based on the analysis of the identified costs and benefits
(Akers, 2013; Banks, 2016; Witherspoon, 2014).
General deterrence refers to the punishment of an individual criminal as an example to
others in society in order to prevent those others from committing crime (Akers, 2013). To
encourage deterrence of criminal actions, convicted criminals were once and still are (in some
instances even in the United States) punished in view of the public (Morrison, 2014). For
example, public executions were used in the past to deter societies from committing crimes
(Akers, 2013). Currently, visible enforcement of DWI violations has been shown to have a
general deterrence effect (Akers, 2013). When officers respond rapidly and visibly to DWI
violations, other potential DWI offenders choose to find other means of transportation rather than
driving while intoxicated (Akers, 2013).
Marginal deterrence is the idea that more severe crimes should receive more severe
punishments and less severe crimes should receive less severe punishments (Akers, 2013).
Otherwise, if the punishment does not fit the crime (meaning the punishment is either too severe
or not severe enough), deterrence will not occur (Akers, 2013). Marginal deterrence is also used
to justify punishing a series of crimes more severely than a single criminal act (Akers, 2013).
The theory holds that potential offenders will observe the punishment and choose not to commit
24
a series of criminal acts, knowing that multiple crimes will be punished more severely than a
single crime (Akers, 2013).
The literature reveals that unanswered questions exist concerning deterrence theory
(Akers, 2013; Banks, 2016). Akers (2013) argued that even when the punishment is certain,
swift, and severe, there are still times in which the crime will be committed. It is not completely
understood why this occurs (Akers, 2013). It is also obvious that general deterrence does not
always occur. While society finds ways to publicize punishment, people still overlook the
guaranteed punishment and commit crimes. Akers (2013) questioned what motivations exist that
overcome rational thought and deterrence. Sometimes, the potential benefit of committing a
crime is so great, the offender believes it is worth any risk of punishment (Akers, 2013).
Deterrence theory can be used to predict whether officers and citizens might behave
differently in the presence of body-worn cameras (Ariel, 2016b; Witherspoon, 2014). When
interacting with officers, suspects who are aware of the cameras and realize that punishment for
misbehavior will be certain, might be more likely to avoid any behavior that would result in
punishment (Ariel, 2016b; Witherspoon, 2014). For example, a potential offender, when
interacting with an officer equipped with a BWC, might decide not to commit a crime, knowing
that the crime will be captured on video and that, because of the recording, punishment will be
certain (Ariel, 2016b).
Also, officers who are wearing BWCs might be more likely to act according to
department policies and community expectations (Ariel, 2016b). Knowing that their actions will
be captured and potentially reviewed by supervisors or the public, officers equipped with BWCs
might choose to comply with policies that might otherwise be ignored (Ariel, 2016b). For
example, an officer who might not normally comply with a department’s requirement to wear a
25
seatbelt while operating a patrol vehicle might be more inclined to comply knowing that the
potential for detection by supervisors increases when assigned to wear a body camera.
The concepts of police legitimacy and procedural justice were also examined during this
literature review. Police legitimacy is the right of the police to exercise their power (Tankebe,
2012), particularly in order to fulfill the police mission of maintaining social order, providing
solutions to problems and conflicts within their communities by building trust while deferring to
the law and acting in a morally just and appropriate manner (Gau, 2015; PERF, 2014).
Procedural justice is the means by which police attain legitimacy (Bell, 2017; Gau, 2015; PERF,
2014). Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the application of justice and the allocation of
police resources and responses (Bell, 2017; Gau, 2015).
When police officers adhere to behaviors that citizens desire during interactions, those
citizens consider the officers legitimate (Tyler & Jackson, 2013). For example, the public has
come to expect officers to allow citizens an opportunity to explain their side of a story during a
police interaction (Tyler & Jackson, 2013). Citizens also want officers to explain the reasons for
their decisions (Tyler & Jackson, 2013), and to be polite and use appropriate language when
doing so (Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2013).
Police legitimacy through procedural justice is based on four tenants: When interacting
with the police, citizens want a chance to explain their situation, to see evidence that the officers
are neutral and free of bias, to be treated with dignity and respect, and to be able to trust the
officers with whom they are interacting (PERF, 2014; Tyler & Jackson, 2013). Bell (2017) adds
that officers achieve legitimacy when they genuinely seek to help those with whom they interact.
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF, 2014) describes the pillars of procedural
justice as follows:
26
a) First, people want to have an opportunity to explain their situation or tell their
side of the story to a police officer. This opportunity to make arguments and
present evidence should occur before the police make decisions about what to
do.
b) Second, people react to evidence that the authorities with whom they are
dealing are neutral. This involves officers making decisions based upon
consistently applied legal principles and the facts of an incident, not an
officer’s personal opinions and biases.
c) Third, people are sensitive to whether they are treated with dignity and
politeness, and to whether their rights are respected. The issue of
interpersonal treatment consistently emerges as a key factor in reactions to
dealings with legal authorities. People believe that they are entitled to
treatment with respect, and react very negatively to dismissive or demeaning
interpersonal treatment.
d) Finally, people focus on cues that communicate information about the
intentions and character (their “trustworthiness”) of the legal authorities with
whom they are dealing. (p.9-10)
Research shows that when citizens believe their interactions with police are fair, the
police achieve higher levels of legitimacy (Kunard & Moe, 2015; PERF, 2014). Legitimacy
encourages citizens to provide police with compliance, respect, and cooperation (Kunard & Moe,
2015; PERF, 2014). The use of procedurally just behaviors by officers encourages respect for
the broader system of criminal justice (Hamm, Trinkner, & Carr, 2017; PERF, 2014). Police
need this cooperation in order to be effective (Hamm et al., 2017; Kunard & Moe, 2015; PERF,
2014).
Many law enforcement observers believe that BWCs will have a positive impact on
police legitimacy because the recordings will allow police and community leaders to analyze
interactions between officers and citizens to determine if procedurally just behaviors were used
during the encounter (Gau, 2015; Joh, 2016). Many also believe that the cameras will have a
deterrent effect, causing officers to behave in a more just manner (Ariel, 2016b). The theoretical
framework provided by deterrence theory, along with consideration of the concepts of police
27
legitimacy and procedural justice, guided the development of this study. Using this framework
to explore the potential impact of BWCs allows for an examination of the technology from the
perspective of both the officers assigned to use the equipment and the citizens with whom those
officers interact, particularly when reviewing the literature (Ariel, 2016b). Additionally, when
developing the research question and selecting the participants, deterrence theory’s concepts
were used to help determine the appropriate designs. The question of whether punishment deters
misbehavior, and whether such outcome contributes to police legitimacy through procedural
justice, will be examined from the emergent reality of police-citizen interactions captured by the
newly implemented technology of body-worn cameras.
Technology in Law Enforcement
In the United States, the police are expected by society to deter and investigate crime,
apprehend and arrest criminals, maintain the public order, and provide a wide variety of ever-
expanding services to their communities (Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017).
Occasionally, police officers are expected to place their own lives on the line in order to
accomplish the mission of their department (Foster, 2004). Community demands on law
enforcement agencies have increased in the past several decades, while resources for agencies
remain scarce (Battles, 2010; Deflem, 2006; Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017).
Instead of a single, national law enforcement agency, policing in the United States is
accomplished by approximately 18,000 local, state, and federal agencies (Joh, 2016).
Communities have come to expect law enforcement agencies to solve a wide variety of social
problems, including domestic and dating violence, drug abuse, traffic fatalities, neighbor
disputes, and problems caused by homelessness and mental health crises (Ariel, 2016a; Deflem,
2006; Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017).
28
In order to succeed, law enforcement agencies frequently seek out technology to improve
their ability to respond to changing demands from the public and to increase effectiveness and
efficiency (Deflem, 2006; Foster, 2004). Historically, police departments have been on the
cutting edge of emerging technology in many fields in attempts to solve problems for which they
did not have any resources in their tool kits (Battles, 2010; Deflem, 2006). Because of the need
to address constantly changing societal problems, police departments have driven development
in scientific fields such as fingerprinting and crime laboratories, communications technologies
such as two-way radios and mobile computers, transportation technologies such as the
widespread use of the automobile, and weapons technologies such as semi-automatic pistols and
bullet-proof vests (Foster, 2004).
However, for a variety of reasons, technological advancement and adaptation have been
slow and uneven throughout the history of law enforcement in the United States (Battles, 2010;
Foster, 2004). Funding has always been a problem for police departments, who must compete
with other public agencies for allocation of scare tax dollars (Foster, 2004). Police leaders (and
end-users such as patrol officers or front-line supervisors) are often skeptical of new technology
or slow to recognize potential benefits (Foster, 2004). While some countries have a single
federal law enforcement agency, the United States has thousands of agencies with hundreds of
thousands of employees, and such diversity often stalls adaptation (Worrall & Schmalleger,
2017). Additionally, private sector technology developers are sometimes reluctant to invest in
new products and services for police departments because of a fear of liability if the new
technologies result in harm to officers or citizens or fail to live up to the expectations of law
enforcement leaders (Foster, 2004).
29
Despite these barriers to progress, law enforcement has successfully forced technology to
move forward on many fronts. During what scholars refer to as the Political Era of American
policing, which took place from the 1840s until 1930, police officers mostly relied on two forms
of technology: the gun and the nightstick (Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). The
Political Era was so-named because of the close ties between police and political officials, when
departments were organized in a paramilitary style and focused on serving the needs of the
politically powerful (Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). Law enforcement
organizations came about during this time because of rapid social change, necessitating a
framework for maintaining social order and security (Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). Disputes
among citizens during this period were often settled with guns and knives or brute force, and the
police relied on similar tools to maintain control (Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017).
In the 1850s, Samuel Colt mass-produced the first pistol capable of holding multiple rounds of
ammunition, which was adopted by the Texas Rangers (a statewide law enforcement agency) and
subsequently carried by police agencies nationwide (Foster, 2004). In 1877, Albany, NY,
introduced the telegraph to police and fire departments, and in 1878, Washington, D.C., installed
telephones in police precinct houses (Foster, 2004).
During policing’s Reform Era, from 1930 through the 1970s, officers began to think of
themselves as professionals and developed a sense of pride in the law enforcement profession
(Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). It was during this period that communities began
expecting their police agencies to provide services designed to improve the welfare of citizens
and not just political officials (Battles, 2010; Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). Law
enforcement leaders began to recognize the potential for technology to help implement crime-
fighting strategies (Foster, 2004). The Reform Era saw the expanded use of automobiles by
30
police, allowing officers to respond to situations over a wide geographic area that were now
being called in by citizens over the telephone, as opposed to discovering incidents by walking
into them while on foot patrol (Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). Also, criminals
began using automobiles to evade capture (Battles, 2010). Police responded by implementing
radio technology, which allowed a central command office to rapidly dispatch and coordinate
officers (Battles, 2010). In 1928, Detroit pioneered the one-way radio, and, in 1934, Boston
installed two-way radios, giving officers the ability to talk back to headquarters and to other
officers in the field (Battles, 2010; Foster, 2004).
The Reform Era and the move to professionalism in policing also saw the introduction of
fingerprint classification systems, crime laboratories, and photography for suspect identification
and documentation of crime scenes (Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). Scotland Yard
began using fingerprinting in 1901, while Lyon, France, established the first police crime lab in
1910 (Foster, 2004). Those ideas were widely adopted by American agencies in the 1930s, with
the Los Angeles Police Department forming the first U.S. crime lab in 1923 (Foster, 2004;
Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). In 1932, the FBI introduced what has become a world-renowned
crime lab, which presently provides services to thousands of law enforcement agencies (Foster,
2004). Additional technologies developed during this period include the polygraph machine, the
use of radar for traffic enforcement, computer-aided dispatching systems, a nationwide database
linking all state police computers, and the designation of 9-1-1 as the phone number for police,
fire, and emergency services (Foster, 2004; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017).
During the Community Era of policing (1970s – 2001), police, political, and community
leaders envisioned a true partnership between law enforcement agencies and the communities
they serve (Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). Agencies began to focus on quality-of-life issues and
31
broken windows policing, in an effort to prevent and solve crime on a societal level (Worrall &
Schmalleger, 2017). The federal government, through the Justice Department, became more
involved in local law enforcement by funding research and grants for equipment and programs
within state and local agencies (Foster, 2004). This infusion of funding allowed agencies to
invest in large-scale computerization efforts such as records management systems, networked
crime and intelligence databases, mobile fingerprint readers, and enhanced 9-1-1 systems
allowing dispatchers to see on a computer screen the location of emergency callers (Foster, 2004;
Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). Large departments such as New York and Chicago began
developing sophisticated programs capable of mapping crime patterns and analyzing the data to
allow for predictions, giving police commanders useful information on where to deploy
resources in order to impact crime (Foster, 2004).
The Community Era was also defined by demands from citizens for agencies to find
alternatives to use of deadly force when dealing with combative suspects (Foster, 2004; Worrall
& Schmalleger, 2017). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, agencies tried rubber and plastic
bullets, electric stun guns, water hoses, and bullet-proof vests as less-lethal and defensive
technologies (Foster, 2004). By the 1990s, most agencies had adopted pepper spray and
conducted energy devices (commonly known by the brand name Taser) as less-lethal options in
the use-of-force continuum (Foster, 2004).
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, moved American policing into the New Era
(Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017). The current focus for many agencies is on the security of the
homeland, with an emphasis on using technology to contribute to intelligence-led policing and
the sharing of information between law enforcement partners (Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017).
Recently, the widespread use of technologies such as automated license plate readers (ALPRs),
32
social media platforms, data mining and profiling, automated crime scene evidence comparison
databases, and public-private video surveillance networks have contributed to an increased
likelihood of apprehension and successful prosecution of suspects (Aiello, 2017; Crump, 2011;
Custers, 2012; Kelly & Finlayson, 2015; Worrall & Schmalleger, 2017).
Figure 1. Major Technology Advances in Eras of American Policing.
The History of Video in Law Enforcement
Police in the United Kingdom introduced the idea of video surveillance in law
enforcement (Norris, McCahill, & Wood, 2004). In 1960, the London Metropolitan Police
installed two pan-tilt and zoom cameras in Trafalgar Square to monitor crowds during State
Visits to Parliament and other mass gatherings (Norris et al., 2004). By the end of the decade, 14
police agencies were using video surveillance, with 67 cameras throughout the country (Norris et
al., 2004). Because of its sustained use, both in law enforcement and in the private sector, the
U.K. has been a pioneer in the use of video surveillance systems (Goold, 2002).
Video recording systems have been available in the United States since the 1960s (IACP,
2004). In the mid-1960s, the Connecticut State Police experimented with a mobile in-car video
recording system by installing a tripod and mounting a camera in the passenger seat of a patrol
1840s – 1930 | 1930 – 1970s | 1970s – 2001 | Sept. 11, 2001
New Era: Intelli-
gence-led policing,
social media and
networked systems,
automated license plate
readers, surveillance
video.
Community Era:
Records management
systems, crime
mapping, pepper spray,
Taser, bullet-proof
vests.
Reform Era: Auto-
mobiles, radios,
fingerprints, photogra-
phy, crime labs, 9-1-1.
Political Era: The
gun and the nightstick,
telegraph, telephone.
33
car (IACP, 2004). The camera and equipment, connected by multiple cables to a large recorder,
in the back seat, took up the entire space of the passenger compartment, making the system
impractical for widespread deployment within a large fleet of police vehicles (IACP, 2004).
While the experiment did not result in immediate adoption of in-car video technology, it was
featured in an issue of the magazine entitled Popular Science and demonstrated a potential of
mobile video applications within law enforcement (IACP, 2004).
In the early 1980s, self-contained video recording technologies, such as Beta and VHS,
were introduced to consumers and sparked an audio/visual revolution (IACP, 2004; Linn, 2007).
These units were portable and affordable, and drove forward an interest in mobile video within a
wide variety of industries (IACP, 2004; Linn, 2007). Within law enforcement, closed circuit
television (CCTV) became widely adopted during this period, and is still the most commonly
utilized type of video system in criminal justice (Linn, 2007; Welsh & Farrington, 2009). CCTV
surveillance cameras are typically placed in locations with high levels of pedestrian traffic and
low levels of security personnel, such as shopping centers, train or subway stations, or densely
populated urban centers (Welsh & Farrington, 2009). The cameras are often overtly displayed,
and their presence does deter crime, particularly in public transit centers and parking lots (Welsh
& Farrington, 2009). For example, Welsh and Farrington (2009) found a 51% decrease in crime
in parking lots when CCTVs were used to conspicuously monitor activity. Arrest rates also
increase for crimes that are captured by CCTVs, because suspects are more easily identified
when the crime is witnessed and recorded on video (Piza, Caplan, & Kennedy, 2014). CCTVs
are also used to monitor and record jail booking and other police procedures (IACP, 2001).
Also during the 1980s, police departments throughout the United States began to widely
adopt interrogation room cameras (Kassin, Kukucka, Lawson, & DeCarlo, 2014). These systems
34
are set up within police station interview rooms in order to capture suspect and witness
statements related to major crimes such as homicide, robbery, and sexual assaults (Kassin et al.,
2014). Detectives and prosecutors are often in favor of these systems because they provide
compelling evidence in court, and defense attorneys encourage their use because of the
transparency of an interrogation (Kassin et al., 2014). Some jurisdictions are beginning to
mandate interrogation room cameras in order to decrease the possibility of false or forced
confessions (Kassin et al., 2014).
Public pressure because of concerns related to racial profiling, high-speed pursuits, and
high-profile police misconduct incidents motivated law enforcement leaders in state and local
agencies to begin installing dashboard mounted cameras (dash-cams) in patrol cars in the 1980s
(Linn, 2007; Schwabe, Davis, & Jackson, 2001; Stitilis & Laurinaitis, 2016). The in-car cameras
were intended to provide an objective view of critical incidents and interactions with citizens,
and would allow police supervisors the ability to hold officers accountable for their behavior
(Linn, 2007; Stitilis & Laurinaitis, 2016). Dash-cams allow for the recording and documentation
of the activities of both citizens and officers; however, the equipment must be activated by the
officer in order for the interactions to be captured (Kuboviak, 2004; Walker & Katz, 2005).
During the same decade, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) made a concerted
national effort to raise awareness of the tragedies caused by traffic crashes involving intoxicated
drivers (IACP, 2004). The group successfully increased attention surrounding DWI issues,
including the need for more police and prosecutor accountability as it related to the prevention
and prosecution of DWIs (IACP, 2004). Dash-cams were proposed as a possible solution: the
equipment could be used to efficiently provide prosecutors with irrefutable evidence of an
offender’s intoxication, because the DWI stop and subsequent investigation would be recorded
35
on video for a jury to evaluate (IACP, 2004; Linn, 2007). From MADD’s perspective, the main
function of dash-cams was to provide evidence in order to increase conviction rates for DWI
suspects (IACP, 2004).
Maghan, O’Reilly, and Shon (2002) found that dash-cams provide a wide variety of
benefits to police agencies including protection for officers by reducing false complaints, a
reduction in abuse of power incidents, and good evidence for prosecutors when suspects are
combative against officers. Dash-cams can also be used to catch suspects doing things that
might not be observed by officers (Sechrest, Liquori, & Perry, 1990). The International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) National Law Enforcement Policy Center (1992)
encourages agencies to implement dash-cams for the following benefits:
a) Accurate documentation of events, actions, conditions, and statements
made during arrests and critical incidents, so as to enhance officer reports,
collection of evidence, and testimony in court; and
b) The enhancement of the agency’s ability to review probable cause for
arrest, arrest procedures, officer and suspect interaction, and evidence for
investigative purposes, as well as for officer evaluation and training. (p.1)
Dash-cams are also useful to police supervisors and internal investigators when
evaluating citizen complaints (Linn, 2007). The technology provides an objective and impartial
record of the interaction (Linn, 2007). The recordings have proven many citizen complaints
were not valid, and have avoided costly lawsuits against police departments (Linn, 2007).
Dash-cams have also proven to be effective at capturing ideal training opportunities
(Cuthbert, Spearns, & Cowper, 1992; IACP, 2004; Linn, 2007). In 1991, a deputy constable in
rural Nacogdoches County, Texas, was murdered by three men after stopping them for a traffic
violation, and the incident was captured in detail by the deputy’s dash-cam (“Constable’s Death
Seen on Videotape,” 1991). Not only did the recording help to apprehend and convict the
36
suspects, it was also circulated widely to law enforcement agencies to use as a training tool.
Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Andy Lopez credited the training video for
providing him life-saving defensive tactics when he encountered a similar situation on a traffic
stop a few months later (Ortega, 2011).
Law enforcement leaders recognized the benefits of dash-cams and the technology was
widely adopted; however, the equipment is costly (Linn, 2007; Westphal, 2004). In 2000, the
Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) implemented a
grant program to help provide federal funding for dash-cams for state police and highway patrol
departments (Westphal, 2004). Over the next several years, the COPS In-Car Camera Incentive
Program provided over $21 million for the purchase of dash-cams in 47 states and the District of
Columbia (IACP, 2004; Westphal, 2004). By 2003, a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey found
that more than half of the police departments in the United States had installed dash-cams in their
patrol cars (Hickman & Reaves, 2006). The broad acceptance of dash-cams and the
acknowledgement of their benefits to agencies had established the use of video recording of
police interactions as a best practice in law enforcement (IACP, 2004).
Figure 2. The History of Video in Law Enforcement.
Body-worn cameras
introduced in 2000s,
calls for universal
adoption begin in
2010s.
Dash-cams credited for
providing variety of
benefits to police
agencies, widely
implemented in the
U.S.
CCTV used to monitor
fixed locations for
crime, interrogation
room video widely
implemented.
London Police use
video to monitor
crowds, Connecticut
State Police experi-
ment with in-car video.
1960s | 1980s | 1990s | 2000s
37
The Introduction of Body-Worn Cameras in Law Enforcement
Body-worn cameras were introduced to law enforcement in the early 2000s (Ariel,
2016b; White, 2014). Taser International, the leading manufacturer of conducted energy devices
(defensive stun-gun type weapons commonly referred to by the brand-name Taser), already had a
presence as a vendor in most U.S. law enforcement agencies (Brucato, 2015). First introduced in
1998, within just over a decade, Tasers were used by 89% of American police departments
(Brucato, 2015). In 2006, the company developed a camera capable of being mounted on a
Taser, intended to capture evidence in incidents in which officers deployed a Taser against a
suspect (Brucato, 2015). Two years later, the company introduced a stand-alone body-worn
camera, known as the Axon, and released several upgrades over the next five years, increasing
the camera’s recording ability and storage capacity (Brucato, 2015).
The first-generation Taser Axon was a camera wired to a belt-mounted controller and
LCD screen with internal storage and rechargeable batteries (Brucato, 2015). When docked for
recharging, the camera uploaded video and associated metadata including timestamps, location
information, police incident numbers, and officer identification to Taser’s Evidence.com cloud
storage system (Brucato, 2015). Evidence.com provides for chain-of-custody records for BWC
videos and the system does not allow for manipulation of original video files, reducing the
potential for tampering with video evidence (Brucato, 2015).
Subsequent generations of the Taser camera system introduced significant improvements.
The Axon Flex is a wireless camera, capable of immediately uploading video to the cloud
storage system (Brucato, 2015). Video captured by the Axon Flex can also be immediately
streamed to wireless devices using mobile apps for Android or iOS (Brucato, 2015).
38
Following the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the
nationwide protests surrounding police misconduct incidents, activists and community leaders
sought to mandate the use of body-worn cameras in the hopes that the technology would improve
accountability and transparency (Ariel, 2016a; White, 2014; White & Coldren, 2017). In 2013, a
federal judge, in ruling that the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program was
unconstitutional, demanded that the department deploy body-worn cameras in an effort to curtail
unconstitutional behavior in the future (Evans & Williams, 2015; Ray, Marsh, & Powelson,
2017; Smith, Rojek, Petrocelli, & Withrow, 2017).
In surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013, fewer than 25% of U.S. law enforcement
agencies reported using BWCs (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Wyllie, 2012). However, in December
2014, shortly after the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, President
Obama announced the Body-Worn Camera Partnership Program, designed to put 50,000 BWCs
on the streets by matching 50% of costs for equipment and storage for state and local law
enforcement agencies (Hudson, 2014). The White House Administration hoped that BWCs
might mend relationships between police departments and the communities they serve (Ariel,
2016b). Accordingly, in consent decrees with several agencies (including Ferguson and
Baltimore), the Justice Department (DOJ) required agencies being monitored to establish BWC
programs (Wasserman, 2017). Since the announcements of the White House grants and DOJ
consent decrees, many agencies have been rushing to implement the cameras (Ariel, 2016b;
Brucato, 2015; Wasserman, 2017). It should be noted that it remains to be seen if the Trump
Administration favors rapid deployment of the technology throughout law enforcement agencies
in the U.S. (Chen, 2017; Wasserman, 2017).
39
The public has also pushed for adoption of BWCs. An online petition on the White
House’s website, signed by more than 100,000 citizens in August 2014, sought action from the
federal government to encourage agencies to equip officers with the cameras (Wasserman,
2017). In December 2014, a nationwide poll conducted by Pew Research showed that 87% of
respondents, across all racial and political spectrums, support the use of BWCs in law
enforcement (Wasserman, 2017).
The technology has also rapidly advanced (Hyatt, Mitchell, & Ariel, 2017). The cameras
are smaller and less obtrusive than when originally introduced, and, combined with big-data
technologies and machine-learning algorithms, have the potential to increasingly digitize what
has historically been an analog system within law enforcement (Hyatt et al., 2017). Current
BWC vendors compete in an ever-increasing field of providers (Brucato, 2015), with established
companies such as Taser and VieVue, and relative newcomers to the industry like WatchGuard
and Digital Ally (Daniels, 2016; Joh, 2016).
Taser supplies BWC equipment to several large departments including Los Angeles,
Chicago, Minneapolis, and Baltimore, and is currently bidding to supply the New York Police
Department (Daniels, 2016). VieVue supplies the Miami-Dade Police Department, and
WatchGuard recently provided 4,100 cameras for the Houston Police Department (Daniels,
2016). More than half of the major city police departments in the U.S. have already purchased or
are in the process of purchasing BWC equipment (Daniels, 2016). Taser and VieVue are
considered by most industry observers as the dominant vendors in the current BWC market (Joh,
2016).
40
The Rialto Study Encourages Adoption of BWC Technology
The city of Rialto, California, was the first city in the United States to perform an in-
depth study of a body-worn camera implementation within a police department (Ariel, Farrar, &
Sutherland, 2014; Brucato, 2015; Farrar, 2014; Schneider, 2017). The Rialto Study is cited by
scholars and news media throughout the world in arguments supporting adoption of BWCs
(Schneider, 2017). The study was newsworthy in that it claimed to show a 59% reduction in use-
of-force incidents and an 87.5% reduction in complaints from citizens against Rialto officers
(Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2014; Schneider, 2017). The study was primarily conducted by the
chief of the Rialto Police Department, Tony Farrar, as he documented the deployment of BWCs
within his agency, both for the benefit his local stakeholders and for his graduate thesis at
Cambridge University in the United Kingdom (Brucato, 2015; Farrar, 2014; Schneider, 2017).
Rialto is a medium-sized city in Southern California with approximately 100,000
residents. The Rialto Police Department consists of approximately 115 sworn police officers and
40 civilian employees who investigate around 3,000 property crimes and 500 violent crimes per
year (Ariel et al., 2014; Brucato, 2015; Farrar, 2014). Rialto collaborated with Taser to provide
front-line patrol officers with BWCs mounted on uniforms or specially designed sunglasses
manufactured by Oakley (Ariel et al., 2014; Brucato, 2015). The cameras were capable of high
definition color recording, were water resistant, and had a 12-hour battery life, which aligned
with the shifts of Rialto patrol officers (Ariel et al., 2014; Brucato, 2015).
For the Rialto study, two groups of officers were examined: an experimental group, with
officers assigned to wear Taser Axon Flex cameras for the duration of their shift, and a control
group consisting of officers not wearing cameras (Ariel et al., 2014; Brucato, 2015). Shifts were
randomly allocated to experimental and control groups on a weekly basis (Ariel et al., 2014).
41
The data from the cameras were automatically uploaded to Taser’s cloud storage system,
Evidence.com, which tracked and inventoried the recordings, and provided access to a research
team (Ariel et al., 2014; Brucato, 2015; Schneider, 2017).
During the study, the department recorded 25 use-of-force incidents, with 17 incidents
occurring on control shifts and 8 incidents occurring on experimental shifts (Ariel et al., 2014).
Officers without cameras were two times more likely to be involved in use-of-force incidents
than those who were wearing cameras (Ariel et al., 2014). Even more impressive, the entire
department experienced a reduction in use-of-force incidents of 60% during the experimental
period, regardless of camera assignment (Ariel et al., 2014; Brucato, 2015). Farrar (2014)
explains how deterrence may have played a role in the reduction of use-of-force incidents during
the study: “The cameras were hypothesized to increase police officers’ self-consciousness and,
therefore, increase their compliance to rules of conduct, especially concerning use of force”
(p.21).
Additionally, a significant decline in citizen complaints against officers occurred during
the study period (Ariel et al., 2014). In the year prior to the study, Rialto received 24 citizen
complaints; during the study, only 3 complaints were filed (Ariel et al., 2014). This represents
an 87.5% reduction in complaints (Ariel et al., 2014). Even prior to the publication of the study,
national and international media outlets referred to these results to advocate for rapid
implementation of BWCs within law enforcement, both in the U.S. and other countries (Brucato,
2015; Schneider, 2017).
The authors of the Rialto study claimed that the reduction in use-of-force incidents and
citizen complaints would reduce litigation costs for the city (Ariel et al., 2014). Complaints,
whether justified or not, have a high cost in both jury verdicts and out-of-court settlements (Ariel
42
et al., 2014; Ferrell, 2013). Internally, investigating citizen complaints is also expensive and
resource-intensive for a department (Ariel et al., 2014; Ferrell, 2013; Walker, Archbold, &
Herbst, 2002). In Minneapolis, the average cost for a single internal affairs investigation of a
citizen complaint against an officer is $6,278; in Berkeley, California, the cost is approximately
$8,571 per investigation (Walker et al., 2002).
The findings of the Rialto study suggest that a city (or similar jurisdiction such as a
county or state) could save significant amounts of money and personnel time by implementing
BWCs if the technology results in such a significant reduction in citizen complaints (Ariel et al.,
2014; Brucato, 2015; Schneider, 2017). As a direct result of the complaints avoided during the
study period, the authors of the Rialto study claim the city saved about $400,000. The total cost
of the BWC system was about $90,000, which included 70 cameras and mounting hardware,
charging / docking stations, cloud-based storage and tracking software, and training for the
technicians and officers utilizing the equipment (Ariel et al., 2014). This suggests a net savings
of $310,000.
The results of the Rialto study received international attention, and convinced many law
enforcement leaders and community activists to immediately call for widespread implementation
of BWCs (Brucato, 2015; Schneider, 2017). It should be noted, however, that the study was not
without its critics. Brucato (2015) questioned the methodology and the fact that the study author
was also the chief of the department under study. As the author and the chief, simultaneously
overseeing the research and the operation of his department, Brucato (2015) argues that Farrar’s
objectivity should be suspect.
Additional criticism surrounding the Rialto study questioned whether results from such a
small agency can predict outcomes for larger agencies, as large agencies operate at a completely
43
different scale from smaller agencies (Ariel, 2016b; Brucato, 2015). Training protocols,
interagency coordination, budgets, officer expertise, and department culture vary widely among
individual agencies, and contrast significantly from smaller to larger agencies (Ariel, 2016b).
Even the propensity to use force varies according to the size and culture of a police department
(Ariel, 2016b). Regardless of the criticism, the Rialto study is still widely quoted in arguments
for BWC adoption (Brucato, 2015; Schneider, 2017).
Other early studies of BWC implementations have produced differing results. In Mesa,
Arizona, an 11-month experiment assigned 50 officers to cameras and 50 to a control group
without cameras (Wasserman, 2017). There were four significant findings: (a) officers with
cameras initiated fewer stops and made fewer arrests; (b) officers with cameras wrote more
tickets; (c) officers with cameras were more likely to initiate contact with citizens on the streets
than to rely on being dispatched to calls; and (d) officers with cameras received 48% fewer
complaints during the study period than officers without cameras (Wasserman, 2017).
A pilot program in Phoenix issued BWCs to 56 officers in a specific precinct of the city.
The study showed an increase in arrests by officers wearing the cameras, and a decrease in
complaints against those officers (Wasserman, 2017). Additionally, the study revealed an effect
on incidents related to domestic violence. When BWCs captured the aftermath of domestic
violence incidents, arrests and convictions were more likely than incidents that did not have
video (Wasserman, 2017).
In San Diego, a BWC study indicated a rise in use-of-force incidents for officers
equipped with cameras (Wasserman, 2017). While serious uses of force (e.g., weapons and
Taser deployments, takedowns) declined slightly, minor uses of force (e.g., control holds, Taser
warnings, use of physical strength) increased by 25%, resulting in an overall increase in use-of-
44
force by 14% (Wasserman, 2017). The presence of BWC recordings also resulted in an increase
in exonerations of officers by internal investigators for citizen complaints (Wasserman, 2017).
Anticipated Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras
Law enforcement leaders, community activists, and others in the criminal justice
community anticipate a wide variety of benefits from the implementation of body-worn cameras
in police agencies (Ariel, 2016b; Harris, 2010; Lindegaard & Bernasco, 2018). From greater
transparency and accountability (Ariel, 2016b; Bock, 2016; Harris, 2010), to a reduction in
citizen complaints (Ariel et al., 2014; Harris, 2010), to improved overall relations with the public
(Jennings et al., 2014), the technology is bringing with it a significant amount of expectation.
Studies, such as the Rialto study, have suggested a reduction in use-of-force incidents by
officers (Ariel el al., 2014). Others hope the devices will reduce liability for law enforcement
agencies (Ferrell, 2013) and provide better training opportunities (Broome, 2011). Some
scholars believe the footage can be studied to reduce, or at least better understand, the
phenomenon of crime itself (Lindegaard & Bernansco, 2018).
Citizens and community activists expect greater transparency from police departments
(Bock, 2016). Whether the BWC devices will provide the promised transparency remains to be
seen. In Texas, the Public Information Act (Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code)
specifies what may and may not be released by a state or local government pursuant to an open
records request by a member of the public (Paxton, 2018). In some states, it can be argued that
greater transparency is achieved because, depending on the strength of the state’s public
information laws, citizens have greater access to view police interactions when body camera
programs are implemented (Evans, 2015).
45
Increased accountability is another anticipated benefit of implementing BWCs (Harris,
2010). The landmark Terry decision instructed law enforcement on how to articulate reasonable
suspicion required to stop a citizen (Simmons, 2014). In the 50 years since the ruling, Fourth
Amendment questions still remain difficult problems for officers when determining reasonable
suspicion (Fagan & Gellar, 2015). BWCs might increase officers’ awareness of the need to fully
develop reasonable suspicion before making a traffic or pedestrian stop (Fagan & Gellar, 2015;
Harris, 2010).
BWC devices might expose false justification for initial stops that are made by officers
(Fagan & Geller, 2015). For example, when articulating probable cause for a vehicle stop,
officers will have to justify not just their actions and thoughts, but what actually appears on
video. This new requirement may cause officers to think twice about initiating a stop in which
the probable cause or reasonable suspicion cannot be fully articulated in their report (Fagan &
Geller, 2015). An analysis of recent court cases shows that judges are increasingly likely to
allow video evidence captured by agencies, involved parties, or bystanders as evidence in trials
(Ferrell, 2013). Such evidence can be used to support or contradict an officer’s testimony
regarding Fourth Amendment issues (Ferrell, 2013).
According to Harris (2010), defense attorneys think BWCs will discourage officers from
violating Fourth Amendment rights of citizens they encounter. Harris (2010) analyzed court
cases related to the Fourth Amendment in both the United States and Britain and found that in
many of the cases, the only evidence is the officer’s statement and the statement of the suspect.
Harris (2010) concluded that most of the disputes would have been easier to settle if the officers
involved had been wearing body cameras.
46
As the literature expands, theory seems to be developing that indicates body worn camera
programs result in fewer citizen complaints and results in better behavior by suspects in police
encounters (Ariel, 2016a; Jennings et al., 2015; Schneider, 2017). Ariel, Farrar, and Sutherland
(2014) spent twelve months studying whether the use of body cameras resulted in a reduction of
police use of force and citizens’ complaints against police. The results of the experiment showed
that, in the presence of cameras, the likelihood of force decreased by half. Citizen complaints
were also significantly reduced with the use of BWCs.
The recorded evidence may also reduce the time spent investigating citizen complaints
(Evans, 2015). BWCs create a very detailed documentation of an interaction (Evans, 2015).
According to Wasserman (2017), this type of evidence is unambiguous and objective. When
complaints are made, investigators may be able to rapidly resolve the issue by viewing the
footage (Evans, 2015). Citizens might be more satisfied with the resolution if provided with an
opportunity to review the footage (Evans, 2015).
Ferrell (2013) argues that implementation of BWCs will result in decreased liability for
police departments. BWC video evidence may likely show that in use of force incidents, officers
are more often than not completely justified in the use of force, which may result in lower
settlements for agencies involved in litigation (Ariel et al., 2014; Ferrell, 2013; McCamman &
Culhane, 2017). Wasserman (2017) believes that when litigation does occur, BWC evidence will
better prove valid claims and disprove claims that are false. There is also a possibility of a
reduction in corruption at the agency level, since officers will know that their activity is being
captured by BWCs and reviewed by supervisors, which may also limit departmental liability
(Ariel et al., 2014; Coudert et al., 2015).
47
Concerns and Challenges
Current literature also reveals a wide range of concerns with BWCs. While many law
enforcement leaders consider body-worn camera implementation inevitable (Hope, 2018),
scholars warn leaders to proceed with caution (Ariel, 2016b; Feeney, 2015; White, 2015).
Wasserman (2017) warns that even if the cameras prove to have a positive impact on community
relations, leaders should avoid touting the technology as a comprehensive cure-all for the
problems of modern policing. Public expectations, guided by leaders in the law enforcement
field, must be realistic (Wasserman, 2017).
The lack of relevant research concerns some policy makers (Taylor, Lee, Willis, &
Gannoni, 2017); while the research that does exist warns of challenges ahead (Ariel, 2016b;
Wasserman, 2017). For example, the front-line officers most impacted by the deployment of the
technology may not consider it a welcome addition to the uniform (Jennings et al., 2014; Miller
& Toliver, 2014; Kitzmueller, 2014; Young & Ready, 2015). Privacy issues will arise (Capps,
2015; Freund, 2015; Joh, 2016; Thomas, 2017). The effects of the technology on the tactics and
processes of law enforcement must be explored (Kassin et al., 2014; Phillips, 2016).
Additionally, policy development is not occurring in a consistent manner throughout U.S. law
enforcement agencies, leading to a patchwork of rules and statutes that make the use,
transparency, and effectiveness of the technology difficult to gauge (Ariel, 2016b; Miller &
Toliver, 2014; Wasserman, 2017).
Officer Acceptance and Operational Problems
The research has shown mixed results related to the acceptance of the devices among
officers and the operation of the equipment. While Jennings et al. (2014) found officers to be
supportive and comfortable wearing the cameras, some law enforcement leaders worry that
48
officers will resist camera implementation (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Kitzmueller, 2014).
However, Jennings et al. (2014) found that officers were comfortable wearing the equipment,
officers believed the cameras could improve the behavior of citizens and other officers, and that
the officers felt the potential benefits of the cameras outweighed the negative concerns.
Young and Ready (2015) noted that patrol officers are more reluctant than leadership to
embrace new technology. However, they also found that obtaining buy-in from street level
officers helps to ensure successful implementation of a body worn camera program. The results
of Young and Ready’s (2015) research indicates that the best way for the technology to be
embraced at the patrol level is for other officers to endorse the cameras. Introducing small
groups of officers to BWCs, at various points in time, might help increase acceptance in larger
police departments.
Operational problems exist with BWC implementation. The current products in the
marketplace do not perform well in low light (Capps, 2015) and sometimes do not attach well to
officers’ uniforms (Jennings et al., 2014). While additional tools may be useful, officers are
routinely called upon to perform physical tasks (Lewinski, Dysterheft, Dicks, & Pettitt, 2015).
Each new tool causes additional weight gained by adding equipment and protective gear to
officers’ uniform requirements (Lewinski et al., 2015). While body worn cameras might
contribute only a negligible increase in weight, the additional piece of equipment causes other
problems, such as getting caught on seat belts or falling off during foot pursuits (Lewinski et al.,
2015). For officer safety reasons, law enforcement leaders must carefully scrutinize the value of
each piece of equipment that they require their officers to wear.
Kitzmueller (2014) argued that, while many law enforcement agencies are equipping
officers with body and dash-mounted cameras, often videos are lost, destroyed, or are never
49
made/recorded, which is often due to equipment problems, battery failure, or lack of compliance
by the officer (e.g., despite policy, the officer chooses not to activate the camera). Failure to
capture and keep videos deprives suspects of objective evidence, which might prove the
innocence of suspects (Kitzmueller, 2014). Several states are attempting to resolve the
aforementioned concerns by introducing legislation requiring agencies within their jurisdictions
to capture and preserve video (Kitzmueller, 2014).
Privacy Concerns
Privacy concerns surrounding videos recorded by BWCs will likely become an issue for
much debate (Capps, 2015; Freund, 2015; Joh, 2016; Thomas, 2017). Currently, few clear legal
guidelines exist to set limits on the use of BWCs by law enforcement agencies (Freund, 2015;
Thomas, 2017). The Fourth Amendment, as well as a few wiretapping statutes in some states,
provides limited guidance to policy makers, but debate is still needed in order to establish
boundaries (Freund, 2015; Joh, 2016; Shiller, 2017; Thomas, 2017). Some of the features of the
technology raise privacy questions that have never been considered before. For example, the
cameras are capable of capturing both audio and video in high definition which, unlike CCTV
and other older surveillance technologies, allows for the potential integration with facial
recognition software (Miller & Toliver, 2014). Additionally, while CCTV and dash-cams have
limited mobility and generally are designed to record in public spaces, BWCs go anywhere the
officer goes, including private residences and spaces in which citizens have an expectation of
privacy (Miller & Toliver, 2014).
Individuals who are not convicted of crimes will often appear as criminal suspects in
images captured by body cameras (Shiller, 2017; Wolfe, 2013). In Texas, agencies will need to
develop policies addressing the release of video and the redaction of private or confidential
50
information in compliance with the Texas Public Information Act (Paxton, 2018). Texas law
enforcement leaders will need to be flexible when writing policy, as the Attorney General and
the courts will ultimately interpret the Public Information Act as it applies to the release or the
withholding of body camera video (Paxton, 2018).
The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is the primary mechanism for citizens to
guarantee government transparency (Lamdan, 2012). Though FOIA applies to federal agencies,
the basic concepts of the law are adopted by states when developing their own public
information laws (Paxton, 2018). Lamdan (2012) argued that there should be a provision within
the law to protect the privacy of those who seek information from the government. Lamdan’s
(2012) study described cases in which requestors were persecuted based on FOIA requests they
had submitted. While not directly related to privacy protections for individuals involved in
incidents captured by police body cameras, Lamdan’s (2012) examples of how public
information laws impact privacy will be useful for context as states develop policy surrounding
the release of BWC videos. Considering all states model their public information laws on FOIA,
Lamdan’s (2012) research illustrates the relevance of privacy concerns in states beside Texas.
Greer (2012) examines the privacy implications of an entire network of surveillance
cameras, capable of capturing the daily comings and goings of millions of private citizens. Greer
(2012) argues that the system has not been responsible for a reduction in crime or the prevention
of terrorism, and explores whether the cost of privacy is worth the benefits provided. As law
enforcement agencies roll out body worn camera programs, a new wave of surveillance video
will be introduced.
Privacy concerns go both ways (Ariel & Wain, 2014; Geary, 2014). According to Geary
(2014), the United Kingdom (UK) enacted laws preventing citizens from recording or
51
videotaping on-duty police officers, security-sensitive events and assets, and even some
buildings and landmarks. Geary (2014) outlines several cases making their way through federal
courts in the United States. The courts, so far, appear to be holding that private citizens have a
fundamental First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers (Geary, 2014). However,
do officers have the same fundamental right to record citizens? Continuous recording might also
violate the privacy rights of the officers wearing the cameras (Ariel & Wain, 2014; Stanley,
2015). For example, if a department requires officers to record their entire shifts, their private
conversations with co-workers, and even lunch breaks and quick calls to spouses, could be
captured for outside observers to view (Ariel & Wain, 2014; Stanley, 2015).
Perceptions and Tactics
Studies seem to indicate that the presence of a camera influences police work, in various
ways, including investigations and tactics (Kassin et al., 2014). If true, such changes could
create a problem for officers in the field, or it could be a benefit. Kassin et al. (2014)
investigated whether the presence of a video camera altered the interrogation process.
Participant investigators observed a mock crime scene and then interrogated a mock suspect.
Random assignments controlled whether a camera was present in the interrogation and whether
the suspect was innocent or guilty. The results indicate that the presence of a video camera does
alter the process of interrogation, particularly the use of tactics designed to elicit a confession
(Kassin et al., 2014). It is too early to know what effects body-worn cameras will have, not just
on confessions, but on all law enforcement processes (Wasserman, 2017).
An officer’s perception of an incident when video recording equipment is present could
be another problem. Phillips (2016) points out that a major impetus for the adoption of body-
worn cameras for police officers is the belief that the cameras will provide an objective reality of
52
what the officers encounter during use-of-force incidents. Phillips (2016) argues that cameras
are not an accurate substitute for human perception(s) during an encounter. Perceptual distortion
occurs during stressful encounters and officers are often given misinformation before or when
first arriving on a scene (Phillips, 2016; McCamman & Culhane, 2017). When the video
evidence recorded by a body camera does not match the statements made by an involved officer,
the officer might be labeled a liar or a rogue officer, both by the public and by his or her
department (Phillips, 2016; McCamman & Culhane, 2017). Phillips (2016) cautions law
enforcement leaders to constantly remind the public that many factors must be evaluated in
seconds by officers involved in use-of-force incidents. For example, officers have only seconds
to determine how to respond to resistance from a violent suspect, while those observing the
incident later via BWC recordings will have the luxury of ample time for review and analysis of
the situation (Phillips, 2016; McCamman & Culhane, 2017; Wasserman, 2017).
Policy Development Issues
Despite the rush to implement BWCs and the acknowledgement by many leaders of the
inevitability of the technology, care must still be taken to develop effective policies surrounding
their use (Healey & Stephens, 2017; Hope, 2018; Shiller, 2017). The lack of rigorous research
complicates policy development (White, 2014). However, scholars caution leaders to spend
adequate time deliberating how the technology will fit into their agencies before rolling it out
(Ariel, 2016b; Hope, 2018; White, 2014). Adoption of new technology in law enforcement often
outpaces laws and regulations ensuring appropriate use and the negative consequences are
sometimes not anticipated in advance (Adams & Mastracci, 2017).
Departments considering a BWC program should review the legal issues involved, the
pilot programs of similar agencies, and the recommendations of police and civil liberties groups
53
(Adams & Mastracci, 2017; Miller & Toliver, 2014; Thomas, 2017; White, 2014). The
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been a proponent for BWC technology, and has
developed model policies for agencies to consider (Stanley, 2015; Thomas, 2017). According to
the ACLU’s policy statement regarding BWCs:
Although we at the ACLU generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance
cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential
to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers. Historically, there was
no documentary evidence of most encounters between police officers and the public, and
due to the volatile nature of those encounters, this often resulted in radically divergent
accounts of incidents. Cameras have the potential to be a win-win, helping protect the
public against police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect police against
false accusations of abuse. (Stanley, 2015, p. 1)
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has also developed a manual to provide
guidelines and model policies for agencies contemplating the technology (Miller & Toliver,
2014). Many of the PERF and ACLU concerns overlap, including questions about privacy and
trust, the overuse of police surveillance, and the reality that BWCs will not be a panacea for
larger societal problems (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015). Still, law enforcement leaders
should look to these models as a source of best practices when developing local policies (Miller
& Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015).
One of the most fundamental problems for policy development is the question of when
officers are required to activate the equipment (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015). The
cameras will only capture useful footage if turned on, but departments run the risk of damaging
community relationships, trust, and officer autonomy if they record too much (Miller & Toliver,
54
2014; Stanley, 2015). For example, should departments require officers to record while inside
private residences, or while interviewing victims of sexual abuse?
Policy makers need to find the appropriate balance of protecting privacy while gathering
needed documentation (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015). The ACLU recommends BWC
technology be equipped with automatic triggers that record all police-public interactions, but that
allow the officer to turn off the recording at the request of a victim of a sensitive crime or when
entering a private residence (Stanley, 2015). Before turning off the camera, the ACLU believes
department policy should require the officer to explain, on the recording, why he or she is
turning it off (Stanley, 2015). PERF agrees that officers should record all law enforcement
actions, but should seek consent from crime victims before recording, and should have the
discretion to turn off the camera, as long as the reasoning is explained while still recording
(Miller & Toliver, 2014). To protect the privacy of officers when not carrying out enforcement
duties, PERF recommends that policies prohibit recording other agency employees during
routine, non-police related activities (Miller & Toliver, 2014).
Policies regarding the downloading and storage of BWC data must also be considered
(Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015). Departments should specifically designate in policy
that the officer assigned to the BWC is responsible for properly downloading the data from
his/her device, but in situations in which the officer is unable to complete this task (e.g., injured
on duty or must leave shift early due to emergency), the officer’s direct supervisor should be
designated the responsibility (Miller & Toliver, 2014). Polices should also include specific
measures for preventing employees from tampering with or deleting the data (Miller & Toliver,
2014). Many of the current products offered by BWC vendors feature safeguards that prevent
55
tampering or deletion and provide a detailed audit trail of any access to the data (Hyatt et al.,
2017; Miller & Toliver, 2014).
Another controversial issue surrounding BWC policy development is whether officers
should be allowed to view BWC footage prior to writing an official report of the incident
captured by the video (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015). Police officers are required to
write detailed reports regarding what they are told and what they observe at a scene (Worrall &
Schmalleger, 2017). Accordingly, the ability to review the footage captured on a scene prior to
writing the report might afford the officer a better opportunity to recall and write an accurate
account (Miller & Toliver, 2014). However, there are concerns that reviewing the video prior to
writing the report might change the officer’s original perspective and cause him/her to document
something not originally perceived (Stanley, 2015). This is especially problematic in officer
involved shootings or serious uses of force, when it is critical for review boards, prosecutors, and
internal investigators to understand the officer’s perception of events (Miller & Toliver, 2014;
Stanley, 2015).
Currently, there is great difference among U.S. agencies in response to this concern when
developing policies (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley; 2015). Some agencies allow officers to
view footage prior to writing reports for minor incidents, but prohibit viewing prior to writing
reports for critical incidents (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015). Some allow viewing
before writing any report, and some do not allow officers to view footage at any time prior to
writing a report (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015).
Leaders must also consider data retention issues when developing policy (Joh, 2016;
Miller & Toliver, 2014). In large departments, there may be hundreds of officers recording
thousands of hours of video on a weekly basis (Ariel, 2016b). Creating and storing vast amounts
56
of data can become prohibitively expensive. Policy should guide retention schedules by
identifying which videos have evidentiary value and which do not, and specify in detail the
retention periods (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015). PERF recommends that officers tag
the video as evidentiary or non-evidentiary at the end of their shifts when downloading the video
(Miller & Toliver, 2014).
Both PERF and the ACLU agree that, no matter the policy decisions made, each agency
should make its BWC policy readily available to the public, preferably on the agency’s website,
so that all stakeholders can review and provide input on the policy (Miller & Toliver, 2014;
Stanley, 2015). It is also recommended that agencies bring stakeholders, such as prosecutors,
defense attorneys, and citizen groups, into the discussion in the early stages of policy
development (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015). Understanding the perspectives of all
impacted parties will help leaders make determinations on local concerns (Miller & Toliver,
2014). While model policies are helpful, issues specific to each community can best be
addressed by local stakeholders (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015).
The Leadership Conference (2016) tracks police department BWC policies nationwide
and publishes a comparison online. The Policy Scorecard analyzes policies for transparency and
accountability factors and makes recommendations for improvement (Leadership Conference,
2016). The scorecard evaluates the 50 largest departments and any department that receives
more than half a million dollars in grants from the Justice Department for BWC funding
(Leadership Conference, 2016).
The following table, adapted from the Leadership Conference’s (2016) Policy Scorecard,
compares the policies of the 10 largest police departments in the U.S. Public policy describes
whether the department posts its BWC policy on its website. Officer discretion determines if the
57
policy limits individual officer discretion as to when to record and instead clearly states when the
equipment must be activated. Personal privacy considers whether the policy addresses the
privacy concerns of vulnerable individuals such as crime victims when instructing officers to
record. Officer review describes whether officers are prohibited from reviewing video before
writing a report. And, footage retention determines whether the policy requires the department
to delete non-evidentiary footage after six months. Some policies only partially address the
issues.
Table 1
Comparison of Police Body-worn Camera Policies
Department
Public
policy
Officer
discretion
Personal
privacy
Officer
review
Footage
retention
New York
No
Yes
Yes
No
Partial
Chicago Yes Yes Yes No No
Los Angeles Yes Yes Partial No No
Philadelphia Yes Yes Yes No No
Houston Yes Yes Partial No Yes
Washington, D.C. Yes Yes Partial No No
Dallas No Yes Partial No Yes
Phoenix No Partial Partial No No
Baltimore No Partial Partial Partial No
Miami-Dade
No Yes Partial No Partial
Summary
Community and law enforcement leaders believe body-worn camera technology may
help repair recent divisions between police agencies and those they serve (Miller & Toliver,
2014; Stanley, 2015). However, because the technology is still emerging, there are few studies
58
available to guide such leaders in implementation (Ariel, 2016b; White, 2014; White & Coldren,
2017). The federal government has asked scholars and local law enforcement agencies to
document implementation issues and policy development concerns in order to inform the field
(White, 2014). The purpose of this qualitative case study is to document a single implementation
of BWC technology within a large police department in Texas.
The purpose of this literature review was to examine and document the current
understanding of the expectations and concerns surrounding BWC technology. Several sources
referred to the Rialto study as the first rigorous documentation of the technology within a police
department in the United States (Ariel et al., 2014; Brucato, 2015; Farrar, 2014; Schneider,
2017). While the results are controversial (Brucato, 2015; Schneider, 2017), the study seemed to
suggest that the presence of BWCs may reduce police use-of-force incidents and citizen
complaints against officers (Ariel et al., 2014; Farrar, 2014). Whether this result is because of
the deterrent effect (Ariel, 2016a) or some other reason needs further investigation (Brucato,
2015). Regardless of the controversy, this study has been used by many to justify the
deployment of the technology within law enforcement agencies worldwide (Brucato, 2015;
Schneider, 2017).
Since the publication of the Rialto study, as agencies have rushed to implement BWCs,
researchers have attempted to examine implementations in order to determine whether
anticipated benefits came to fruition and to help establish best practices (Capps, 2015; Miller &
Toliver, 2014; Wasserman, 2017). Advocates for the cameras hope that benefits will include
more transparency and accountability by law enforcement agencies (Ariel, 2016a; Bock, 2016;
Harris, 2010; Stanley, 2015), fewer citizen complaints (Harris, 2010), and a decrease in use-of-
force by officers (Harris, 2010; Miller & Toliver, 2014). Law enforcement leaders hope the
59
cameras will reduce liability and litigation for the departments (Ferrell, 2013), provide footage
that can be used to enhance training (Broome, 2011), and improve relationships and trust with
communities (Jennings et al., 2014). Some even hope the cameras can help to reduce, or at least
allow for greater study of, the phenomenon of crime itself (Lindegaard & Bernasco, 2018).
However, the results so far are inconclusive. Methodological criticisms and the scale of
the study make it hard to generalize the Rialto results to other departments (Brucato, 2015).
Because Rialto is a small department in a small city, the results may not apply to larger agencies
(Ariel, 2016b; Brucato, 2015). According to Wasserman (2017), studies of BWC pilot programs
in other cities have also been limited in scale, even though the departments were larger. For
example, studies in Mesa and Phoenix have involved groups of around 100 officers, not
generating enough data to satisfy most scholars interested in the BWC issues (Wasserman,
2017). The results have also been mixed. While Rialto showed a reduction in use-of-force, in
San Diego, officers increased overall uses of force when equipped with BWCs (Wasserman,
2017).
The literature reveals a lack of information surrounding the implementation of body-worn
cameras in U.S. law enforcement agencies. Such a lack of information is problematic because
law enforcement leaders are deploying the technology without understanding potential
consequences (Ariel, 2016b; Miller & Toliver, 2014; Timan, 2016). Without adequately
addressing potential consequences, the technology may not achieve intended goals (Ariel, 2016b;
Miller & Toliver, 2014). Law enforcement leaders need more information in order to develop
policies and identify best practices to implement within their own agencies (Capps, 2015;
Lamdan, 2012; Miller & Toliver, 2014; White, 2014). This case study aimed to contribute
information by documenting a large-scale deployment of BWCs within a large police department
60
in Texas by gathering the perspectives of managers and officers involved. The next chapter will
introduce the methodology and design utilized for the study and discuss the procedures utilized
for collecting and analyzing the data.
61
Chapter 3: Research Method
Law enforcement agencies are rapidly implementing body-worn cameras throughout the
United States (Miller & Toliver, 2014). However, agency leaders have little guidance for
developing effective policies (Miller & Toliver, 2014). The problem addressed by this
qualitative case study was while the public expects more insight into police activities, which will
be provided by body cameras, police leaders need more evidence for guidance when developing
policy, implementing BWC programs, and releasing videos to the public (Capps, 2015; Lamdan,
2012). The lack of information regarding issues surrounding BWC implementation and policy
development affects law enforcement leaders nationwide (Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Toliver, 2014).
As law enforcement agencies implement BWC programs, leaders must determine effective
policies governing their use (Miller & Toliver, 2014). Law enforcement leaders are
implementing the technology without a complete understanding of how it will impact the privacy
concerns of individuals captured by BWC video (Coudert et al., 2015; Joh, 2016; Lippert &
Newell, 2016).
If the problem of insufficient information and lack of documentation is not addressed,
police chiefs and sheriffs will continue to deploy BWC technology without a full understanding
of the consequences, both positive and negative, to the police force, as well as the community’s
perspectives of these technologies (Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Tolivar, 2014; Timan, 2016).
Nationwide, as agency leaders rush to deploy this new technology, they are doing so without a
full understanding of the impact it will have on their organizations (Miller & Tolivar, 2014).
Without knowing the potential pitfalls and addressing those potential pitfalls in advance of
implementation, leaders may deploy the technology in a way that will not achieve intended goals
(Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Tolivar, 2014). For example, a lack of understanding surrounding the
62
possible privacy implications could cause law enforcement leaders to develop policy that does
not adequately protect the privacy of subjects captured by BWCs (Joh, 2016; Lippert & Newell,
2016).
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the perceptions of managers
and police officers charged with the deployment and use of BWCs within a large Texas police
department, specifically to provide timely information about issues and problems to law
enforcement leaders considering the technology within their own organizations. The study
examined the perceptions of five BWC implementation managers and five police officers
involved in the large-scale deployment of BWCs, specifically examining issues of policy
development and investigating the public release of BWC video. Although larger samples may
provide for greater generalization of results (Shenton, 2004), the data gathered from these
participants documented the perceptions of those who participated in this specific BWC
deployment, a single event, with results that might transfer to a larger population (Yin, 2014).
While determining an ideal sample size in order to achieve data saturation is difficult, many
scholars recommended a minimum of five to six interview participants for case study research
(Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). In this study, the number of potential participants was limited
due to the eligibility of candidates at the chosen site, which is a common limitation associated
with qualitative research studies (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Participants must have been managers
involved in the BWC implementation or officers assigned to utilize BWC equipment. In order to
participate, employees should have worked with the equipment for at least three months, and
must be full-time adult employees, 18 years of age or older.
White (2014) recommended surveying BWC managers and police officers because they
will have a first-hand perspective on the implementation and use of the technology. Managers
63
responsible for the deployment of the technology would address potential concerns related to
implementation and policy development, while officers using the equipment would address
potential privacy issues that may occur when utilizing BWC, as based upon their perception of
the concerns of those with whom they come into contact. A purposive sampling technique
helped achieve data saturation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Patton, 2015). Purposive
sampling allowed the researcher to recruit participants with adequate knowledge of the BWC
deployment and surrounding issues to reach data saturation.
Researchers, police chiefs and sheriffs, and the Justice Department have acknowledged a
lack of understanding regarding the implementation and consequences surrounding BWCs
(Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Tolivar, 2014). This research study helped to address the lack of
information about policy development and privacy concerns, by examining the perceptions of the
police managers and officers involved in a deployment of BWCs within a large agency, which
was recommended by Ariel (2016a) and Miller and Tolivar (2014). The research project also
addressed a gap in the field of qualitative studies regarding the implementation of BWCs by
police departments.
This case study may help leaders anticipate issues that may arise during implementation
of a large-scale BWC program by revealing some of the problems encountered and addressed by
managers and officers, of a large Texas department, during deployment of the technology.
Interviews with several BWC project managers examined management decisions and issues
related to the deployment and the development of policy. Interviews with several officers
assigned to use the equipment revealed perceptions relating to the privacy implications of the
cameras in the field. Reviewing the experiences of individuals within this large department can
save time and duplication of effort regarding deployment and policy development, as well as
64
identify problems regarding public information requests before they occur/become problematic
for other departments (Joh, 2016; Miller & Toliver, 2014).
According to Miller and Toliver (2014), police leaders need guidance when developing
agency policy regarding the rollout of the equipment, the infrastructure commitment, and the
public release of videos captured by body cameras. Policies will vary by state, since different
public information laws govern each state (Joh, 2016; Zansberg, 2016). Several states have
enacted legislation to address BWCs (Zansberg, 2016). In Texas, the Public Information Act
defines what may or may not be released under the request for information from a governmental
body (Paxton, 2018). This case study was utilized to explore the perspectives of managers
charged with the deployment of body-worn cameras, in a large Texas city, and examined the
factors surrounding the privacy concerns of BWC video by interviewing police officers assigned
to wear the cameras.
The research population for this study included the implementation managers and police
officers assigned to wear BWCs in a large law enforcement agency in Texas. The selected
department is reflective of other large police and sheriff’s departments in Texas. The sample
chosen for this study represents BWC implementation managers and police officers assigned to
wear the cameras within a large, urban police department. Through interviews with ten
individuals, the following research question was explored:
RQ1. What major obstacles and privacy concerns are encountered by police department
leaders and officers during BWC implementation?
This chapter details the research method and design selected to answer the research
question. This chapter also provides an overview of the information gathering procedures and
how the procedures fulfilled the purpose of the study. Within this chapter, the qualitative case
65
study research design is validated, the data collection instrument is introduced, and the data
analysis techniques are described. The population and research sample are also described and
validated. The chapter also discusses assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and ethical
assurances.
Research Methodology and Design
To explore the identified research question, a qualitative method was used for this study.
The case study design was used to document a single, specific implementation of BWC
technology, and to explore the single implementation from different perspectives. Creswell
(2013) recommends the qualitative method when designing a study that intends to capture and
analyze information that is not easily numerically quantifiable. The qualitative method is also
preferred when relatively little research exists surrounding the subject, and when theories have
not been fully developed regarding the phenomenon (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Starr, 2014; Yin,
2014).
Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data that can be classified and
counted, and statistical models can be developed to help explain the issues that are under study
(Cozby & Bates, 2012). Common collection instruments employed in quantitative research
include surveys, statistical analyses, and measurements taken with tools such as standardized
questionnaires, thermometers, or computers (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). Quantitative research
emphasizes objective measurements using statistical or numerical methods to analyze collected
data (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008).
Quantitative methodology includes experiments that control for various elements and
variables (Yin, 2014). The research question in this study, however, was utilized to explore
perceptions related to a modern management problem, specifically the use of police body-worn
66
cameras in law enforcement. In-depth, open-ended questions, rather than a controlled
experiment, aligned best with the purpose of the study because the study focused on the
perceptions of people involved in a specific implementation of BWCs. Furthermore, the study
included a small sample of participants from a single population, thus making quantitative
methodology incompatible with the design of this research study (Yin, 2014).
Qualitative research focuses upon the verbal data or naturalistic observation in hopes of
creating a subjective picture, thus leading to an understanding of a topic (Cozby & Bates, 2012).
Using qualitative methods allows the researcher to analyze a current phenomenon by observing a
real-world situation (Yin, 2014). Qualitative methods are preferable when the purpose of the
study is descriptive or exploratory (Yin, 2014).
According to Cox (2012), qualitative researchers use their own interpretations to analyze
data. Some examples of field work that may be employed in a qualitative study include
interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, and archival research (Cozby & Bates, 2012).
Qualitative methodology was chosen for this study because it allowed the researcher to answer
open-ended research questions (Graebner, Martin, & Roundy, 2012). By using qualitative
methods, the researcher is able to capture rich data in a natural setting while focusing on the
perspective of the participant (Yin, 2014). The researcher becomes the instrument for data
collection by applying deductive reasoning skills while capturing and analyzing participant data
(Yin, 2014).
Qualitative methodology allows conclusions to be drawn from primary data and applied
to modern management problems, such as the issue of police body-worn cameras (Garcia &
Gluesing, 2013). Qualitative methods are well-suited for researchers observing management in
67
action (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014). Open-ended questions allow for an
exploration of the why and how of management decision-making (Dinh et al., 2014).
Because of the open-ended nature of the research question and the purpose of the study,
the qualitative method was chosen (Yin, 2014). The fact that BWC use is in its infancy, in the
law enforcement field, provided additional rationale for choosing a qualitative approach, because
according to Miller and Tolivar (2014), qualitative research is lacking. I focused on the
perceptions of participants. The data and design produced an in-depth understanding of the
problem and delivered a descriptive narrative of the participants’ perceptions related to the BWC
implementation.
Initially, survey research was considered for the research design in this study. Survey
research seeks to determine the experience of a large group by asking questions and tabulating
answers (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). White (2014) suggests agencies implementing body cameras
should perform survey research to capture the experiences of officers and citizens regarding their
feelings of trust, satisfaction, and transparency related to body cameras. A benefit of this
approach is that a large number of individuals can be surveyed, even from a great distance
(Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Participants often feel comfortable responding to surveys because
they feel their responses will be anonymous (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013).
However, Leedy and Ormrod (2013) caution that most individuals who receive requests
to complete surveys never respond. It is also difficult to obtain permission for such research
within a police department. Agency leaders are often reluctant to make large numbers of their
staff available for surveys because of the potential for negative publicity and the need to preserve
limited resources for mission critical tasks. Texas agencies are often criticized for attempting to
68
withhold information from the public (Barajas, 2017; Langford, 2017; Minutaglio, 2013; Wisk,
2015).
Further complicating survey research, it is also difficult to reach citizens who have
interacted with officers equipped with body cameras. Because of privacy concerns, agencies will
likely be reluctant to provide contact information for victims, witnesses, or suspects. In Texas,
the open records law makes such information public (Paxton, 2018), but tracking down which
citizens would be associated with incidents recorded by body cameras would be difficult because
agencies are likely not keeping specific records of which citizen contacts were captured by body
cameras. Therefore, survey research was not appropriate for this specific study.
For this study, a case study design was utilized to explore a single implementation of
body-worn cameras at a Texas law enforcement agency from the perspective of BWC
implementation managers and police officers within the agency. A case study examines a single
event, limited by space and time (Hancock & Algozzine, 2016). A multiple case study allows
the single event to be examined by looking at a variety of sources of evidence, such as the
perspectives of several distinct divisions involved in the single event (Santos & Eisenhardt,
2004). Case studies yield insight often directly influencing policies, procedures, and future
research projects (Hancock & Algozzine, 2016). The case study design allowed the researcher to
examine BWC implementation at a large Texas police department using a variety of sources of
evidence, such as the perspectives of implementation managers and police officers wearing the
equipment (Hancock & Algozzine, 2016).
A benefit of the case study design is its focus on a specific implementation or
management decision rather than a large, universal population (Hancock & Algozzine, 2016).
The case study design is qualitative and aligns well with an exploratory project seeking answers
69
to a contemporary problem (Yin, 2014). The purpose of this study was to examine the
perceptions of those involved in a single large-scale implementation of BWCs to inform leaders
considering similar projects about possible issues and problems, which made the case study
design appropriate. Case studies often allow for an understanding of how and why things
happened in a certain way (Yin, 2014). Open-ended interview questions allowed the researcher
to compare actual events to the policies and laws surrounding the BWCs by examining the
perceptions of managers and officers and reviewing the policy the department developed.
Case study design aligns well with the purpose of the study. The major benefit of this
approach is the opportunity to specifically seek out answers to the research problem (Hancock &
Algozzine, 2016). Perspectives can be obtained from a diverse group of participants. The case
study design allows the researcher to identify repetitive themes when analyzing data (Yin, 2014).
As the researcher interprets interview data to identify and name categories, themes will emerge
that will provide answers to the research question (Yin, 2014).
For this study using qualitative methods, open-ended interviews allowed for perceptions
and experiences to be examined (Yin, 2014). Investigating the single case from multiple
perspectives helped fill in the gaps of understanding that a quantitative design would not capture.
Using a case study design, the research captured data on a specific implementation of BWCs and
allowed for the analysis of the experiences of those involved in differing aspects of the
implementation. Case studies provide an opportunity to examine decisions and decision-making
procedures to analyze a particular problem in great depth (Yin, 2014). This case study approach
allowed for an examination of a current problem, the implementation of body-worn cameras in
Texas police departments, by investigating a single implementation in depth.
70
Population and Sample
To provide law enforcement leaders with useful information, this research project
documented a large-scale deployment of body-worn camera equipment and investigated the
policy, technology, and public information issues encountered. The case study focused on the
BWC implementation at a large Texas police department. The research population included the
members of one of the largest law enforcement agencies in Texas. The population represents a
typical large, urban police department. The selected department has implemented a large-scale
rollout of BWC technology to a large percentage of its officers. The population was appropriate
when examining an implementation of BWCs within a large, urban police environment. While
generalization is not the main objective of a case study design (Yin, 2014), the target population
is similar to other large police departments in both Texas and the United States. For this
exploratory case study, locating willing participants, who met the eligibility criteria and are
members of the selected population, was more important than generalizability of the study results
(Stake, 2000).
The selected law enforcement agency is located in a large Texas city, home to a diverse
population of more than two million (Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) & Justex
Systems, 2014). With approximately 5,300 officers and 1,200 civilian employees, the selected
department is one of the largest police agencies in the United States (PERF & Justex Systems,
2014). This population provided ample access to an adequate research sample.
The city is unique in its sheer geographic size and proximity to the Mexican border, but
similar to other agencies in that approximately 80 percent of its officers are assigned to
operational (rather than administrative) functions (PERF & Justex Systems, 2014). Of this 80
percent, department leaders assign BWC equipment to all first responder officers. This
71
designation includes all patrol officers and front-line supervisors (patrol sergeants), all officers in
operational units that are likely to be first responders to calls for police service from the public,
and all officers whose duties include initial contacts with the public (such as traffic enforcement
units, warrant execution teams, bike and mounted patrols, and DWI investigators.) Officers
assigned to undercover and plainclothes assignments are exempt from wearing the cameras.
From this population, the research sample was comprised of the managers responsible for
overseeing the deployment and developing policies surrounding the use of the equipment, and
officers assigned to wear the cameras. Participants included five managers responsible for policy
development and implementation and five police officers assigned to utilize the BWCs during
their patrol duties. This represents a sample size of 10 total participants.
The researcher employed purposive sampling techniques to identify the appropriate
participants to invite. Purposive sampling allows the researcher to identify individuals and
groups with deep knowledge and experience surrounding the problem or phenomenon under
study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Patton, 2015). The advantage of employing purposive
sampling is that the participants selected are likely to contribute relevant data to answer the
research question (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Patton, 2015). For this study, purposive
sampling was used to select participants in order to gather information from information
technology managers responsible for deploying the BWC technological infrastructure and
distributing the equipment, law enforcement leaders who created policies surrounding the use of
the equipment, and officers who utilize the cameras.
According to Patton (2015), purposive sampling allows the researcher to ensure that the
selection of the case and the sample strategically align with the study’s purpose, the research
questions, and the collection of data. Purposive sampling helps in the selection of information-
72
rich cases for in-depth study to yield greater insight into a phenomenon (Patton, 2015).
However, purposive sampling’s weakness lies in the subjectivity of the researcher’s selection
decisions (Oliver, 2006). The researcher can maintain validity in purposive sampling by
thoughtfully examining selection criteria and ensuring the selection is aligned with the goals of
the study (Oliver, 2006).
In this study, sample selection bias was avoided by inviting participation from all
managers within the department who played a major role in the implementation of BWC
technology and all officers assigned to wear BWCs. Taking precautions to avoid selection bias
helps to confirm that the purposive sampling technique aligns with the purpose. Participants
included the group of managers who were assigned to oversee the body-worn camera project and
to guide policy development, as well as patrol officers who are assigned to wear the cameras
during their shifts. Because the selected department used a phased approach, which means that
equipment was only provided to small groups (at one time), only some patrol divisions are
currently assigned the cameras. Participants included the officers assigned to the first responder
divisions (e.g., patrol officers, traffic enforcement and DWI units) receiving the equipment,
which allowed for an adequate number of responses. All police officer and front-line supervisors
(sergeants) ranks who had been assigned the equipment for at least one month were eligible to
participate, ensuring diversity in the sample (Flick, 2009). Potential participants who were
personally known by the researcher were not invited to participate in this study.
After IRB and site approval was obtained, I sent out an e-mail flyer inviting participation
from qualified employees. Interested participants were asked to contact me directly. The
selected department maintains a list of officers who have been assigned BWC equipment.
Officers on this list were invited by e-mail to participate. Phone calls, along with a follow-up e-
73
mail explaining the study procedures, were used to solicit participation from department leaders
(e.g., technology managers and command-staff officers) who were involved in policy
development. Once the interested participants contacted the researcher, a response was provided
which included the informed consent document and answers to any questions the participants
may have sent with their initial contact. E-mail was used to set up the date, time, and location
details. The locations chosen were public spaces (such as coffee shops) near the participant’s
police station or the department’s headquarters building. Prior to beginning each interview, the
participant was provided with a hard copy of the informed consent document and provided
signed consent.
Materials/Instrumentation
The primary instruments for data collection in this study were interview questions based
on the research question as supported by the review of relevant literature (See Appendix A).
Open-ended interview questions represent the exploratory nature of the study (Farrell &
Petersen, 2010). Interview guides are typical in case study research and provide deep and rich
data for analysis (Yin, 2014). Open-ended questioning encourages participates to actively
contribute their own perspectives during the interview (Patton, 2015). These questions were
explored in a face-to-face setting or by utilizing an open-ended questionnaire guide in cases in
which phone interviews were necessary. The researcher selected a set of locations convenient to
participants and provided all materials necessary for the completion of interviews (Cozby &
Bates, 2012).
The script for the interviews was developed with the goal of identifying issues
encountered and solutions discovered during the selected department’s implementation of body-
worn cameras. Participants were allowed to provide additional information not specifically
74
queried to deepen the quality and richness of the data (Cozby & Bates, 2012). The questions
focused on the experiences of the participants as they performed the functions within their areas
of responsibility during the roll-out of the BWC equipment at the department. Allowing
participants to take the lead in responding to open-ended questions increases flexibility during
the interview process (Patton, 2015).
Interview guide items were developed during a review of the literature and adapted from
prior studies (Gramagila & Phillips, 2017). To remain aligned with the study’s purpose,
questions were designed to elicit viewpoints and perspectives, rather than data for calculation by
numerical means. Questions focused on understanding participants’ experiences with the
policies and practices surrounding the implementation of BWCs. The open-ended questions
allow for the participants to communicate their impressions of the use of BWCs in their specific
work environments. The interview questions were refined and validated through consultations
with experts in the field. The experts included an attorney who specializes in policy
development and public information, a technology manager experienced in large
implementations and evaluations of major deployments, and a public information officer familiar
with interview design. Each of the three experts have over 20 years working in law enforcement
communications and technology jobs.
Interviews were scheduled and completed after IRB approval. Most interviews took
place in a face-to-face setting and lasted approximately one hour. A few of the potential
participants had moved from the region and requested telephone interviews. The researcher fully
disclosed the research agenda, and informed consent documents were signed before beginning
the interviews (See Appendix B). Following the interviews, participants were provided with a
summary of their responses to review for accuracy. Hand-written notes documented both the
75
verbal responses of the participants and the non-verbal observations made by the researcher
(Creswell, 2013). The primary researcher maintained all field notes of interviews to ensure the
confidentiality of the information and to protect the identities of the participants.
The first three questions in the interview guide address professional qualifications and
ensure participants have the relevant experience to contribute meaningful data to the study. The
following questions focus on policy development and issues related to the actual deployment and
use of the technology. To maintain alignment with the purpose of the study, questions were
designed to gather responses related to managerial decision-making and the release of BWC
video to the public.
Study Procedures
Prior to the collection of any data, the researcher sought approval from Northcentral
University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Since human participants were necessary in
order to explore the research question, IRB approval demonstrated compliance with protocols
necessary to protect the anonymity of the participants, as well as the confidentiality of the
information gathered. Once potential participants were selected through purposive sampling, the
researcher provided information about the study, via e-mail, with an invitation to contact the
researcher. Each interested participant was sent an e-mail response from the researcher with
study information (See Appendix C). Participants were provided with the informed consent
document before the start of each interview (See Appendix B) and signed the document in the
presence of the researcher before the interview began. For telephone interviews, participants
signed the document and returned to the researcher via e-mail. Participants were provided with a
copy of the informed consent document, and the researcher kept the original document for his
records.
76
The identities of many of the participants were known to the researcher. Accordingly, the
researcher did not identify the participants in any of the documents created for the purpose of the
study, such as questionnaires or interview notes. When documenting the analysis of data for the
study, the researcher identified participants only by the role they played in the implementation or
by their division-level assignment within the selected department.
The researcher used Microsoft Office products to gather, store, and analyze the data.
Microsoft Word was used to create and document the questionnaires and interviews, and NVivo
11 software was used to sort and code the data. The software necessary for this project was
already licensed to the researcher, so no additional licensing costs were required. The researcher
already utilized Google Drive as a cloud back-up tool. Google’s Drive product is encrypted, and
the researcher employs best-practice security protocols when creating passwords to access the
product.
Data Collection and Analysis
This project was a case study examining an implementation of body-worn cameras in a
large Texas city from a variety of perspectives (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2004). Three methods of
data collection occurred. First, the researcher developed the foundation for the study and the
questions to be answered by examining the literature surrounding the implementation and use of
body-worn cameras in American law enforcement agencies. Second, interviews were conducted
with employees of the selected department responsible for the deployment of BWC technology
within that agency. Third, interviews with officers assigned to wear the cameras were
conducted. In order to thoroughly examine the perspectives of participants and to help
triangulate data, internal documents such as the department’s BWC policy and compliance
audits, and the state law regarding the use of the technology for Texas law enforcement agencies
77
were collected and analyzed. Themes were identified and compared to those developed during
the analysis of interview data.
Potential participants were invited to contribute to the study by e-mail or phone call from
the researcher, after IRB approval (See Appendix C). Potential participants were advised of the
nature and purpose of the study, that participation was entirely voluntary, and were invited to
interact by either face-to-face interview, telephone interview, or open-ended questionnaire. After
the informed consent document was signed, semi-structured interviews were used to gather data
from the participants. The researcher recorded the interviews using field notes and personally
transcribed the data using NVivo software to ensure accuracy. Interviews were originally
planned to take place in a conference room at the police station nearest to the participant’s
assigned patrol division or in a conference room at the selected department’s headquarters
building, which would provide a comfortable and private setting free of distractions (King &
Horrocks, 2010). However, the IRB required additional permissions for the use of the selected
department’s facilities, and such permissions were not practical considering time limitations
faced by the researcher. Instead, participants were asked to select a coffee shop, library, or
casual dining location of their preference near their assigned station, in order to increase the
likelihood that they were psychologically comfortable with the chosen physical environment
(King & Horrocks, 2010). Prior to beginning each interview, I obtained consent by having the
participant read and sign the letter of informed consent (see Appendix B). I maintained the
original signed form and provided a copy to each participant for their records.
In order to enhance reliability, the interview questions were asked in the same order for
each participant, the physical environment was similar for each interview, and the researcher
transcribed notes immediately after the conclusion of each interview (King & Horrocks, 2010;
78
Yin, 2014). In order to help assure dependability, the researcher documented changes in the
research environment (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Participants were asked to verbally confirm the
researcher’s representation of the interview at the conclusion of each interview. This additional
step helps with validity and credibility. Credibility is the believability of the research results
from the perspective of the participant, which is important in qualitative research because the
participant’s perspective is the focus of the data collection (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility
can be increased by allowing participants an opportunity to review the researcher’s
representation of the interview (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 2005). According to Maxwell
(2005), member checking (allowing the participants to review their feedback) is the best method
for ensuring their perspective is correctly interpreted. All information was kept on the
researcher’s password protected Google Drive to protect the privacy of the participants.
A typical case study database might contain field notes and recordings of interview data,
questionnaire responses, documents and archival materials, and notes and memos regarding
researcher and participant experiences and observations (Yin, 2014). An effective process for
analyzing the data includes categorizing the themes according to the theoretical or conceptual
framework of the study (Yin, 2014). The researcher then examines the themes for evidence to
develop an explanatory narrative answering the research questions (Yin, 2014).
Through collecting data using one-on-one semi-structured interviews, it was the hope of
the researcher that participants would provide rich descriptions of their perceptions of the
selected BWC. The interview transcripts were imported into NVivo software, a widely used
computer-aided qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) package designed to help support
qualitative and mixed methods research (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013). NVivo allows researchers
to import a variety of common file formats, including Adobe Acrobat (.pdf documents),
79
Microsoft Word documents, and audio and video files (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013). NVivo
software provides assistance in organizing and analyzing qualitative data, and helps to identify
themes within the data (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013). NVivo can also help display qualitative data
by generating tables and graphs based on the patterns discovered during analysis (Bazeley &
Jackson, 2013).
In order to analyze interview data for this case study, the researcher imported the
interview transcripts into NVivo to facilitate coding the information while searching for themes
within the data and the documents. Themes were identified in order to answer the research
question. Theming is an effective way to analyze descriptive data, particularly data collected
from interviews (Saldaña, 2013). Yin (2014) recommends an inductive pattern technique for
coding and analyzing themes when using a case study approach. Each data source is initially
collected and analyzed separately (Yin, 2014). Interview data were analyzed with deductive
approaches, and content analysis was used for a review of policy documents (Yin, 2014).
To identify themes using inductive pattern matching, the researcher used a two-stage
coding process performing inductive pattern coding during the first stage by grouping words and
sentences according to meaning (Saldaña, 2013). This coding stage focused on very careful
reading and reflection of the transcript data in order to identify groups of associated data
(Saldaña, 2013). The second stage allowed the researcher to categorize the themes, compare
themes for similarities and differences, and to interpret the themes in the larger context of the
research question (Saldaña, 2013). In order to improve dependability of the results, the
researcher kept careful notes of the coding and pattern matching processes.
80
Assumptions
Several assumptions were made in order to proceed with the case study. The researcher
assumed that the population of employees within the selected police department would allow for
a sample large enough to achieve a sufficient number of responses. It was also assumed that the
sample would truly be representative of the larger population. Using purposive sampling
strategies, it was assumed that appropriate participants would be selected for the sample (Patton,
2015). It was assumed that at least five BWC project managers and five officers would respond
to the invitation to participate.
The participants were assured anonymity. It was assumed that, upon the guarantee of
anonymity, the selected police department employees (both classified officers and civilian
managers) would offer truthful and complete answers to questions. The results of a qualitative
study are only valid if the participants are honest and forthcoming when providing data (Yin,
2014). Providing informed consent and a promise of privacy and confidentiality encouraged the
participants to be honest and forthcoming (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).
It was assumed the researcher would harbor some biases and preconceptions while
conducting the study and analyzing the responsive data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researcher
has experience in law enforcement, public information, and technology service environments.
To mitigate this assumed bias, the researcher kept a journal during the study to reflect upon
values, beliefs, prejudices, and the goals of the study. Reflection and referring to the journal
helped the researcher decrease bias (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researcher continuously
sought feedback from committee members and colleagues to actively avoid allowing bias to
influence the case study.
81
Limitations
The disadvantage of using a case study approach for the purpose of this research was that
it was unlikely that any Texas agencies have completely gathered the type of information needed
to address the problem. For example, in its internal study of its pilot program, the selected
department was primarily concerned with the operational functions of the camera equipment.
Department leaders needed to ascertain whether the test equipment performed the required
function of recording citizen interactions without being too cumbersome or difficult for patrol
officers to operate in stressful situations. Little attention was paid to circumstances surrounding
privacy factors or to best practices for overall implementation or policy development.
As more agencies experiment with the technology, the lack of information gathered by
agencies will be less of a problem. It is possible that smaller agencies may have been more
thorough in gathering data that could address the problem. Gathering documentation of pilot
programs throughout Texas could allow future researchers to compare this case study to other
implementations.
Furthermore, the selected department was not inclined to provide support beyond site
permission for this project. Additionally, the costs and time needed to perform interview
research could have become significant. To conduct in-depth interviews, face-to-face contact is
preferable, but not always possible (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Telephone conversations might
have limited the researcher’s ability to establish the rapport necessary to understand the nuances
of the participants’ experiences (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Phone interviews can also result in
the inability to observe nonverbal cues such as facial reactions or gestures.
Another limitation was the small sample size. Larger samples tend to indicate
transferability of study results and increase dependability (Shenton, 2004). Qualitative methods,
82
and case study designs in particular, have been criticized due to a lack of ability to generalize
findings beyond the sample to a larger population (Yin, 2014). However, researchers can
compensate for limitations in case study designs by understanding and addressing those
limitations throughout the course of the study (Yin, 2014). Researchers can enhance
transferability by thoroughly documenting the assumptions and the research context (Yin, 2014).
Time was also a limiting aspect for this case study. The technology surrounding BWCs
is rapidly developing. Improvements to the hardware and software of the equipment, the
infrastructure within departments, and the software needed for public release happen quickly.
Hundreds of agencies are experimenting with BWCs, discovering problems and solutions, and
causing the entire industry to evolve at a swift pace. This case study can only focus on a single
moment in time for a large department that may upgrade technology or change policies at any
point in the future. Therefore, the evidence found in this case study may need to be updated after
the passage of months, rather than years.
Delimitations
Delimitations are necessary in order to narrowly define the scope of what could otherwise
become an unmanageable research project. The choice of a case study design is a significant
delimitation, as it focuses the researcher on a single event or series of events specific to a
particular person, group, or population (Yin, 2014). In alignment with the purpose of the study
and the case study design, research for this project was limited to issues surrounding the
implementation of body-worn cameras at a single law enforcement agency. Although hundreds
of agencies are currently in the process of deploying the technology, the experience of a single
agency is a feasible scope for a dissertation research project.
83
To increase the quality of data, the case study design allows the researcher to examine the
implementation from several angles, including personal experience of participants and a review
of relevant documents (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2004). Although opportunities for a variety of
research designs exist, this study focused on qualitative data gathered from individuals and
documents related to a large Texas city’s BWC program. Since the purpose of the research was
to inform law enforcement leaders in the United States, an American law enforcement agency
was selected for the case study.
Ethical Assurances
Although there was minimal risk for participants of this case study, IRB approval was
required by Northcentral University because the research involved human participants. Approval
was obtained before data collection. IRB reviews help reduce the risk of harm to participants
and ensure that study protocols protect privacy and confidentiality (Fisher & Vacanti-Shova,
2012). Researchers directing studies involving human participants must contemplate ethical
issues surrounding respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (Fisher & Vacanti-Shova, 2012);
this study was designed with the aforementioned research principles in mind.
Prior to soliciting participation, NCU IRB approval was received, as well as formal site
permission. Site permission was documented by a letter received from the selected department.
An informed consent form (See Appendix B) provided participants with assurances of privacy
and with information about the nature and duration of the study. The form was e-mailed to
participants prior to the interview and signed forms were collected at the beginning of each
interview. Participants were advised that participation is entirely voluntary and were given the
opportunity to decline participation or discontinue participation at any time during the interview.
84
Although semi-structured and open-ended, the interviews adhered to the questions approved by
the IRB.
The informed consent document also provided information on how data will be stored
and for how long. Northcentral University IRB protocols require dissertation data to be stored
for 7 years after approval of the dissertation and then properly deleted. The researcher will
adhere to this process. Physical security for any printed documents will be maintained by
keeping the documents in a locked file cabinet at the researcher’s home office, which is protected
by a locked door.
The informed consent document discussed the potential risks and assured participants
that refusal to participate or to continue participation would not result in any type of repercussion
from the selected department. Possible risks for participants were minimal. There were no
physical risks in participating in this study. Additionally, by keeping participant identities
confidential, police department employees did not need to fear reprisal from department
leadership for candid responses. The informed consent document explained to participants that
their identities will remain confidential. Furthermore, the majority of the executive staff in place
during the initial implementation of the BWC equipment has been replaced by a new chief of
police at the selected department, so participants did not need to worry about exposing issues
which might cast a poor light on program managers or department leaders.
Summary
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the perceptions of managers
and officers involved in a large-scale deployment of body-worn camera technology within an
urban Texas police department to inform law enforcement leaders considering BWCs within
their own agencies. In response to community demands, hundreds of police agencies are
85
deploying new body-worn camera technology assigned to be worn by first-responder officers
(Miller & Toliver, 2014). The cameras capture interactions between police and the citizens they
serve. However, leaders lack solid evidence for making management and policy decisions and
need to understand the issues surrounding the release of BWC video to the public (White, 2014).
Researchers have noted the need for thorough documentation of body-worn camera
implementations at law enforcement agencies in the United States (White, 2014).
Qualitative research is often used to develop a deep understanding of a current
management problem (Yin, 2014). The qualitative case study design can be used to fulfill the
research goal of this project by examining a specific deployment of BWC technology and
investigating the issues encountered (Hancock & Algozzine, 2016). By using a case study
design, studying the perspectives of several different but complementary divisions involved in
the selected department’s implementation, a thorough picture could be developed as to the
problems and solutions available to law enforcement leaders when undergoing such a project
(Santos & Eisenhardt, 2004). The semi-structured interviews consisting of open-ended questions
allowed participants to contribute rich data for analysis (Patton, 2015). Studies such as this can
help contribute to the growing literature in the field, informing police executives of best practices
and possible issues (Feeney, 2015).
As law enforcement leaders turn to BWCs to solve problems and address community
concerns, those leaders need more information about how the equipment works, how to develop
and implement policy, and how to respond to privacy concerns (Feeney, 2015; Joh, 2016; Miller
& Toliver, 2014). A nationwide lack of research leaves law enforcement leaders with little
guidance and few well-established best practices (Ariel, 2016a; White, 2014). Case study
research can be useful for managers seeking to define policy and set operational goals (Hancock
86
& Algozzine, 2016). This case study provides American police leaders with additional
information when making decisions surrounding body-worn cameras.
This chapter provided an overview of the chosen research methodology and design used
and how those choices aligned with the purpose and research question. Alternate methods and
designs were discussed. Justification was provided for the selection of the case study design.
The chapter outlined the study procedures, discussed how the data was collected and analyzed,
and acknowledged certain assumptions, limitations, and delimitations and how to mitigate those
issues while ensuring ethical standards were met. This study contributes to the qualitative
literature providing information regarding law enforcement use of body-worn cameras.
87
Chapter 4: Findings
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to provide timely information about issues
and problems surrounding the implementation of body-worn cameras to law enforcement leaders
who are considering deploying the technology within their own organizations. The study
examined the perception of managers and police officers responsible for the deployment and use
of BWCs within a large Texas police department. In the United States, hundreds of agencies are
in the process of either deploying the technology or actively considering deployment (Ariel,
2016a; Miller & Toliver, 2014). Specifically, the researcher sought to inform law enforcement
leaders about challenges they may face should they decide to add BWCs to their agency’s
toolbox, because leaders currently lack an abundance of evidence for making management and
policy decisions related to BWCs (Ariel, 2016a; White, 2014).
Purposive sampling was used to determine the individuals who would be invited to
participate in the research. The participants included five implementation managers and five
police officers assigned to wear BWCs at a large police department in Texas. After receiving
IRB approval from NCU, invitations were sent to potential participants, and respondents were
provided informed consent documents prior to being interviewed (see Appendix B). Semi-
structured interviews were conducted at locations convenient to the participants. Interview
questions were developed in order to explore the perspectives of the participants as they related
to issues surrounding the implementation and use of body-worn cameras at their agency.
Interviews were conducted in May, June, and July 2018. The researcher anticipated that each
interview would last approximately one hour; however, the actual interviews lasted between 20
and 50 minutes.
88
This chapter contains a presentation and evaluation of the results of the case study,
including the study’s research findings. Interview responses will be provided and major themes
will be identified and discussed in the context of the research question. The chapter concludes
with a review featuring the main findings of the case study. The research question guiding the
study allowed for an examination of the perceptions of BWC implementation managers and
police officers assigned to wear the cameras.
Trustworthiness of the Data
The researcher sought to ensure the credibility of the study by establishing that the data
were trustworthy. By selecting a case study design to address the purpose, the researcher was
able to examine a single implementation of body-worn cameras from multiple angles, including
gathering the perspectives of personnel involved in a large deployment of the technology and
reviewing relevant documents created before and during the deployment. Triangulation of the
data was the primary method for establishing trustworthiness. Three methods of data collection
were utilized: a thorough literature review informed the foundation of the study and revealed the
questions that needed to be answered; interviews were conducted with managers responsible for
policy development and implementation of the technology; and interviews were conducted with
officers assigned to use the equipment.
To further validate findings, internal documents (BWC policies, compliance audits) were
collected and reviewed. Data from the internal documents and from the literature review
allowed for a comparison of themes identified during the analysis of interview responses.
Triangulation in this manner also helps with transferability of the results, a common limitation of
the case study design. Responses from interview participants are similar to themes uncovered in
89
the literature review, demonstrating a level of transferability and increasing the trustworthiness
of the data.
All participants were asked the same set of questions in the same order, increasing the
dependability of the data. A semi-structured format was used to elicit perceptions of the BWC
implementation, and the participants were free to provide a broader response than would have
been allowed with a more structured format. Participants were encouraged to provide personal
opinions and were not steered towards a predetermined set of answers. In order to enhance
credibility, participants were asked to briefly discuss the researcher’s understanding of their
interview responses at the conclusion of each interview. Another researcher could replicate this
study at a different site and, if the same interview questions were asked and the department was
similar in size and structure to the selected department, it is likely that the results would be
similar. However, differing policies established during individual implementations could cause
significant variations in interview responses.
There were very few deviations from the original research plan described in Chapter 3.
The IRB determined that additional site permissions would be required for the researcher to
utilize the selected department’s private conference room spaces for interviews. While
consistent surroundings were preferred by the researcher in order to ensure an environment free
of distractions (King & Horrocks, 2010), additional permissions were not possible due to time
limitations. Therefore, participants were allowed to choose a coffee shop, library, or casual
dining location convenient to their work location as the interview site. No distractions were
encountered, and it is possible that the participants were more comfortable with these locations
than they would have been at a department facility. The physical environments, while not
identical, were similar for each participant, and the researcher transcribed interview notes
90
immediately upon conclusion of each interview (Yin, 2014). Two of the participants were no
longer employed by the selected department and had moved away from the area. These two
participants were interviewed by phone.
To mitigate researcher bias, I kept a digital journal during the study, documenting the
process and discussing my perceptions of my own beliefs and prejudices as the study progressed
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Because of my professional experience related to BWCs, I carefully
attempted to maintain emotional distance from the analysis of the data in order to achieve the
goals of the study. Reviewing the journal notes periodically during the progress of the study
helped to remind me to avoid interjecting bias into the analysis. Additionally, I discussed
general findings with colleagues and participants, and I encouraged committee members to offer
guidance to help me avoid allowing my professional experience to influence the case study.
Results
The 14-question semi-structured interviews explored the perceptions of implementation
managers and police officers related to a large deployment of body-worn cameras in an urban
police department in Texas. Five managers and five police officers participated. While a larger
sample may have provided a more diverse set of results, many scholars recommend a minimum
of five or six participants for methodologies employing rich qualitative data (Guest, Bunce, &
Johnson, 2006). I believe data saturation was achieved as demonstrated by the consistency of the
answers to interview questions. The participating managers were almost exclusively civilian
support employees (e.g., professional employees hired to perform specific functions as law
enforcement support, rather than persons with police powers of arrest). The participating police
officers were all non-supervisory law enforcement officers (e.g., patrol officers responsible for
responding to calls for police service from the public). There was no time limit placed on the
91
responses, and participants were encouraged to openly share their perceptions. Participants were
aware that their identities would not be disclosed, and that they could end participation at any
time. The following presentation of results is in three sections: a brief overview of the
demographic profile of the implementation managers; a brief overview of the demographic
profile of the police officers; and a presentation of the perceptions gathered from participants for
interview questions in the context of the research question which guided this case study.
Demographic profile of implementation managers. The demographic characteristics
of the department’s BWC implementation managers who participated in this study are
summarized in Table 2. Of the sample, three males (60%) and two females (40%) participated.
Race and ethnicity data were not collected. Implementation Manager 1 (IM1) worked for the
selected department for 27 years and oversees various technology and media projects. IM2 was
a public information officer (responsible for interacting with local and national news media
outlets) with 9 years of experience at the department. IM3 was responsible for overseeing many
technical aspects of the implementation (including hardware deployment and the retention of
video evidence records) and had the most seniority of the participants with 28 years at the
department. IM4 and IM5 were both attorneys and police administrators, responsible for policy
development and review. IM4 had been at the department 4 years, while IM5 had 18 years of
experience. The average years of experience for IMs was 17.2.
92
Table 2
Demographic Profile of Implementation Managers
Participant Number
Gender
Years with
department
Job function
IM1
Female
27
Technology and
media manager
IM2 Male 9 Public information
officer
IM3 Male 28 Technology
manager
IM4 Female 4 Attorney
IM5
Male 18 Attorney
Demographic profile of police officers. The demographic characteristics of police
officer participants is summarized in Table 3. All police officer (PO) participants were male. It
is unknown if gender is a potential factor in these interview results. As with implementation
managers, police officer race and ethnicity data were not collected. At the time of the interview,
PO1 was assigned to patrol the northwestern geographic area of the city and had 19 years of
service with the selected department. PO2 was a K-9 officer with 21 years and might be
dispatched to any part of the city to provide backup to patrol officers when police canine service
is needed. PO3 performed code enforcement functions and had 11 years of experience. PO4
was assigned to a gang crime enforcement unit and had been with the department for 9 years.
PO5, also a 9-year veteran, was a patrol officer with community service duties. The average
years of experience for POs was 13.8.
93
Table 3
Demographic Profile of Police Officers
Participant Number
Gender
Years with
department
Job function
PO1
Male
19
Patrol officer
PO2 Male 21 K-9 officer
PO3 Male 11 Patrol / code
enforcement duties
PO4 Male 9 Gang crime unit
PO5
Male 9 Patrol / community
service duties
RQ1. What major obstacles and privacy concerns are encountered by police department
leaders and officers during BWC implementation?
The 14 interview questions, detailed below, were designed to gather data to answer the
research question. The questions were developed after an examination of relevant literature and
a review of similar studies. The questions were refined and validated in consultation with
experts in the field, including an attorney specializing in policy development and public
information, a technology manager familiar with BWC hardware and software, and a public
information officer with experience designing interviews in both professional and academic
settings.
To analyze, sort, and code the data, the researcher transcribed each interview response
into NVivo 11 software. The tools within the NVivo product helped to organize the data and
identify themes and patterns within the interview responses. Based on Yin’s (2014)
recommendation for analyzing case study data, an inductive pattern technique was utilized to
code and analyze the interview responses for themes. The researcher first grouped together
94
words and sentences to determine their meanings, and then categorized the themes, identified
differences and similarities, and interpreted the themes within the context of the research
question. Following is a discussion of the responses and major themes identified for each
question.
Interview Questions 1 and 2: “Please describe your position/job function within the
department.” and “How long have you been employed with this department?” These two
questions allowed the researcher to verify that the participant qualified for participation based on
job function and to determine the years of experience for IMs and POs who participated.
Implementation manager job titles varied and included attorneys, public information officers,
and technology managers. Years of employment with the selected department ranged from 4 to
28 years, and the overall average was 15.5 years of employment with the department. Tables 2
and 3 present the job functions of IM and PO participants respectively.
Interview Question 3: “Briefly describe your role in the implementation of body-worn
cameras at this department.” Participants’ roles in the implementation included vendor
evaluation and selection (IM1, IM3, IM5), software and hardware distribution (IM1, IM3),
policy development (IM2, IM3, IM4, IM5), establishment of records retention and sharing
processes (IM3, IM5), and training (IM3, IM5). All PO participants reported no involvement in
the initial implementation, but PO3 and PO5 had been involved in implementation reviews and
audits for compliance in the early stages of deployment.
Interview Question 4: “Please describe how the technology was implemented within
your area of responsibility.” This question allowed participants to describe the actual steps taken
to implement BWCs within their area of responsibility. IM1 and IM3’s responses detailed the
installation of computer software and hardware, including the need for new servers, monitors,
95
external hard drives, license dongles, and the actual cameras and charging equipment. IM1 and
IM3 also discussed the need for setting up access levels for employees, depending on their role
as end-user, supervisor, technician, public information specialist, or investigator. IM3 mentioned
that the department’s technical infrastructure needed to be upgraded in order to handle the
additional network usage created by the massive video files, and issues were encountered in
transferring such large files to the District Attorney’s Office so prosecutors could review video
evidence.
IM2 was part of a team responsible for educating the local news media about the
department’s initial test and eventual full-scale deployment. IM2 discussed the need to ensure
the media understood the project goals and limitations. Both IM1 and IM2 were concerned
about the expectation of the media that all police scenes would be recorded and the video would
be immediately available for public review. IM2 mentioned that he did not have a technical
background but had to force himself to learn about the details of the technology in order to
develop a deep enough understanding to adequately explain it to reporters, who were asking
technical questions from the beginning of the implementation.
IM4 and IM5 were both department attorneys. IM4 said that her role prior to the
deployment was to advise the department’s executive leadership team regarding what could and
could not be released to the public pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA).
Specifically, she was tasked with addressing the differences between BWC video and other
records the department released via TPIA requests. She was also part of a group of attorneys
representing the department before a legislative committee tasked to develop a state law
regulating the use of BWCs within Texas police agencies. IM5 also helped with legal advice and
policy development surrounding the release of video to the public and was instrumental in
96
designing the contract for the purchase of the equipment. IM5 discussed the need for the
department to locate funding sources, and he was able to develop a memorandum of
understanding with the District Attorney’s office in order to accept donations for the purchase of
some of the equipment. Both IM4 and IM5 helped to train the department’s open records staff
on how to respond to TPIA requests for BWC video.
The response to Question 4 was similar from all PO participants. PO1 and PO2
mentioned that when the cameras were initially deployed, all officers within their patrol stations
were told to report to a roll-call training session in which the equipment was assigned, the basics
of operation were explained, and the policy was discussed. PO3 and PO5 reported that they were
part of a large group that included several police divisions and units, including gang task forces,
code enforcement teams, and community services officers, all given instruction in an hour-long
training session. PO5 said that he believed the training he received during the initial deployment
was the least amount of training possible for something so critical.
Interview Question 5: “Please explain how you went about making decisions regarding
implementing the technology in your area of responsibility. (For example: Were you guided by
policy, by experience, by intuition, by awareness of other BWC implementations?)” Table 4
summarizes responses to this interview question. The IMs were all responsible in some way for
helping develop the department’s policies surrounding the use of BWCs. IM1 reported relying
on intuition for guidance in her roles related to the implementation. IM2 described using all of
the examples for guidance in making decisions. He said that experience and intuition helped in
answering media questions, while the department’s policy gave him a source to refer to when
explaining why and how things were done during the deployment. He consulted with subject
matter experts from other agencies with BWC experience for additional guidance.
97
IM3 also said he relied on all examples, and consulted the draft of the state law, which
was still being debated by the legislature when he first joined the implementation team. He
made decisions based on a draft policy the department circulated to implementation mangers, his
experience with other major technology deployments, his intuition after making mistakes in
previous projects, and consultation with technology managers who had been through the process
at departments that had already adopted the cameras. He said that the state law passed after
initial policy development, necessitating changes that had to be incorporated into policy and
training.
IM4 reported relying mostly on state law and case law to make decisions about how to
develop the department’s policy. She discussed that, since the department was one of the first in
Texas to implement BWCs, she needed to rely on her past experience with other types of policy
development and her interaction with officers on the ground to understand what would and
would not work in practice. She drew from her experience with the TPIA to determine how the
department would respond to public information requests for BWC video.
IM5 said that his past experience and knowledge of how the department operates guided
his decision-making. He mentioned that because the department was one of the first in Texas to
deploy BWCs, there was not much literature to review for best practices. He said that model
policies from the IACP were helpful in drafting templates for the department’s policy, but
intuition and past experience with the department’s Taser implementation were the most useful
tools for providing guidance. He discussed how the Taser project had similarities to the BWC
implementation: how to keep records, how to procure equipment, how to design training, and
how to release information to the public were concepts that had been explored in the past.
98
All five PO participants reported that the department’s written policy was their main tool
for guidance in making decisions. PO2 mentioned that his past experience with department
projects helped him interpret and implement the current written policy by understanding how the
department has allowed some give and take on adherence to new policies when first rolled out.
PO3 said that he tries to abide by the policy, but the policy is very long (12 pages) and therefore
impossible to completely memorize; so, his rule (based on intuition and experience) is that if he
is in doubt, he turns the camera on. PO4 said that he uses intuition and common sense to
interpret the policy. For example, he said that while the policy might require the camera to be
turned on when interacting with a citizen, common sense tells him that the department does not
expect him to record when he is simply providing directions to a lost motorist. PO5 said that
because the policy is so long and changes so frequently, he watches what other officers do and
follows along.
Table 4
What Tools Guided Decision-Making Regarding Implementing BWCs?
Participant Number
Primary tools used for guidance when
implementing BWCs
IM1
Intuition
IM2 Experience, intuition, policy, other
agencies
IM3 Experience, intuition, policy, draft state
law
IM4 State law, case law
IM5 Experience, IACP model policies
PO1 Policy
PO2 Policy, experience
PO3 Policy, intuition, experience
PO4 Policy, intuition
PO5
Policy, observing other officers
99
Interview Question 6: “What would you do differently, knowing what you know now?”
The majority of participants indicated that they (or the department) should have proceeded more
slowly, taking more time to explore potential issues before rapidly deploying in large numbers.
IM1 said she would have asked more questions in advance before proceeding. IM2 and IM4
would have involved more stakeholders from the beginning because it would have resulted in a
better process for educating the public and the media and a better version of both the
department’s policy and the state law. IM2 provided an example of miscommunication between
the District Attorney’s office and the department on how video evidence would be shared, and
how that miscommunication was portrayed in a negative manner by a local investigative
reporter. IM3 was very specific in his response: he said that he would have field tested the
cameras for 6 months longer before deploying department-wide in order to have time to discover
all of the mechanical issues faced by front-line officers. IM5 felt the department proceeded
rapidly in order to satisfy political concerns. He said the focus was on deploying quickly rather
than perfectly. He said that if he had it to do again, he would proceed slowly in order to more
carefully analyze input from union representatives, department management, and front-line
officers in order to develop better policy and training.
Only one PO participant provided a response to this question. PO1 said the department
should have slowed things down in order to evaluate concerns from officers. He said that
management should have tested the equipment for a longer period of time on a smaller group of
officers so they could understand what problems would occur in the field. He suggested that a
longer test period would have allowed the department to select better, more reliable equipment.
100
The remaining PO participants said they had no suggestions on how they would do things
differently.
Interview Question 7: “Please describe any problems or issues encountered in your area
of responsibility related to BWC implementation.” IM1 and IM3 discussed difficulty acquiring
resources (particularly computer hardware and software) necessary to implement the technology
correctly. IM2 discussed a lack of understanding among local reporters that the deployment was
intended to be a phased approach which would allow the department to learn about issues as it
gradually rolled out the equipment. He said reporters seemed to expect the department to
instantly identify and understand all problems related to the project and did not want to allow the
department time to adjust to the changes BWCs would bring. IM4 and IM5 said they did not
encounter any problems in their areas of responsibility.
PO1, PO3, and PO5 reported technical problems with the equipment, mostly concerning
the cameras’ battery life. For example, PO1 said the batteries typically die within 5 or 6 hours
and rarely last an entire 8-hour shift. He said every time a battery dies, the officer is required to
notify the dispatcher and locate a supervisor for permission to return to the station and exchange
the camera for one with a full charge. He said this process wastes an hour each time it happens.
PO3 said he has had a total of five cameras assigned to him, four of which turned out to be
defective. He said the first camera he was assigned overheated, the second would never boot up,
the third’s attachment clip broke and would not affix properly to his uniform, and the fourth
would not download captured videos into the department’s video records management system.
He said the department recently changed to a kiosk system for checking out cameras at the
beginning of a shift, and therefore, officers are no longer assigned permanent cameras.
According to PO3, this is an advantage in that officers are not stuck with broken cameras and do
101
not have to wait at the end of their shifts to download video, but a disadvantage in that officers
are not able to bring cameras to their extra jobs (off-duty police-related employment with local
businesses). PO2 and PO4 said that in their units (K-9 and gang crime enforcement) they are not
required to operate the cameras as frequently, and so they have not personally experienced any
technical problems with the hardware. However, PO4 said he has observed other officers having
battery-related problems, and he feels that officers are now more hesitant to be proactive in their
police work because they are scared of getting disciplined for a technical problem with the
camera or a minor policy violation such as cursing that might be observed by a supervisor
reviewing BWC video.
Interview Question 8: “How were you involved in developing policy for BWC use?”
All of the IM participants were involved in policy development, while none of the PO
participants reported any involvement in policy development. IM1 and IM4 both mentioned
participating in executive-level discussions about transparency and methods for making BWC
information (including policies, deployment schedules, and video records) available to the
public. IM2 reported being present in all policy-making meetings within the department, both
prior to deployment and when re-writes were required once practical experience had been
acquired. IM2 said he was able to contribute because of his past experience with other
technology and records-related projects within the department. IM5 reviewed policy drafts to
ensure compliance with state laws, and helped department leaders understand litigation concerns,
particularly related to records retention issues.
Interview Question 9: “What experience do you have with releasing BWC video to the
public?” IM1 said that BWC video records had caused press conferences to become contentious,
because the media expected video to be available for all scenes, when in reality, for various
102
reasons (including officers had not yet been assigned cameras, or the cameras were not on, or the
internal investigation related to an incident had not yet completed) video was not ready or did not
exist. IM1 added that in some instances, the department had posted BWC video related to officer
involved shootings on the department’s YouTube page, which had resulted in an unexpectedly
large number of comments that needed response. IM2, one of the department’s public
information officers, discussed the need for his team to rapidly educate themselves on the laws
related to public information and release of records, and then to educate the media on how to
request videos and how the process would work. IM3 helped to train the department’s open
records staff on the technical aspects of redacting confidential information from video records
and learned about the legal issues surrounding the records in the process of this training. IM3
was also instrumental in developing the process the department would use to transfer BWC video
to the District Attorney’s Office. IM4 and IM5 both provided legal counsel to the open records
staff and interacted with the Texas Attorney General’s Office on interpreting the state law as it
pertained to releasing BWC video to the public. None of the PO participants reported any
experience releasing BWC video to the public.
Interview Question 10: “Should BWC video be released to the public? What
limitations, if any, should be placed on public release?” IM1 said that BWC video should be
released, but release should comply with the privacy rules set forth in the state’s public
information statutes. IM2 felt that releasing BWC video increases the department’s
transparency, but argued that limitations should be placed on releasing anything that might
jeopardize an officer’s safety (such as conversations with family members or anything that
would reveal an officer’s home address or personal information), meetings that are disciplinary
or corrective in nature (such as a conversation with a supervisor), details that might compromise
103
an active investigation, and information that might reveal tactics (such as how SWAT officers
deploy in active shooter situations). IM3 discussed the need for extensive redactions to protect
information considered confidential within the state law and said the current method for
performing those redactions is inefficient because it requires too much staff time. IM4 said that
BWC records should be treated just like any other record kept by the department. She argued
that the current public information laws are adequate at protecting records that would interfere
with ongoing investigations, privacy concerns, or safety. IM5 also felt the current law provided
the best means of guidance for how to release BWC video to the public; however, he argued that
the law protects too much information from release and felt the department should err on the side
of releasing more information when in doubt, as long as the investigation into the incident is
already complete.
PO1 said only a court should be able to order the release of BWC video, and private
conversations between officers and family members or supervisors should always be withheld by
the court. PO2 said all video should be subject to release after the investigation into the incident
captured is complete; however, he said that even releasing video that shows officers acted
lawfully and in compliance with policy in a controversial incident would not convince the public
that the officer did the right thing. PO3 agreed that all video should be subject to release once
investigations are complete, but added that information revealing tactics or identities of
undercover officers should be protected from release. PO4 said that BWC video should be
withheld in cases in which an officer will be going to court for using force until the court
proceedings are complete. PO5 argued that video should only be released in incidents related to
an officer’s use of force or serious complaints, once the investigation is complete, and all other
video should be withheld from the public.
104
Interview Question 11: “Do you think the use of BWCs has an impact on the privacy of
citizens? What about the privacy of officers?” The individual responses to both parts of this
question are detailed in Table 5. Participants were almost equally divided on their opinions as to
whether BWCs impact the privacy of citizens and officers. For those who said that the privacy
of citizens is not impacted (IM3, IM4, PO2, PO3, PO4), most seemed to agree with IM3’s
assertion that if the citizen called the police, he or she should have no expectation of privacy.
(IM3 did discuss a caveat in the case of citizens who might be recorded inadvertently, such as
when an officer forgets the camera has been activated and records interactions that were not a
result of a call for police service.) PO2 said when someone calls the police, they lose their
privacy. IM4 went a step further in saying that no one expects (or should expect) privacy in our
current environment of always-on social media and surveillance. She said the loss of privacy is
the price of technology.
PO5 countered that citizens’ privacy is clearly impacted when officers come into their
homes and start filming, regardless of the wishes of the citizen. Both PO5 and IM2 discussed the
loss of privacy for citizens when such recordings are released to the public or the media. PO5
said that suddenly the inside of a citizen’s private home may have an audience of millions, just
because a police officer with a BWC showed up and recorded the interaction.
Opinions were also almost equally divided on the impact BWCs have on the privacy of
officers. Six of the participants (IM1, IM2, IM3, PO1, PO3, PO5) felt that BWCs infringed upon
the privacy expectations of officers required to wear the cameras. IM3, who has reviewed
hundreds of hours of BWC recordings, reported viewing countless private conversations between
officers and their family members by phone and many videos of officers using the restroom.
PO1 explained that the camera has a buffer which pre-records two minutes of activity prior to the
105
officer turning on the camera. This buffer is intended to capture events just prior to activation, in
case an officer forgets to activate or delays activation because of distractions in a confusing or
rapidly unfolding interaction. The problem, according to PO1, is that the buffer captures
moments the officer expected to be private, including restroom breaks or conversations related to
personal matters. PO3 said that he had forgotten to turn the camera off during several restroom
breaks. PO5 argued that the two-minute buffer is too long, because it often captures officers in
the restroom, which he said is humiliating.
On the other hand, the remaining participants argued that on-duty officers should not
have an expectation of privacy. IM5 said the department is not asking officers to turn the
cameras on while having dinner or talking to their spouses on the phone, but instead only when
interacting with the public on the job. Therefore, IM5 argued, the officer should not expect
interactions captured by the cameras to be private. IM5 also said he believed the privacy of
officers was taken into consideration too deeply when department leaders developed the policy.
PO2 said that nothing officers do while working is private. PO4 agreed that any time an officer
is on the clock, his or her activities are subject to public view; however, he did say that restroom
breaks and undercover work should be exempt from BWC recordings.
106
Table 5
Do BWCs Impact the Privacy of Citizens and/or Police Officers?
Participant Number
Do BWCs impact citizen
privacy?
Do BWCs impact officer
privacy?
IM1
Yes
Yes
IM2 Yes Yes
IM3 No Yes
IM4 No No
IM5 Yes No
PO1 Yes Yes
PO2 No No
PO3 No Yes
PO4 No No
PO5
Yes Yes
Interview Question 12: “Should officers be allowed to view BWC video from their
scenes? Why or why not?” All participants felt that officers should be allowed to view BWC
video from their scenes, with some exceptions. For example, IM2 and IM3 said officers should
be able to review video in all circumstances except officer involved shootings. PO1 said
reviewing video helps an officer write an accurate report and compared it to what he called the
early days when most officers carried small audio recorders in their pockets to aid in note-taking
for reports. PO2 said forgetting to add a minor detail to a report could get an officer in trouble
and being allowed to view BWC video could help prevent missing minor details when writing
reports. PO3 said being off by a word or two in a report causes an officer to be torn up by a
defense attorney, but reviewing BWC video before writing the report would make it easier to
107
accurately document direct quotes from complainants and witnesses. PO5 said at serious crime
scenes, it is crucial to get all of the details right, and the ability to review video could help.
IM3 said the current technology makes viewing video at a scene difficult: the cameras
are not capable of playing back video; therefore, an officer must go to the station, dock the
camera, and download the video in order to view it. IM5 said that officers should be given the
choice to view video, even in officer involved shooting investigations, but cautioned that it might
change the way an officer writes a report about a critical incident. For example, IM5 argued that
the camera is not able to capture all of the peripheral information observed by an officer when
involved in a critical incident and, once presented with the video, the officer may have a hard
time articulating in a report what exact stimuli caused his or her reaction. PO4 countered that
officers should be able to see what they did right and wrong, and viewing the video from their
own scenes would be good for self-improvement and becoming a better police officer.
Interview Question 13: “In your opinion, what is the greatest benefit of BWCs to your
department?” All five PO participants said the reduction in false complaints against officers is
the greatest benefit of BWCs. The IM participants discussed transparency (IM1, IM2, IM4,
IM5), increased community confidence in the department (IM2, IM4, IM5), reductions in false
complaints against officers (IM3, IM5), and improved behavior on both sides of the camera
(IM4, IM5). The responses are detailed in Table 6.
Perceptions surrounding transparency and increased community confidence in the
department seemed to be related. For example, IM2 said that more transparency from the
department would show officers doing good work and justify uses of force, which would
increase the community’s confidence in the department. IM4 said that community confidence
increases because people believe BWCs encourage officers to do a better job. IM4 and IM5 said
108
that BWCs prevent lying from both officers and citizens interacting with officers, and that both
sides, when they know they are being recorded, tend to behave better.
Table 6
What is the Greatest Benefit of BWCs to Your Department?
Participant Number
Greatest benefit of BWCs to the
department
IM1
Transparency
IM2 Transparency, increased community
confidence
IM3 Reduction in false complaints
IM4 Improved behavior, increased
community confidence
IM5 Reduction in false complaints, increased
community confidence
PO1 Reduction in false complaints
PO2 Reduction in false complaints
PO3 Reduction in false complaints
PO4 Reduction in false complaints
PO5
Reduction in false complaints
Interview Question 14: “In your opinion, what are some of the drawbacks of BWCs?”
Table 7 provides an overview of responses. IM1, IM3, and PO3 discussed the expense, with
IM1 stating the technology is “very, very” expensive and constantly evolving. IM3 discussed the
department’s lack of forethought as to the ongoing costs of the equipment, including the
continuous replacement of broken cameras (IM1 also mentioned how fragile the devices are, as
they are constantly getting damaged during field use) and the ever-increasing amount of data to
store and process. For example, according to IM3, the department was caught off guard
regarding how much data would be created by so many cameras in the field, and is unable to
expand the support staff needed to administer the project. PO3 said that in a huge department
109
with thousands of officers recording thousands of hours of video each day, the financial burden
caused by the storage space will become so enormous that it will be impossible for the
department to continue to support it.
IM2 felt the biggest drawback is the potential for human error when releasing video to
the public. He said that personal information about a victim might accidentally be revealed,
potentially causing harm to someone the department should be trying to protect. He also
expressed concern about inadvertently damaging an active investigation by releasing details
about a case prior to its’ conclusion.
IM4 discussed a developing over-reliance on the cameras and the drawbacks it will cause
in the future, particularly related to prosecution. She said that she has already seen prosecutors
and courts refusing to prosecute cases where no BWC video evidence exists to corroborate an
officer’s version of events. Specifically, according to IM4, there are several municipal court
prosecutors who refuse to prosecute any traffic violations when the officer did not have a camera
assigned yet or did not have it on in time to capture the violation.
IM5 felt the greatest drawback is the public expectation that the cameras will solve
societal problems that result in negative police-citizen interactions. He said that many in the
public seem to believe that BWCs will stop police shootings. He said even many officers believe
the cameras will make things clearer when reviewing uses of force. However, IM5 said these are
false expectations caused by a lack of understanding of the limitations of the cameras, and the
public will ultimately be disappointed when viewing video does not actually resolve the issues.
He went on to say that the camera’s view of a critical event is often blocked by obstacles such as
arms or clothing, or it was too dark to capture a good image.
110
PO2’s response was similar to IM5. He said that the public thinks the cameras have been
put in place to catch officers doing things wrong, when in fact the cameras will simply show
officers doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. However, he said this will not accomplish
anything, because the videos will not fully explain the nuances of individual situations, and, even
when the officers are doing things right, the public will not be convinced.
PO1 and PO4 believed the major drawback of BWCs is that they cause officers to be less
proactive. PO1 said things happen so quickly in police work, that it is often impossible and
unsafe to focus on turning on the camera, which limits the amount of proactive work officers do.
Instead, according to PO1, they now simply wait to be dispatched to calls, and that way they
have plenty of time to turn on the camera before rolling up on something. PO4 said waiting to be
dispatched rather than looking for crime is now the rule for officers.
PO5 said the greatest drawback of BWCs is that the department is using the video to seek
out minor policy violations. PO4’s response also discussed this as a reason for officers
becoming less proactive, knowing that the supervisors are reviewing video to find minor policy
violations such as not wearing seat belts. IM3 said cameras are a double-edged sword in that
they can both help and burn officers. IM3 explained that in critical incidents and citizen
complaints, the cameras usually show the officer was in the right; however, the department is
causing paranoia among officers by initiating complaints for minor policy violations viewed
during routine audits of BWC usage compliance.
111
Table 7
What is the Biggest Drawback of BWCs?
Participant Number
Biggest drawback of BWCs
IM1
Expense
IM2 Privacy, integrity of investigations
IM3 Expense
IM4 No prosecution if video evidence does
not exist
IM5 BWCs will not fulfill community
expectations
PO1 Officers are less proactive
PO2 BWCs will not fulfill community
expectations
PO3 Expense
PO4 Officers are less proactive
PO5
Department seeks out minor policy
violations using BWC video
Evaluation of the Findings
The findings of the study were consistent with the perceptions surrounding BWCs
explored in the literature review. While departments throughout the United States rush to
implement body-worn cameras (Miller & Toliver, 2014), leaders do not have a clear
understanding of the issues surrounding the technology (White, 2014). The purpose of this
qualitative case study was to examine the perceptions of managers and officers involved in a
large-scale deployment of BWCs to inform law enforcement leaders about some of the issues
they may encounter. The interview questions allowed for a response to the research question by
two groups of stakeholders: BWC implementation managers and police officers assigned to use
112
the cameras. These separate groups provided a diverse set of responses and helped with
triangulation of the data.
The participants reported mixed feelings about the use of BWCs within the selected
department. The most prevalent theme identified was the belief that the department should have
proceeded more slowly and deliberately with the implementation, which is consistent with
studies mentioned in Chapter 2. Many of the participants also discussed an overall lack of
resources to properly administer BWCs in the long term, concerns as to whether BWCs actually
solve problems the public thinks they will solve, and the negative outcomes related to less
proactive policing and an internal fear among officers of BWCs being used to seek out minor
policy violations. These findings are consistent with the existing research examined in the
literature review.
All of the PO participants agreed that the greatest benefit is the reduction in false
complaints against officers by citizens. Most participants felt an increase in transparency could
result in improved community confidence in the department. These results were expected
considering the results of similar studies explored within the literature review.
Summary
The results of this qualitative case study provided the perceptions of managers and police
officers involved in a large-scale implementation of body-worn cameras within an urban police
department in Texas. Semi-structured interviews with five implementation managers and five
police officers assigned to wear BWCs allowed for an examination of perceptions in response to
the research question. The interviews took place during May, June, and July 2018. This chapter
presented the results of the interviews, which were similar to results explored during the
literature review.
113
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions
The problem addressed in this study was that while the public demands more insight into
police encounters, which will be provided as agencies adopt body-worn cameras, law
enforcement leaders have little evidence for guidance when they develop policy, deploy BWC
equipment, and release video to the public (Capps, 2015; Lamdan, 2012; Miller & Toliver, 2014;
White & Coldren, 2017). The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the
perceptions of managers and police officers charged with the deployment and use of BWCs
within a large Texas police department, specifically to provide timely information about issues
and problems to law enforcement leaders considering the technology within their own
organizations.
The study examined the perceptions of two groups of stakeholders involved in a large-
scale deployment of BWCs within a Texas police department: five implementation managers and
five police officers assigned to wear the cameras. Issues surrounding policy development,
privacy concerns, and the release of video to the public were examined. A purposive sample of
participants within a single Texas police department was determined to be appropriate for the
study. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews consisting of 14 interview questions
developed by the researcher in consultation with a panel of experts in the field (see Appendix A).
Participants were free to respond without guidance from the researcher, providing any
information they found relevant to the questions. Interviews were transcribed and coded using
NVivo, a well-known CAQDAS program commonly used by qualitative researchers (Bazeley &
Jackson, 2013). An inductive pattern matching technique was used to analyze the interview data
and identify themes and patterns within the responses. These findings led to several implications
and recommendations for practice and future research.
114
The study’s design resulted in the potential for notable limitations. First, a disadvantage
to case study design when seeking answers to a current problem is that it is unlikely any single
site will have fully collected the type of information needed to resolve the problem. However,
examining a single implementation, such as this case study, is a useful way to contribute
knowledge to the field by identifying perspectives about issues and problems at a selected site.
Additionally, there may be specific characteristics of the selected department’s BWC
implementation process, the culture of the department, or the participants themselves that make
the BWC implementation unique to this department. This could cause the study to have limited
external validity. Another limitation was the small sample size. Larger samples increase
dependability and transferability of findings (Shenton, 2004). However, it was determined that
the sample size was suitable considering the scope and time constraints presented by a
dissertation project. Although the physical environments were not identical for each participant
and varied depending on the location chosen by the participant, the environments were similar
and free of distractions. Because some of the participants had moved from the region, some of
the interviews took place by phone rather than in person.
The research was designed to comply with ethical standards and legal requirements in
order to reduce risk of harm to participants and to protect privacy and confidentiality (Fisher &
Vacanti-Shova, 2012). Northcentral University IRB and formal site permissions were acquired
prior to soliciting participation. Informed consent documents providing participants with
assurances of privacy and details about the nature and duration of the study were reviewed and
signed prior to beginning the interviews (see Appendix B).
This chapter presents implications discovered by analyzing the results of the study,
recommendations for practice aimed at law enforcement leaders contemplating the
115
implementation of BWCs within their agencies, and recommendations for future research related
to the problem addressed. The findings will be applicable to many types and sizes of law
enforcement agencies. The chapter concludes with a summary of the relevance of the study and
the importance of the findings.
Implications
This qualitative case study utilized a 14-question semi-structured interview to gather the
perceptions of implementation managers and police officers involved in a large-scale
deployment of body-worn cameras within an urban Texas police department. Law enforcement
leaders, scholars, and the Justice Department issued calls for research and documentation of
BWC deployments (White, 2014). The interview guide was developed to answer the research
question:
RQ1. What major obstacles and privacy concerns are encountered by police department
leaders and officers during BWC implementation?
The results provided several implications related to the research question. The first
implication was derived from one of the most consistent responses to several of the interview
questions. Participants believe the department moved quickly in adopting BWC technology
before developing a full understanding of the issues that would be encountered and the resources
that would be required to support such a project. This implication is consistent with themes
discovered during the literature review. Ariel (2016b) and Miller and Tolivar (2014) found that
agencies throughout the United States were rapidly acquiring and deploying BWCs without
much evidence-based guidance. As the Justice Department issued grants for equipment
purchases, even more law enforcement agencies rushed to deploy (Brucato, 2015; Wasserman,
2017). Several participants in this study argued that the department should have proceeded more
116
cautiously and gathered more information, perhaps with a longer pilot program, before
attempting to outfit all first-responder officers with cameras. Because of the vast amounts of
data generated by thousands of cameras recording thousands of hours daily, the department faces
a financial burden that might not be sustainable in the long term. Additionally, according to
several of the participants, there are not enough resources, particularly support staff, to
administer the technical and public information aspects of the project adequately.
The second implication, also consistent with the literature, is that privacy concerns should
be thoroughly examined by leaders before deciding on deployment and prior to and during the
development of policies related to when officers should capture video (Capps, 2015; Freund,
2015; Joh, 2016; Thomas, 2017). Clear legal guidelines do not currently exist for leaders to
review when developing policy (Freund, 2015; Thomas, 2017). Participants in this study were
almost evenly divided in their perceptions as to whether the cameras impact officer and citizen
privacy; however, the specific opinions were very nuanced depending on the situations they had
encountered in their experience. For example, several of the police officer participants described
instances in which the cameras had inadvertently recorded their own restroom breaks, one officer
describing the experience as humiliating. Others brought up occasions in which intimate
personal details were recorded, either of an officer’s interactions with the officer’s own family or
within a citizen’s private home. On the other hand, some of the participants said that people who
call (or interact with) the police have (or should have) no expectation of privacy and police
officers who are on duty have (or should have) no expectation of privacy. These differing
opinions, combined with a lack of legal guidance, imply that privacy concerns will continue to
be an issue as BWCs proliferate.
117
A third implication is that participants believe officers should be allowed to view BWC
video from their scenes. The consensus was that the ability to review the video prior to writing a
report would allow the officer to write a more accurate report because he or she would be able to
more completely capture what he or she had been told by complainants, witnesses, and suspects.
Officers are expected by prosecutors, the courts, and citizens to be thorough and accurate when
documenting what they have observed or have been told at a police scene (Worrall &
Schmalleger, 2017). However, controversy exists as to whether officers should be allowed to
review BWC video before completing an official report (Miller & Toliver, 2014; Stanley, 2015).
Some experts believe watching the video before writing the report might influence the officer’s
original perception of events, thereby changing what he or she would have initially written
(Stanley, 2015). The participants in this study all agreed that reviewing BWC video would
improve report-writing and help officers stay out of trouble for forgetting to include important
details, but exceptions in cases of critical incidents such as officer involved shootings might be
justified if the officer’s original perception of an event is crucial to document.
Another important implication is that the state of the current technology is not adequate
when it comes to reliability and ease of use. Several officers complained about limited battery
life and the inefficiencies caused by cameras that are not capable of recording through an entire
shift. A few of the officers pointed out that the cameras are somewhat difficult to activate,
causing an officer-safety issue when events might be rapidly unfolding in a dangerous
environment. These complaints were also discovered in the literature review. Lewinski et al.
(2015) warned that each additional piece of equipment added to an officer’s uniform should be
carefully scrutinized to determine if the added weight and distraction is worth the benefit.
118
A final, but crucial, implication is that the officers and police employees charged with
using and overseeing BWCs are not in agreement about the benefits of the technology, or even if
there is any benefit to the technology. While several participants found potential benefits from
transparency and improved community confidence in the department, the most consistent
perceived benefit was that the cameras will result in fewer false complaints against officers.
While several studies seem to confirm this perception (Ariel, 2016a; Stanley, 2015; Wasserman,
2017), this is not the benefit that the public expects (Capps, 2015; Lamdan, 2012; Stanley, 2015).
This disconnect will likely lead to problems in the future since the internal and external goals of
the technology are not aligned.
Recommendations for Practice
Several recommendations for practice were developed based on the results of the study in
the context of the current literature surrounding the implementation of BWCs in law enforcement
agencies. The first recommendation is that law enforcement leaders should move more slowly
and carefully consider the issues before proceeding. Caution should be used at all steps in the
process, from vendor selection and policy development to training and the release of BWC video
to the public. Internal and external stakeholders, including front-line police officers and
supervisors, technology managers, public information officers, prosecutors, and community
leaders should be consulted and actively involved in every step. Involving all stakeholders will
allow department executives to anticipate problems that might occur, particularly problems that
might be unique to their own agencies. For example, technology managers know best the
department’s technical limits regarding bandwidth capacities, digital storage space, and network
infrastructure. Prosecutors know what types of cases their offices will be willing to prosecute in
the event BWCs malfunction. And community leaders can help advise chiefs and sheriffs on
119
what problems the local public expects the cameras to solve. This more deliberate process slows
things down and helps to prevent the selection of the wrong vendor for equipment and software
or missing important considerations when writing policies. Choosing the wrong equipment is
not only a significant loss of financial resources and staff time but can be costly in community
trust. Pushing out policies before considering all variables can result in needless re-writes which
may confuse the officers who are expected to wear the cameras. One police officer said that the
policy was so long and had changed so many times that he felt unable to keep up with the
changes. Several of the study participants discussed the department’s rushed implementation
and felt the deployment could have been improved if leaders had slowed down to evaluate
progress and identify issues before deploying department-wide. Miller and Tolivar (2014) made
a similar recommendation after surveying dozens of American law enforcement agencies. Many
police leaders had rapidly made decisions to implement BWCs without a full understanding of
the issues surrounding the new technology (Miller & Tolivar, 2014). Additional recent studies
have resulted in similar findings, suggesting policy considerations might have taken a back-
burner to quick deployment, and that slowing things down may help leaders make better policy
development decisions (Ariel, 2016b; Healey & Stephens, 2017; Hope, 2018; Shiller, 2017).
The researcher recommends that leaders considering the technology form a stakeholder group
consisting of all ranks of patrol officers, technology managers, public information officers,
prosecutors, and community leaders prior to selecting equipment or developing policy. This
group should review literature and consult with similar agencies to investigate best practices and
lessons learned. Once the decision to move forward has been made, based on the results of this
study, the researcher recommends the implementation of a small pilot program testing various
cameras and software packages to determine effectiveness of the equipment (including battery
120
life and other problems in the field) and acceptance by officers. Following this pilot program,
once equipment choices have been narrowed, a larger pilot should be implemented before a
department-wide deployment occurs. This larger pilot will help leaders write the most effective
policies for the use and administration of the BWC program.
The second recommendation for practice is that department leaders should carefully
consider privacy issues, both when developing policies and when selecting equipment. Officers
who complained about the devices capturing intimate moments (such as restroom breaks)
mentioned that the pre-record buffer on the cameras made it hard to understand when the devices
are actually recording. For example, the selected department’s policy requires officers to
activate the device upon being dispatched to a call for service. However, the officer may have
been in the restroom a few minutes prior to being dispatched. Because the camera pre-records
two minutes of video prior to being activated, officers complained that they are never sure
exactly when the recordings start. The reason for the pre-record feature is to capture rapidly
unfolding events that may have occurred in the stressful moments of a critical incident because
officers may not immediately be able to active the camera when faced with a threat. This is a
valid reason for the pre-record feature, but leaders should seek out a technological solution that
would allow for the capture of critical events without impacting the privacy of officers. Such a
solution likely does not currently exist. Therefore, leaders should design safeguards within
policies to protect the privacy of officers until a technological solution can be found.
Law enforcement leaders must also consider the privacy of citizens captured by the
cameras. In Texas, the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) defines for agencies specific
examples of recordings that should not be released to the public because they would impact the
privacy rights of citizens, including recordings captured within a person’s home or other private
121
space such as a hospital room (Paxton, 2018). Leaders should consider incorporating TPIA
guidelines (or their own state statutes if outside Texas) into department policies and should also
consider other privacy implications that are not addressed by the law. For example, should all
interactions between officers and citizens be recorded? If so, what types of interactions might
implicate a person’s privacy rights? What should be done with these types of recordings?
Should they be archived or deleted, and based on what criteria? Should they be released to the
public pursuant to a public information request? The stakeholder group suggested in the first
practice recommendation should weigh in on privacy concerns during policy development
discussions. Community leaders and public information officers may have unique insight into
these concerns. Prosecutors may bring forth concerns about protecting victims or ensuring that
evidence is captured and maintained, even when privacy is compromised, in order to guarantee
courts will have an opportunity to view such interactions.
A final recommendation for practice is that law enforcement agency leaders must do a
better job of describing the benefits of the technology to their own employees. Achieving
internal buy-in is critical for the success of a BWC program, and without it, external stakeholders
such as community leaders and prosecutors will have no faith in the ability of BWCs to make
improvements in police-citizen encounters. All of the police officers in this study believed that
the greatest benefit of the cameras is the reduction in false complaints against officers, which is
in fact a valid benefit and has been confirmed by other studies (Ariel, 2016b). However, it is not
likely that the public believes the purpose of BWCs is to reduce complaints against officers. If
the officers assigned to wear the cameras believe the primary purpose of the camera is to protect
themselves against false complaints, that might have an impact on the ways in which they utilize
the equipment. For example, officers may activate (or delay activation of) the equipment when it
122
would be more likely to result in an outcome that would prevent a complaint. Leaders and
stakeholders should consider this possibility when developing policy and should guide any
deployment by explaining to officers the entire scope of outcomes the BWCs are intended to
achieve. If transparency and community confidence are the intended outcomes, chiefs and
sheriffs should make sure their employees understand why and how such outcomes can be
achieved with BWCs. Likewise, if better policing is the goal, then feedback and improved
training resulting from encounters captured by BWCs should occur.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this qualitative case study resulted in several significant implications and
recommendations for practice. However, the limitations of the study, if addressed, could lead to
additional avenues for exploration through future research projects. First, researchers should
consider additional designs because of the limited transferability of case studies. While the case
study design is appropriate to examine a single implementation of BWCs because it allows for an
in-depth examination of the perceptions of those involved, other designs might yield larger sets
of data. Survey instruments were considered for this project and should be considered for future
research because of the ability to gather data from more participants employed in a wider field of
departments.
Another limitation was the small sample size, which also limited transferability and
dependability of the results (Shenton, 2004). Future researchers should consider larger samples,
perhaps by extending the timeline for the study in order to accommodate more participants.
Input from more participants might help researchers gain a broader understanding of the issues
and problems faced during BWC implementations. A more diverse group of participants, such
as prosecutors, community leaders, and defense attorneys, could provide a wider variety of
123
perspectives and help researchers identify concerns and recommendations that were not
uncovered by this study. For example, while some of this study’s participants mentioned issues
faced when interacting with the District Attorney’s Office, no prosecutors were invited to discuss
their perspectives. Such discussions would be helpful for understanding how prosecutors feel
about the technology and the evidentiary value of the videos captured. Perspectives from
defense attorneys would also be useful to obtain and analyze. Additionally, future studies should
include discussions with community leaders in order to understand what the public expects from
BWCs. Ultimately, the success or failure of a BWC implementation, regardless of the opinion of
internal stakeholders and department leaders, will be judged by the local community within
which the cameras were deployed. Accordingly, examining the perceptions of community
leaders should be a priority for future researchers.
The department where this case study was performed only allowed the researcher access
to employees for interviews. Future researchers should locate departments willing to allow in-
depth field studies, which could include ride-alongs with officers wearing the equipment. Field
observations and on-scene interviews with involved persons (including officers, supervisors,
complainants, witnesses, suspects, and prosecutors) could generate a wealth of first-person data
related to perceptions about the use of the equipment in real-world environments. Such site
permission might be difficult to acquire for outside researchers, but department leaders seeking
an in-depth understanding of their own deployments may consider granting internal researchers
such access.
Researchers should also explore cutting-edge technology in related fields, such as
consumer mobile video devices, in order to determine suitable improvements related to
equipment, network infrastructure, and software. For example, if better batteries exist within
124
consumer devices, researchers should investigate the possibility of incorporating the
improvements into BWC equipment. If video equipment or software exists that could allow
officers quicker access to video from their scenes, future researchers could experiment with the
technology within a chosen department. Researchers could then evaluate whether watching
video at a police scene impacts report-writing or critical incident reviews.
Future designs could explore the impact BWCs have on citizen complaints, prosecutions,
and critical incidents. For example, researchers could expand on the Rialto study (Ariel et al.,
2014; Farrar, 2014) within larger departments to investigate the role BWCs play on use-of-force
incidents and citizen complaints. Additionally, researchers could compare a wider set of
variables, such as time spent on calls for service, internal productivity metrics, outcomes of
interactions with citizens, and arrest numbers, using test groups and control groups. Because so
many departments are currently implementing BWCs, the potential for future research is vast.
Conclusions
Recent police encounters resulting in highly publicized and controversial use-of-force
incidents in cities across the United States, including Ferguson, MO, Chicago, IL, Baton Rouge,
LA, and New York City, NY, fueled a call for officers to be equipped with body-worn cameras
(Ariel, 2016a; Simmons, 2014; Stalcup & Hahn, 2016; White & Coldren, 2017; Zansberg, 2016).
The cameras capture a police officer’s point of view during such encounters and many hope such
recordings will shed light on the factors that lead to the use of force (Ariel, 2016a; Jennings et
al., 2015; Miller & Tolivar, 2014). As the Justice Department issued grants for equipment, law
enforcement leaders began to rapidly implement the technology in police agencies large and
small (Lippert & Newell, 2016; Ziv, 2014). However, few scholarly studies exist to provide
evidence and guidance for leaders who deploy BWCs (Ariel, 2016a; White, 2014; White &
125
Coldren, 2017). Recognizing the need for more knowledge, the Justice Department and scholars
in the field asked researchers and agencies to thoroughly document BWC implementations in an
attempt to define best practices (White, 2014). The problem addressed in this qualitative case
study was while the public expects more insight into police activities, which will be provided by
body cameras, police leaders need more evidence for guidance when developing policy,
implementing BWC programs, and releasing videos to the public (Capps, 2015; Lamdan, 2012).
Studies such as this are important because law enforcement leaders are rushing to implement the
technology without fully understanding the impact it will have on their agencies (Miller &
Tolivar, 2014). Without more guidance, leaders may deploy BWCs in ways that will not achieve
intended goals (Ariel, 2016a; Miller & Tolivar, 2014).
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the perceptions of managers
and police officers charged with the deployment and use of BWCs within a large Texas police
department, specifically to provide timely information about issues and problems to law
enforcement leaders considering the technology within their own organizations. The study
employed a 14-question semi-structured interview guide to gather the perceptions of five
implementation managers and five police officers assigned to wear BWCs. The potential
participants were selected using purposive sampling. Data was transcribed and analyzed using
NVivo, a well-known CAQDAS program.
As anticipated, when analyzed, the data revealed several common themes and patterns
among interview question responses. The results led to several implications and
recommendations for practice and future research presented in this chapter. Law enforcement
leaders considering BWCs for their agencies should proceed with caution and consult the
literature prior to determining first steps. Organizing a group of internal and external
126
stakeholders for guidance will help leaders identify concerns unique to their own agencies.
Researchers should continue to seek out best practices and thoroughly document individual
implementations in order to gain relevant data. Officer acceptance, equipment shortcomings,
and privacy concerns will continue to be significant issues as the technology is deployed
throughout law enforcement agencies in the United States.
127
References
Adams, I., & Mastracci, S. (2017). Visibility is a trap: The ethics of police body-worn cameras
and control. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 39(4), 313-328.
Aiello, M. (2017). Policing through social networking: Testing the linkage between digital and
physical police practices. Police Journal: Theory, Practice, and Principles, 1-13.
doi:10.1177/0032258X17690932
Akers, R. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Alpert, G. (2016). Toward a national database of officer-involved shootings. Criminology &
Public Policy, 15(1), 237-242.
Ariel, B. (2016a). Increasing cooperation with the police using body worn cameras. Police
Quarterly, 19(3), 326-362. doi:10.1177/1098611116653723
Ariel, B. (2016b). Police body cameras in large police departments. Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, 106(4), 729-767. Retrieved from
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/
Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & Sutherland, A. (2014). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of
force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509-535.
doi:10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3
Ariel, B., & Wain, N. (2014). Tracking of police patrol. Policing: A Journal of Policy &
Practice, 8(3), 274-283.
Arntfield, M. (2011). TVPD: The generational diegetics of the police procedural on American
television. Canadian Review of American Studies, 41(1), 75-95.
Banks, C. (2016). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Barajas, M. (2017, September 1). Your right to not know about that exploding chemical plant
near Houston. Texas Observer. Retrieved from
https://www.texasobserver.org/your-right-not-to-know-about-that-exploding-chemical-
plant-near-houston/
Battles, K. (2010). Calling all cars: Police dragnets and the technology of policing. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
128
Bell, M. (2017). Police reform and the dismantling of legal estrangement. Yale Law Journal,
126(7), 2054-2150.
Bock, M. (2016). Film the police! Cop-watching and its embodied narratives. Journal of
Communication, 66(1), 13-34. doi:10.1111/jcom.12204
Boivin, R., & Lagacé, M. (2016). Police use-of-force situations in Canada: Analyzing the force
or resistance ratio using a trichotomous dependent variable. Police Quarterly, 19(2), 180-
198. doi:10.1177/1098611115613953
Broome, R. (2011). An empathetic psychological perspective of police deadly force training.
Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 42(2), 137-156.
doi:10.1163/156916211X599735
Brucato, B. (2015). Policing made visible: Mobile technologies and the importance of point of
view. Surveillance & Society, 13(3/4), 455-473.
Bruzzi, S. (2016). Making a genre: The case of the contemporary true crime documentary. Law
& Humanities, 10(2), 249-280. doi:10.1080/17521483.2016.1233741
Capps, L. (2015). Police body-worn cameras: An overview. The Police Chief, 82, 52-54.
Chang, C., Sun, C., & Cheng, T. (2015). A dependable storage service system in cloud
environment. Security & Communication Networks, 8(4), 574-588.
Chen, C. (2017). Freeze, you’re on camera: Can body cameras improve American policing on
the streets and at the borders? University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 48(3),
141-187.
Condit Fagan, J. (2017). An evidence-based review of academic web search engines, 2014-2016:
Implications for librarians’ practice and research agenda. Information Technology &
Libraries, 36(2), 7-47. doi:10.6017/ital.v36i2.9718
Constable’s death seen on videotape. (1991, January 24). The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/25/us/constable-s-death-seen-on-videotape.html
Coudert, F., Butin, D., & Le Metayer, D. (2015). Body-worn cameras for police accountability:
Opportunities and risks. Computer Law & Security Review, 31(6), 749-762.
doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2015.09.002
Cox, R. (2012). Teaching qualitative research to practitioner-researchers. Theory Into Practice,
51(2), 129-136. doi:10.1080/00405841.2012.662868
Cozby, P., & Bates, S. (2012). Methods in behavioral research (11th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
129
Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011) Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Crump, J. (2011). What are the police doing on Twitter? Social media, the police and the public.
Policy and Internet, 3(4), 1-27.
Cullen, F., & Pratt, T. (2016). Toward a theory of police effects. Criminology & Public Policy,
15(3), 799-811. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12231
Custers, B. (2012). Technology in policing: Experiences, obstacles and police needs. Computer
Law & Security Review: The International Journal of Technology Theory and Practice,
28(1), 62-68. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2011.11.009
Cuthbert, D., Spearns, M., & Cowper, W. (1992). Evaluation of in-car camera system. Halifax,
Canada: Canadian Police Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.drdc-
rddc.gc.ca/en/
Daniels, J. (2016, May 6). Taser hopes to score big body camera deal with NYPD. CNBC.
Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/taser-hopes-to-score-big-body-
camera-deal-with-nypd.html
Day, D., Fleenor, J., Atwater, L., Sturm, R., & McKee, R. (2014). Advances in leader and
leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership
Quarterly, 25, 63-82. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004
Deflem, M. (2006). Technology and the internationalization of policing: A comparative-
historical perspective. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 453-475.
doi:10.1080/07418820200095311
Dinh, J., Lord, R., Gardner, W., Meuser, J., Liden, R., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and
research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives.
The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36-62. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2012). Case study research in business and management. In A.
Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 93-96).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Evans, D. (2015). Police body cameras: Mending fences and how Pittsburgh is a leading
example. Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 16, 76-100. doi:10.5195/tip.2015.179
Evans, D., & Williams, C. (2015). Stop, question, and frisk in New York City: A study of public
opinions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(7), 1-23. doi:10.1177/0887403415610166
130
Fagan, J., & Geller, A. (2015). Following the script: Narratives of suspicion in Terry stops in
street policing. University of Chicago Law Review, 82(1), 51-96.
Farrar, W. (2014). Operation Candid Camera: Rialto Police Department’s body-worn camera
experiment. The Police Chief, 81, 20-25.
Farrell, D., & Petersen, J. C. (2010). The growth of Internet research methods and the reluctant
sociologist. Sociological Inquiry, 80, 114-125. doi:10.1111/j.1475682X.2009.00318.x
Feeney, M. (2015). Watching the watchmen: Best practices for police body cameras. Cato
Institute Policy Analysis, 782, 1-23.
Ferrell, C. (2013). The future is here: How police officers’ videos protect officers and
departments. The Police Chief, 80, 16-18.
Fisher, C., & Vacanti-Shova, K. (2012). The responsible conduct of psychological research: An
overview of ethical principles, APA ethics code standards, and federal regulations. In S.
Knapp, M. Gottlieb, M. Handelsman, & L. VandeCreek (Eds.), APA handbook of ethics
in psychology (Vol. 2): Practice, teaching, and research, (pp. 335-369). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Foster, R. (2004). Police technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Freund, K. (2015). When cameras are rolling: Privacy implications of body-mounted cameras on
police. Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 49(1), 91-133.
Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr
Garcia, D., & Gluesing, J. (2013). Qualitative research methods in international organizational
change research. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26, 423-444.
doi:1108/09534811311328416
Gau, J. (2015). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and legal cynicism: A test for mediation
effects. Police Practice and Research, 16(5), 402-415.
doi:10.1080/15614263.2014.927766
Geary, K. (2014). Rights, cameras, action! Recording the police: The gap between modern
technology and the law, and why the United States should not follow the United
Kingdom’s lead. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 32(1), 171-194.
131
George, C. (2014, December 12). Officials outline body cameras plan for officers. Houston
Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/news/houston-
texas/houston/article/District-attorney-to-outline-body-cameras-plan-5953178.php
Gerber, M., & Jackson, J. (2017). Justifying violence: Legitimacy, ideology and public support
for police use of force. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(1), 79-95.
doi:10.1080/1068316X.2016.1220556
Gleeson, N., & Walden, I. (2016). Placing the state in the cloud: Issues of data governance and
public procurement. Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of
Technology Law and Practice, 32(5), 683-695. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2016.07.004
Goold, B. (2002). Public area surveillance and police work: The impact of CCTV on police
behaviour and autonomy. Surveillance & Society, 1(2), 191-203.
Graebner, M., Martin, J., & Roundy, P. (2012). Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe.
Strategic Organization, 10(3), 276-284. doi:10.1177/1476127012452821
Gramagila, J., & Phillips, S. (2017). Police officers’ perceptions of body-worn cameras in
Buffalo and Rochester. American Journal of Criminal Justice. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1007/s12103-017-9403-9
Greer, O. (2012). No cause of action: Video surveillance in New York City. Michigan
Telecommunications & Technology Law Review, 18(2), 589-626.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(59), 59-82.
doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
Hamm, J., Trinkner, R., & Carr, J. (2017). Fair process, trust, and cooperation: Moving toward
an integrated framework of police legitimacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(9),
1183-1212. doi:10.1177/0093854817710058
Hancock, D., & Algozinne, B. (2016). Doing case study research: A practical guide for
beginning researchers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Harris, D. (2010). Picture this: Body-worn video devices (head cams) as tools for ensuring
Fourth Amendment compliance by police. Texas Tech Law Review, 43, 357-371.
Hassaballah, M., & Aly, S. (2015). Face recognition: Challenges, achievements and future
directions. IET Computer Vision, 9(4), 614-626. doi:10.1049/iet-cvi.2014.0084
Healey, K., & Stephens, N. (2017). Augmenting justice: Google glass, body cameras, and the
politics of wearable technology. Journal of Information, Communication, & Ethics in
Society, 15(4), 370-384.
132
Hickman, M., & Reaves, B. (2006). Local police departments 2003. U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hope, J. (2018). Follow 10 steps to implement body-worn cameras. Campus Legal Advisor,
18(6), 4. doi:10.1002/cala.30721
Hudson, D. (2014, December 1.) Building trust between communities and local police [Blog
post]. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/12/01/building-
trust-between-communities-and-local-police
Hyatt, J., Mitchell, R., & Ariel, B. (2017). The effects of a mandatory body-worn camera policy
on officer perceptions of accountability, oversight, and departmental culture. Villanova
Law Review, 62(5), 1005-1035. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (1992). Mobile video recording equipment: Model
policy. Alexandria, VA: IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://www.theiacp.org/model-policy/model_policy/mobile-video-recording-equipment/
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2001). The use of CCTV/video cameras in law
enforcement. Alexandria, VA: IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. Retrieved
from http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/UseofCCTVExecBrief.pdf
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2004). The impact of video evidence on modern
policing: Research and best practices from the IACP study on in-car cameras.
Alexandria, VA: IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/IACPIn-CarCameraReport.pdf
Jennings, W., Fridell, L., & Lynch, M. (2014). Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the use
of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 549-556.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.09.008
Jennings, W., Lynch, M., & Fridell, L. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn
cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence
from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled
experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6), 480-486.
doi:10.1016/j.crimjus.2015.10.003
Joh, E. (2016). Beyond surveillance: Data control and body cameras. Surveillance & Society,
14(1), 133-137. Retrieved from http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-
society/
Kassin, S., Kukucka, J., Lawson, V., & DeCarlo, J. (2014). Does video recording alter the
behavior of police during interrogation? A mock crime-and-investigation study. Law &
Human Behavior, 38(1), 73-83. doi:10.1037/1hb0000047
133
Kelly, A., & Finlayson, A. (2015). Can Facebook save Neighborhood Watch? Police Journal:
Theory, Practice, and Principles, 88(1), 65-77.
Kitzmueller, M. (2014). Are you recording this?: Enforcement of police videotaping.
Connecticut Law Review, 47(1), 167-196.
King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Kuboviak, J. (2004). Digital mobile in-car video concerns. Law and Order, 52(7), 118-121.
Kunard, L., & Moe, C. (2015). Procedural justice for law enforcement: An overview.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services.
Retrieved from
https://www.nationalpublicsafetypartnership.org/clearinghouse/Resource/367
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research
interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lamdan, S. (2012). Protecting the Freedom of Information Act requestor: Privacy for
information seekers. Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 21(2), 221-253.
Langford, T. (2017, March 10). Governments in Texas ask to keep more records from the public.
The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2017/03/10/governments-texas-ask-keep-
records-public
Leadership Conference. (2016). Police body worn cameras: A policy scorecard. Retrieved from
https://www.bwcscorecard.org/
Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lewinski, W., Dysterheft, J., Dicks, N., & Pettitt, R. (2015). The influence of officer equipment
and protection on short sprinting performance. Applied Ergonomics, 47, 65-71.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.08.017
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lindegaard, M., & Bernasco, W. (2018). Lessons learned from crime caught on camera. Journal
of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 55(1), 155-186. doi:10.1177/0022427817727830
Linn, E. (2007). Video technology in policing. In J.R. Greene (Ed.), The encyclopedia of police
science (pp.1331-1334). New York, NY: Routledge.
134
Lippert, R., & Newell, B. (2016). Introduction: The privacy and surveillance implications of
police body cameras. Surveillance & Society, 14(1), 113-116. Retrieved from
http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/index
Maghan, J., O’Reilly, G., & Shon, P. (2002). Technology, policing, and implications of in-car
videos. Police Quarterly, 5(1), 25-42.
Mann, S., Nolan, J., & Wellman, B. (2002) Sousveillance: Inventing and using wearable
computing devices for data collection in surveillance environments. Surveillance &
Society, 1(3), 331-355.
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: A qualitative approach (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and
police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 9(3), 245-274.
McCamman, M., & Culhane, S. (2017). Police body cameras and us: Public perceptions of the
justification of the police use of force in the body camera era. Translational Issues in
Psychological Science, 3(2), 167-175. doi:10.1037/tps0000117
Miller, L., & Toliver, J. (2014). Implementing a body-worn camera program: Recommendations
and lessons learned. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf
Minutaglio, B. (2013, April 16). Citizen journalists go after city emails. Texas Observer.
Retrieved from https://www.texasobserver.org/citizen-journalists-go-after-city-emails
Molloy, A. (2012). Case study research in public policy. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 118-121). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Morrison, P. (2014, May 24). Is public shaming fair punishment? Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
from http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0525-morrison-sentencing-shame-
judges-20140525-column.html
Norris, C., McCahill, M., & Wood, D. (2004). The growth of CCTV: A global perspective on the
international diffusion of video surveillance in publicly accessible space. Surveillance &
Society, 2(2/3), 110-135.
Oliver, P. (2006). Purposive sampling. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The SAGE dictionary of social research
methods (pp. 245-246). London, England: SAGE Publications.
doi:10.4135/9780857020116.n162
135
Ortega, J. (2011, August 24). Refugio police chief honored with song about shoot out. Victoria
Advocate. Retrieved from
https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/aug/24/jo_chief_corrido_082511_149873/
Ozer, M. (2016). Automatic license plate reader (ALPR) technology. Police Journal, 89(2), 117-
132.
Palmer, D. (2016). The mythical properties of police body-worn cameras: A solution in the
search of a problem. Surveillance & Society, 14(1), 138-144. Retrieved from
http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/index
Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Paxton, K. (2018). Public information handbook. Texas Attorney General. Retrieved from
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/og/open-government
Phillips, S. (2016). Eyes are not cameras: The importance of integrating perceptual distortions,
misinformation, and false memories into the police body camera debate. Policing, 10(1),
1-9. doi:10.1093/police/paw008
Pinkerton, J. (2014, December 11). Plan would outfit more HPD officers, deputies with body-
worn cameras. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/news/houston-
texas/houston/article/Plan-would-outfit-more-HPD-officers-with-body-5950631.php
Piza, E., Caplan, J., & Kennedy, L. (2014). Is the punishment more certain? An analysis of
CCTV detections and enforcement. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 1015-1043.
doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.723034
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). (2014). Legitimacy and procedural justice: A new
element of police leadership. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Assistance. Retrieved from
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Leadership/legitimacy
%20and%20procedural%20justice%20-
%20a%20new%20element%20of%20police%20leadership.pdf
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), & Justex Systems, Inc. (2014). Houston Police
Department operational staffing model. Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houstontx.gov%2Fpolice%2
Fdepartment_reports%2Foperational_staffing%2FHouston_Police_Department_Operatio
nal_Staffing_Model_May_2014.pdf
Porter, M. (2012). Researcher as research tool. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 809-810). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
136
Prenzler, T., Porter, L., & Alpert, G. (2013). Reducing police use of force: Case studies and
prospects. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 343-356. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.12.004
Prosise, T., & Johnson, A. (2004). Law enforcement and crime on Cops and World’s Wildest
Police Videos: Anecdotal form and the justification of racial profiling. Western Journal
of Communication, 68(1), 72-91.
Ray, R., Marsh, K., & Powelson, C. (2017). Can cameras stop the killings? Racial differences in
perceptions of the effectiveness of body-worn cameras in police encounters. Sociological
Forum, 32(S1), 1032-1050. doi:10.1111/socf.12359
Sabel, C., & Simon, W. (2016). The duty of responsible administration and the problem of police
accountability. Yale Journal on Regulation, 33, 165-211.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Santos, F., & Eisenhardt, K. (2004). Multiple case study. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T.
Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods, (pp. 684-685).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
doi:10.4135/9781412950589
Schneider, C. (2017). Body worn cameras and police image work: News media coverage of the
Rialto Police Department’s body worn camera experiment. Crime, Media, Culture.
doi:10.1177/1741659017721591
Schwabe, W., Davis, L., & Jackson, B. (2001). Challenges and choices for crime-fighting
technology: Federal support of state and local enforcement. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Science and Technology Policy Institute.
Sechrest, D., Liquori, W., & Perry, J. (1990). Using video technology in police patrol. In R.
Surette (Ed.), The media and criminal justice policy: Recent research and social effects
(pp. 255-264). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
Shiller, R. (2017). Shooting in high definition: How having tough policies in place makes the use
of body cameras in law enforcement comport with the Fourth Amendment. New England
Law Review, 51(1), 187-209.
Simmons, K. (2014). The legacy of stop and frisk: Addressing the vestiges of a violent police
culture. Wake Forest Law Review, 49(3), 849-872.
137
Smith, M., Rojek, J., Petrocelli, M., & Withrow, B. (2017). Measuring disparities in police
activities: A state of the art review. Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management, 40(2), 166-183. doi:10.1108/PIJPSM-06-2016-0074
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stalcup, M., & Hahn, C. (2016). Cops, cameras, and the policing of ethics. Theoretical
Criminology, 20(4), 482-501. doi:10.1177/1362480616659814
Stanley, J. (2015). Police body-mounted cameras: With right policies in place, a win for all.
American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/police-body-
mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all
Starr, M. (2014). Qualitative and mixed-methods research in economics: Surprising growth,
promising future. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(2), 238-264. doi:10.111/joes.12004
Stitilis, D., & Laurinaitis, M. (2016). Legal regulation of the use of dashboard cameras: Aspects
of privacy protection. Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of
Technology Law and Practice, 32(2), 316-326. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2016.01.012
Sutherland, A., Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & DeAnda, R. (2017). Post-experimental follow-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.crimjus.2017.09.008
Tankebe, J. (2012). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police
legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103-135. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00291.x
Taylor, E. (2016). Lights, camera, redaction...police body-worn cameras: Autonomy, discretion
and accountability. Surveillance & Society, 14(1), 128-132. Retrieved from
http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/index
Taylor, E., Lee, M., Willis, M., & Gannoni, A. (2017). Police detainee perspectives on police
body-worn cameras. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice, 537, 1-14.
Thomas, E. (2017). The privacy case for body cameras: The need for a privacy-centric approach
to body camera policymaking. Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 50(2), 191-
228.
Timan, T. (2016). The body-worn camera as a transitional technology. Surveillance & Society,
14(1), 145-149. Retrieved from http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-
society/index
Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. (2008). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Mason,
OH: Cengage Learning.
138
Tyler, T., & Jackson, J. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice.
Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 264. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2141322
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. (2012). A primer on body-worn cameras
for law enforcement. Retrieved from
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/A-Primer-on-Body-Worn-Cameras-for-Law-
Enforcement.pdf
Walker, S., Archbold, C., & Herbst, L. (2002). Mediating citizen complaints against police
officers: A guide for police and community leaders. Washington, DC: Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from
https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/cd_rom/inaction1/pubs/MediatingCitizenComplaintsAgainstP
oliceOfficers.pdf
Walker, S., & Katz, C. (2005). Police in America: An introduction. New York, NY: Mc-Graw-
Hill.
Wasserman, H. (2017). Recording of and by the police: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal
of Gender, Race & Justice, 20(3), 543-562.
Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2009). Public area CCTV and crime prevention: An updated
systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 26(4), 716-745.
doi:10.1080/07418820802506206
Westphal, L. (2004). In-car camera: Value and impact. Police Chief, 71(8), 59-65.
White, M. (2014). Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence. Washington, DC:
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from
https://ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/default/files/spotlight/
download/Police%20Officer%20Body-Worn%20Cameras.pdf
White, M., & Coldren, J. (2017). Body-worn police cameras. Public Management, 99(2), 6-9.
Retrieved from http://icma.org/pm
Williams, F., & McShane, M. (2010). Criminological theory (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Willits, D., & Makin, D. (2017). Show me what happened: Analyzing use of force through
analysis of body-worn camera footage. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 54,
1-27. doi:10.1177/0022427817701257
Wisk, A. (2015, January 23). How some local governments are violating the law and the public’s
trust in records requests. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from
http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/records/
139
Witherspoon, P. (2014). Police body cameras in Missouri: Good or bad policy? An academic
viewpoint seen through the lens of a former law enforcement official. Missouri Policy
Journal, 2, 35-40. Retrieved from
http://www.lindenwood.edu/mopolicyjournal/issue02/articles/witherspoon/
witherspoon.pdf
Wolfe, G. (2013). Smile for the camera, the world is going to see that mug: The dilemma of
privacy interests in mug shots. Columbia Law Review, 113(8), 2227-2275.
Wood, S. (2017). Police body cameras and professional responsibility: Public records and private
evidence. Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture, 46(1), 41-51. doi:10.1515/pdtc-
2016-0030
Worrall, J., & Schmalleger, F. (2017). Policing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Wyllie, D. (2012). Survey: Police officers want body-worn cameras. Retrieved from
https://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/6017774-%20Survey-
Police-officers-want-body-worn-cameras/
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Young, J., & Ready, J. (2015). Diffusion of ideas and technology: The role of networks in
influencing the endorsement and use of on-officer video cameras. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(3), 243-261. doi:10.1177/1043986214553380
Zansberg, S. (2016). As body-worn cameras proliferate, states’ access restrictions defeat their
purpose. Communications Lawyer, 32(3), 12-16.
Ziv, S. (2014, December 28). Study finds body cameras decrease police’s use of force.
Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/amidst-debate-study-finds-body-
cameras-decrease-polices-use-force-295315
140
Appendices
141
Appendix A: Interview Guide
Name (Alias) of participant: ____________________________________________________
Function (role) in department / deployment: ______________________________________
Date & location of interview: __________________________________________________
1. Please describe your position/job function within the department.
2. How long have you been employed with this department? In law enforcement or police
support services in general?
3. Briefly describe your role in the implementation of body-worn cameras at this
department.
4. Please describe how the technology was implemented within your area of responsibility.
5. Please explain to me how you went about making decisions regarding implementing the
technology in your area of responsibility. (For example: Were you guided by policy, by
experience, by intuition, by awareness of other BWC implementations?)
6. What would you would do differently, knowing what you know now?
7. Please describe for me any problems or issues encountered in your area of responsibility
related to BWC implementation.
8. How were you involved in developing policy for BWC use?
9. What experience do you have with releasing BWC video to the public?
10. Should BWC video be released to the public? What limitations, if any, should be placed
on public release?
11. Do you think the use of BWCs has an impact on the privacy of citizens? What about the
privacy of officers?
12. Should officers be allowed to view BWC video from their scenes? Why or why not?
13. In your opinion, what is the greatest benefit of BWCs to your department?
14. In your opinion, what are some of the drawbacks of BWCs?
142
Appendix B: Letter of Informed Consent
Introduction:
My name is Jeffrey Monk. I am a doctoral student at Northcentral University. I am conducting a
research study on police body-worn cameras (BWCs.) I am completing this research as part of my
doctoral degree. I invite you to participate.
Activities:
If you participate in this research, you will be asked to participate in an interview with the primary
investigator who will lead you through a discussion to gather information related to the
implementation of BWCs at your department. The session will last approximately one hour. If
necessary, an additional follow-up session may be requested to confirm observations made by the
researcher.
Eligibility:
You are eligible to participate in this research if you were involved in the deployment or policy
development regarding BWCs at your department.
I hope to include 8-12 people in this research.
Risks:
There are minimal risks in this study. Some possible risks include reluctance to answer questions
about problems in your workplace.
To decrease the impact of these risks, you can skip any question or stop participation at any time.
Benefits:
If you decide to participate, there are no direct benefits to you.
The potential benefits to others include a greater understanding of the issues that may occur when
implementing BWC technology within a large police department and a greater understanding of the
factors surrounding the release of BWC video to the public.
Confidentiality:
The information you provide will be kept confidential to the extent allowable by law. Some steps I
will take to keep your identity confidential include not writing your name, job title, or department
location on any of the interview notes or personally identifying you in the study.
The people who will have access to your information are: myself and my dissertation chair. The
Institutional Review Board may also review my research and view your information.
143
I will secure your information with these steps: any paper documents will be kept in a locked cabinet
within a locked office at my home, and computer files will be secured on a password protected
computer and stored on an encrypted, password protected Google Drive.
I will keep your data for 7 years. Then, I will delete electronic data and destroy paper data.
Contact Information:
If you have questions for me, you can contact me at: J.Monk0415@email.ncu.edu or 832-878-6713.
My dissertation chair’s name is Dr. Lori Demeter. She works at Northcentral University and is
supervising me on the research. You can contact her at: ldemeter@ncu.edu or 410-626-7138.
If you have questions about your rights in the research, or if a problem has occurred, or if you are
injured during your participation, please contact the Institutional Review Board at: irb@ncu.edu or 1-
888-327-2877 ext 8014.
Voluntary Participation:
Your participation is voluntary. If you decide not to participate, or if you stop participation after you
start, there will be no penalty to you. You will not lose any benefit to which you are otherwise
entitled.
Audiotaping:
I would like to use a voice recorder to record your responses. You can still participate if you do not
wish to be recorded.
Please sign here if I can record you:
______________________________
Signature:
A signature indicates your understanding of this consent form. You will be given a copy of the form
for your information.
Participant Signature Printed Name Date
_____________________ _____________________ ____________
Researcher Signature Printed Name Date
_____________________ _____________________ ____________
144
Appendix C: Introductory Email to Participants
Hello,
My name is Jeff Monk. I am currently completing a Doctor of Business Administration degree
at Northcentral University and am in the final stages of the dissertation process. The title of my
dissertation is: “Police Body-Worn Cameras in Texas: A Case Study Documenting
Implementation and Issues of Concern to Law Enforcement Leaders.” As a researcher, I am
interested in your thoughts and opinions on issues related to the implementation of body-worn
camera technology in law enforcement environments. If you volunteer to participate, I ask that
you plan to schedule approximately 1 hour to complete an interview. Please be assured that you
will have complete anonymity and all information including interview answers will be kept
confidential. I will not collect any personal information, and I will not publish the name of the
selected police department, participant names, or email addresses gathered in the data collection
process. I will send you a copy of the interview guide by email before scheduling the interview.
I will ask for your approval for participation by completing an Informed Consent Form.
I would be extremely grateful for your time should you choose to participate in the study.
Please feel free to contact me by replying to this email or by phone at 832-878-6713.
Thank you for your consideration!
Jeffrey C. Monk, Doctoral Candidate
Northcentral University