Research Proposal
Running head: UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, transmitted, or disseminated in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the author.
Unit 6 Assignment
Michael J. Walisiewicz
Kaplan University
CJ-598
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 2
Proposal Timeline
The proposed timeline for this study will be approximately 20 weeks, beginning on
January 1, 2018. The timeline for problem identification, literature review, data collection, data
analysis, and summarization is as follows:
Problem Identification (1 week) – January 1, 2018 through January 7, 2018
During this time, the specific issue related to this proposal will be examined in depth, and
identified within the department in question. In addition, the need for more research into the
subject will be examined in order to justify the need for the study.
Literature Review (2 weeks) – January 8, 2018 thorough January 21, 2018
During this time, prior research on the study will be examined to determine what can be
improved upon with the study that is being proposed, as well as exactly which areas are in need
of further research. Identifying similarities and differences within past studies on the subject of
body worn cameras will provide an outline of how to proceed with this study, and identify which
strategies were successful, and which were not, in order to avoid using those unsuccessful
strategies.
Data Collection (3 weeks) – January 22, 2018 through February 11, 2018
During this time, quantitative data will be collected from the Milwaukee Police
Department for two different time periods. The first will be from 2012 through 2014, with the
other being from 2015 through 2017. This will provide three years worth of data prior to the
implementation of body cameras in 2015, along with three years of data after the implementation
of body worn cameras. The data will consist of the number of use of force complaints as
operationalized below, along with the number of citizen complaints made against officers.
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 3
Collecting data for the three-year periods prior to, and after the implementation of body cameras
will provide a fair average for those time periods.
Data Analysis (2 months ) – February 12, 2018 through April 12, 2018
During these two weeks, the data collected from both three year periods will be analyzed
to determine an average number of both use force incidents and citizen complaints for both
chosen three year time periods.
Summarize Findings (2 months) – April 13, 2018 through June 13, 2018
At this point, the data collected and analysis done will be summarized in detailed writing,
providing a reasonable result to the proposed hypothesis. At the conclusion, it will be
determined if the implementation of body worn cameras throughout the entire patrol division of
the Milwaukee Police Department had a significant impact on use of force incidents and citizen
complaints between the two chosen time periods.
Introduction
The incident that took place in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9th, 2014, involving the fatal
shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson Police officers seemed to have been the proverbial “straw
that broke the camel’s back” in terms of trust and legitimacy between communities across the
nation and law enforcement. While the incident involving Michael Brown certainly thrust the
issue of police use of force into the public consciousness, there have been incidents since then that
have prompted the request for police departments in the United States to release data outlining the
statistics of use of force against citizens in an attempt to gain transparency (Ariel, et al., 2016b).
The most controversial portion of law enforcement work is the use of force against citizens,
and due to that fact, officers must be held accountable for their actions (Ariel, et al., 2016b). In
the years since Ferguson, Missouri the government has taken notice of the increased call for
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 4
transparency, and the need for this accountability by law enforcement. In 2014, the Obama
administration took notice of this, and subsequently allocated millions of dollars in funds to police
departments across the country for the implementation of body worn cameras (Kampfe, 2015).
With the rising number of fatalities involving deadly force used by law enforcement, along with
the conflicting accounts and controversy surrounding not only the shooting of Michael Brown, but
other fatalities there has been an increased interest by not only the government, but of civil rights
activists, the families of victims, the media, and the general public in the implementation of body
worn cameras (Smykla, Crow, Crichlow, & Snyder, 2016).
There is a general belief that police worn body cameras will provide the transparency and
accountability that is currently missing when it comes to incidents involving the use of force
against the public. In addition, police departments are also embracing this technology, and
supporters of the technology along with some police administrators hold the belief that by
implementing this technology, it will also improve the behavior of both citizens and officers during
an interaction, thus reducing the number of citizen complaints made against officers, whether
warranted or unwarranted (Smykla et al., 2016).
Problem Statement
The rising tensions between community and law enforcement throughout the nation
have driven a wedge between the two, resulting in an increased lack of trust in the police by
the general public (James, Bjelopera, Finklea, Keegan, Lister, Sacco & Thompson II, 2016).
A Gallup Poll shows that the confidence that the public has in law enforcement is at an
extreme low (James et al., 2016). Efforts have been taken in an attempt to increase
transparency and repair that trust, and as of 2015 approximately one quarter of all police
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 5
departments have implemented the use of body cameras, and numerous other s are in the
process of exploring implementation (Freund, 2015).
The proposed study will examine the number of citizen complaints and use of force
incidents over two specific time periods with the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Police Department
now that body worn cameras have been implemented and are required to be used by those
officers in uniform and on patrol in Milwaukee, Wisconsin . Data on the number of citizen
complaints and use of force incidents made against those officers in uniform and on patrol
will be collected from the department for the years prior to the implementation of body
cameras, which have been identified as 2012, 2013, and 2015 . Once this data are collected,
an average number of both use of force incidents and citizen complaints can be determined.
These results will be compared to the same data collected in the three-year time period
immediately following the implementation of body camera (2015, 2016, and 2017) in an
effort to determine if the implementation of the technology has had an impact on both citizen
complaints and use of force incidents. In addition, data showing the details of the police
encounter, such as demographics, where a citizen was stopped, whether an arrest occurred,
and if the citizen was combative will also be collected to account for any unknown factors
that led to a negative encounter or complaint.
Literature Review
The Rialto Experiment
Considered the benchmark of studies on the effectiveness of police body cameras, the
“Rialto Experiment” was conducted by Ariel, Farrar and Sutherland in 2012. The study was
conducted over a twelve-month period with the specific intent to determine the effects that body
cameras have on the number of use of force incidents and citizen complaints (Ariel, et al.,
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 6
2015). Compared to other studies done on this subject, the Rialto Police Department, which was
used as the subject of the study, was considered smaller in staffing (115 sworn) and population
(approximately 100,000) compared to other departments studied (Ariel, et al., 2015). In
addition, the entire police department took part in the study, which differed significantly from
other studies that used a random sample (Ariel, et al., 2015).
Officers over all three shifts were randomly assigned to a control group, while others
were randomly assigned to the testing group (Ariel, et al., 2015). This was found to be similar
to the testing in other studies; however in other studies it was impractical for the entire
department to take part in the study. One specific factor is that over the course of the study in
Rialto, each and every citizen encounter was recorded, and officers were required to notify
citizens that recording was taking place (Ariel, et al., 2015). This factor stripped away any
discretion by the officers to turn the video camera off, which was encountered in other of the
studies reviewed.
The findings of the study showed that use of force incidents were lowered by 58.3%
when compared to the previous year with 25 incidents reported in 2012 compared to 67 in 2011
(Ariel, et al., 2015). Citizen complaints were significantly lower, as there were only three
reported during the testing phase, compared to 24 the previous year, boasting an 88% reduction
(Ariel, et al., 2015). These numbers differ drastically to other studies, and the difference in
statistics has been attributed to officer discretion to turn off the recording (Ariel et al., 2016b), or
the fact that the Rialto study focused both on officer initiated encounters as well as victim or
citizen calls for service, while other studies only focused on victim calls for service (Ariel, et al.,
2015).
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 7
Ariel, et al. (2015) also specifically cited deterrence, and it was hypothesized that the
camera, when observed by the citizen, or known by the officer, was believed to alter their
behavior, as they both felt as they were being observed. While the study did report a large
reduction in use of force incidents and citizen complaints as noted in the percentages above, the
researchers were unable to determine if this was due to a change in the behavior of the officer,
the behavior of the citizen, or because of the mere presence of the body camera (Ariel, et al.,
2015).
Mesa, Arizona
From November of 2012 through October of 2013, Ready and Young (2015) conducted a
study focused on the perceptions of body worn cameras by officers in the Mesa, Arizona Police
Department and how wearing the cameras would impact their work, and interactions with
citizens. One thing that the researchers addressed in this study was how discretion would affect
the results, which is something that the Rialto Experiment failed to address. While the Mesa,
Arizona study did not record use of force incidents, or citizen complaints, it did focus on two
other important aspects that play a part in those variables; officer behavior and discretion as to
when to use body cameras.
The study was done using only 100 members of the Mesa, Arizona Police Department,
which is similar to the sampling strategy used by other studies done. Of the 100 members
chosen to participate in the study, half were assigned body cameras, while the other half were
not. Differing from other studies is that in this particular case, volunteers were taken first, prior
to choosing random subjects (Ariel, et al., 2015). The major difference in this study was that
during the first five months of the study, the group of test officers were told to record every
interaction, unless not practical, and during the second five month period, officers were given
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 8
discretion as to when to turn on their cameras (Ready & Young, 2016). This was similar to the
study done by Ariel et al. (2016b), as it also addressed the issue of discretion and how it can
affect the outcome of the study.
The results of this study showed that officers who were assigned to wear body cameras
had more proactive stops, and wrote more citations however conducted less stop and frisk
contacts, and made fewer arrests (Ready & Young, 2016). This is indicative of officers being
more conscious of their decision making and being more risk averse due to being recorded. The
general thought by the police chief in the Mesa, Arizona Police Department was that body
cameras would cause the officers to be less proactive, however the results indicated the opposite
(Ready & Young, 2016). These findings also give legitimacy to Hobbes’ (n.d.) deterrence
theory, as it seemed as though the presence of the body camera and the thought of being watched
had a direct effect on the behavior of the officer.
The concept of discretion was found to have no significant effect on this study; however
the study done by Ariel et al. (2016b) also addressed the issue of discretion and had a
significantly different finding. The Mesa, Arizona study did not show a difference in statistics
whether the officer had the discretion to turn the camera off, or if it was kept on, thus removing
the concept of discretion as a contributing variable. However, the issue of discretion and whether
or not an officer should have the ability to turn off a body camera at his or her own choice has
been a topic of discussion when it comes to instituting policy for body cameras in police
departments throughout the nation (Wasserman, 2014). The findings in the Mesa, Arizona
studies have the ability to offer insights to policymakers when it comes to this factor.
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 9
Denver, Colorado
The study done by Ariel (2016) in the Denver, Colorado Police Department was
specifically done to determine if the results obtained during the Rialto Experiment would translate
to a large scale, major metropolitan police department. This seems like an important aspect, as the
results in Rialto, California had been significant.
The study in Denver, Colorado took place from July 2014 through December 2014, which
in contrast to not only the other studies done by Ariel (2016), but also by others, is significantly
shorter in length. The sample for the study was one of six districts in Denver, Colorado with
reasonably equal demographics, while the control group (without cameras) was the remaining five
districts (Ariel, 2016). Unlike the Rialto Experiment, this study only focused on victim initiated
calls for service. In addition, the officers involved in the study were not given any discretion as to
when to record, and not to record an encounter (Ariel, 2016). This is an important aspect of this
study when compared to other research, as it can have policy implications.
After the six-month study, the findings in Denver, Colorado were found to differ from those
in Rialto significantly. While Rialto boasted significant decreases in both use of force incidents
and citizen complaints (Ariel, et al., 2015), Denver saw no significant effect when it came to the
use of force by officers utilizing body cameras (Ariel, 2016). One difference between the Rialto
Experiment, and the experiment in Denver, is that Denver only examined victim calls for service
(Ariel, 2016). Rialto, in contrast, examined both victim calls for service as well as officer initiated
encounters (Ariel, et al., 2015). The amount of citizen complaints against officers, the numbers
were found to have increased 38%, which again is a significant difference compared to the results
obtained in Rialto (Ariel, 2016). The reasoning given by Ariel (2016) for the increase in
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 10
complaints is the thought process that the citizen feels that the events caught on camera can
corroborate their claims of misconduct.
Ariel (2016) specifically mentions deterrence theory, and that the presence of body cameras
has the potential to work equally against citizens who may commit a crime, or officers who may
engage in misconduct. This is displayed by the lower number of arrests that Denver also showed
during the study, lending credibility to the study done in Mesa, Arizona. Officers with cameras
are more likely to be self-aware of their actions, and may be hesitant to use underhanded tactics to
effect an arrest, or conduct an unlawful stop and frisk.
Orlando, Florida
The study done by Jennings, Lynch and Fridell (2015), with the Orlando Police Department
mirrored both the Rialto Experiment and the Mesa, Arizona study in many ways, both in terms of
how it was conducted and the findings. The study took place over a one-year period, and was
focused on how officers equipped with body cameras react to resistance differently than those not
equipped (Jennings, et al., 2015). In addition, officer perceptions were examined via survey to
determine the attitudes about the implementation of body worn cameras (Jennings et al., 2015).
In this particular study, only 46 officers were randomly assigned body cameras, while 43
were randomly chosen as the control group (Jennings et al., 2015). This number of participants
seems significantly low considering the population of a city such as Orlando, Florida. The study
was conducted much like the Mesa, Arizona and Rialto, California studies; however there is no
mention of officers having the discretion as to when to utilize the cameras. In addition, the test
and control groups were not assigned a certain district or geographic locations, and were spread
across six districts throughout Orlando (Jennings et al., 2015).
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 11
The conclusion of the study found that after the implementation of body worn cameras;
there were significantly fewer incidents involving the use of force, as well as a significant reduction
in citizen complaints (Jennings et al., 2015). Jennings et al. (2015) also mentions the fact that
officers who were wearing body cameras were working alongside those not wearing cameras may
have had an impact on the behavior of those not wearing cameras, simply because they had
knowledge that the camera was present. This again lends credence to the deterrence theory, as the
behavior of the officer may have changed due to the influence of the cameras and the possibility
of being observed. This is an interesting fact, as in past studies, entire shifts, districts, or police
departments were assigned cameras, whereas the study done by (Jennings et al., 2015) had mixed
the testing group with those not assigned cameras, and even with those not participating in the
study.
Building off of the deterrence theory, the Orlando study also had similar findings to Mesa,
Arizona in terms of less arrests, more citations issued, and more proactive interactions with the
public (Jennings et al., 2015). Again, it seems plausible that by knowing that actions and decisions
are being observed, officers tend to take actions that are less risky and more credible.
Perceptions of Leadership
While it is important to study the actual effects of body cameras in the field, the actual
implementation of them necessitates both funding and support from leadership (Smykla, et al.,
2016). Leadership within police organizations create policy, allocate funds, and implement what
they believe will be successful in their policing strategies. For this reason, it is important to look
at the attitudes and perceptions of those leaders in police organizations in regards to their
thoughts on body cameras, and how they believe that their use will benefit their officers and their
department.
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 12
Smykla, Crow, Crichlow and Snyder (2016) conducted a study involving the command
staff of 27 different local law enforcement agencies in Sunshine County, which has a population
of 1.3 million people. The study was aimed to determine the support and perceptions of
command staff concerning the use of body cameras. The study was administered via survey,
with numerous questions being asked (Smykla et al., 2016). The response rate was
approximately 67%, and was generally favorable when it came to the support of body cameras
worn by police officers (Smykla et al., 2016).
It is important to know the thoughts of administrators and those in command positions
within police departments when it comes to the use of body cameras. The theory held in recent
studies has been that their use can lower both citizen complaints, and use of force incidents by
officers. These two topics were specifically mentioned in the study done by Smykla et al.
(2016). While there were an overwhelming number of “neutral” responses to whether the
wearing of body cameras would alter behavior of their officers while on duty, there were
generally a large number of those who agreed that by wearing body cameras, the number of
unwarranted complaints would go down (Smykla et al., 2016).
Regarding the use of force topic, most agreed that the wearing of body cameras would
impact the decision of an officer to use force, and that the body camera would also cause an
officer to be more reluctant to use force (Smykla et al., 2016). What the study failed to delve
into was whether or not this refers to unnecessary force, or warranted force, and simply refers to
the concept of force in general terms.
Most surveyed also agreed that by an officer wearing a body camera, it would improve
citizen behavior (Smykla et al., 2016). Much like other studies, this also can be linked to the
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 13
deterrence theory, and the thought that those being observed will alter their behavior (Hobbes,
n.d.). This has been a common theme among most researchers.
Finally, one aspect of the study done by Smykla et al. (2016) can be compared to past
studies, specifically the study done by Ready and Young (2016) in Mesa, Arizona. While the
study in Mesa, Arizona suggests that the wearing of body cameras resulted in more proactive
policing encounters, a majority of the command staff in the study done by Smykla et al. (2016)
disagrees or is neutral on the belief that wearing the body camera will cause their officers to
engage in proactive policing. This belief has clearly been proven wrong in at least one research
study, which is a prime example of how field research in this particular subject is useful.
General Perceptions
This particular study focused on the perceptions of body cameras by the general public,
and the police, along with the actual effects that the implementation of them can have. After
clearly recapping several of the most recent incidents involving allegations of police brutality
and excessive use of force, such as the death of Freddie Gray while in custody by the Baltimore
Police Department, the study provides some rather interesting statistics involving police
misconduct.
The study examines statistics published by the National Police Misconduct Project, in
which a publication in 2010 cites that of 23.8% of media stories reported in that year involved
incidents reporting police misconduct, or alleged excessive force (Chen, 2017). In addition, of
those numbers, almost 56% involved physical use of force, while 8% involved a police related
fatality (Chen, 2017). These numbers can definitely seem troubling to the general public, and as
an attempt to lower those numbers, many believed that the solution to misconduct and excessive
force by the police is body worn cameras.
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 14
There is a belief among professionals that by wearing body cameras, there will be an
increase in police accountability and improved officer performance and behavior, and increased
transparency (Chen, 2017). In terms of police misconduct, this study quoted the statistics found
in the Rialto Experiment, in that body cameras resulted in 60% fewer use of force incidents, as
well as 88% reduction in citizen complaints (Chen, 2017). While these statistics are true to the
study conducted in Rialto, what is not mentioned by Chen (2017) is the size of the Rialto Police
Department in comparison to other police departments in the United States, as it was only made
up of 115 sworn officers at the time of the study (Ariel, et al., 2015).
This study also briefly mentions the study previously mentioned in Mesa, Arizona,
however only cites the positive statistics of the study, and makes no mention of any of the factors
that may have had an influence on its outcome, such as discretion as to when an officer must turn
on the camera.
One thing that Chen (2017) does address in this study is the organizational behavior
factors that can have an effect on the use of body cameras, and on police misconduct and
excessive force, as seemed to be the case in the death of Freddie Gray. The “blue wall of
silence” is referred to, and as Chen (2017) points out, it may be the body camera footage that can
either prove, or disprove the claims of an officer as to what took place during an altercation.
This also works conversely, as the footage can also be used to prove or disprove a complaint
made by a citizen against an officer. This alone has the potential to reduce the number of valid
citizen complaints, as it would immediately weed out those citizens who are attempting to report
false complaints.
What Chen (2017) fails to do, however, is look at the prior studies done on this topic in
order to identify what factors may have influenced those high results in both Rialto and Mesa,
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 15
Arizona. It seems as if the positive, high numbers are lauded, and no further examination is
done. Had these prior studies been looked into more, the reasoning behind those high numbers
may have provided a different overall view on body worn cameras.
Detainee Perspective
One interesting perspective on the topic of body worn cameras by the police, comes from
a study conducted in 2015 and involved surveying detainees in the Australian prison system on
the perceived effectiveness of body worn cameras. While the perspective of the general public is
indeed important, there is much information to be learned in regards to the attitudes about police
worn body cameras and their effectiveness from those behind bars.
This study was conducted using detainees from five different regions in Australia of
varying ages, with 83 percent being male, and the remaining 17 percent being female (Taylor,
Lee, Willis & Gannoni, 2017). The detainees were incarcerated for numerous offenses ranging
from drunk driving to violent crimes to include homicide. The highest percentage of detainees
fell into the violent crimes category (Taylor et al., 2017).
From those detainees surveyed, 80 percent of them believed that police officers utilizing
body cameras was a good idea, and cited the ability to prove and disprove evidence of a crime as
the number one reason (Taylor et al., 2017). In addition, most detainees (47%) agreed that the
use of body cameras by police would result in the police being less likely to use violence during
an encounter (Taylor et al., 2017). Also, a high percentage of detainees (56%) felt that the use of
cameras would cause police to treat people fairly and would be less likely to use excessive force
(Taylor et al., 2017).
These results are similar to the perceptions of the general public and professionals about
the use of body cameras, particularly the opinions by the public and professionals found in the
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 16
study conducted by Chen (2017). In this study, Taylor et al. (2017) also cites the work done by
Ariel et al (2016) on the same subject, however also point specifically to the fact that Ariel et al
(2016) makes it clear that when officers have the discretion and ability to choose when they
utilize their body cameras, use of force incidents were 71 percent higher (Taylor et al., 2017).
This lends validity to the fact that discretion must be taken into account when determining a
policy for the use of body cameras, and that discretion must be minimized for their use to be
truly effective.
Taylor et al. (2017) recognize that there have been past studies on the correlation of body
cameras to the amount of use of force complaints, but also conclude that despite the studies,
there has been no evidence to firmly state that body cams do lower the amount of use of force
incidents and complaints. Researchers merely suggest, much like the public perceptions, that
body cameras can result in improved behavior of officers and an expedited resolution to citizen
complaints (Taylor et al., 2017).
San Diego, California and Others
In a writing done by Wasserman (2017) in regards to the use of body cameras by the
police, it is pointed out that the use of such technology is still well in its infancy, and should not
be presented as a single source of resolution for police misconduct or excessive force. There is
brief mention by Wasserman (2017) of the Rialto Experiment, as well as the study done in Mesa,
Arizona and their results, although Wasserman (2017) provides no opinions on the results of
those studies.
In addition to those two studies, Wasserman (2017) cites a study done in the Phoenix,
Arizona police department in which 56 of their officers were given body cameras to patrol one
single precinct of the city. The results were an increase in productivity, a decrease in complaints
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 17
against those officers with cameras, and an increase in complaints against those working without
cameras (Wasserman, 2017). While these results mirror what the general public and some
professionals believe the results would be, the group of 56 officers seems rather small compared
to the size of the Phoenix, Arizona police department, much like the study conducted in Orlando,
Florida by Jennings et al (2015).
In addition to the amount of participants in the study, the study was only done in a single
precinct within the city. It is also not clear if the precinct was a high crime area, or is an upper
class residential area where crime is normally low. Not having these variables does not give
much validity or credibility to this study compared to other studies done on the same subject in
similar departments. In addition, the study only examined complaints, and did not take into
account incidents of use of force, much like other studies have done.
Wasserman (2017) also cites a very interesting statistic put out via internal memo by the
San Diego, California police department in early 2017. The memo was regarding the use of
body cameras over three years within the department. During those three years, San Diego
reported that allegations of misconduct were down 43% (Wasserman, 2017). While this is a high
number, and can be considered successful, the incidents involving use of force were a bit
different.
When it came to use of force incidents, San Diego separated them into “high level” which
meant the use of weapons, Tasers, or a takedown by an officer, and “low level” which contained
control holds, Taser warnings, or the use of physical strength (Wasserman, 2017). Despite the
high levels of use of force going down, the lower levels went up, with an overall increase of use
of force incidents increasing by 14 percent (Wasserman, 2017).
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 18
One thing the memo does not make clear, and is unknown, is if the entire patrol bureau in
the department is equipped with body cameras, or if there are only select officer utilizing them.
Also, if there are a select few officers using them, the types of areas are those officers
responsible for patrolling is not known as well. In addition, whether or not the officers have
discretion in the use of the cameras is also an unknown factor. These can have a varying effect
on the statistics of the effectiveness of body cameras.
The issue with this information is that it is internal, and may not be entirely credible. In
addition, the concepts presented, such as incidents of misconduct, and even what constitutes a
use of force are not fully operationalized to provide a clear definition of either. There may be
different perceptions if those concepts are operationalized further. For example, if the incidents
of lower level use of force went up, and the concept is further operationalized to include hand
strikes, or any form of striking, it may be found that a majority of that percentage is attributed to
hand strikes, which can be perceived as an entirely different kind of use of force when compared
to simply pulling the trigger on a Taser to scare someone into complying.
One thing that the internal memo in San Diego does prove, is that the use of body
cameras may not be as effective as proponents perceive them to be when it comes to the
reduction of use of force incidents by the police. This is a common theme among past research
done in this area.
Positives, Drawbacks, and Deterrence Theory
Most every study into the use of body worn cameras agree that the proponents of the
technology firmly believe that the use of cameras will result in greater transparency, improved
behavior by officers, and reduced use of force incidents. This has been a common theme
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 19
throughout the remaining literature. Despite this belief, there is still speculation that exists,
particularly when it comes to the issue of transparency (Otu, 2016).
Otu (2016) not only examined the perceptions that the general public has regarding body
worn cameras by the police, but also examined positive and negative aspects, as well as how
implementing the technology can relate to deterrence theory, as proposed by Hobbes (n.d.).
The positive aspects of the technology lie in the intent to increase transparency, thus
resulting in more accountability for officer misconduct. However, Otu (2016) is quick to point
out that transparency does not always result in accountability, as was the case of the death of Eric
Garner in 2014. While the video footage submitted as evidence displayed officers utilizing an
illegal chokehold, the officers involved were still acquitted of any charges (Otu, 2016).
Therefore, body cameras should not be looked at as a magical cure all for police misconduct, and
should not be solely relied upon to prevent it.
Otu (2016) does take note of past trials, such as the Rialto Experiment, and concedes that
some past trials have shown significant decrease in citizen complaints as well as use of force
incidents, but also points out two important facts surrounding this. First, it is unknown if the
decrease will last over time as the technology becomes less new, resulting in a reverting back to
previous statistics (Otu, 2016). Also, it is unknown whether the presence of the camera had an
effect on the behavior of the officer, or the citizen. In order to confirm this, follow up interviews
with those citizens involved in the interactions should be done to confirm the positive effect of
the presence of the camera (Otu, 2016). This, to date, has not been done in an effort to further
expand the research.
The main theoretical consideration when dealing with the subject of body worn cameras
is deterrence theory. Otu (2016) suggests that the general perception by the public is that if
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 20
officers know they are being watched, they will be less likely to commit crimes, or use excessive
force, thus resulting in a decrease in statistics. This falls in line with Hobbes (n.d.), in which it is
believed that if there is a fear of getting caught, then an officer is less likely to take part in
misconduct.
Public Perception and Justification
While there have been several studies done in regards to the public perception on the use
of body cameras and their potential impact on use of force incidents and officer behavior,
McCamman and Culhane (2017) took their study a step further and examined the perception of
body camera footage in regards to the public view of the justification in the use of deadly force.
They widely recognize that the studies done in Rialto, Mesa, and Orlando as being the measuring
stick for much of the current information regarding the effectiveness of body worn cameras, and
cite Rialto and Orlando specifically as providing information that lends some credence to the
claim that body cameras may have a significant effect on police behavior, however states that no
study has provided information as to the issue of why those results may exist.
Leaders within police organizations have provided an insight as to their perception
regarding these studies, and have surmised that the significant decreases in use of force and
citizen complaints may be the result of the officer having less of a willingness to perform his or
her duties, and having increased hesitation to take appropriate actions (McCamman & Culhane,
2017). This may be due to a fear of being second-guessed, or may also be fear of backlash from
the public were they to take a questionable police action that may result in a use of force.
Whatever the reason, when this question was brought to the rank and file, research showed that
they did not share the same perceptions as leadership did (McCamman & Culhane, 2017).
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 21
While the study that McCamman and Culhane (2017) conducted did not specifically
center on some of the variables that this proposal lays out, it still provided an insight into the
need for further research in the subject of body worn cameras. The study examined the
perceptions the public had upon seeing the initial incident, and the immediate emotional response
of the officer after, and whether the way that they perceived it changed their thoughts
(McCamman & Culhane, 2017).
The study was conducted using a police video of an officer involved shooting from
Dallas, Texas, and was comprised of 252 adults made up of 110 men and 72 women. Of those,
18 were African American, while the remaining identified as white (McCamman & Culhane,
2017). The video itself, depicted officers responding to a call, and an African American male
coming to the door with an object later determined to be a screwdriver in his hand. The officers
order the man to drop the object, at which time the man lunges toward the officers with the
object, causing the officers to fire their weapon, ultimately killing the man (McCamman &
Culhane, 2017).
The video was shown in several different versions. The first was the video followed by
the officer returning to his squad car and phoning his union, thus showing no outward remorse.
The next was a spliced in video of the officer returning to the squad and crying (off camera). In
addition, the video was shown, and a version having only audio of the entire incident was shown,
and ultimate, a third medium was used utilizing text only (McCamman & Culhane, 2017).
The results of this study were interesting, in that those who viewed the video medium
were more likely to view the shooting as unjustified, compared to those who were only exposed
to an audio or text medium (McCamman & Culhane, 2017). The showing of remorse, or crying
after the incident did not significantly alter the results (McCamman & Culhane, 2017).
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 22
It is specifically noted by McCamman & Culhane (2017) that the study does have its
flaws, specifically citing the unequal ratio of gender and race in the sample used to conduct the
study. In addition, the fact that the study took place in the “Post-Ferguson Era” may have also
had some bearing on the perceptions by the public when it comes to officer involved incidents
(McCamman & Culhane, 2017).
This study does recognize the need for more research in this area, specifically to build on
the research done in Rialto, Mesa, and Orlando to explore why exactly those studies obtained the
results that they did. In addition, this study also brings awareness to police leaders that it is
possible that by giving the public the transparency it wants, there may not always be positive
perceptions to accompany it, as pointed out by Otu, (2016).
Theoretical Considerations
When dealing with the recording of behavior, whether it is of the officer, a citizen, or
both, the subject of deterrence theory is brought up. Ariel and colleagues (2015) and Ariel
(2016) both cite deterrence theory in past research, stating that if peopl e know they are being
watched, observed or recorded, their behavior is likely to change. Hobbes (n.d.) surmised that
only after calculating the risks or gains their actions present, do people choose to obey or
break the law.
General deterrence theory can be related to the use of body worn cameras, as a citizen
may see the camera, and choose not to take a defiant or deviant action. This works in reverse,
as well, as the officer actually wearing the camera may be more likely to de -escalate a
situation verbally, and not resort to using force so quickly, and may also be more likely to
keep a courteous demeanor throughout a citizen encounter (Ariel, 2016).
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 23
Organizational Behavior Considerations
When implementing this proposal, it must be kept in mind that police departments do
have a certain type of organizational behavior to consider, which may or may not have an effect
on the results and validity of the study. First, police departments have a chain of command, and
are essentially hierarchal, in that they are led from the top down. Information is disseminated
from the top down, in a planned, linear fashion (Volkema, 2010). In order to obtain information
from the department in question as it relates to this proposal, there will no doubt be a chain of
command to follow in order to obtain the information. This has the potential of affecting the
given timeline if unforeseen issues or complications were to occur.
Another consideration is that police agencies share a similar culture, in that it may be
viewed as an “us” versus “them” mentality, and anyone attempting to obtain information from
the department may be viewed as an outsider attempting to shed a negative light on the
department, as officers are often skeptical by nature (Scaramella, Cox & McCamey, 2011). This
may cause issues in obtaining the information as well, and should be considered.
Methods
This study aims to examine the effects that the implementation of body worn cameras
has on both use of force incidents and citizen complaints of misconduct in the Milwaukee
Police Department. The study will examine the data collected from the Milwaukee Police
Department for the three years prior to the implementation of body cameras to determine an
average number, and compare that to data collected for the three years after the
implementation of body cameras. Using this secondary data analysis , the comparison of
citizen complaints received by the department along with the number of use of force incidents
will be able to be compared in order to determine if the utilization of body cameras has an
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 24
effect on the given variables. In addition to this information, details of the police encounter
will be collected to determine if certain demographics, such as age, race, and gender of a
citizen, as well as where an interaction took place, have an impact on an encounter .
The overall goal of the study is to determine the effects that the utilization of body
cameras has on the number of use of force incidents and citizen complaints when the entire
patrol division of a major metropolitan police department is involved in the s tudy, unlike
samples of police officers as had been done in past studies. Having these statistics and
information will provide insight to law enforcement administrators and leaders on the
effectiveness of the technology, and will also allow them to make a determination if they are
effective, or if other policing strategies, or training need to be addressed in order to lower the
number of use of force incidents or citizen complaints.
Conceptual and Operational Definitions
In general, the concepts explored in this study are use of force and how it is defined in
previous studies, as well as citizen complaints alleging misconduct of law enforcement
officers in the line of duty, and the effect the implementation of body worn cameras has on
those variables. There have been similar definitions used in past research, specifically when it
comes to establishing what constitutes a use of force. In addition, what constitutes a citizen
complaint must also be operationalized, as well as what is considered an “officer” for
purposes of this study.
Use of Force
Almost every police department across the nation utilizes a use of force continuum, in
which the amount of force used by an officer escalates (Terrill, 2005). Past research has
defined force, in the context of this type of study, as being more than a mere compliance hold
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 25
(Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2015). Most researchers evaluating this subject have remained
consistent with this definition, although (Ariel et al., 2016b) described force in a study done
with eight different police departments over six counties as being any form of restraint
beyond handcuffing.
While force can be a subjective issue, and many have made the argument that the mere
presence of an officer in uniform is a form of force (Terrill, 2005), for the purposes of this
study, the concept of force must be a physical altercation between an officer and a subject. In
addition, as past research has shown, force has also been measured by the use of force report
filed by a supervisor in response to utilizing force (Ariel, 2016). It is impor tant to
operationalize the concept of force, as past researchers have done, to include only those
physical instances that go beyond physical restraint, such as a simple escort hold (Ariel, et al.,
2015). It must be kept in mind that while Ariel et al. (2016b) considered force to be anything
beyond handcuffing, there are instances where force is used prior to applying handcuffs, such
as the administration of a Taser, or O.C. spray. Therefore, for purposes of this study, use of
force will be defined as any physical altercation between an officer and a citizen that goes
beyond simple physical restraint and handcuffing, and will also include methods that may be
used to take a suspect into custody, such as O.C. spray or the use of a Taser, and will include
whether those chosen methods are applied before or after handcuffing. The study will also
include deadly force. Of note, incidents not rising to the requirement of a use of force report
by department standard operating procedures will not be considered.
Citizen Complaints
The concept of citizen complaints in past research is essentially uniform in definition,
and referred to the number of complaints that are reported by a citizen regarding misconduct
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 26
on the part of an officer (Ariel et al., 2016b). Some examples of this are rudeness, swearing,
and being discourteous. This area also included the complaint of use of force on the part of an
officer as well. It should be noted that this study will only examine complaints that have been
sustained, and not those that may have been determined to be false.
Body Worn Cameras
For purposes of this study, the body worn camera is defined as the camera worn by the
officer, whether on or not, which when worn will record what the officer sees from his or her
vantage point during his or her tour of duty. While the officer does generally not have a broad
scope of discretion as to when the camera can be off (Body Worn Cameras, 2016), whether or
not the camera is on will not be considered during the study.
Police Officer
For the purposes of this study, an “officer” will refer to a police officer, in full
uniform, equipped with a body camera and is assigned to the patrol bureau. For purposes of
this study, police officers assigned to undercover duties or clerical duties will not be
considered, as they are not on routine patrol and are not equipped with the body worn
cameras.
Research Hypothesis
Considering what is known from deterrence theory, proponents of police body worn
cameras hypothesize that by implementing the cameras on a regular basis the number of
citizen complaints and use of force incidents against police officers will be lowered.
Research Design
The research design for this study is strictly quantitative in nature, and will use the
analysis of secondary data collection to compare the number of use of force incidents and citizen
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 27
complaints made against patrol officers in uniform for two distinct three-year periods both before
and after the implementation of body cameras within the department.
The study aims to be descriptive in nature, to show the correlation between the use of
body cameras and the number of use of force incidents and citizen complaints filed for officers
when compared to the three-year period prior to the body cameras being implemented.
Type of Data
The data that will be collected for this study will be quantitative in nature, and will be
collected from the statistical records kept by the Milwaukee Police Department during the
normal course of business. Secondary data analysis will be conducted on this data to produce the
average number of use of force incidents and citizen complaints for the three-year period prior
to, and after the implementation of body worn cameras. These two periods will be 2012 through
2014 and 2015 through 2017.
In addition to the data concerning use of force incidents and citizen complaints,
secondary data will be collected in regards to the demographics involving each incident. This
will consist of the age, sex, and race of person involved in the use of force or citizen complaint.
In addition, further information will be collected to show in which of the seven police districts in
the Milwaukee Police Department the contacts took place.
Quantitative data is the best option for this study due to the fact that the study seeks to
analyze numerical data from a large group within an organization (Ayiro, 2012). The patrol
division of the Milwaukee Police Department is a large group, which makes up just a fraction of
the entire agency. Having the numerical data on the number of incidents will be easier to
analyze, and will be more reliable and less time consuming than if a researcher were to conduct
focus groups or interviews with officers, much like a qualitative study would entail.
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 28
Data Collection Tools
Secondary data statistics are the data that are the type proposed for this study. The data
collected from the Milwaukee Police Department will be from two distinct three-year periods, as
previously mentioned. The data will provide the number of use of force incidents along with the
number of citizen complaints reported to the department within the time frames requested. In
addition, simple demographics regarding each encounter will also be collected.
This information will be requested in a formal, written request, outlining the data being
asked for, and the usefulness of this study not only to the Milwaukee Police Department, but to
law enforcement agencies across the country.
Data Sources
This data may be obtained from normal records kept by the Milwaukee Police
Department. In addition, the demographics regarding any reported encounter, such as age, sex,
race, and where an encounter occurred are also normal statistics kept by the department.
The units of analysis being studied are the police officers within the Milwaukee Police
Department, specifically those within the patrol division equipped with body worn cameras. The
population to be studied can be identified by not only where they are assigned within the
Milwaukee Police Department, but by the previously mentioned operational definition, that
being a police officer assigned to the patrol bureau, in full uniform and equipped with a body
camera.
This is clearly the best source to get this data from, as those officers within the
department are the ones that have day-to-day contact with the community within the City of
Milwaukee.
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 29
Sampling Strategy
Seeing as the sample would include the entire population of uniformed patrol officers in
the Milwaukee Police Department, the sampling strategy would be considered a convenience
sample, or complete enumeration. Considering the size of the patrol division of the Milwaukee
Police Department, there would be an estimate of approximately 450 officers involved. There
would be no random selection from that entire population, as this study aims to examine the
effect that the body cameras have on the number of use of force incidents and citizen complaints
involving the entire population of uniformed patrol officers. This is distinctly different from past
studies that have used smaller samples of officers and outfitted them with body cameras to
compare to another sample of officers not using them.
Data Collection Plan
The plan for collecting this data will be to write a formal request to the department heads,
outlining the specific data that are being requested. In addition to the request, a detailed
explanation of the study taking place will be included, as well as how the study can provide the
department valuable information that can be used to assist with further policy making,
implementing crime prevention strategies, or coming up with new training techniques to interact
with the community, if necessary. Ideally, the information would be received in digital format so
that it can be backed up, and provide two different way it can be analyzed.
Data Analysis and Dissemination Plan
Once the data are collected, it will need to be sorted and analyzed. In terms of the
number of use of force incidents and citizen complaints reported, that data are expected to be
definite numbers provided for each year. This should be rather easy to determine. Once a
number is established for each year, an average, or median number can be determined for the
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 30
number of use of force incidents and citizen complaints reported in each given three-year time
period. Once those numbers are determined, they can be displayed for comparison in a bar graph
much like the examples shown here:
When analyzing the demographic data for the incidents, use of force incidents and citizen
complaints will be examined independent of one another. This will also apply when examining
which police district where an encounter took place. Every demographic, such as age, sex, and
race will be broken down in pie charts for each year, and an average will also be determined and
displayed in a pie chart. In addition, the district that the encounter took place in will also be
displayed this way. Examples of the pie charts that will be used are shown here:
0
50
100
150
200
Use of Force / Citizen Complaints Prior to Body Cam Implementation
Citzen Complaints
Use of Force Incidents
0 50
100 150 200
Use of Force / Citizen Complaints After Body Cam Implementation
Citzen Complaints
Use of Force Incidents
0 50
100 150 200
Pre Body Cam
After Body Cam
Comparison of Averages for Two Time Periods
Citzen Complaints
Use of Force Incidents
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 31
68 67%
34 33%
Encounters Per Sex
Male
Female
21 19%
45 42%
22 20%
21 19%
Encounters Per Race
Black
White
Hispanic
Other
21 11%
45 24%
22 12%
47 25%
34 18%
19 10%
Age Statistics Per Encounter
18 and Under
19-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
Over 40
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 32
Ethical Considerations
There are ethical considerations to take into account prior to obtaining the data and
conducting the study. First and foremost is the confidentiality of the information that is being
gathered. The demographic information concerning use of force and citizen complaints is
sensitive in nature, and every effort must be made to ensure the confidentiality of anyone
involved in these incidents. The information included in the study should not go beyond the
previously mentioned variables (age, sex, race) when analyzing and documenting information. If
necessary, both the department and the researcher should sign consent and / or confidentiality
agreements prior to collecting data.
While records kept within any organization are normally thought to be a reliable source
of information, another issue to consider is the possibility of human error, and the issue of
carefulness when dealing with recorded data. The margin for error exists, and some complaints
or incidents may be unintentionally overlooked, and not recorded properly, or inaccurately. This
has the ability to have an effect on the data that are collected. The records kept in regards to
citizen complaints or use of force complaints may not reflect the accuracy of what is reported,
and has the potential to be skewed. This may be done intentionally, or unintentionally and must
21 9%
45 19%
22 9%
47 19%
34 14%
19 8%
54 22%
Encounters Per District
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 33
be considered. While this can be common in recordkeeping, there is no way for a researcher to
prevent this possibility, and should be prepared to deal with any issues arising form human error.
The ethical issue of the “blue line” should also be considered when conducting a study
within any police department. This issue is clearly defined below in the sections dedicated to
organizational behavior. The “blue line” is a real thing within law enforcement agencies, and
any researcher should be prepared to encounter it whenever dealing with police organizations.
Particularly in the case of citizen complaints, some officers may have the mentality that
they have to protect their coworkers, and maintain a “brotherhood” mentality when a citizen
wishes to report the misconduct of another officer. The possibility exists that an officer taking a
report from a citizen may intentionally leave out details, in an attempt to protect an officer. The
possibility also remains that a report may not even be recorded in the same attempt to protect an
officer. Each of these examples has the potential to affect the results of the study.
Another ethical issue to consider is the actual activation of the body camera by the
officer. While the policy of the Milwaukee Police Department mandates that all encounters must
be recorded unless not practicable (Body Worn Cameras, 2016), the onus is on the officer to
actually operate the camera. The possibility exists that there will be instances when an officer
simply chooses not to activate the camera, despite the consequences. Whether or not the body
camera of an officer was activated or not will be another variable studied.
In addition, to avoid any confidentiality issues, and to uphold the ethics of the study,
consent forms will be offered and signed when necessary, and confidentiality will be maintained
throughout the study by signing any necessary agreements. In addition, the Institutional Review
Board of the department will be consulted with, and any data sharing agreements will be
executed.
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 34
Additional Resources
In terms of any additional resources required to conduct this study, there are none
anticipated at this time. An additional researcher may be required to assist in sorting and
analyzing data, depending on the amount that is collected, however that will be determined once
the data are gathered, and should not be a cost burden.
Once all of the data are collected and analyzed in this fashion, it will provide a reasonable
conclusion as to whether the implementation of body worn cameras in 2015 have had an effect
on the number of use of force incidents and citizen complaints. In addition, the demographic
information collected will provide department officials and potential policy makers with
information regarding these encounters to determine if policy change, or new policing strategies
are needed.
Conclusion
The studies presented share many similarities, however it does not seem that there can be
a definitive answer as to whether or not the wearing of body worn cameras have an effect on use
of force incidents, or on citizen complaints. The Rialto Experiment boasted significant decreases
in each (Ariel, et al., 2015), while others reported no change, or decreases in both.
One thing that is important to consider is that in each study done on this topic, the
implementation of body cameras was not department wide, and was only assigned to a random
group, with the exception of the smaller Rialto, California Police Department (Ariel, 2016). Since
then, there are many departments that have implemented the use of body cameras for their entire
patrol division, with the City of Milwaukee being one of them since 2015 (Garza, 2015). Since
then policy has been put in place requiring their use during citizen encounters (Body Worn
Cameras, 2016). Therefore, the results may differ when an entire major metropolitan police
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 35
department, such as Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is studied, rather than a small control group from a
department such as was done in Denver, Colorado (Ariel, 2016) or Orlando, Florida (Jennings et
al., 2015).
While the topic of discretion was addressed in past studies, there was never a policy put
into place dictating how much discretion officers had when using body cameras. The City of
Milwaukee Police Department has a policy in place that mandates the recording of all interactions,
unless the operation of the body camera is not practical, such as in cases where taking the time to
activate it may delay the officer from rendering aid to a citizen, or in cases in which an officer
must act quickly in an emergency (Body Worn Cameras, 2016).
One area that past studies failed to take note of is the details and demographics of the
citizens involved in a negative encounter, and the location in which the encounter took place.
Future research should take this information into consideration to determine what the statistics are
when it comes to those involved in use of force incidents, as well as negative encounters that result
in complaints for misconduct.
While past research has shown the effectiveness and the impact that body worn cameras
have on use of force incidents, and citizen complaints, the results are not consistent. This may be
due to the different sizes of the police departments studied, or how the sampling for those studies
was done. Now that there are more police departments utilizing body worn cameras, it is feasible
that a study involving an entire major metropolitan police department, such as Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, can be done. The results of the study and the examination of secondary data analysis
would prove to be a reliable indicator on how body cameras have impacted the average number of
use of force incidents and citizen complaints in Milwaukee, Wisconsin within three years,
compared to the three-years prior to the full department implementation.
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 36
References
Ariel, B. (2016). Police body cameras in large police departments. Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, 106(4), 729. Retrieved from https://eds-b-ebscohost-
com.lib.kaplan.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=4afabcef-c398-4a29- 97f0-
15306366e924%40sessionmgr102
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). 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:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks,S.,
Henderson,R. (2016). Report: Increases in police use of force in the presence of body-
worn cameras are driven by officer discretion: A protocol-based subgroup analysis of ten
randomized experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 453-463.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9261-3
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., & Henderson,
R. (2016). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not
reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment. European
Journal of Criminology, 13(6), 744-755. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1477370816643734
Ayiro, L. P. (2012). A functional approach to educational research methods and statistics:
Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Edwin Mellen Press. Retrieved
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 37
from http://search.ebscohost.com.lib.kaplan.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&A
N=475907&site=ehost-live
Body Worn Cameras (BWC). (2016). Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating
Procedures. Retrieved from
http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/mpdAuthors/SOP/747-
BODYWORNCAMERABWC1.pdf
Chen, C. F. (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.
Freund, K. (2015). When cameras are rolling: Privacy implications of body-mounted
cameras on police. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 49(1):91-
133. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org.lib.kaplan.edu/HOL/
Page?public=false&handle=he in.journals/collsp49&page=91&collection=journals
Garza, J. (2015). Commission approves Milwaukee police body camera policy.
Retrieved from http://archive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/commission-approves-
milwaukee-police-body-camera-policy-b99597619z1-333122791.html/
Hobbes, T. (n.d.), Early classical philosophers of deterrence theory. Criminology, 41, 99-130.
James, N., Bjelopera, J., Finklea, K., Keegan, N., Lister, S., Sacco, L., & Thompson II,
R. (2016). Public trust and law enforcement: A brief discussion for
policymakers. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43904.pdf
Jennings, W. G., Lynch, M. D., & Fridell, L. A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer
body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints:
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 38
Evidence from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized
controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6), 480-486.
Kampfe, K. (2015). Police-worn body cameras: Balancing privacy and accountability
through state and police department action. Ohio St. LJ, 76, 1153.
Otu, N. (2016). Police body cameras: Seeing may be believing. Salus Journal, 4 (3): 49-64.
Ready, J. T., Young, J. T., & N. (2015). The impact of on-officer video cameras on
police-citizen contacts: Findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa,
AZ. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 445-458.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9237-8
Scaramella, G. L., Cox, S. M., & McCamey, W. P. (2010). Introduction to policing. Sage.
Smykla, J. O., Crow, M. S., Crichlow, V. J., & Snyder, J. A. (2016). Police body-worn
cameras: Perceptions of law enforcement leadership. American Journal of
Criminal Justice: AJCJ, 41(3), 424-443.
Taylor, E., Lee, M., Willis, M., & Gannoni, A. (2017). Police detainee perspectives on police
body-worn cameras. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 537:(2) 1.
Terrill, W. (2005). Police use of force: A transactional approach. Justice Quarterly, 22(1), 107-
138.
Volkema, R. J. (2010). Unifying principles of organizational behavior. Journal of the Academy
of Business Education, 1170–92. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com.lib.kaplan.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=60
267567&site=eds-live
UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT 39
Wasserman, H. M. (2014). Moral panic and body cameras. Wash. UL Rev., 92, 831.
Wasserman, H. M. (2017). Recording of and by police: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal
of Gender, Race and Justice, (3), 543.