Police Body Worn Cameras:

A Policy Scorecard

Updated August 2016

Policy Scorecard

Policy
Available

Officer
Discretion

Personal
Privacy

Officer
Review

Footage
Retention

Footage
Misuse

Footage
Access

Biometric
Use

Purpose

In the wake of high-profile incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, North Charleston, Baltimore, and elsewhere, law enforcement agencies across the country are rapidly adopting body-worn cameras for their officers. One of the main selling points for these cameras is their potential to provide transparency into some police interactions, and to help protect civil rights, especially in heavily policed communities of color.

But accountability is not automatic. Whether these cameras make police more accountable — or simply intensify police surveillance of communities — depends on how the cameras and footage are used. That’s why The Leadership Conference, together with a broad coalition of civil rights, privacy, and media rights groups, developed shared Civil Rights Principles on Body Worn Cameras. Our principles emphasize that “[w]ithout carefully crafted policy safeguards in place, there is a real risk that these new devices could become instruments of injustice, rather than tools for accountability.”

This scorecard evaluates the body-worn camera policies currently in place in major police departments across the country. Our goal is to highlight promising approaches that some departments are taking, and to identify opportunities where departments could improve their policies.

Methodology

When we initially released our scorecard in November 2015, we examined the body-worn camera policies from 25 local police departments. Since then, we’ve expanded our scorecard to 50 departments, covering all major city police departments in the country that have equipped — or will soon equip — their officers with body cameras.1 We also added departments that have received more than $500,000 in DOJ grant funding to support their camera programs (as indicated by on the scorecard).2 In addition, we included Baton Rouge (LA) and Ferguson (MO) because of the national attention they have received after recent events, and Parker (CO) because of the promising policies they have adopted..

The policy landscape is shifting rapidly: Since our initial release, many departments have already updated their policies based on their early experiences, and others have launched new body camera programs and policies. Our analysis is current as of the “last updated” date on each individual department scorecard. As we become aware of new deployments and policy changes, we will do our best to update our scorecard analysis. If you see anything that looks out of date, please let us know.

Evaluation Criteria

We evaluated each department policy on eight criteria, derived from our Civil Rights Principles on Body Worn Cameras. We believe that these are among the most important factors in determining whether the proper policy safeguards are in place to protect the civil rights of recorded individuals.3

For each factor, we scored department policies on a three level scale. We awarded a policy a green check only if it fully satisfies our criteria — these are the policies that other departments should consider emulating if they are looking to improve their own. A yellow circle means that a policy partially satisfies our criteria, and that the department has room for improvement. A red ex indicates that a policy either does not address the issue, or a policy runs directly against our principles. In cases where the department has not made its policy public, we use a question mark as a placeholder for future review.

Our eight criteria examine whether a department:

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits the Use of Biometric Technologies

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

Of course, a department’s policy is only as good as how it is put into practice. Departments must ensure that their stated policies are followed and, when department personnel violate those policies, that the appropriate disciplinary measures are taken.

Findings

Departments are moving quickly to deploy body-worn cameras, and are experimenting with a wide range of policies across each of the dimensions we examined. Departments that have a strong policy in one area often falter in another — every department has room to improve. At the same time, we are pleased to find examples of strong policy language currently in use for nearly all of our criteria. The positive policy language highlighted on this site should serve as a model to departments looking to improve their policies.

We found that:

  1. We define a department as a “major city department” if it’s a member of the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association. There are 68 member departments in the Association, including the 50 most populous cities in the United States.

  2. In September 2015, the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) awarded a total of $20 million in grants, to 73 local and tribal law enforcement agencies, to expand the use of body-worn cameras. Grantee departments are required to establish a plan for implementing the program and create a robust training policy before purchasing the cameras. OJP expects that grantee department’s “policies and practices should at a minimum increase transparency and accessibility, provide appropriate access to information, allow for public posting of policy and procedures, and encourage community interaction and relationship building.” OJP plans to announce another round of grantees by September 2016.

  3. Among other factors that we considered including in this scorecard: prohibit the recording of First Amendment protected activities; prohibit the use of cameras not owned by the department; the quality of community input during the department’s policymaking process; and factors related to officer discipline and training. We may include one or more of these factors in future versions of the scorecard.

Notable Policy Provisions

Example Provisions that Protect Civil Rights

While no single department satisfied all of our criteria, many departments have adopted strong policies in one or more individual criterion. Below, we highlight the leading examples we’ve found from across the country, and we hope that departments looking to strengthen civil rights protections in their body camera policies will emulate these examples.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

The department publishes the most recent publicly available version of its policy on its website, in a location that is easy for members of the public to find.
San Francisco PD has a webpage dedicated to the development of its BWC policy, which provides details about the department’s biweekly BWC working group meetings. The group publishes the latest iteration of the draft policy for each meeting.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

The policy clearly describes when officers must record, and requires officers to provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events.
Chicago PD provides officers with a clear list of situations that must be recorded. (§V.E)
  • E. Department members assigned a BWC:
    • 1. will activate the system to event mode to record the entire incident for all:
      • a. routine calls for service;
      • b. investigatory stops;
      • c. traffic stops;
      • d. traffic control;
      • e. foot and vehicle pursuits;
      • f. emergency driving situations;
      • g. emergency vehicle responses to in-progress or just-occurred dispatches where fleeing suspects or vehicles may be captured on video leaving the crime scene;
      • h. high-risk situations, including search warrants;
      • i. situations that may enhance the probability of evidence-based prosecution;
      • j. situations that the member, through training and experience, believes to serve a proper police purpose, for example, recording the processing of an uncooperative arrestee;
      • k. any encounter with the public that becomes adversarial after the initial contact; and
      • l. any other instance when enforcing the law.
  • NOTE: Department members responding as assist units will activate the BWC for all of the above-listed incidents.
Chicago PD allows officers to turn off their cameras “when further recording of the incident will not serve a proper police purpose.” Officers must state the reason for deactivation on camera before turning it off. If an officer fails to record a required event, the officer must justify this failure on camera after the fact. (§V.G)
  • G. During the recording of an incident, Department members will not disengage the BWC until the entire incident has been recorded or when further recording of the incident will not serve a proper police purpose. In the event of an arrest, the incident is concluded when the subject is transported to the district station.

  • Department members will:
    • 1. verbally state the justification of any disengagement, including requests from the individuals listed in item V-E-2 of the directive, of the BWC system prior to the entire incident being recorded before disengaging the BWC, unless impractical or impossible.
    • 2. in instances when the Department member failed to record an event listed in item V-E1 of this directive, document the event by initiating the BWC to even mode and state the:
      • a. type of incident;
      • b. event number; and
      • c. reason for not recording the event.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy specifically protects categories of vulnerable individuals (e.g., victims of sex crimes) from being recorded without their informed consent.
Philadelphia PD requires officers to turn off their cameras upon the request of a crime victim, and in certain sensitive locations and circumstances. (§§4-B, 4-C, 7-F)
  • 4-B. . . . [O]fficers shall deactivate a Body-Worn Camera prior to the conclusion of an incident or event under the following circumstances:
    • 1. Prior to entering the residence of any individual, unless prior consent is provided and recorded with the Body-Worn Camera,
    • 2. When requested by a crime victim, witness or informant, who request not to be recorded, officers shall:
      • a. Balance the value of obtaining a recording with the reluctance of a victim, witness or informant to provide information while being recorded.
      • b. Officers should use discretion in making the decision.
    • 3. When the recording would capture gruesome images, persons nude that are not involved in criminal activity or when private areas of the human body are exposed and there is no legitimate law enforcement need to capture the images.
    • 4. When entering a religious institution, during services.
    • 5. When entering a hospital room or private patient area in a hospital.
  • 4-C. PROHIBITED RECORDING AND ACTIONS
    • 1. Body-Worn Cameras shall not be used or activated to:
      • . . .
      • b. In places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists (i.e., locker rooms, dressing rooms or restrooms).
      • c. Record conversations with confidential informants and undercover officers.
      • d. During any strip searches. . . .
    • 2. Officers shall not lead a person to believe the BWC has been deactivated when in fact, the BWC is left active.
  • . . .
  • 7-F. Prior to entering the residence of any individual, unless prior consent is provided and recorded with the Body-Worn Camera, the Body-Worn Camera shall be deactivated.
    • 1. Once inside a residence, if practical, officers shall request permission to record. If permission is granted, the Body-Worn Camera shall be activated and the resident will again be asked for consent to record.
    • 2. If at any time a resident rescinds consent to record while in a residence, officers shall immediately or as soon as practical, deactivate the Body-Worn Camera.
    • 3. Officers shall state that they were requested to deactivate the camera.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy requires officers to file an initial written report or statement before relevant footage is reviewed, for all incidents.
The policy requires officers to file an initial written report or statement before relevant footage is reviewed, for some incidents.
While we are not fully satisfied with any department’s policy in this category, Oakland provides an example that we believe should be applied to all footage and in all situations.
Oakland PD requires officers to file an initial written statement before relevant footage is reviewed, for some critical incidents, like when officers use force that results in death or serious bodily injury. Oakland PD institutes a two-step process. First, before viewing the footage, the involved officer must submit an initial report to the investigator. Second, once the initial report is approved, the officer may view the footage, and be given an opportunity to supplement the initial report (presumably, with a clear delineation of the parts of the report that were written before and after footage was reviewed). (§§IV.A.2-3)
  • IV. VIEWING [CAMERA] VIDEO FILES
    • Viewing [camera] video files is authorized, restricted or prohibited as follows . . . :

    • A. Level 1 Use of Force, Level 1 Pursuit or In-Custody Death
      • . . .
      • 2. No personnel involved in or a witness to the incident may view any audio/video recordings prior to being interviewed by the appropriate investigative unit and receiving command approval.
      • 3. Once a member’s report(s) has been submitted and approved and the member has been interviewed by the appropriate investigator, the investigator will show the member his/her audio/video. This will occur prior to the conclusion of the interview process[.]
      • Personnel will be given the opportunity to provide additional information to supplement their statement and may be asked additional questions by the investigators.

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy requires the department to delete unflagged footage within six months.
Dallas PD automatically deletes unflagged footage after 90 days. (§3XX.06.B)
  • B. All video will be maintained for a minimum of 90 days. If the video has not been categorized as one which is to be retained it will automatically be deleted after 90 days.
Las Vegas Metropolitan PD deletes unflagged footage in exactly 45 days.
  • Category Retention Schedule
  • The retention period begins from the date the BWC recording was labeled or categorized. Unlabeled or uncategorized recordings will be auto-deleted at 45 days. . . .

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

The policy expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, and indicates that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.
Omaha PD prohibits the deletion, alteration, and download of footage without prior authorization. (§§VII.B-D)
  • B. Employees shall not erase, alter, reuse, edit, copy, share, modify, or tamper with BWC recordings without prior written authorization and approval of the Chief of Police or designee.
  • C. Officers shall not record, download, or otherwise transfer BWC recordings onto any type of personal recording devices, including but not limited to personal cellular phones, video recorders, tables, etc.
  • D. To prevent damage to, or alteration of, original Recorded Media, such media shall not be copied, viewed, or otherwise inserted into any device not approved by the BWC System Administrator.
The Omaha PD policy also indicates that access to recorded footage will be audited by a system administrator for unauthorized access. (§IV.D)
  • D. The BWC System Administrator(s) will periodically audit BWC Recorded Media to make certain only authorized users are accessing the data for legitimate and authorized purposes. . . .

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy expressly allows individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view all relevant footage.
Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia expressly allows a recorded individual to request to view footage. The policy also, commendably, clearly lay out the process of requesting to view relevant footage, and is one of the few policies we have seen that does so. (§V.F)
  • F. Requests for BWC Recordings by Subjects
    • 1. The subject of a BWC recording, his or her legal representative, or the subject’s parent or legal guardian if the subject is a minor, may request to schedule a time to view the BWC recording at the police district where the incident occurred.
    • 2. Members shall be aware that subjects may request to view BWC recordings online or at the district station.
      • a. Subjects may submit requests for recordings online athttp://mpdc.dc.gov/page/body-worn-camera-citizen-viewing- process or by submitting a Request to Review Body-Worn Camera Recording (see Attachment C).
      • b. Members who receive requests to view BWC recordings by subjects or their representatives at the district station shall immediately notify their district’s BWC Unit Coordinator, in writing, and forward requests to the MPD FOIA Office at mpd.foia@dc.gov.
    • 3. The assigned MPD FOIA specialist shall conduct a privacy review of the video and determine if the un-redacted BWC recording violates the individual privacy rights of any other subjects of the recording and shall notify the BWC Unit Coordinator if the recording or a portion of the recording is eligible for viewing.
    • 4. Upon notification from the FOIA Office that a recording is eligible for viewing, the BWC Unit Coordinator shall review the recording and confirm that the viewing of the recording would not compromise the safety of any other subject.
    • 5. The BWC Unit Coordinator shall notify the subject whether the recording is available for viewing.
      • a. In cases where the recording is available, the BWC Unit Coordinator shall schedule a suitable time for the subject, his or her legal representative, or the subject’s parent or legal guardian to view the recording under the following conditions:
        • (1) The subject, his or her legal representative, or the subject’s parent or legal guardian if the subject is a minor shall provide a valid government-issued photographic identification [e.g., a driver’s license, passport, green card (U.S. Permanent Resident Card) or military identification]. . .
        • (2) The subject, his or her legal representative, or the subject’s parent or legal guardian must sign the PD Form 99-B (Consent to View Body-Worn Camera Recording) (Attachment D) prior to viewing the recording.
        • (3) The viewing must occur in the presence of the BWC Unit Coordinator.
        • (4) Under no circumstances shall the subject, his or her legal representative, or the subject’s parent or legal guardian:
          • (a) Be allowed to use any recording device to make a copy of the BWC recording.
          • (b) Be provided a copy of the recording. Subjects, or their representatives, may contact the FOIA Office to request copies of the recording.
  • ...
  • 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of this order:
  • (1) A complainant’s request to view a BWC recording prior to initiating a complaint is voluntary. Whether or not the complainant chooses to request to view the recording shall in no way be considered by MPD if the complainant chooses to proceed with the complaint. . . .

Limits the Use of Biometric Technologies

The policy sharply limits the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.
The policy places some limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.

We are not fully satisfied with any department’s policy in this category, but Baltimore and Boston provide examples of some meaningful limits on facial recognition.

Baltimore PD limits the use of facial recognition technologies to perform broad searches of recorded footage. A narrow exception is made for analyzing particular incidents using such technologies. (Review of Recordings §7.2)
  • Review of Recordings
  • . . .
  • 7. Stored video and audio data from a BWC shall not:
    • 7.1. Be used to create a database or pool of mug shots;
    • 7.2. Be used as fillers in photo arrays; or
    • 7.3. Be searched using facial recognition software.
  • NOTE: This subsection does not prohibit the BPD from using a recognition software to analyze the recording of a particular incident when a supervisory member has reason to believe that a specific suspect or person in need of assistance may be a subject of a particular recording.
However, we are concerned that the policy limits the restriction to "stored video and audio," which leaves room for the incorporation of facial recognition technology into live video capture and situational awareness technology.
Boston PD limits the use of facial recognition technologies together with cameras, mandating that cameras will not include any “technological enhancements.” (§1)
  • . . . BWC’s will not include technological enhancements including, but not limited to, facial recognition or night-vision capabilities.
But this provision potentially suffers the opposite problem from Baltimore's: the language may only apply to the cameras themselves, and could still potentially allow broad biometric searches of stored body camera footage.

Department Policies

Albuquerque Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $250,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: July 13, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Albuquerque PD does not address personal privacy concerns.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Atlanta Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: August 5, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Atlanta PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a version of its policy was obtained and provided to us by a journalist. The policy is part of the Atlanta Police Department Policy Manual Standard Operating Procedures and was made effective January 1, 2016.

Atlanta’s body camera program was put on hold by the Fulton County Superior Court in January 2016 following a lawsuit related to the procurement and bidding process for cameras, and the department was granted a motion to dismiss the suit on June 15, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Atlanta PD requires officers to record all calls for service and law enforcement interactions with the public, among other events. (§§2; 4.3.1-5, 4.3.8)

The policy also requires officers to justify non-activation or interruption of recordings. (§4.3.6)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Atlanta mentions reasonable expectations of privacy, but then strangely notes that officers still may record in those events since “they occur in the presence of the law enforcement officer.” However, the policy does go on to prohibit recordings in dressing rooms, locker rooms and restrooms, and to avoid recording “exposed genitals or other sexually sensitive areas.” (§§4.3.1; 4.4.1)

The policy does attempt to protect the privacy of recorded individuals by exempting recordings from The Georgia Open Records Act when reasonable expectation of privacy is met. (§4.9.1)

The policy does not specifically protect vulnerable individuals or victims, or allow subjects to opt-out of recordings by request.

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Officers may review footage before writing their reports for all incidents, except in the cases of use of force. In use of force incidents, employees are explicitly required to complete a report prior to reviewing footage or audio, and include a statement to that effect. (§§4.3.9; 4.9.2-4)

Limits Retention of Footage

Atlanta PD notes that the retention period for “citizen contact” footage (which we assume to be non-evidentiary) is 45 days. However, it is not clear whether this is a minimum or maximum retention period, and the policy does not appear to require that footage be deleted. (§§4.6.5; 4.8.1)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Atlanta PD prohibits tampering with both cameras and footage, as well as “destroying any evidentiary recording produced.” (§4.5)

Access appears to be limited to users given permission by the BWC Compliance Administrator, and employees who view footage must place a note on the file justifying their reasoning for accessing it. (§§4.9.5-6; 4.11.1)

The policy also provides that footage and “BWC data will be audited.” While the language does not make clear whether these audits also review access or change logs, the relevant clauses, when read together with the clause requiring employees to document and justify viewing of footage, imply that access is indeed audited. (§§4.10.2; 4.10.4; 4.11.2)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Atlanta PD does not expressly allow recorded individuals to view footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Aurora Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: August 15, 2016. Is this policy now publicly available? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Aurora PD publishes its BWC policy on its website alongside its annual and public reports. The most recent policy was made effective on January 15, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Aurora PD requires officers to activate cameras “as soon as practical” during citizen contact or at the discretion of the officer when the determine footage should be captured for “evidentiary purposes.” (§16.4.3)

The policy also describes when officers may turn off cameras. When officers deactivate recording prior to the completion of an event, they must justify it verbally on camera before deactivation. (§16.4.5)

While officers must document whether body worn cameras were used, Aurora PD does not require officers to provide concrete justifications when they fail to record required events. (§16.4.9)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

While vague, Aurora PD’s policy does mention privacy concerns, prohibiting recording in “public places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists” except for “official law enforcement activity.” The policy also encourages officers to be cautious in healthcare facilities, and provides additional guidance for recording within private property. (§16.4.4)

Citizens may request that cameras be deactivated, and officers have discretion as to whether to do so. The policy does not provide stronger protections for vulnerable individuals like victims of sex crimes. (§16.4.5)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy encourages officer to view footage when preparing reports. (§16.4.9)

Following critical incidents, the policy dictates that supervisors or detectives should take custody of cameras, but does not restrict officers from viewing footage prior to making a statement. (§16.4.6)

Limits Retention of Footage

Aurora PD specifies a minimum retention period of 90 days, but does not appear to require footage deletion. (§16.4.10)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Aurora PD expressly prohibits employees from erasing or altering BWC recordings, and states that employees may not use recordings for personal use or distribute footage. (§16.4.9-10)

However the policy does not appear to restrict access to footage, and does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Aurora PD does not expressly allow recorded individuals to view footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Austin Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 13, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Austin PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website under a section dedicated to body worn cameras. The latest available version was issued on May 11, 2016, and was adopted on May 16, 2016, although the policy is also included in the full Austin Police Department policy manual issued on June 19, 2016. The BWC policy is Policy 303, starting on page 126 of the full manual.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Austin PD requires officers to record in a wide range of law enforcement situations, which it lays out int he policy. The policy also gives officers discretion to activate cameras “anytime they believe its use would be appropriate and/or valuable to document an incident.” (§303.2.1)

Austin PD also provides detailed requirements to officers as to when BWC deactivation is authorized and when BWC system use is not required. (§§303.2.2.a-c; 303.2.3.a-c)

Officers must articulate the reasoning for discontinuing recording for privacy reasons or for delayed activation of their BWC during required situations, such as the need to “take immediate action…which may not allow time to activate their BWC.” (§§303.2.1; 303.2.2.b)

The policy does not appear to require justification for failure to record.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy briefly mentions “the need for privacy in certain circumstances” and allows officers to choose to discontinue recording non-confrontational circumstances including interviews of victims. However, the policy does not offer officers specific guidance on when not to record, and does not require informed consent from anyone to record. (§303.2.2)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

Austin PD mandates that recordings should be kept for a minimum of 90 days, but does not specify a maximum retention period or require the department to delete footage. (§303.3.4)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Austin PD expressly prohibits employees from erasing or altering BWC recordings. (§303.2)

Austin PD mentions the existence of unauthorized access to footage or copies of recordings and notes that “authorized persons” may review recordings, but does not expressly prohibit unauthorized access to footage. (§§303.3.3; 303.5)

The policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Austin PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage, and refers to “applicable laws” to govern the release of recordings. (§303.5.6)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Baltimore Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 18, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

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

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

Baltimore PD limits the use of facial recognition technologies to perform broad searches of recorded footage. A narrow exception is made for analyzing particular incidents using such technologies. (Review of Recordings §7.2)

However, we are concerned that the policy limits the restriction to “stored video and audio,” which leaves room for the incorporation of facial recognition technology into live video capture and situational awareness technology.

Return to Scorecard

Baltimore County Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 29, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Baltimore County PD has a dedicated public website that provides an overview of its body camera program. The site includes both an informational video, as well as a link to the latest policy. The most recent publicly available policy is dated July 14, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Baltimore County PD requires its officers to record all “enforcement or investigative” activities, among other types of situations. (General; Required BWC Activation; Discretionary BWC Uses)

However, the policy does not require officers to provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Baltimore County PD only prohibits officers from recording “in depth interviews with sexual assault victims,” but otherwise allows officers to determine when there is a “heightened expectation of privacy.” (Prohibited Uses of BWCs; Discretionary BWC Uses; BWC Deactivation)

The policy requires officers to notify individuals that they are being recorded. (Public Notification)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Baltimore County PD permits officers to review footage when completing their written reports. (Access to Recordings; Internal Affairs Section (IAS))

Limits Retention of Footage

Baltimore County PD keeps unflagged footage for 18 months and does not have a deletion requirement. (Categories and Retention)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Baltimore County PD prohibits officers from unauthorized footage distribution and deletion, but does not explicitly prohibit footage tampering. (System Recordings)

The policy indicates that Baltimore County PD maintains audit logs for footage access. (Technology and Communications Section (TCS))

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Baltimore County PD sets out a category of recordings that are “[r]eleasable to a Person in Interest.” However, the policy does not specifically define who a “Person in Interest” is — does it include complainants? — and it does not specifically describe what access rights such a person has, or how those rights can be exercised. All other public footage requests are handled in accordance with Maryland’s public records law. (Definitions; Recording Redaction and Reproduction; TCS Video Manager)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

Baltimore County PD limits the use of facial recognition technologies to perform broad searches of recorded footage. A narrow exception is made for analyzing particular incidents using such technologies. (System Recordings)

However, we are concerned that the policy limits the restriction to “system recordings,” which leaves room for the incorporation of facial recognition technology into live video capture and situational awareness technology.

Return to Scorecard

Baton Rouge Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: July 29, 2016. Is this policy now publicly available? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

We include Baton Rouge PD in our scorecard due to the national attention the department has received since the Alton Sterling shooting on July 5, 2016. NBC News reported that during the incident, “the body cameras worn by two officers involved allegedly fell off during the caltercation, and didn’t capture footage.” There have been conflicting reports about the kind of body cameras these Baton Rouge officers were wearing.

While we know that officers are wearing body cameras in the streets of Baton Rouge, we haven’t been able to locate a public version of the department’s policy.

Return to Scorecard

Boston Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: August 4, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Boston PD does not make its BWC policy available on its website, presumably becuase the program is still in a pilot stage. However, a copy of the most recent policy was shared by the Boston Globe (embedded at the bottom of the article).

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Boston PD’s policy clearly describes when officers must record contact with civilians. (§2.2)

The policy also describes when cameras should be deactivated. Officers are encouraged to justify their decision to discontinue recording, but are not required to do so. (§2.8)

When officers fail to record a required incident, the policy does not appear to require that officers provide a concrete justification.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy highlights the importance of privacy and prohibits recording civilians’ constitutionally protected rights, and also allows officers to stop recording in areas with a reasonable expectation of privacy, which are described. Officers can, but are not required to, deactivate their cameras in circumstances of a sensitive or private nature or when minors are present. (§§1; 2.4)

The policy also allows subjects to opt out of recording in a private residence. (§2.3)

Officers are required to notify subjects they are being recorded, but are not required to obtain consent to continue recording outside of private residences. (§§2.5-6)

Officers are not required to deactivate recording victims or witnesses, but are given discretion to turn off their cameras if requested. (§2.7)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Boston PD encourages officers to view footage before completing their written reports. (§4.1)

Boston PD prohibits officers from viewing footage immediately following officer-involved shootings or use of deadly force, but officers are allowed to view these recordings prior to making a statement about the situation. (§4.2)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy does not limit retention of footage during the department’s pilot program. (§6)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Boston PD prohibits officers who do not wear cameras from accessing footage without supervisor permission, but does not seem to apply the same restriction to officers with cameras. (§4.4)

The policy prohibits “improper use” of footage, but does not expressly prohibit employees from erasing or altering recordings. (§7.2)

The policy indicates that access to footage will be audited, but the actual language of the relevant clause appears to apply to BWC use rather than footage access. (§4.6)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy does not expressly allow individuals filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. It mentions victim and witness requests, but refers them to the Officer of the Legal Advisor and does not explain the process by which complainants would access footage. (§5)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

Boston PD limits the use of facial recognition technologies together with cameras, mandating that cameras will not include any “technological enhancements.” This policy is unique among the major department policies we’ve reviewed. (§1)

We had originally scored this policy as green. However, it was pointed out to us that the language may only apply to the cameras themselves, and could still allow broad biometric searches of stored body camera footage. Until we get clarity from the Boston PD about this, we’ve downgraded their score to yellow.

Return to Scorecard

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 12, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website through the Interactive Directives Guide. The most recent policy is Departmental Directive 400-006, which was issued on June 8, 2016 and is current as of July 1, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

The policy provides a clear list of citizen contacts that must be recorded. (§IV.F.6)

If an officer fails to record in a required circumstance, he or she must provide justification (§IV.F.7)

The policy requires officers to continue recording until the incident’s “adversarial action” ends or until the incident becomes a follow up investigation. (§§IV.F.8; IV.F.24)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy does not require officers to obtain informed consent prior to recording, and does not require officers either to alert individuals that the camera is recording or to inform individuals that they may refuse to be recorded.

The policy does prohibit officers from activating their cameras to record certain sensitive conversations or within certain sensitive places, and it prohibits officers from recording people or discussions unrelated to “a call for service or event.” (§IV.F.17)

The policy prohibits officers from recording in places “where there is an expectation of privacy” but makes an exception for officers “present in an official capacity,” which it does not further define. (§IV.F.15)

The policy prohibits officers from recording strip searches of individuals. (§IV.F.16)

The policy requires officers to “ensure all recordings are for official purposes” when recording juveniles not participating in crimes, children who are younger than age six, or within residences. (§IV.F.19)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy permits officers to review footage when completing their written reports. (§V.J.3.c)

Limits Retention of Footage

Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD’s policy requires footage that is not related to a criminal charge or investigation to be deleted within 45 days. The policy requires footage classified as “Non-Citizen Involvement” (video that “does not contain an interaction with a citizen, suspect or associated with any other category. Ex: Pre shift test video, blue light and TASER spark test, accidental activation”) and “Non-Criminal Offenses” (“interaction with a citizen that is not related to a criminal charge or investigation”) to be retained for 45 days and specifies that the BWC storage system automatically deletes footage at the end of the assigned retention period. (§§IV.F.9; V.G-H)

When an officer’s supervisor considers but then dismisses a misconduct complaint, the policy requires Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD to retain the footage related to that complaint for three years. (§V.J.4.a, d)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

The policy does not explicitly prohibit unauthorized access, but does prohibit the viewing of footage for “anything other than approved departmental purposes” and, with certain limited exceptions, prohibits the copying and dissemination of BWC footage. However, the policy does not further define “approved departmental purposes.” (§§IV.F.18, 22; V.A; V.C; V.I.1, 2, 3.a, c)

The policy does not expressly prohibit officers from tampering with or modifying BWC footage; the policy only states that recordings are “incapable of being altered or deleted” by officers and supervisors, without specifying how this is enforced. (§V.B)

The policy states that each recording maintains an audit log of all access to recorded footage. (§§V.B, D)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy allows individuals filing complaints to view relevant portions of recordings, but the policy does not allow complainants to view footage showing the most serious events that could form the basis for complaints (“discharge of [a] firearm by an officer or serious injury or death of any person”) unless the Chief of Police provides “prior approval” for the citizen to view the footage. (§V.J.4.a)

The policy provides that Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD “may”— rather than must — allow individuals to view BWC footage, but in limiting that footage to video that is not “criminal intelligence, records of a criminal investigation, evidence in a criminal matter or associated with a personnel investigation” the policy appears to prohibit individuals from viewing almost all footage relevant to filing a complaint. (§§V.J.3.a-b)

The policy requires Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD’s Chief of Police to release BWC footage to the public when doing so complies with state and federal law and “is in the best interest of public safety.” (§IV.A)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Chicago Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: July 15, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Chicago PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy online on its Department Directives System. The most recent policy is Special Order S03-14, which was issued on May 10, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

Chicago PD allows officers to turn off their cameras “when further recording of the incident will not serve a proper police purpose.” Officers must state the reason for deactivation on camera before turning it off. If an officer fails to record a required event, the officer must justify this failure on camera after the fact. (§V.G)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

In addition, officers must notify all individuals that they are being recorded. (§V.B)

Chicago PD expressly permits victims to opt-out of recording. But “if exigent circumstances exist” exist, or “if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion” of a crime, the officer may continue to record, despite the request to opt-out, after announcing the reason on camera. (§§V.E.2-4)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Chicago PD allows officers to review BWC recordings “prior to writing any report related to the incident.” (§VI.A.2. NOTE)

District Station Supervisors (DSS) must ensure that officers document the fact that they viewed a BWC recording “prior to writing an arrest report.”(§VI.C.3)

Limits Retention of Footage

Chicago PD incorporates by reference policies from its department-wide data retention policy, as well the state’s recent Officer-Worn Body Camera Act. (§IX.A)

The Department’s Forms Retention Schedule does not provide a specific schedule for BWC recordings. However, the Illinois Officer-Worn Body Camera Act requires unflagged recordings to be retained for 90 days. After this 90-day storage period elapses, unflagged recordings must be destroyed. (50 ILCS 706/10-20(a)(7))

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Chicago PD expressly prohibits footage tampering (i.e., modification and deletion). (§VIII.A)

Footage access is also limited: officers are only authorized to view their own recordings, and supervisors are only authorized to view recordings for listed reasons. (§§VIII.C-D)

The Information Services Division is responsible for ensuring that authorized CPD members and “authorized outside-agency personnel” have access to recordings “limited to their specific role[s].” (§VI.G.1)

The policy mentions that “all access [is] tracked by individual user credentials.” (§IV.H)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The Chicago PD policy does not itself allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. But it incorporates by reference both the department’s Freedom of Information directive and the state’s Officer-Worn Body Camera Act. (§VIII.E.2)

The Illinois Officer-Worn Body Camera Act requires Chicago PD to release footage to recorded subjects under the state’s FOIA. (50 ILCS 706/10-20(b)(3))

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Cincinnati Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 18, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Cincinnati publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy in its online Police Department Procedures Manual. The most recent policy is Procedure 12.540, released on July 14, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Cincinnati PD requires officers to record “all law enforcement-related encounters and activities as defined in the procedure.” (Policy; §§A.2-3)

When officers fail to record a required event, they must “report the incident to their supervisor,” who must then investigate and document the failure. (Policy; §§A.1.c; F.1.c)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Cincinnati PD prohibits officers from recording where there is “a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (§§A.4.c-d)

Officers are not required to inform citizens that they are being recorded. (Information)

No individuals — and in particular, no victims — can opt out of recording. (§A.2.i)

In addition, officers may record in private homes under certain circumstances. (Policy)

The policy also requires the redaction of “sensitive and/or private situations,” if and when footage is released. (§E.5)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Cincinnati PD does not expressly prohibit officers from viewing relevant footage before filing an initial written report or statement. For police-involved shootings, the Homicide supervisor decides when BWC footage may be reviewed. (§B.5)

Limits Retention of Footage

Cincinnati PD automatically deletes unflagged footage after 90 days. (Policy)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Cincinnati PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access. (Information; §§BB.2; B.6)

The policy also requires all access to recorded footage to be logged. (§B.1)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Cincinnati PD expressly allows a recorded individual to view footage during a citizen complaint investigation. This is a promising policy, although the policy lacks detail on how the viewing procedure works, including whether the recorded individual may be accompanied by his or her attorney. (§F.2.d)

For requesters who are not recorded subjects, the policy relies on existing public records law to make footage available. Oddly, the policy contains an exception for OVI (Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence) incidents, which allows the prosecutor to withhold footage. (§§E.3-4)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

Cincinnati PD sharply limits the use of facial recognition technologies to perform broad searches of recorded footage. (A narrow exception is made for analyzing particular incidents using such technologies.) (§G)

However, we are concerned that the policy limits the restriction to “stored video and audio,” which leaves room for the incorporation of facial recognition technology into live video capture and situational awareness technology.

Return to Scorecard

Cleveland Division of Police

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 21, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Cleveland Police does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a version of its policy was found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. This policy was effective February 2, 2015. In March 2016, Cleveland released a survey asking residents for feedback on the existing policy, however the survey is no longer active and no updated policy appears to have been released yet.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

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

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Cleveland Police expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access. Each time an officer accesses recorded footage, the officer must note the reason in the system. Cleveland Police also logs all access to footage. (§§I-II; X.C-D)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Dallas Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: October 15, 2015. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Dallas PD requires officers to record “all contacts that are conducted within the scope of an official law enforcement capacity.” At the end of each recording, officers must verbally announce why the camera is being turned off. (§§3XX.04.A.1-3, B)

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Dallas PD prohibits officers from recording where “individuals have an expectation of privacy.” The policy does not specifically protect vulnerable classes of individuals, and even in hospitals and doctors’ offices, only limited restrictions on recording exist. (§§3XX.05.A, B, E)

Officers do not need to obtain the consent of subjects to record, nor are they required to proactively notify subjects that the camera is recording. (§§3XX.04.A.4-6)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Dallas PD expressly prohibits tampering with cameras and footage, as well as unauthorized distribution of footage. However, the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§3XX.03.A.5-8)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Denver Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 13, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Denver PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website. The web-based manual makes the policy very easy to find, and the BWC policy is prominently displayed on the homepage of the department website. The policy is Title 111.11, dated November 10, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Denver’s policy includes a detailed list of situations that must be recorded and instructs officers to exercise “good judgment when activating and deactivating the BWC.” (§3)

The policy does provide officers discretion to not activate their camera in situations where “immediate activation is not feasible due to an immediate risk to the safety of the officer or others.” However, the policy then requires officers to activate recording “at the first available opportunity” after the immediate threat has been addressed. (§3)

The policy does not require officers to provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

While the policy prohibits officers from recording in places where “a reasonable expectation of privacy exists,” including patient care areas of healthcare facilities, the policy makes an exception for camera activation for “official law enforcement activity.” (§3.b.4)

The policy appears to allow officers to turn off cameras when a victim requests that the officer stop recording, but the vague languages does not necessarily require them to do so. (§3.a.2)

The policy allows officers to turn cameras to “buffering mode” during private conversations with an officer, supervisor, doctor, nurse or paramedic. (§3.a.2.c)

The policy prohibits officers from taking video of an individual being strip searched. (§3.b.5)

The policy encourages but does not require officers to notify the public the BWC is activated and recording. (§4.d)

Likewise, the policy requires officers to turn on the camera audible alert signal, but provides officers discretion to mute the signal for tactical situations. (§4.b.3)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy allows officers to review their own camera footage before writing reports and encourages officers to use the footage “to ensure accuracy” when writing reports.

The policy requires officers to receive prior approval to view their own footage in circumstances involving use of force and other critical incidents. However, in both circumstances, the policy does not prohibit officers from viewing footage once approval is granted, and the policy is silent as to whether an officer must file a report or statement before viewing that footage. (§4.e)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy is not clear how and when stored media is purged. The policy notes that media is to be purged in accordance with the current City and County of Denver General Records Retention schedule, which is not readily available online. (§8.a)

The current State of Colorado Municipal Records Retention Schedule (§100.080(AA)) requires video recordings made from officer recording systems to be maintained for 30 days, but does not specify when the media must be deleted.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

The policy does not explicitly prohibit footage tampering. It does, however, in limited circumstances, require supervisors to take possession of the BWC media for chain of custody purposes and to ensure that the BWC data remains “uncompromised.” (§6.b)

The policy restricts access to stored footage to “authorized users” and restricts footage viewing to “legitimate law enforcement or administrative purposes.” (§8.b)

The policy also specifies that audio, images and media shall not be copied, released, or disseminated without express consent from the Chief of Police. (§3.b.2)

The policy states that the storage software currently used by the DPD documents footage viewing in an online audit trail.(§6.f)

The policy also lists monthly usage audits, video storage audits, viewing audits, and other audits under as a BWC System Administrator Responsibility. (§7.e)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage, and refers to the department’s existing policy on public records requests (OMS 109.04 and 109.05) to make footage available. The department’s public records policy does not appear to treat BWC footage differently from other records. (§8.b-c)

In addition, the policy expressly prohibits officers from playing back BWC footage for citizen viewing and (§3.b.6)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Detroit Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
 Last updated: July 20, 2016. Is this policy now publicly available? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

As far as we can tell, Detroit PD has never made a BWC policy available to the public. Detroit PD has tested BWCs in two different pilot programs: one in April 2014 and another from March to July 2015. Detroit Police Assistant Chief James White says that the Detroit PD is using “‘common sense’ policies that are accepted best practices across the nation.” In August 2015, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan and Police Chief James Craig announced that Detroit would be implementing the “nation’s first law enforcement video system that would integrate body cameras and in-car dashboard cameras,” to begin in early 2016 with full deployment of BWCs within three years. In May 2016, the City of Detroit announced that the Detroit PD would begin full roll-out of the system in June of 2016 and complete implementation by fall 2017.

Return to Scorecard

Fairfax County Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 18, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

The Fairfax County Police Department’s policy on body worn cameras is accessible via the department website. One must search “body worn cameras” on FCPD’s website in order to locate the policy. FCPD’s most recent BWC policy is from May 17, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

FCPD requires that the BWC should be used in “all instances” of police and law enforcement response. (§IV.1)

The situations in which officers are required to activate their BWC “includes, but is not limited to, the following circumstances”: (§V.A)

Once officers activate their BWC, they shall be left active until the “event has concluded.” If the officer deactivates the BWC they must verbally justify the reason for deactivation. (§IV.C)

FCPD mandates that officers must provide an explanation for failing to record in the notes of their report. (§IV.E)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

FCPD’s policy does mention the importance of personal privacy, but offers vague guidance and leaves the decision to record in “sensitive” situations up to officer’s discretion. (§§VI.J.1-4)

The policy instructs officers to inform individuals that they are being recorded “when practical.” (§VII.A)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

FCPD’s policy does not address, and therefore does not prohibit, officers from viewing the BWC recording before their initial report.

Limits Retention of Footage

FCPD states that all recordings not required to “support known investigations or litigations” are deleted after 30 days. (§XII.A)

The policy details retention periods for recordings that don’t fall into the above category. However, we have some reservations about “traffic stops” being categorically flagged for longer retention periods, rather than only flagging those stops resulting in a more significant encounter. (§XII.B)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Fairfax County PD expressly forbids officers from “manipulat[ing]…or delet[ing]” any information collected by the BWC. (§IV.F)

FCPD fails to specify who is authorized to access the information from the BWC. The policy also does not indicate that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

FCPD’s policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to review footage.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

FCPD’s policy places no limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g. facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.

Return to Scorecard

Fayetteville Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $530,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: July 21, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Fayetteville Police Department publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website under “Written Directives and Operating Procedures.” The most recent policy is Operating Procedure 3.24, which was issued on December 18, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Fayetteville PD provides an extensive list of events that officers must record.(§§3.24.5.A-B; 3.24.5)

FPD’s policy mandates that officers “should activate” their BWC at the “first reasonable opportunity.” (§3.24.4.C)

The policy does not require officers to provide concrete justification for failing to record events. However, any officer who “intentionally disables” their BWC is subject to “disciplinary actions.” (§3.24.2.F)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

FPD’s policy mentions the importance of personal privacy concerns, but the policy does not require informed consent from vulnerable individuals. The policy specifies that BWC should not be used in bathrooms, healthcare facilities, or any “other place where there is an expectation of privacy.” (§§3.24.4.D,E,G,H)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Fayetteville PD’s BWC policy does not mention whether officers are permitted to view relevant footage before filing an initial written report or statement. Personnel are required to document in their reports when a “BWC was utilized.” (§3.24.6)

Limits Retention of Footage

While the policy references a retention period for digital recordings, it does not specify whether unflagged footage must be deleted after the end of the retention period. (§3.24.9)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

The policy does not expressly prohibit footage tampering or unauthorized access. Employees and officers are prohibited from copying or disseminating any footage to non-PFD employees. (§§3.24.8.A-B)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. Supervisors are only required to categorize any footage as “associated with any citizen complaint” prior to the end of the officer’s shift. (§3.24.3.D)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Ferguson Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: August 15, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Ferguson PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, we received a copy of the department’s policy from a reporter, titled General Order 481.00 and dated February 26, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Ferguson PD requires officers to record “[a]ll field contacts involving actual or potential criminal conduct.” While the policy covers a wide range of situations, it requires officers in some cases to predict whether a field contact will involve “potential criminal conduct,” which may be difficult to do. (§§481.3)

If officers are required to record, and they either activate their cameras too late or deactivate their cameras too early, they must document the reason in their written reports. However, the policy does not require officers to always document outright failures to record required incidents — they are only required to document failures to record at medical facilities. (§§481.3.5, 481.5, PR481.2(k))

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Ferguson PD instructs its officers to “be aware of and sensitive to civilians’ reasonable privacy expectations,” including in certain sensitive locations. The policy mentions the privacy and dignity of crime victims, but it does not expressly allow victims to opt-out of recording. (§§481.3(3), PR481.2(b), PR481.4(b))

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Ferguson PD always allows officers to review their footage before filing their initial reports, even in critical and use-of-force incidents. (§§PR481.2(i), PR481.4(p), PR481.6(a)-(b))

Limits Retention of Footage

Ferguson PD retains footage “in accordance with state law” but does not appear to require the deletion of unflagged footage. (§PR481.4(o))

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Ferguson PD expressly prohibits footage tampering and unauthorized access. However, the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§PR481.2(i)-(j), PR481.4(n), PR481.6)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Ferguson PD does not expressly allow recorded individuals to view footage. Requests for footage by the public are handled in accordance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law. (§PR481.4(q))

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Fort Worth Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 13, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

There appear to be two policy documents governing Fort Worth PD’s use of BWCs, and Fort Worth PD does not publish either document on its website. We located both documents on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. One document is titled “Officer-Worn Digital Recording Devices Standard Operating Procedure” (Standard Operating Procedure) and dated March 7, 2014. The other document is Fort Worth PD’s General Orders, which contain a General Order on Officer-Worn Digital Recording Devices (General Order). The Order mainly restates the Standard Operating Procedure, but also includes additional requirements.

A phone call to the Fort Worth PD on March 3, 2016 confirmed that both the General Order and Standard Operating Procedure currently govern the department’s use of body worn cameras. Since both documents cross-reference each other, the two documents seem to operate concurrently to govern the Fort Worth PD’s use of body cameras.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Both Fort Worth PD documents provide nearly identical lists of specific circumstances that must be recorded. The policies list relatively few selective incidents that officers are required to record and do not explicitly state when officers must activate their cameras in these circumstances. (§§II.A.1-6, B.1-2; §§506.03.L-M)

The policies allow officers relatively wide discretion to turn off cameras “when the purpose for activation is no longer present.” The policies do require officers to justify their decision to deactivate recording verbally on camera. (§§II.C.1-5; §§506.03 N.1-5)

Neither policy requires officers to provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Neither document explicitly requires officers to notify subjects that the camera is recording or to obtain informed consent from vulnerable individuals, such as victims of sex crimes, before recording interactions.

While the Standard Operating Procedure does not require officers to deactivate cameras while in sensitive locations or circumstances, the General Order prohibits officers from recording footage of patient care areas of medical facilities unless the footage is for “official police business such as a criminal investigation,” as well as from recording juveniles unless the resulting footage would be “evidentiary in nature as authorized by the Family Code.” However, neither restriction is framed as a response to personal privacy concerns. (§506.03 O.6-7)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The Fort Worth PD Standard Operating Procedure does not prohibit officers from viewing footage prior to writing their incident reports, and the General Order explicitly permits officers to view the footage to assist with writing their reports. (§506.03.S)

Limits Retention of Footage

Both policies require destruction of all uncategorized BWC footage after 180 days. (§IV.E; §506.03 W.1)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

The Fort Worth PD Standard Operating Procedure suggests that tampering with BWC recordings “may constitute a criminal offense and/or an administrative violation” but does not expressly prohibit tampering with footage. (“Legal Aspects”)

On the other hand, the General Order explicitly prohibits accessing, copying, editing, or releasing footage without proper authority. The policy forbids officers from showing footage to “non-sworn personnel” without the permission of the officer’s immediate superior – except to government employees directly involved in investigations related to specific footage. The order also bans officers from uploading BWC footage to any type of social media. (§§506.03 B; O.4-5)

The Standard Operating Procedure expressly forbids officers and other individuals from viewing footage without “need-to-know” authorization. (§III.F)

Neither document explicitly requires that all access to recorded footage be logged or audited.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The Fort Worth PD policies rely on Texas law governing the release of public records to make footage available. Nothing in either document allows complainants to view footage relevant to their complaint. (“Legal Aspects,” §IV.I; §506.03 Y)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Fresno Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 8, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Fresno PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, the most recent publicly available policy (Policy 450) was found found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit and was made effective on January 20, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Fresno PD provides list of situations that officers “are expected” to record, but the policy does not appear to require recording, nor does it provide general guidance for situations that do not fall into included categories. (§450.3)

The policy does not specify when officers may turn off their cameras, except in the case of forced entries and searches. (§450.3.e.1)

When officers stop recording or fail to record a required incident, there is no requirement to provide a concrete justification.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Fresno PD does not address personal privacy concerns, and officers are not required to notify individuals that the camera is recording. (§450.3)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Fresno PD prohibits officers from making “personal use” of footage, but does not address tampering or unauthorized access to footage. The policy also does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§450.2)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Fresno PD relies on California’s public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow complainants to view relevant footage. (§450.3)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Houston Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 21, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Houston PD maintains a dedicated webpage about its BWC program, which includes its most recent publicly available draft BWC policy (dated March 24, 2016).

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Houston PD requires officers to record “any law enforcement related activities.” (§§9; 11)

Officers must provide a concrete justification if they fail to record a required event. (§10)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Houston PD allows officers to exercise discretion to turn off their cameras with victims, but officers are not required to turn off the camera “solely at the demand of a citizen” (presumably, including crime victims). (§9)

Officers should exercise caution in medical and psychiatric facilities, restrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms. (§11)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Houston PD expressly allows officers to view footage while completing their reports, including in use of force and weapon discharge incidents. While the policy states that homicide investigators “shall have the authority to classify a video recording as ‘Confidential’” it does not state under what conditions that limits review. The policy requires officers to document whether they viewed a recording prior to completing a related report. (§§12; 17; 19)

Limits Retention of Footage

Houston PD deletes non-evidentiary footage after 180 days. (§21)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Houston PD prohibits unauthorized footage sharing, and prohibits tampering of “BWC equipment and software” — but footage is neither “equipment” nor “software.” (§§2; 14)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $250,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: August 17, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Las Vegas Metropolitan PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, in August 2016, a department representative e-mailed us a copy of the latest policy, titled “5/210.01 Body Worn Cameras” and dated October 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

LVMPD requires its officers to record a wide range of situations. (General Procedure)

The policy requires officers to record until the event has concluded. However, the policy appears to give officers some discretion to turn their cameras off, if they determine it necessary to “conserve available recording time” or if they have a “clearly articulable reason” for doing so. This vague guidance creates concerning loopholes. (General Procedure)

Before turning their cameras off, officers must announce the reason on camera. When officers fail to record, they must document the reason in their reports. (General Procedure; Camera Deployment)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

LVMPD requires officers to obtain explicit permission from crime victims and witnesses (or a parent or legal guardian, in the case of a juvenile) before recording. In addition, LVMPD allows officers to cease recording in sensitive locations and situations. (General Procedure; Victims and Witnesses; Juvenile Recordings; Sensitive Locations)

Officers are required to notify individuals that they are being recorded. (General Procedures)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

LVMPD deletes unflagged footage in exactly 45 days. (Category Retention Schedule)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

LVMPD prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized use and distribution — and it maintains an audit log of all access to recorded footage. (Upload and Storage Procedures; Recorded Data Access and Review)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

LVMPD allows individuals who are seeking to file complaints (and others) to view relevant footage. (Data Storage, Security, and Access; Requests for Video/Audio Pursuant to Nevada’s Open Records Act)

While the BWC policy itself is short on details, a LVMPD webpage4 provides specific details about the footage request process. Individuals can make a request to inspect footage5 either in writing, in person or over the phone. LVMPD classifies requestors into one of three categories — media, involved citizens, or general public — each with slightly different access procedures. For involved citizens, LVMPD will respond to a request within 5 days to arrange an appointment to inspect the footage at LVMPD Headquarters. An involved citizen may also request a copy of the footage, and could be charged a fee if redactions are necessary.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Louisville Metro Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 14, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Louisville PD publishes its most recent publicly available body worn camera policy on its website, but buried within its lengthy Standard Operating Procedures. The manual makes the camera policy somewhat challenging to find, using the lesser-known term “Wearable Video System” (WVS). The policy is numbered SOP 4.31, beginning on page 338 of the manual. It was last revised on February 8, 2016.

The policy references accreditation standards from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), specifically CALEA standards 41.3.8 (In-Car Audio/Video) and 83.2.2 (Photography and Video Tapes), and from the Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police (KACP), specifically KACP standards 17.13, 20.2, and 20.5 We were not able to review either set of accreditation standards, because the CALEA standards are only available through a paid subscription. The specific KACP standards cited in Louisville PD’s policy are not available online.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

The policy requires officers to record “any call for service” and activate their camera prior to engaging in “any law enforcement activity or encounter.” The policy provides an exception “for extremely rare situations” involving exigent safety concerns but requires the officer to activate the camera “at the first opportunity when it is safe to do so” afterwards. (§4.31.5)

The policy requires officers to document in writing a justification for failing to activate their BWCs or failing to complete a recording of a situation required by the policy. (§4.31.5)

The policy does not require officers to deactivate cameras when a citizen requests that they do so, but does provide officers with the discretion to deactivate their camera in order to preserve the anonymity of a person giving an anonymous tip. (§4.31.6)

The policy provides that, when given permission by a superior, officers may deactivate their BWC in extended non-law enforcement situations. However, the policy requires officers in that situation reactivate their camera as soon as they have contact with the public. (§4.31.6)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy does not require officers to obtain informed consent prior to recording in any circumstance, nor does it require officers to inform subjects that the camera is recording. The policy does not explicitly protect vulnerable individuals. (§4.31.6)

The policy does take privacy into consideration to a limited extent by requiring that the camera not be used “where an exceptional expectation of privacy exists” (emphasis added) and requiring that cameras be turned off when officers enter juvenile detention facilities. The policy requires that officers limit recording to “legitimate law enforcement activities while on school property” or at school events, and to “specific law enforcement activity” in bathrooms, locker rooms, and other highly private areas. The policy permits discretionary deactivation when hospital medical staff request it. The policy also requires officers to make a full recording of consent searches, including the giving of consent by the subject, and requires audio-only recording of strip searches. (§4.31.5)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy allows officers to view relevant footage before filing a report or statement, but explains that recordings are not a replacement or substitution for written reports. (§§4.31.6; 4.31.14)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy requires that non-evidentiary recordings be retained for a minimum of 30 days, cross-referencing Kentucky statutes and “applicable records retention schedules.” The Louisville Metro Records Retention Schedule, Series L6896, requires the destruction of non-evidentiary footage after 30 days. (§4.31.15; Louisville Metro Records Retention Schedule, Series L6896 (page 108))

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

The policy explicitly prohibits officers from modifying or tampering with footage as well as “any hardware/software component or part associated with the [BWC].” (§§4.31.15; 4.31.6)

While the policy does not explicitly prohibit unauthorized access, it prohibits the removal of any recording outside of the LMPD without the written authorization of the Chief of Police or his/her designee and provides that recordings are the exclusive property of the LMPD and shall be used for law enforcement purposes only. But there is no constraint on who may be a designee, or how many designees there may be. The policy also includes several provisions controlling access to footage. (§§4.31.15; 4.31.5-6)

The policy provides that the department’s storage system maintains an audit log of videos that have been viewed and “any actions taken by LMPD members and also tasks supervisors with performing random audits to verify compliance with the policy.” (§§4.31.5; 4.31.14)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. The policy provides that footage may be requested via an open records request and allows Louisville PD to redact footage that “may compromise an investigation” or “that infringe on an individual’s privacy rights.” (§4.31.15)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Los Angeles Police Department

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

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

LAPD hosts the most recent version of its BWC policy on its website, but it is not easy to find and doesn’t show up in the website’s search function. The policy does show up when searching “LAPD body worn camera policy” in external search engines. This version was approved by the Board of Police Commissioners on April 28, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

LAPD allows (but does not require) officers to turn off their cameras when they encounter victims in sensitive circumstances, or patients in health care facilities. (§VI)

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

LAPD does not directly address footage retention. It only mentions that commanding officers are “responsible for . . . ensuring adherence to record retention protocols . . .” without reference to what those protocols are. (§XXVII)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

LAPD considers unauthorized use, release, modification and deletion of footage to be “serious misconduct and subject to disciplinary action.” But the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§VII-VIII; XII)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Memphis Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: October 15, 2015. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Memphis PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, a recent policy was published by local news station WREG. The policy is dated September 23, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

Prior to each camera deactivation, officers must state the reason for termination of the recording. Officers must also document any failures to record in their report. (§§IV.C.6-9; IV.E)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

But while officers must inform subjects that they are being recorded, the policy does not expressly allow subjects to opt out of recording. (§IV.C.5)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Memphis PD expressly prohibits footage tampering and unauthorized access, but does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§5.E-H)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Mesa Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: August 15, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Mesa PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, in August 2016, a department representative e-mailed us a copy of the latest policy, titled “DPM 3.4.35 On-Officer Body Camera Program” and made effective June 7, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Mesa PD requires officers to activate their cameras “when responding to a call or have any contact with the public.” (§3/Operational Guidelines; §3/Use Guidelines)

Officers are required to provide justifications whenever they failed to record, or when recordings are interrupted. (§3/Use Guidelines)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Mesa PD prohibits officers from recording in places where “a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.” (§3/Restrictions)

The policy gives officers discretion (but does not require them) to discontinue recording when a victim requests it. (§3/Use Guidelines)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Mesa PD allows its officers to view footage “to assist” in completing their written reports. Even in officer-involved shooting (OIS) incidents and Internal Affairs investigations, officers may review footage before giving a statement. (§3/Review; §4/Documenting & Reporting)

Limits Retention of Footage

Mesa PD does not appear to require the deletion of unflagged footage. (§4/Storage/ Evidentiary Guidelines; §4/Retention & Public Release)

However, the referenced policy DPM 3.4.15 Evidentiary Recordings provides a circular reference back to the BWC policy.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Mesa PD prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access. (§3/Restrictions; §4/Storage/ Evidentiary Guidelines)

The policy mentions audits of recordings, but not audits of access to recordings. (§4/Inspection and Audit)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Mesa PD does not expressly allow individuals alleging police misconduct to view relevant footage. Access to footage appears to be guided only by Arizona’s public records law. (§3/Restrictions; §4/Retention & Public Release)

The referenced policy DPM 3.3.70 Public Records Request also does not address complainant access.

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Miami Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 18, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

The Miami Police Department fails to publish the latest BWC policy on its website. MPD’s latest policy is from February 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

MPD requires officers to use their BWC at “all times when on duty.” (§10.4.1)

MPD’s policy clearly describes the type of incidents during which BWCs should be activated. (§10.4.5)

While the policy clearly defines when officers must use their BWC, it does not require officers to provide concrete justification for deactivating during or failing to record required events.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

MPD’s policy offers vague guidance on personal privacy concerns but does not protect victims from being recorded without informed consent. (§10.4.6.1)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

MPD’s policy does not prohibit officers from viewing relevant footage before filing an initial written report or statement, and instructs officers to include reference to the recording in incident reports. (§10.4.8)

Limits Retention of Footage

MPD requires that the department maintain “miscellaneous recordings” for 90 days, but this appears to be a minimum rather than a requirement to delete footage (§10.4.5.2)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

MPD prohibits officers from altering and deleting information from body worn cameras. (§10.4.6.3)

While officers are prohibited from tampering with the BWC footage, the policy does not expressly prohibit unauthorized access or require information to be logged or audited.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Miami-Dade Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: July 14, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

MDPD publishes its most recently publically available BWC policy on its website under a section dedicated to BWCs. The latest available version was issued on April 20, 2016. The BWC policy is under the MDPD’s Departmental Manual at CHAPTER 33 – PART 1 – BODY-WORN CAMERA SYSTEM.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

MDPD requires officers to “make every effort” to record every encounter where “a law enforcement officer, acting in an official capacity, comes into contact with the general public.”(§§V.E; V.H)

MDPD’s policy later states that officers “should activate” their Body Worn Cameras prior to “engaging in any official law enforcement matter” which it goes on to list. (§VII.B)

Officers are expected to continue their recording until the “conclusion of the event.” (§VII.C)

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

MDPD allows victims to opt out of recording if they are “in locations where [they] have a reasonable expectation of privacy,” but only at the officer’s discretion. The policy does not explicitly require informed consent of vulnerable individuals to record. (§VII.H)

In situations not involving victims, MDPD officers are not required to notify or obtain consent from subjects. (§VII.DI)

Officers can choose to turn off their BWC when dealing with individuals experiencing “matters of a personal nature,” but these matters are not defined. (§VII.I)

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

MDPD allows officers to view relevant footage while completing their reports. (§§VII.F; X.C)

In “critical incidents” the policy provides additional guidance about maintaining the integrity of footage immediately following the event, but does not explicitly prohibit officers from reviewing footage before writing a report or making a statement. (§X.I)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy does not expressly require that unflagged footage be deleted. It requires that unflagged footage be retained for a minimum of 90 days. (§XIII.D)

MDPD’s policy requires a minimum retention period for evidentiary data, but does not mandate a maximum period of retention. (§Addendum. 1-11)

The policy further states that all data will be retained according to state retention schedules, which can be found in the General Records Schedule GS2 For Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and District Medical Examiners. However, the schedule does not address footage from body worn cameras. (Florida Administrative Code R. 1B-24.003(1)(b))

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

MDPD expressly forbids footage tampering and unauthorized access. Employees are forbidden from “access[ing], review[ing], [or] copy[ing]” any footage from body worn cameras. (§VIII.E-I)

While the policy states that the footage is regularly audited by its secure “cloud based solution” the policy does not expressly state that access to recorded footage will be logged. (§X.B)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

MDPD relies on existing public records law to make footage available and only allows dissemination for “official purposes.” (§VII.K)

MDPD does not expressly allow recorded individuals to view footage when filing complaints. If citizens want to review the footage, the supervisor will “explain the procedure” necessary to obtain a copy of the footage, which it does not further spell out. (§VIII.C)

MDPD states that video will be considered in the public record and that the department it complies with the “applicable law[s]” and will release BWC data in accordance with these laws. (§§XIII.A-B)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Milwaukee Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 21, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Milwaukee PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website as part of its Standard Operating Procedures. The policy is SOP 747, effective July 15, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Milwaukee PD prohibits officers from recording “in a places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.” But in other sensitive situations, including those that involve nude individuals or victims of sexual assault, Milwaukee PD gives officers full discretion over whether to record. (§747.25.D.1; §§747.25.E1-2)

Milwaukee PD suggests — but stops short of requiring — that officers inform subjects that they are being recorded. The policy does not expressly allow subjects to opt out of recording. (§747.25.C.2.h)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

In “critical incidents” (action resulting in great bodily harm or death) officers are not allowed to view recordings until investigators arrive, but are not prohibited from viewing footage prior to making a statement or writing a report. (§747.25.F.2)

Limits Retention of Footage

Milwaukee PD specifies various “recording management categories” and the minimum retention durations for each category. Unflagged footage is to be preserved for 130 days, but it is not clear whether this is a minimum or maximum period. (§747.25.G.2)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Milwaukee PD prohibits unauthorized access to footage, but does not expressly prohibit officers from modifying, deleting, or otherwise tampering with footage. The policy also does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§747.25.J.2)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Milwaukee PD relies on existing public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§§747.25.J.4-6)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Minneapolis Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $600,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: August 16, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Minneapolis PD publishes the most recent publicly available version of its BWC policy on its website. The policy can be found in the department’s online Policy & Procedure Manual as Section 4-223 on Body Worn Cameras. The most recent policy is dated June 29, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

The policy requires officers to activate their cameras in a wide range of situations, and gives officers discretion to activate the BWC during general citizen contact and anytime an officer feels it is appropriate to preserve audio/visual data while taking a statement from a victim or witness. (§§IV.E.1-2)

The policy requires officers to record until the conclusion of the event. However, the policy appears to give officers arbitrary discretion by allowing them to “deactivate the BWC to conserve power and/or storage,” leaving a concerning potential loophole. The policy also specifies certain contacts where officers may, but are not required to, deactivate the BWC. (§§IV.F.1-2)

If officers fail to record a required event, they must document the reason in either their report or in the CAD system. Officers must also document the reason for any deactivation, both aloud on camera and either in their report or the CAD system. (§§IV.E.1.d; IV.F.3; IV.G.2)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy allows officers to turn off their cameras when they encounter certain vulnerable individuals, like a victim of a sexual assault, and encourages officers to gain victims’ informed consent to record. Officers must also turn their cameras away (and only record audio) during strip searches. (§§IV.E.1.c, IV.E.2.a, IV.F.2)

The policy also encourages (but does not require) officers to notify members of the public that they are being recorded. (§IV.A.12)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy encourages officers to view footage before filing an initial report to “ensure the accuracy of reports.” (§§IV.G.1; IV.I.4)

In “critical incidents” (situations including deadly force, death, or great bodily harm) the policy notes that video access requires approval, but still does not prohibit officers from reviewing footage prior to writing reports. (§IV.J.3)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy does not expressly require deletion of unflagged footage. Footage related to “Petty Misdemeanor(s)” and “Non-Evidentiary/General Recording(s)” are retained for one year. This appears to be a minimum duration, rather than a maximum. (§IV.A.9.c)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

The policy expressly prohibits footage tampering and defines a specific set of circumstances under which an employee may access footage. (§§IV.B.4, IV.I.1-5)

The policy notes that access to data is logged and retained. (§IV.I.8)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. Rather, the policy relies on existing public records law to make footage available. (§§IV.I.1, 6, 7)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Montgomery County Department of Police

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 18, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Montgomery County Police Department publishes its body worn camera policy on its website. MCPD’s most recent Body Worn Camera Policy is dated April 20th, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

MCPD provides a long and detailed list of situations when officers must use their BWC. (§VI.C)

The policy clearly defines when an event is “concluded” and officers are allowed to deactivate their BWC. (§VI.D)

Officers must “record a brief verbal explanation for the deactivation” of their BWC before turning off the device. (§VI.E).

MCPD’s policy states that there are “exigent circumstances” in which the officer may not be able to activate their BWCS. The officer is required to “document the reason” for their failure to use or delayed start of their BWCS. (§VI.F)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

MCPD prohibits recording an “interview with a victim of a sex offense” without his or her consent. (§VI.I)

In non-victim cases, officers have discretion as to whether to turn off their camera at the request of subjects. (§VI.G)

Officers are required to notify individuals that they are being recorded except when exempt by law. (§VI.B)

Officers are prohibited from recording strip searches. (§VII.B)

The policy also protects the privacy of individuals engaged in constitutionally-protected activity. (§IX.L)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

MCPD allows officers to view their recordings while completing their reports as well as before court appearances. (§IX.A.2)

Limits Retention of Footage

MCPD mandates that non-evidentiary recordings will be “destroyed after 210 days.” (§X.C)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

MCPD expressly prohibits officers from modifying or tampering with the BWC recordings “in any manner.” (§§X.N-O)

The policy requires that access to footage will be logged. (§IX.K)

MCPD also expressly states who may access and view recordings. (§IX.A)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The MCPD policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage, only noting that recordings will be released under applicable public records law or with permission of the Chief of Police. (§§XI.A; XI.E)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

The MCPD’s policy prohibits the use of biometric technologies, with a narrow exception made for analyzing particular incidents using such technologies. (§IX.M)

However, we are concerned that the policy limits the restriction to “stored video and audio,” which leaves room for the integration of facial recognition technology into live video capture and situational awareness technology.

Return to Scorecard

New Orleans Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $237,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: July 14, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

NOPD publishes its BWC policy on its website within the Department’s 1143-page Regulations Manual. The latest available version of the Regulations Manual is dated March 15, 2016. The BWC policy is Chapter 41.3.10, starting on page 181, and was last revised November 22, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

NOPD requires officers to record a wide range of situations. (§§10-14)

If officers deactivate their cameras before the conclusion of an incident, they must either seek supervisory approval or document their reasoning on camera. (§34)

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

While NOPD expects officers to “be aware of, and sensitive to, civilians’ reasonable privacy expectations,” the department nonetheless gives officers full discretion to record during sensitive circumstances. The policy also does not expressly allow subjects to opt out of recording. (§§10; 33)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

NOPD allows officers to view footage before completing their written reports. (§§52-53)

Limits Retention of Footage

NOPD specifies minimum retention durations, but does not require footage deletion. (§9)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

NOPD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, but does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§5-6; 51)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

New York Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 29, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

NYPD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, the department has released a draft of a new proposed policy and is actively soliciting feedback from the public. The full text of the draft is available from the Policing Project and is current through July 31, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

The NYPD policy lists a specific set of actions that officers must record (§3). Officers are given the discretion to record other additional activities (§4), as long as those activities are not on the prohibited recordings list (§6).

NYPD also spells out the circumstances in which officers may deactivate their cameras. (§5)

When officers fail to record required incidents, NYPD requires them to document and justify such failures. (§3.d)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

NYPD prohibits officers from recording individuals in certain sensitive situations, including victims of sex crimes and anyone engaged in political activities. (§6)

NYPD advises officers to “consider the needs of victims and witness and the sensitive of the nature of the crime being reported” in deciding whether to record. (NOTE following §3)

Member of the public — which would presumably include victims — may request that officers deactivate their cameras for privacy reasons. Upon receiving such a request, officers “may” deactivate — which allows officers to turn their cameras off, but never requires them to do so. The policy would be stronger if it said that officers “must” deactivate in such situations. (§5.a)

Officers are encouraged to notify subjects that they are being recorded. (§2)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

NYPD allows officers to view footage “in the performance of their duties.” In the event of a Level 3 use of force (deadly physical force), while officers may not view footage before turning it over to a supervisor, they may still review recordings prior to making an official statement. (§9)

Limits Retention of Footage

The proposed NYPD policy gives permission to the Risk Management Bureau to delete video “if appropriate.” However it does not specify, and thus does not require, a maximum retention period. (§34)

The discussion material attached to the proposed policy suggests a six month retention policy for unflagged footage. But this isn’t found in the policy itself, nor is it clear that six months is a maximum retention period. (page 10)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

NYPD expressly prohibits footage tampering and unauthorized sharing of footage, and indicates that access to recorded footage will be logged and audited. (§§7-9)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The discussion material attached to the proposed policy indicates that NYPD intends to give complainants access to recorded footage. (Page 9)

However, the actual policy does not reflect that intention. In fact, it states that requests should always be declined and referred to prosecutors. (§9.c)

In the note after step 3:

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Oakland Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: October 15, 2015. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Oakland PD publishes the most recent publicly available version of its BWC policy on its website, linked from its Departmental Policies and Procedures page. The policy is Departmental General Order I-15.1, effective July 16, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

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

Officers may record at their discretion when not otherwise required by policy, however all camera use must be documented in writing. (§II.E, §III.C.1)

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Oakland PD allows (but does not require) officers to turn off their cameras during certain sensitive situations, such as investigating a child abuse or sexual assault victim. (§§II.C.2, 4; §II.D.1.f)

Oakland PD also provides specific guidance on statement taking, but the policy is vague as to whether officers simply need to notify subjects that the camera is on, or whether officers actually need to obtain consent. (§II.D.2.a)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Oakland PD requires officers to file an initial written statement before relevant footage is reviewed, for some critical incidents, like when officers use force that results in death or serious bodily injury. Oakland PD institutes a two-step process. First, before viewing the footage, the involved officer must submit an initial report to the investigator. Second, once the initial report is approved, the officer may view the footage, and be given an opportunity to supplement the initial report (presumably, with a clear delineation of the parts of the report that were written before and after footage was reviewed). (§§IV.A.2-3)

Aside from the above circumstances, when an officer is under investigation, officers may only view relevant footage upon approval by the Criminal Investigation Division or the Internal Affairs Division. (§IV.B.)

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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

Each time department members view footage, they must document the reason why the footage is being accessed, indicating that all viewing is logged. (§V.B)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Oakland PD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. All non-departmental requests are handled by existing department policy on public records request (DGO M-9.1), which is not published on the department’s website. (§VII.B)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Oklahoma City Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 18, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

The Oklahoma City Police Department does not make its body worn camera policy publicly and readily available on their website. The latest version is from October 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

OCPD clearly describes when cameras must be activated. (§188.30)

Officers also have the power to activate their BWC when they “deem it appropriate.” (§188.31)

Officers are required to make a “recorded announcement” prior to deactivating regarding the reason the camera is being deactivated. (§188.33)

OCPD also requires that officers who fail to activate their body worn cameras will provide a “supplemental report” to document their failure to record. (§188.45)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

OCPD’s policy explicitly states when the cameras should not be activated, including for reasons of privacy, and officers are not permitted to knowingly record victims. (§188.32)

When an officer comes in contact with a “voluntary contact” the officer shall receive consent from them in order to continue recording. (§180.30.1)

An officer is not required to advise a person they are being recorded unless “required by Procedure 188.30.1” (requiring officers to obtain informed consent in situations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy). (§§188.40; 188.30)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

OCPD encourages officers to use BWC recordings to assist with the completion of reports. (§188.50)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy has a clear retention schedule for various categories of footage, but the policy appears to assign minimum, rather than maximum, periods, without required deletion. (§188.70)

The policy adds that recordings that have no “evidentiary value” will be handled by the Digital Evidence Management Unit. (§188.51)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

OCPD prohibits officers from altering or deleting information from the BWC. (§188.35.2)

OCPD assigns the Digital Evidence Management Unit to “maintain recordings” among other things, but the policy does not prohibit unauthorized access or note that access will be logged. The policy assigns responsibility for “providing audit information” to the Body-Worn Camera Administrator but does not note what is audited in the system. (§§188.60; 188.15)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

OCPD’s policy does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage. However, OCPD will “provide copies of recordings” in “accordance with federal and state law.” (§188.71)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Omaha Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $67,500 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: July 8, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

The Omaha PD publishes its most recent BWC policy online as part of its Policies and Procedures Manual, beginning on page 57, titled “Body Worn Cameras (BWC).” The most recent policy was issued on May 26, 2016, and was current as of June 27, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Omaha PD requires officers to record “all law enforcement-related encounters” but provides relatively wide discretion by beginning the section with “when feasible” — a distinction it does not define. (§§V.E-F; V.K)

The policy also allows officers to deactivate the camera “if they do not reasonably believe that deactivation will result in loss of critical documentary information,” but before they do, officers must verbally record the reason on camera. (§§V.L; V.O)

When officers fail to record a required incident, they must provide a written justification in their Daily Report. (§V.G)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Omaha PD prohibits officers from recording in places where “a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.” The policy allows officers to choose to deactivate their cameras if — “in the officer’s judgement” — it would be “inappropriate” to record the victim in certain “sensitive” circumstances. However, the policy does allow these victims to affirmatively opt out of recording. (§§V.L.4; VI)

Officers are not required to notify subjects that they are being recorded. (§V.D)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

OPD allows officers to view recordings when preparing their reports. (§VII.E)

Even for incidents that require “immediate retrieval of Recorded Media,” such as “employee-involved incidents,” the policy still does not explicitly bar officers from viewing footage prior to writing reports or preparing testimony. The policy indicates that such media will be classified as “LOCKED” and restricted to specific employees, but does not define who these specific employees are nor under what circumstances they may access locked footage. (§IV.A)

Limits Retention of Footage

Omaha PD notes that media will be retained for a period of two years, but this appears to be a minimum duration with no requirement to delete footage. (§§VIII.A-B)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

OPD prohibits the deletion, alteration, and download of footage without prior authorization. (§§VII.B-D)

The policy indicates that access to recorded footage will be audited by a system administrator for unauthorized access. (§IV.D)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

OPD does not expressly allow complaintants to view footage, and forbids employees from playing back or disseminating footage outside the agency without prior authorization. (§§V.I; VII.A)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Parker Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 21, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Parker PD provides a webpage dedicated to its BWC program, which includes a link to its most recent publicly available BWC policy, last updated on May 6, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Parker PD requires officers to record “all investigative or enforcement contacts” through the conclusion of the contact. (§§3.25.4.E-G)

When officers fail to record an entire contact, they must document the reason why that occurred. (§3.25.6)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Parker PD requires officers to notify subjects that the camera is recording. In many circumstances, including interactions with apparent crime victims, officers must offer subjects the option to stop the recording. (§§3.25.4.H-L)

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

In other cases, officers may view footage “for exact quotes” by individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints. (§3.25.5.G.2)

Limits Retention of Footage

Parker PD retains unflagged footage for a minimum of one year, and deletes unflagged footage within three years. (§3.25.10.A)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Parker PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, and indicates that access to recorded footage will be logged and audited. (§§3.25.4; 3.25.5.G.3; 3.25.6; 3.25.7.F-G)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

Parker PD sharply limits the use of facial recognition technologies to perform broad searches of recorded footage. (A narrow exception is made for analyzing particular incidents using such technologies). (§3.25.5.B)

However, we are concerned that the policy limits the restriction to “video files” and “stored video and audio,” which leaves room for the incorporation of facial recognition technology into live video capture and situational awareness technology.

Return to Scorecard

Philadelphia Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: August 4, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Philadelphia PD publishes its BWC policy on its website, linked from the Department’s manual of Directives. Directive 4.21 on “Body-Worn Cameras” was last updated on June 21, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Philadelphia PD requires officers to record all contact with the general public, and the entirety of each contact. (§§7-D, 4-A, 4-B)

When officers are permitted to turn off their cameras before the contact ends (e.g., for privacy reasons), officers must state the reason on camera before turning it off. (§7-J)

When officers fail to record a required event, they must notify their immediate supervisor and document the reason why the event was not recorded. (§6-H)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

In addition, because Pennsylvania is a “two-party consent” state, officers must inform subjects that they are being recorded, assuming “oral communications” are taking place. (§7-E)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Even in a critical incident, like a weapon discharge or other serious use of force, the operational protocol specifies that the officer’s camera be taken by a supervisor to the district and uploaded as soon as possible — but it does not explicitly prohibit the officer from reviewing the footage in the field before that can happen. (§7-K)

Limits Retention of Footage

Philadelphia PD specifies a minimum retention period of 30 days for unflagged footage. The policy does not clearly indicate when unflagged footage must be deleted. (§§4-D, 9-A-1)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Philadelphia PD expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access to footage. But the policy does not indicate that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§§6-E, K; 9-B-4)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Philadelphia PD relies on Pennsylvania’s public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow complainants to view relevant footage. (§9-A-4)

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Phoenix Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $637,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: October 15, 2015. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

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

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

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Phoenix PD relies on existing public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§§5.D.2, 5.D.5)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Pittsburgh Bureau of Police

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
 Last updated: July 20, 2016. Is this policy now publicly available? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

According to the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police’s grant application in 2015 for body worn cameras, at least 35 officers on motorcycles and bicycles have worn cameras while on patrol. In September 2015, the Department of Justice awarded the department a $250,000 grant to expand its body camera program.

While body worn cameras are worn by officers on the streets of Pittsburgh, we have not been able to locate a public version of the department’s policy.

Return to Scorecard

Rochester Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $600,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: July 22, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Rochester PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy online on the Project Updates section of its website. The most recent policy is the RPD BWC Manual, which was issued on June 15, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Officers assigned a BWC are required to activate their cameras immediately after being dispatched, unless there is an “imminent threat to the member’s safety.” (§IV.A.2)

The policy mandates that cameras must be activated in the “course of performing or when present at any enforcement activity” and “police duties.” RPD’s policy is clear that there is no exception to this rule, and clearly defines what an enforcement activity is. (§IV.B.1; IV.C)

RPD provides a list of situations in which officers have the option to record if they believe it to be for a “legitimate law enforcement purpose.” (§IV.D)

Officers must continue to use their BWC until the completion of the event or incident, and prior to deactivating their BWC officers are expected to record a “verbal statement” noting the end of the recording. However, RPD’s policy does not require officers to provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events. (§VI.A.6).

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

Rochester PD forbids officers from recording in “sensitive locations,” unless they are engaging in enforcement activity. (§IV.E.1.A.C)

RPD’s policy specifies a list of scenarios in which officers are prohibited from recording. While the policy protects individuals in a “locker room or bathroom,” there is no mention of vulnerable individuals such as victims of sex crimes. (§IV.F.4.8)

Officers are encouraged, but not required, to inform individuals that they are being recorded with a BWC. (§IV.I)

The policy allows citizens to request that an officer stop recording, and gives officers some discretion as to whether to comply. (§IV.E.2)

Interestingly, the policy also requires police to begin recording an interaction at the request of a civilian. (§IV.E.2)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Rochester PD allows officers to view BWC recordings to “assist in accurate report writing.” (§§V.A; VII.A)

Limits Retention of Footage

RPD’s policy provides retention periods for unflagged footage in Appendix A: BWC Categories and Retention Schedule of their BWC Manual. (§§II.H; II.X)

Appendix A of the manual lists the required length of retention for unflagged footage. However, the policy does not specify whether the unflagged footage must be deleted. (§ Appendix A.5-10)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Rochester PD expressly prohibits footage tampering (i.e., modification and deletion). (§§II.F, J, K)

Employees are allowed to access BWC recordings only for “official RPD duties.” (§V.A)

The Research and Evaluation Section (R&E) within the administration of the RPD is responsible in administering RPD’s BWC program. R&E has various responsibilities including, but not limited to, “providing access or copies” of BWC recordings to RPD personnel. (§IX.A)

Members of the Professional Standards Section (PSS) of Rochester PD are “authorized to access and copy” BWC recordings. (§V.B.1)

However, policy does not indicate whether all access to the footage obtained from cameras is logged or audited.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Members of the Professional Standards Section of Rochester PD may grant civilians access to view BWC recordings in reference to “complaints against department personnel.” (§V.B.1)

RPD supervisors have the power to allow civilians to view BWC footage in responding to “QSI’s, complaints, or other inquiries.” (§VI.7)

The policy incorporates by reference the department’s Freedom of Information directive. (§XIII.A)

The policy does provide some exceptions to footage that must be released under Freedom of Information requests, but notes that these are not categorical exceptions. (§XIII.C)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Salt Lake City Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 12, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

SLCPD makes its BWC policy readily available to the public on its website as a part of the Salt Lake City Police Department Policies and Procedures Manual, beginning on page 132, titled “III-535 Mobile Video Recorders.” The policy was current as of July 7, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

SLCPD lists a set of situations in which “the body camera is utilized.” In order to ensure these events are recorded, the policy requires officers to activate their cameras for any public interactions and calls for service with some limited exceptions. (pp. 132-133)

When officers decide to deactivate their camera or fail to record an event, SLCPD requires them to document and justify their actions either on camera or in a written report. (p. 133-134)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

SLCPD prohibits recording “where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists,” and gives officers discretion to turn off recording at the request of victims, witnesses, and community members “who wish to report or discuss criminal activity.” (p. 132-133)

Officers are not required to notify subjects they are being recorded. The policy requires officers to notify occupants of a private residence that a body camera is in use, but indicates that merely wearing the camera provides sufficient notice. (p. 133, Camera Use Procedures)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Officers are encouraged to use videos to aid in completing reports, and are allowed to review relevant footage in use of force incidents before writing a report or completing an interview. (p. 134, Review of Body Camera Media)

Limits Retention of Footage

Footage is retained according to the department’s retention schedule, which appears to outline minimum retention durations rather than requirements to delete footage after the retention period. Only footage recorded accidently seems to be limited to a 60 day retention period. (pp. 133-134)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

SLCPD prohibits unauthorized copying and dissemination of footage — but it does not expressly prohibit footage tampering (i.e., modification and deletion). (p. 134, Copies of Video)

The policy requires the purpose and approving authority for downloads to be noted in the system, but does not indicate that access to recorded footage is logged.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

SLCPD does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (p. 134)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

San Antonio Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: July 15, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

The San Antonio Police Department does not publish its policy on Body Worn Cameras on its website, but provided a copy upon request. The policy was revised on November 10th, 2015 and became effective on February 12, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Officers must record all events related to the “contact, stop, detention, interview and arrest of suspected violators.” (§.03.A)

SAPD provides an extensive list of the events that officers must record. (§.06.D)

SAPD requires that officers “verbally document” their reasoning for “all stoppages and/or mutings” of their BWC. (§.06.G)

Once an officer activates his or her camera, it “shall remain on until the incident has concluded” and the policy clearly describes when officers shall deactivate their BWC. (§.07.A-B)

Officers are required to document a “reasonable justification” for why they failed to record certain events. (§.07.D)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

While the policy mentions the importance of personal privacy, it offers vague guidance on when officers must not record, and does not require informed consent from vulnerable individuals. SAPD also does not require officers to inform citizens that they are being recorded. (§§.06.A; F)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

SAPD encourages officers to use their BWC recordings to gather “pertinent information” when writing reports. (§.06.C)

The policy also allows officers to access any “police originated DME recording” before making a statement about the incident. (§.15.D)

Limits Retention of Footage

SAPD uses a categorization label which helps determine the “minimum length of retention” of BWC footage. SAPD requires that recordings from BWC that are categorized as an “Event 0” (non-evidentiary) must be retained for at least 180 days, but does not appear to mandate a maximum retention period. (§12)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

SAPD prohibits officers from tampering with and altering the BWC recordings. (§.09.B)

The BWC policy states the requirements for “viewing privileges of DME.” (§.04.E)

SAPD personnel must obtain permission if they require access to locked BWC recordings. (§.15.B)

The policy explicitly states that the personnel viewing BWC recordings must “manually document” their information in the “notes field in the BWC application” but does not indicate that access is logged automatically in any way. (§.15.C)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

SAPD does not expressly allow complainants to view relevant footage, and requires a five step process to handle individual complaints “alleging misconduct.” (§.11.A)

SAPD’s policy states that any requests for any Digital Media Evidence will be handed under the “Open Records Act.” (§.10.A)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

San Antonio PD BWC policy places no limits on the use of biometric technologies (e.g. facial recognition) to identify individuals in footage.

Return to Scorecard

San Diego Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 14, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

SDPD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy online on its website under a section dedicated to Body Worn Cameras. This version, logged in section 1.49 in “Administration,” was issued and effective on March 9, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

SDPD requires all officers to record all “enforcement related contacts. . .and continue recording until the contact is concluded[,]” and requires officers to provide concrete justifications for intentionally deactivating their BWC during events that officers are required to record. The policy has specific requirements for when to record during circumstances including enforcement related contacts; arrests; searches; transporting prisoners; suspect interviews; and special events. The policy also expressly states when officers can turn off their BWCs and lists specific prohibited recordings. (§V.I.1-7)

However, the policy does not appear to require justification for failure to record required incidents.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

SDPD does not require officers to cease recording at citizens’ request and specifies that “private citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when talking with police officers,” even when police are lawfully present in a private residence. (§V.H)

While officers are not required to inform citizens they are being recorded, officers are encouraged to as a means to “de-escalate potential conflicts.” (§V.I.1.C)

While SDPD prohibits officers from recording during Sex Crimes or Child Abuse investigations, it mandates that victims (and their children) be recorded when they are victims of domestic violence incidents. (§V.J.1)

Officers are also prohibited from recording patients during medical or psychological evaluations and in medical care facilities unless the officer is confronting a violent suspect or anticipating use of force. (§V.K.7)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

SDPD allows and encourages officers to view footage prior to completing their reports, and requires them to do so prior to providing testimony at hearings, trials, or depositions. (§V.Q.1,4)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy references a retention period for digital evidence but does not specify what that period is, nor does it require unflagged footage to be deleted. (§V.O)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

SDPD prohibits officers from tampering with “hardware and software component[s],” and notes that digital evidence is to be used for official purposes only, but the policy does not expressly prohibit tampering with footage. (§V.C.4)

The BWC footage is stored by a service, Evidence.com, that digitally encrypts and secures the footage. (§IV)

It is unclear whether Evidence.com logs or audits access to the footage, and the policy does not indicate that any other source logs or audits footage access.

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

Individuals filing complaints only have access to footage at the discretion of SDPD supervisors. (§V.Q.7)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

San Francisco Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received permission to use $250,000 of another DOJ law enforcement technology grant for BWCs in 2013
Last updated: July 15, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

SFPD has a webpage dedicated to the development of its BWC policy, which provides details about the department’s biweekly BWC working group meetings. The group publishes the latest iteration of the draft policy for each meeting. The most recent publicly available draft policy is dated May 27, 2016.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

In addition to specifying when officers shall terminate their recordings (§III.E), SFPD requires officers to document the reasons for any failures to record. (§III.G)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

SFPD proactively prohibits officers from recording three categories of sensitive victims, including sexual assault and child abuse victims. (§III.D)

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

SFPD requires officers to file initial statements before reviewing BWC for three categories of critical incidents: after an “officer-involved shooting,” after an “in-custody death,” and in a “criminal matter.” The latter category (“criminal matter”) is not clearly defined in the policy. Is an incident a criminal matter only after charges are filed? Does the policy apply to all criminal matters, or only those where the officer is the subject of the investigation?

For all other incidents (ambiguity aside), SFPD allows officers to review BWC footage before filing their initial reports. (§III.F.1)

Limits Retention of Footage

SFPD retains all BWC footage for a minimum of 60 days. After this duration, recordings “may be erased, destroyed or recycled” — but there is no requirement to do so. (§III.J)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

SFPD prohibits officers from deleting, tampering, accessing for personal use, or sharing footage without prior authorization from the Risk Management Office (RMO). (§§III.H.3; III.J.3)

In addition, SFPD prohibits footage access for purposes unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement. (§III.F.2)

SFPD also logs all access to recorded footage. (§§III.I.1.c; III.J.5)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

SFPD relies on existing public records law to make footage available, and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§III.I.2.a)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

San Jose Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 13, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

San Jose PD publishes its most recent publicly available body worn camera policy on its website’s homepage. San Jose PD welcomes public comment on the department’s BWC program, directing the public to a public opinion survey and an additional follow up survey for those who have made contact with an officer wearing a body worn camera. Additionally, the policy is translated into English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The website also has a Frequently Asked Questions page on the policy.

San Jose PD’s body worn camera policy is not dated, but the URL includes “06-29-15” following the title, suggesting that the policy was released on June 29, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

The policy includes a non-exhaustive list of citizen contacts that officers are required to record. (§5)

The policy instructs officers to use “reasonable judgment” in determining when to deactivate the camera. While the policy prohibits officers from intentionally terminating the recording until the “conclusion of the encounter,” the policy provides a vague exception for “tactical and safety reasons.” Without further guidance this language gives officers wide discretion to turn the camera off prematurely. (§6)

The policy requires officers to record the reason for deactivating recording on camera verbally and in a police report. If no police report is filed, the officer must record the reasons for deactivating the camera on the citation, Computer Aided Dispatch report, or Street Check report. (§6)

The policy does not require officers to justify a failure to record a required event.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy does not require officers to gain informed consent from victims or witnesses prior to recording. However, in some circumstances, the policy either requires officers to comply with a victim or witness’ request to not to be recorded or allows the officer to use his or her discretion not to record. (§§8; 9)

Although the policy prohibits officers from recording or allows them not to record in these situations, the policy encourages officers to record crime victim and witness statements and includes a procedure for doing so, recommending that officers develop a rapport with a victim/witness who is hesitant to be recorded. The policy provides that if the officer decides to use discretion to deactivate the camera, the officer may still record the audio of the victim/witness statement. (§9)

The policy provides that officers are not required to deactivate their body-worn camera solely on the basis of the request or demand of a citizen, but this section is followed by the above guidance on victim and witness statements which indicates those cases take precedence over this general guidance. (§5)

The policy requires officers to make a reasonable effort to advise people that they are being recorded, but only at times when the officer is required to record. The policy also provides an exception for when the officer has reason to believe that advising that the camera is on will endanger the officer or another person, or will interfere with the investigation. The policy does not require officers to advise or obtain consent to record when the officer is in a public place or when the officer is lawfully present in a location where there is an expectation of privacy, unless the officer is performing a consent-based search of a residence. (§7)

The policy prohibits activation in several circumstances where personal privacy is at issue. (§8)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

San Jose PD’s policy encourages officers to view footage prior to writing initial reports, with the exception of officers involved in or witness to an “Officer Involved Incident.” (§13)

The policy prohibits officers involved in or witness to an “Officer-Involved Incident” from viewing footage before making an initial statement, unless given permission to do so by the Chief or his or her designee. The policy defines “Officer-Involved Incidents” as including officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, and any intentional act by an officer which proximately causes injury likely to produce death to another. (§16)

The policy does provide, in general, that officers should not substitute a recording for a detailed police report. (§12)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy does not require the department to delete unflagged footage. The policy states that BWC footage will be retained “for a period of time,” but does not define that period nor require deletion at the end of that period. (§1)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

While the policy does prohibit officers from tampering with BWC hardware and software, the policy does not expressly prohibit officers from tampering with footage. (§3)

The policy does prohibit unauthorized access to BWC recordings. (§§10; 13; 3)

The policy does indicate that all access to footage is automatically logged. (§13)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy does not allow complainants to view relevant footage, unless the Chief of Police or the designee approves the request. (§4)

However, the policy allows supervisors to view video in order to resolve citizen complaints. (§4)

The policy further states that the footage captured is for law enforcement use only. (§13)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Seattle Police Department

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

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Seattle PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy on its website. While the policy is found within the Seattle Police Department Manual, the web-based manual makes the BWC policy reasonably easy to find. The policy is Title 16.091, effective April 1, 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

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

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

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

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

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

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

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

Limits Retention of Footage

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

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Seattle PD expressly prohibits unauthorized copying of footage, but does not address other forms of footage tampering or unauthorized access. The policy vaguely states that “[d]epartment policy” governs the uses of footage, but does not clearly identify which specific policies apply. (POL-2 §§1, 5)

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

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

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

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Metropolitan Police Department, St. Louis

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 29, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

St. Louis PD has a section on its website devoted to it body worn camera program, linked to clearly from the homepage. The page links to the draft policy, which appears to have been published or updated on March 9, 2016 (according to document metadata).

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

St. Louis PD provides a list of situations where officers must record. (§I.1)

But, when officers stop recording or fail to record a required incident, there is no requirement to provide a concrete justification.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy notes that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when interacting with police officers, but the policy does include some privacy safeguards for victims, witnesses, patients, and individuals involved in peaceful demonstrations. Officers are not required to notify citizens they are being recorded except in some limited circumstances, nor are they required to stop recording “solely at the demand of a citizen.”

We are encouraged that the department considered the needs of vulnerable individuals, but discouraged by the policy’s presumption against a right to privacy, as well as the policy’s confusing language. We believe the department is moving the in the right direction, but there is room for improvement. (§H)

The policy indicates that victims and witnesses are “generally” not recorded, and editorializes the reasoning for recording victims of violent domestic crimes. (§§J; K.7-8)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

St. Louis PD allows officers to view footage before completing their written reports and providing testimony. The policy also somewhat strangely editorializes the benefit of camera footage over human recollection. (§§Q.1-5)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy refers to retention categories, but fails to elaborate in how they affect retention periods. The policy notes that recordings will be retained for at least 90 days, but does not specify a maximum retention period after which footage must be deleted. (§§N.1.C; O.1)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

St. Louis PD prohibits officers from erasing or tampering with recordings and collected data, as well as from accessing, copying, or releasing footage for reasons “other than official law enforcement purposes.” (§§C.10-11)

The policy mentions that the Planning and Research department is responsible for providing copies of audit trails for recordings when requested, but the language is not sufficiently clear to convince us that the audit log relates to access to footage rather than simply recording metadata and chain of custody information. Were the policy to clarify this, the department would receive a green in this category. (§U.3)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

St. Louis PD gives supervisors some discretion to allow complainants to view relevant footage, but does not require them to do so. (§Q.7.M)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Tampa Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 14, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Tampa PD does not publish its BWC policy on its website. However, Tampa PD’s most current publicly available BWC policy was found on the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body Worn Camera Toolkit. This policy is dated March 2015.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

Tampa PD’s policy provides a clear list of situations that must be recorded. Officers must provide written explanations when they fail to record an incident that the policy requires to be recorded. (§§IV.C.2-3)

Tampa PD’s policy allows officers to not immediately record an incident if “doing so . . . place[s] them or others in danger.” However, in these situations, the policy requires the officer to begin recording as soon as possible after “the immediate threat has been addressed.” (§IV.C.5)

The policy allows officers to deactivate their cameras in three specific situations, including when they “reasonably believe that doing so will not result in the loss of critical documentary information.” In these situations, the officer must note any decision to deactivate in the video recording and in the incident report; however, the officer does not explicitly require officers to document why they stopped recording. This category would have received a green classification had it included language to explicitly require justification (§IV.C.6)

The policy explicitly forbids officers from deactivating the camera in anticipation of using force or while engaging in a confrontational citizen contact. (§IV.C.9)

In addition, failure to activate the camera “may” — rather than “will” — result in disciplinary action. (§IV.C.8)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

While the policy does not address general privacy issues, it does require officers to both inform and turn off their cameras upon the request of a crime victim when the officer interviews the victim. (§IV.C.4)

The policy also specifies that officers may not record confidential informants. (§IV.C.7.d.)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Not only does the policy allow officers to review recordings of incidents before filing documentation — the policy requires it. Furthermore, the policy instructs officers to include in their reports a “detailed description” of the content of the video footage and “what may have been out of view” of the camera. (§IV.E.2)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy sets a minimum for how long Tampa PD should retain footage that is uncategorized or tagged as “non-event.” However, the policy does not indicate when Tampa PD must delete its BWC footage. (§IV.E.3)

F.S. Chapter 119.021(2)(a) designates the Division of Library and Information Services of the Department of State as responsible for setting retention and disposal schedules for public records. The office’s records schedule for law enforcement, effective February 19, 2015, does not appear to include a schedule for body worn cameraa video. F.S. Chapter 119.071(2)(5) provides that “A law enforcement agency must retain a body camera recording for at least 90 days” but does not set a date for the purging of BWC footage. It remains unclear how Tampa ultimately disposes of recorded footage.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

Tampa PD’s policy prohibits officers from tampering with BWC recordings. However, the policy does not provide that access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§IV.C.10)

The policy prohibits “the abuse or misuse of the [BWC] system” and requires officers to “properly retain and store” footage. However, the policy never makes clear what constitutes abuse or misuse. (§IV.C.8)

The policy prohibits unauthorized copying and transmission of footage, but does not explicitly prohibit unauthorized access to BWC footage. The policy seems to allow any officer to access any BWC recording at any time for any reason. (§§VII.A, C, and D)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy relies on existing public records law to make footage publicly accessible and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. (§§VII.A-B)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Tucson Police Department

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Last updated: July 14, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

Tucson PD publishes its most recent publicly available BWC policy online within the Tucson Police Department General Orders, found under a section called 3700 Specialized Department Equipment. The policy is “3760 BODY WORN CAMERA SYSTEM,” which was revised on May 11, 2015 and was current as of July 7, 2016.

On March 9, 2016, a representative of the Tucson Police Department informed us that the policy is currently being reviewed, and a new policy might be unveiled in about six months.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

The policy requires officers to record in a wide range of law enforcement situations, including searches of suspects and buildings, service calls, and citizen interactions performed “in an investigative or enforcement capacity.” The policy requires officers to begin recording these events “as soon as practical.” (§3764.1)

The policy limits officers’ discretion to stop recording by requiring officers to continue recording required events “until the completion of the encounter or action, or until [the officers] have left the scene.” Also, when officers are involved in an incident where death or serious injury occurs or “where a Board of Inquiry may be convened e.g. an officer-involved shooting,” the policy prohibits them from stopping recording “until directed to do so” by a superior officer. (§3764.1)

However, the policy requires neither a concrete justification for turning the camera off nor for failing to record a required event.

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

The policy mentions the importance of personal privacy, but offers vague guidance on when not to record. The policy prohibits recording “in places privacy would be expected” and only provides as examples “locker/dressing rooms or restrooms.” The policy also provides an exception for recording “in the official performance of a law enforcement function.” (§3764.3)

The policy does not require officers to notify subjects that they are being recorded, nor does the policy require officers to obtain informed consent from victims or other vulnerable individuals prior to recording. The policy permits but does not require an officer to comply with a victim’s request to not be recorded and as such allows officers to continue recording despite a victim’s request not to record. (§3764.1)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

The policy allows officers to view footage while completing their reports. The policy does not expressly require an initial written report or statement before any relevant footage is reviewed. (§§3764.1-2)

Limits Retention of Footage

The policy requires Tucson PD to delete unflagged footage after 180 days. (§3765.3)

The policy also requires compliance with “existing state record retention law and evidence retention protocols.” The current retention schedule does not specifically address BWC recordings. (§3765.3)

While not included in the policy, a page on the police department website called “Obtaining Police Reports & Disclosure” indicates that flagged footage is retained for 3 years for petty offenses, 25 years for misdemeanors and 109 years for felonies.

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

The policy expressly prohibits both footage tampering and unauthorized access, but does not indicate that all access to recorded footage will be logged or audited. (§3764.3)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

The policy relies on Arizona’s public records law to make footage available and does not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view footage. Under the policy, citizens can only access recordings through a public records request or if access is “approved by a supervisor.” The policy does not provide any criteria for supervisors to consider in determining whether or not to approve footage for public disclosure. (§§3764.3; 3765.3)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard

Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Received a $1,000,000 DOJ grant for BWCs in 2015
Last updated: July 20, 2016. Is there a new version of this policy? Let us know.

Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available

MPD maintains a dedicated webpage about its BWC program. Not only does the page provide MPD’s most recent publicly available BWC policy (dated March 11, 2016), it also provides program context, relevant documents, answers to frequently asked questions, and even sample BWC footage.

Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record

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

Officers are given clear guidelines about deactivating their cameras. (§V.11.b)

Officers must document “any delay or failure to activate” or interruption of recording in their written reports. (§V.12.a)

Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns

In general, MPD prohibits recording “in places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists,” and specifically prohibits recording of individuals with extreme injuries. (§IV.M)

For privacy reasons, officers are also instructed to take special precautions when recording victims of intrafamily incidents, and medical patients. (§§V.A.8-9)

Officers must notify subjects that they are being recorded, but importantly, MPD does not allow subjects (in particular, crime victims or other vulnerable individuals) to affirmatively opt out of recording unless they wish to provide an anonymous tip. (§§IV.E; IV.M; V.A.8)

One laudable feature of MPD’s policy is that recording notices be made available in six languages — this policy is unique among major department policies we’ve seen. (§IV.G)

Finally, MPD requires periodic privacy audits of recorded footage. (§V.K)

Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing

Officers involved in police shootings are not permitted to review recordings related to the case. In other cases (including use of force, in-custody death, or subject of criminal investigation) officers may view footage prior to submitting a report or being interviewed. (§V.E.3.1)

Limits Retention of Footage

MPD provides a detailed table of footage retention periods for various categories of events. For instance, events in the category “Incident, No Arrest” shall be retained for 90 days. However, these retention periods appear to be minimum durations, and no requirement exists for footage deletion. (§V.G.H)

Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse

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

The MPD BWC Coordinator must maintain “an audit log on the history of every recording,” but it’s unclear what this means. This could mean an audit log that details all files added to, and deleted from, the storage database — or it could mean an audit log of all access to stored footage. Until MPD clearly establishes the latter, full credit for this criterion is withheld. (§V.C.3)

Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints

MPD expressly allows a recorded individual to request to view footage. The policy also, commendably, clearly lay out the process of requesting to view relevant footage, and is one of the few policies we have seen that does so. (§V.F)

All other public requests for footage are handled by the DC FOIA Office. (§IV.G.2)

Limits Biometric Searching of Footage

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

Return to Scorecard
  1. An archived version of this website can be found here. (August 17, 2016)

  2. An archived version of the LVMPD Body-Worn Camera Video Public Records Request form can be found here. (August 17, 2016)

Appendix

Civil Rights Principles on Body Worn Cameras

May 2015

Mobile cameras operated by law enforcement may play a valuable role in the present and future of policing. Whether they’re worn by an officer or mounted on police equipment, cameras could help provide transparency into law enforcement practices, by providing first-hand evidence of public interactions.

But police-operated cameras are no substitute for broader reforms of policing practices. In fact, cameras could be used to intensify disproportionate surveillance and enforcement in heavily policed communities of color. Without carefully crafted policy safeguards in place, there is a real risk that these new devices could become instruments of injustice, rather than tools for accountability.

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

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

Signed by:

Acknowledgements

This project is led by Corrine Yu and Sakira Cook at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and Harlan Yu at Upturn.

The creation of this Scorecard would have not been possible without the tireless work of our colleagues. Special thanks to Alexander Antonio, Miranda Bogen, Gabe Colman, Claire Felten, Julia Franklin, Jason Gerson, Logan Koepke, Isabella Leavitt, Ariel Molk, Leslie Paluch, Charlotte Resing, Aaron Rieke, David Robinson, Ben Symons, and Jess Unger.

We are also grateful to the many organizations that provided valuable feedback on this report, especially the signatories of the Civil Rights Principles on Body Worn Cameras.

The report’s outreach and rollout was coordinated by Scott Simpson and Luisa Guaracao from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

This report was made possible through the support of the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations.

Close

Return to top