research on body camera

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Criminal Justice Collaborative

Study: body-worn camera research shows drop in police use of force.

Cheryl Corley

Police officer David Moore is pictured wearing a body camera in Ipswich, Mass., on Dec. 1, 2020. The city was among 25 statewide awarded grants to purchase body-worn cameras for videotaping interactions with the public. A new study says the benefits to society and police departments outweigh the costs of the cameras. Boston Globe/Boston Globe via Getty Images hide caption

Police officer David Moore is pictured wearing a body camera in Ipswich, Mass., on Dec. 1, 2020. The city was among 25 statewide awarded grants to purchase body-worn cameras for videotaping interactions with the public. A new study says the benefits to society and police departments outweigh the costs of the cameras.

One of the most powerful examples of the significance of police body-worn cameras played out in a Minneapolis court room during the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former police officer convicted of murder and manslaughter in the killing of George Floyd. The video collected from the body worn cameras of the police officers involved in Floyd's arrest showed his death from a variety of angles and prosecution and defense attorneys used the video extensively as they argued the case.

Across the country, police departments are increasingly using body-worn cameras to better monitor what officers are doing out in the field with the hope that they will reduce the prevalence of misconduct and improve fairness in policing. Still, there's been a lot of uncertainty over whether the technology is actually helpful. In addition, local governments and police departments that have not integrated the technology as part of their policing practice often cite cost as a barrier.

America Reckons With Racial Injustice

Police bodycam video shows george floyd's distress during fatal arrest.

Now, in one of the latest studies about the equipment, a team of public safety experts and world economists say body-worn cameras are both beneficial and cost effective. They outline their reasoning in a research paper released recently by the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Council on Criminal Justice's Task Force on Policing. The report is an update of a variety of studies of body-worn cameras and it also compares the cost of the technology to the dollar value of the benefits that may come as a result.

Professor Jens Ludwig, head of the Crime Lab, says the findings show the key benefit of body-worn cameras is the reduced use of police force. For example, among the police departments studied, complaints against police dropped by 17% and the use of force by police, during fatal and non-fatal encounters, fell by nearly 10%.

"That's hopeful but not a panacea," Ludwig says. "Body-worn cameras are a useful part of the response but not a solution by themselves. Body-worn cameras are not going to solve the problem of the enormous gap we see in police use of force in the U.S. against Black versus white Americans. "

Even so, New York University Professor Morgan Williams Jr. says "integrating the technology into policing practices can be an important step towards making policing fairer and more accountable."

Live Updates: Protests For Racial Justice

Police bodycam transcripts: george floyd pleaded 20 times that he couldn't breathe.

In 2013, about a third of local law enforcement agencies, used some form of body-worn camera technology. By 2016, the number had grown to nearly 50%. While law enforcement often cites finances as a barrier to adopting body-worn cameras, the researchers say the benefits to society and police departments outweigh the costs of the cameras.

The pricetag for police bodycams can be several thousands of dollars per officer since costs include purchasing and maintaining the equipment, paying for storing the enormous amount of information the cameras can collect, and training officers. On the other hand, the study asserts that the dollar value of body-worn camera benefits — the estimated savings generated by a reduction of citizen complaints and averted use of force incidents — along with the cost reductions that could come from fewer investigations, is significant. The study estimates the ratio of the value of the benefits compared to the cost of body-worn cameras at 5 to 1 and well above an estimated 2 to 1 cost-benefit of hiring more police.

"If you are a local government looking at adopting the cost, from your narrow green eyeshade bottom line, the technology probably pays for itself," Ludwig says. "And the benefits to the public are a huge win and easily outweigh the cost."

The study notes, however, that the research developed so far about body-worn cameras is limited since results are based on data from police departments that were the first to adopt the new technology. It could also be, says Ludwig, that body-worn cameras and the impact they have on policing will be different as people figure out better ways to use the technology.

• body camera
• police departments
• law enforcement

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Body-Worn Cameras: What the Evidence Tells Us

This article examines the findings of research to-date on the prevalence and benefits of police body-worn cameras (BWCs).

BWCs have spread rapidly across the United States. In 2013, about one-third of U.S. municipal police departments had implemented BWCs. The general public has also embraced police use of BWCs. Current research on the impact of BWCs suggests that they may have benefits for law enforcement; however, additional research is needed to provide a fuller understanding of their impact on policing. Proponents of BWCs believe they can provide more transparency and accountability in police interactions with members of the public, thus improving police-community relations. BWCs are also envisioned by proponents as improving the documentation of officer-involved events. BWCs are also expected to improve citizen responses to police. In addition, BWCs are viewed by proponents as a means of improving police training by providing documented case studies of how police should or should not act under various types of scenarios in police interactions with members of the public or criminal suspects. In 2014, researchers at Arizona State University found that officers equipped with BWCs were more productive in making arrests, had fewer complaints against them compared to officers without BWCs, and had higher numbers of citizen complaints resolved in their favor. Another study conducted with the Rialto (California) Police Department found similar decreases in citizen complaints lodged against officers with BWCs, along with decreases in use-of-force incidents. Officers with BWCs were also found to be more cautious in their actions and sensitive to possible scrutiny of video footage by their superiors. This article discusses research methods for conducting evaluations of the impact of police use of BWCs, which must keep pace with their increasing use.

Additional Details

Related topics, similar publications.

• 10 Steps for Recruiting More Women Police
• Balancing the Utility and Legality of Implementing Portable Mass Spectrometers Coupled With Ambient Ionization in Routine Law Enforcement Activities
• Reporting Victimization to the Police: the Role of Racial Dyad and Bias Motivation

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

As Body Cameras Become Commonplace, a Debate Over When to Release the Footage

The question of timing has become an unsettled new frontier of policymaking as the use of police body cameras is more the rule rather than the exception.

By Richard Fausset and Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio

ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. — Ma’Khia Bryant had been dead only a few hours when the authorities in Columbus, Ohio, released body camera footage from the police officer who had shot and killed her.

Andrew Brown Jr. was killed by sheriff’s deputies in Elizabeth City, N.C., nearly two weeks ago, and it could be many more weeks — or even months — before video of his death is publicly shown.

As body-worn cameras have become more commonplace, and public pressure on officials to take police accountability more seriously has mounted, so too have demands to quickly release the footage of violent or fatal encounters between law enforcement officers and citizens. A video can mean the difference between drawing attention or dying in obscurity.

But it is not always that easy. While more police chiefs and mayors have recently made ad hoc decisions to quickly release videos of high-profile incidents, activists and lawmakers in some states are pushing for faster public access. That has made the question of timing an important and unsettled new frontier of policymaking as the use of body cameras among law enforcement in the United States becomes the rule rather than the exception.

As of 2018, at least 23 states and the District of Columbia had passed laws related to the public disclosure of body-worn camera footage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures , and many states are considering measures this year. Few states consider body-worn camera footage exempt from public records requests, although most states have passed various exemptions associated with the disclosure — from who is allowed to view the video to the time frame in which it must be released.

In Ohio, body-worn camera footage is generally subject to public disclosure, and any authority figure can choose to release it at any time. In North Carolina, a court order is required, even if the person requesting the footage is the head of a law enforcement agency.

By first requiring a judge’s approval to release body camera footage through blanketed, statewide legislation, North Carolina is an outlier, said Daniel Lawrence, a researcher at the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center in Washington, D.C. But it is not the only state where recordings are not considered open records under the law. South Carolina and Kansas treat such videos similarly — a troubling fact for civil libertarians and proponents of open government.

“The beneficiary of the body camera video is intended to be the public at large,” said Chad A. Marlow, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “From that philosophical position, the idea then is that to promote transparency the public should have a right to view the footage.”

But even in states that require public disclosure, it is often up to the police or elected officials to decide how quickly that happens.

The day after Daunte Wright was fatally shot by a police officer at a traffic stop in Brooklyn Center, Minn., on April 11, in the midst of the murder trial against the former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd, officials opted to quickly release some of the body camera footage. The video shows the officer, who has since resigned and has been charged with second-degree manslaughter , shouting, “Taser,” suggesting she mistook one weapon for another. The swift release , which was not required by law, came after a night of particularly intense demonstrations, in which the police fired tear gas and rubber bullets.

When Ms. Bryant, 16, who according to the body-camera video was wielding a knife and had threatened two girls, was fatally shot by an officer in Columbus on April 20, the Columbus Division of Police released video about five hours later, as protesters gathered at the scene.

“We wanted to get that out as soon as possible,” said Michael Woods, the interim police chief of Columbus, even though he was not required by law to quickly do so.

Before North Carolina passed its body-camera law in 2016, law enforcement agencies in the state operated by their own rules. But the killing of Mr. Brown, who like Ms. Bryant and Mr. Wright was Black, has renewed calls to change the law.

“I think it should be a public record,” said Attorney General Josh Stein, a Democrat of North Carolina, referring to the body camera footage. “And there should be a date certain by when the public knows that they will have access to it. And the burden should be on law enforcement to go to the court to seek a temporary stay for investigative purposes.”

This week, State Representative Amos Quick, a Democrat, filed a bill in the state House that would force law enforcement agencies to release body camera recordings within 48 hours, and give police departments a chance to go before a judge to argue that the release would, among other things, jeopardize someone’s safety or hinder an investigation. (A similar bill is pending in the State Senate.)

As of 2016, about 80 percent of all police departments with more than 500 officers had implemented body cameras, according to Justice Department data , most after a spate of police killings and in-custody deaths of Black people.

When agencies first began using body cameras, there was not a big push for transparency so it was easier to keep the footage “under wraps,” said Geoffrey P. Alpert, a policing expert and professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina.

Research on the effects of body cameras so far has come to varied conclusions.

In a yearlong study in New York , research found that body-worn cameras led to a higher reporting of questionable stops that have fueled accusations of racial bias and harassment against the New York Police Department, enabling more transparency into police activity. The research also found that the body cameras had no significant effect on arrests or officers’ use of force.

Another study of more than 2,000 police officers in Washington said that body-worn cameras had little effect on police behavior.

The fate of the pending measure in North Carolina is uncertain in the Republican-controlled state legislature. But a number of other states, among them California, Colorado, Utah and Wisconsin, changed their laws to favor greater disclosure after 2014, when a Ferguson, Mo., police officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, unleashing waves of protest.

The episode was not captured by a body camera, because the officer, Darren Wilson, did not have one. Mr. Wilson was investigated for the slaying, but not charged.

Mary Fan, a law professor at the University of Washington who has studied body-camera policies, said that a number of states still had problematic laws on the books that overextend exceptions to public disclosure. Louisiana, for example, gives too much power to the police to withhold footage for privacy reasons, she said. And Oregon exempts footage from public disclosure unless it is in the “public interest” — a “squishy, amorphous” standard, Ms. Fan said.

At the same time, some big cities have been moving to set new standards on the release of body-camera videos.

Since 2018, Los Angeles Police officers have been required, with some exceptions, to release within 45 days footage of “critical incidents,” including those in which the use of force resulted in death. A state law that went into effect the following year required all California departments to release such footage within the same required time frame.

Last summer, in the aftermath of the killing of Mr. Floyd in Minneapolis, New York City began requiring similar disclosure of videos within 30 days; and Washington, D.C., set the deadline at five days.

In Philadelphia, officials publicly released body-camera footage in October — the first time the city’s police department had ever done so — nine days after two police officers fatally shot a Black man, Walter Wallace Jr. , who officials said was holding a knife and had a history of mental illness.

Chicago, too, has had a significant change in the way it manages police video since its handling of the case of Laquan McDonald, a Black teenager who was shot by a white officer 16 times in October 2014. It took more than a year for the dashboard camera video of that shooting to be released, a delay caused by city officials who insisted that the video was part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The officer became the city’s first patrolman in almost 50 years to be convicted of murder and was sentenced to just shy of seven years in prison.

These days in Chicago, the footage comes faster. When Adam Toledo, a 13-year-old from the West Side, was fatally shot by a police officer in March, an independent city agency that investigates shootings initially resisted the release of the video, citing his age. But the agency eventually released the footage 17 days after his death. And it took about four weeks for the city to make public video of the March 31 police shooting of Anthony Alvarez, a 22-year-old who was fleeing officers while holding a gun.

Concerns that an immediate release of footage might hinder an investigation or threaten the safety or privacy rights of officers or others remain. In North Carolina, Judge Jeff Foster cited these concerns in delaying the release of footage of Mr. Brown's death. And in Washington, D.C., the Metropolitan Police Department’s union tried, unsuccessfully, to block part of an emergency legislation on the grounds that it put officers at risk.

But police departments have other things to worry about these days as well, said Donald M. Craven, a media lawyer in Springfield, Ill. Body-camera footage is not always the only video evidence of excessive force or killings.

“If Minnesota taught us anything, it’s not just the police officers who have cameras,” he said, referring to the video taken by a teenage girl of Mr. Floyd beneath the knee of a white police officer, pleading for his life. “To some extent, there’s additional pressure on police departments to release the video that they have before they get hit with the video they don’t have.”

Julie Bosman , Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs and Will Wright contributed reporting.

Richard Fausset is a correspondent based in Atlanta. He mainly writes about the American South, focusing on politics, culture, race, poverty and criminal justice. He previously worked at The Los Angeles Times, including as a foreign correspondent in Mexico City. More about Richard Fausset

Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio was a national reporting fellow. She previously reported in her hometown of Los Angeles, as well as in New York City and Washington. More about Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio

Behind The Body Camera: The Ethics, Adoption And Impact Of Recording Police Interactions

As public interest in fatal police use of force continues, a growing number of police departments have begun using body-worn cameras as tools for transparency and documentation of civilian interactions.

And while recent research shows their impact might not be having the expected effect, according to a 2016 Department of Justice report, 47% of law enforcement agencies had acquired body cameras. Some states, like Connecticut, offer grant-funding to departments looking to purchase cameras for their officers.

The Connecticut program began in 2016 but since then, only 36 of the state’s 97 departments have taken advantage of the funding. Recently, using a combination of state grant money and city funding, the Hartford Police Department began rolling out body cams to hundreds of officers after wrapping up a pilot program in February. The department is one of the largest in the state of Connecticut.

“I think it provides a level of transparency and accountability to not only our police department in the city but the community at large,” said Hartford Police Department Captain Jeffrey Rousseau. “Moving forward with this, it provides protection to our officers, it provides accurate depictions of the incidents and I think it’s also a win-win for everyone involved, not only in our police department but also stakeholders — the community, the city.”

Officer Noelia Resto has been with Hartford police for 18 years. She was one of 40 officers to receive her camera during the pilot program in February. Since then, she has recorded more than 300 videos.

“I think the amount of time that I’m using it now, it’s more like second nature,” Resto said. “It’s like alright — I’m turning my lights on, I’m turning [my camera] on. So it’s a part of my process of how I approach the call. I think with time, if everyone gets the same opportunity, it’ll be easier to use.”

As an officer within the traffic division, traffic stops are her most common interaction with civilians.

“I try that every time I have a stop, as soon as I safely stop, I turn it on,” Resto said. “Once I’m done with the stop, I go ahead and turn it off.”

The camera has a large button in the center that officers press to turn it on, off and place it on standby. It beeps each time the mode is changed. Resto has hers configured to vibrate every two minutes while it’s on, even if it’s not recording.

She also uses the accompanying Axon View smartphone app to categorize each video as one of 21 different types of interaction, like traffic stops, arrests, routine service and use of force . Each category details how long the video must be stored, from 90 days, a few years or until manually deleted. Only system administrators, not officers, supervisors or detectives, can delete videos.

Captain Rousseau said the pilot program and on-going trainings aim to ensure officers know how to properly wear and use the cameras.

“Some of officers have worked here 15, 20 years out in the field and they’ve never had this little block attached to their chests that’s kind of weighing them down a little bit,” Rousseau said. “So it took some time to get used to as far as getting the mindset of an incident happens or seeing something that needs to be recorded.”

The Evolution From Tasers To Body Cameras

Axon, the company that supplies more than 60% of Connecticut’s body cameras, has also supplied over 200,000 cameras across more than 1,500 law enforcement agencies throughout the country. It’s currently the largest provider of body cams in the country.

The company started out making tasers in 1993 as AIR TASER, Inc. then TASER International, Inc. The company has faced scrutiny and lawsuits due to the number of deaths associated with the electric stun guns.

The company then rebranded as Axon in 2017, becoming a leader in body camera sales. Jason Hartford, Axon’s Vice President of Connected Devices, said at first, law enforcement agencies were “very slow” to adopt the technology.

“As agencies started to see benefits, if they had situations in which their officers were in critical incidents and the public were in critical incidents then these body-worn cameras as evidence started to level the playing field,” Hartford said. “[They] started to show how police officers were working with the public and how the public was responding.”

A year later in 2018, Axon created an ethics board that comprises a combination of law enforcement and former law enforcement officers, researchers, public policy experts and scientists, known as the Axon AI and Policing Technology Ethics Board. According to Axon’s website, the board’s charge is to provide the company with “guidance about the responsible development of police technologies and of AI features in our products and services, which includes considering when to use and not use AI.”

According to Hartford, the Ethics Board is part of Axon’s effort to keep law enforcement and the community “safe, efficient and effective” when using their product.

“We really have the impetus to be above board, allow a public forum and a group of people to challenge the way that we approach technology,” Hartford said, “to challenge our thinking so that we made sure we were using technology in a responsible way.”

Moji Solgi, Axon’s Vice President of AI & Machine Learning, says that it’s important for companies who develop technology that impacts people’s lives to have an “independent voice and to think about ethical and privacy and security aspects.”

“Technology is generally powerful and the way it affects communities usually is something that requires a lot of due diligence and thinking and seeing around the corner and the known and unknown consequences,” Solgi said. “People who develop the technology day-to-day normally don’t have enough time to sit back and think about these long-term effects. With that power comes the burden of responsibility.”

In April 2018, the same month that Axon announced its Ethics Board, a group of more than 40 civil rights and civil liberties groups including the ACLU and NAACP, wrote a joint letter to Axon asking to get involved with the board. The letter included detailed recommendations on areas of concern for the groups.

“We wanted to make clear, at the outset of the Ethics Board’s work, that there are red lines that Axon simply must not cross, such as building real-time face recognition into body-worn cameras,” said Harlan Yu, executive director of Upturn , one of the organizations that co-signed the letter.

Prior to sending the letter, Axon invited Yu to be on the board, but he declined. Yu said that Axon did not respond or engage the groups after they sent the letter. He’s critical of what he says is the company’s tendency to engage with law enforcement but not civil rights and community groups regarding their needs and concerns.

Yu says more people who are subjected to high police presence in their communities need to have a seat at the table.

“The bottom line is that deliberations about the ethics of Axon’s products need to center the voices of those who are most impacted by these technologies,” Yu said. “In this case, those who live in the most heavily policed communities and those who have directly experienced law enforcement harm and violence.”

In a June 2019 response to Guns & America, an Axon representative said, “We did not receive any specific requests for comment from any of the groups involved with drafting or signing [the letter].”

In 2018 however, Axon released the following statement to the media:

“We received the letter from various groups and appreciate their interest. We will consider their input and also are discussing means of increasing participation and constructive input from other stakeholders as we move forward with this first-of-its-kind board. We plan to be as transparent as possible. We will issue the outcomes from the first meeting in the coming weeks, and plan to do so on a continuing basis, as well as releasing occasional white papers on our discussions.”

The Fight Over Footage

The Axon Ethics Board published its first report in June 2019, along with a response from the company. Barry Friedman serves on the Ethics Board and is the faculty director of the Policing Project at the New York University School of Law.

The Policing Project has been tapped by the New York Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department and others to evaluate how officers are using body cameras and how communities perceive their efficacy and use.

Formed in 2018, the Policing Project works with “communities and police departments across the country to ensure that police department policies and practices are transparent, efficacious, and adopted with public input.” The Los Angeles Police Commission specifically asked for help collecting public input on a policy on when to release video after an officer-involved shooting.

Friedman is concerned that body cameras are “becoming a surveillance tool in the hands of police.”

“There are many jurisdictions in which the policies regarding body cams don’t allow for or don’t provide disclosure of the footage at times when it might be appropriate for accountability,” Friedman said, “but at the same time that footage is being used [by police] to prosecute criminal offenses.”

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 25 states and the District of Columbia have legislated how body-worn camera data is addressed under open record laws.

Six states allow body camera footage to be a part of public record — Connecticut, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and Kentucky.

With some exceptions, laws in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon and South Carolina generally exclude body-worn camera footage from open record requests.

“What’s needed are policies in place to ensure that the video is reviewed at appropriate times, either because there’s a citizen complaint or for training purposes,” Friedman said, “or if unfortunately, there’s been a difficult incident such as an officer-involved shooting.”

Public input and stakeholders, Friedman says, are critical, not just when something goes wrong.

“The public needs to have a voice in what those policies are,” Friedman said. “The importance of having a policy up front that makes sure that cameras are used in ways that meets the purpose for which they were purchased.”

Friedman says that in the future, he believes body cams will become “the norm” for law enforcement.

Creating ‘Muscle Memory’ Among Officers

Police in Milford, Connecticut, a shoreline city with a population of around 55,000, have had body cameras since 2011 , before the state-funded program existed. Milford Chief Keith Mello said that at the time, the department was concerned with a police-civilian interaction that was captured through a series of cell phone videos.

“When we got these cell phone videos, they were just small snippets and they would always show you only the ugly parts of the use of force,” Mello said. “Let’s face it — any use of force is ugly and it’s not something that people are comfortable watching and certainly that’s understandable.”

Mello, who’s also the chairman of the state’s Police Officers Standards and Training Council and incoming president of Connecticut’s Police Chief Association, said the incident changed his perspective and lead him to want to be able to see what happened during the entire incident, not just clips, especially when use of force is involved.

“It shows the efforts that we go through to try to provide quality service and when it comes to the use of force efforts that we go through to avoid using force, to de-escalate that force,” Mello said. “And just as important is when that doesn’t happen and when there’s an overreaction or there’s a mistake or there’s simply bad behavior on the part of law enforcement video helps determine that as well.”

Mello said they’re working with the departments across the state that have body cameras to “create a muscle memory” for turning on the body cameras.

“What concerns us is that the public sometimes may assume that we didn’t turn it on intentionally, and I find that to be less the case,” Mello said of officers new to wearing the cameras. “it’s more just human behavior, they just plain forget.”

“What’s important especially with local law enforcement when you have over a hundred police departments, is we want consistency,” Mello said. “We want to make sure the public has a right to expect consistency because law enforcement knows no boundaries, and so they should have a right to expect that the police department they live in adheres to the same principles as the police department where they work, where they visit.”

According to Mello, body cameras can help police officers do their jobs better, document evidence and offer a greater level of transparency to the public.

While some studies of police departments across the country have reported a decrease in the use of force and positive results from adopting body cams, like in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Rialto, California, a 2019 report from George Mason’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy contends that, “Although officers and citizens are generally supportive of body-worn camera use, body-worn cameras have not had statistically consistent effects on most measures of officer and citizen behavior or citizens’ view of police.”

The report examined 70 published studies of body-worn cameras (BWCs,) with 52 originating from the United States.

The studies were broken down into six categories:

• The impact of BWC on officer behavior
• Officer attitudes about BWCs
• The impact of BWCs on citizen behavior
• Citizen and community attitudes about BWCs
• The impact of BWCs on criminal investigations
• The impact of BWCs on law enforcement organizations

The researchers suggest that the “rapid adoption” of BWCs across the country “has been propelled by highly publicized events in this decade involving (often) White police officers killing (often) unarmed Black individuals.” They trace the shift to Trayvon Martin’s shooting death in 2012 , followed by Michael Brown’s in 2014 and Freddie Gray’s in 2015, though Martin was not killed by a police officer. Those incidents, and others, were captured on civilian cell phone camera videos. According to the report, researchers believe that there’s “likely to be a growing expecting among the public that adopting BWCs is a marker of a responsive, transparent and legitimate police organization.”

The Cost Of The Cloud

One of the biggest challenges facing departments seeking to make body cams a part their policing is the cost. While Connecticut’s grant program funds the initial purchase of the cameras and a year’s worth of data storage, it falls on each department to keep financing the program and its related software. The online cloud storage for Hartford’s 325 camera costs an additional $237,000. Annually per camera, it costs $240 for a warranty, $250 for cloud storage and $180 for access to Axon Evidence, the cloud-based device data management system. In 2015, the Department of Justice invested $20 million in body-worn cameras for departments across the country

The Washington Post reported that some police departments in small jurisdictions have ended their body camera programs because of the cost and cited financial and workload strains on prosecutors. A 2016 DOJ report stated that for agencies that had not purchased body cameras, 77% gave cost as the reason why they hadn’t acquired them.

In the fall of 2018, the Policing Project hosted a cost-benefit analysis conference that evaluates policing from beyond a literal dollars and cents standpoint. It included a panel-discussion on body cameras.

“Anytime you evaluate a tool that the police are using or a policy, you have to take into account not only how much the camera costs but also intangible costs and benefits,” Friedman said, the faculty director of NYU’s Policing Project. “Cameras might be expensive but they might increase community trust. It’s easier to put a value on the cost of a camera instead of community trust.”

The Problem With The Federal Body Cam Ban

According to The Washington Post, federal agents do not wear body cameras and prohibit local officers from wearing them during joint operations. Atlanta police chief Erika Shields removed Atlanta officers working with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service because of the ban.

In St. Paul, Minnesota, officers were removed from a federal marshals’ task force for continuing to wear their body cameras. Officers with Washington D.C.’s Metro Police Department comply with the federal rule when working on federal task forces.

Two members of the U.S. House recently reintroduced a bill that would require federal uniformed officers to wear body cameras that did not get a 2018 Congressional hearing.

The Washington Post reported that a Justice Department official said its body camera ban is related to “safety and security concerns, such as protecting sensitive or tactical methods used in arresting violent fugitives or conducting covert investigations.”

“It really hurts our standing with the community when we don’t have body-worn cameras,” said Art Acevedo, Houston’s police chief and the president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

Soon, Acevedo says they plan to change department policy so that officers on SWAT teams will wear body cameras as they execute search and arrest warrants. He noted the fatal shooting of a 20-year-old man in Memphis by U.S. Marshal deputies serving an arrest warrant as a concerning incident.

“We need our federal partners to come into the 21st Century and and agree that transparency builds trust and trust is a win for everybody,” Acevedo said.

Acevedo says they began conversations with the Department of Justice more than a year ago with then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and have continued with current Attorney General William Barr regarding the federal ban on body cameras in the “interest of transparency accountability and and in an effort to try to build legitimacy across the nation.”

“You can’t be with the mindset, do as we say and not as we do,” Acevedo said. “We can’t have the federal government investing hundreds of millions of the taxpayer dollars across the nation and then turn around and say, ‘Well, wait a minute, it’s good for the locals, but it’s not good for us.’ They know that this is a huge concern, we put it on their radar.”

In 2016, the Department of Justice surveyed nearly 4,000 law enforcement agencies across the country and found the following as the top reasons for acquiring body cams:

• To improve officer safety  
• To improve evidence quality  
• To reduce civilian complaints  
• To reduce agency liability  
• To improve accountability  
• To make cases more prosecutable  
• To improve officer professionalism  
• To improve community perceptions  
• To reduce use of force

For local and state law enforcement agencies that actively use body cameras, the federal government’s ban is both a contradiction and a liability for their officers involved in task forces and joint investigations. Acevedo says that if the DOJ doesn’t change their stance by the end of the summer, he plans to take action.

“The president himself has made combating violent crime one of the highest priorities for his federal agencies,” Acevedo said. “Ultimately if [the] DOJ doesn’t come up with an agreement, we’ll probably end up calling for the president to issue an executive order and make them do the right thing.”

Updated 7/1/2019: This story has been updated to include the release of the Axon Ethics Board’s first report .

Guns & America is a public media reporting project on the role of guns in American life.

Stand up for civility

This news story is funded in large part by Connecticut Public’s Members — listeners, viewers, and readers like you who value fact-based journalism and trustworthy information.

We hope their support inspires you to donate so that we can continue telling stories that inform, educate, and inspire you and your neighbors. As a community-supported public media service, Connecticut Public has relied on donor support for more than 50 years.

Your donation today will allow us to continue this work on your behalf. Give today at any amount and join the 50,000 members who are building a better—and more civil—Connecticut to live, work, and play.

7 findings from first-ever study on body cameras

For 12 months, rialto’s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear taser hd axon flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts.

A groundbreaking study of body-worn cameras first reported by Force Science News 18 months ago has now been published in a professional journal, with additional commentary. An abstract of the research can be accessed free of charge, with an option to buy the full study, by clicking here , which will take you to the website for the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. The essence of the report is also available free by clicking here .

The research comprised a yearlong experiment conducted at the Rialto (CA) PD, a mid-size agency that serves a population of 100,000 residents, more than half of them minorities. The city, home to a number of large-scale hard goods warehousers and shippers, experiences an above-average crime rate, with a homicide rate that is nearly 50 percent higher than the US average. More than 20 percent of the population lives below the federal poverty line.

For 12 months, Rialto’s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, “the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants,” the study team explains.

Nearly 1,000 shifts around the clock were monitored in all, and all participating officers experienced both camera and non-camera working conditions.

Recorded video was automatically uploaded at the end of each tour, and the research team had full access to this “rich” database in what they claim was the world’s first test of the effect of body cams on police-subject interactions.

The results were dramatic.

For three years prior to the experiment, the PD posted roughly 65 use-of-force incidents per year. (UOF was considered “physical force that is greater than basic control or ‘compliance holds’ “and included OC spray, baton strikes, TASER deployment, K9 bites, or firearms.) In the year before the experiment, 24 citizens lodged grievances against officers.

During the experimental period, the UOF rate dropped significantly, to 25 incidents total, a reduction of 58 percent to 64 percent compared to previous years. Only eight of the incidents occurred when officers were wearing body cams. In other words, during the test period the likelihood of force being used was roughly doubled when cameras were not deployed.

Citizen complaints plunged to a total of three (3), a precipitous drop of 88 percent.

The research team’s commentary on these findings includes these observations:

• Extensive research shows that people tend to “adhere to social norms and change their conduct” once they’re aware that their behavior is being observed. Under camera scrutiny, they “become more conscious that unacceptable behaviors will be captured on film,” with detection “perceived as certain.” Body-worn cameras (BWCs) convey a “straight-forward, pragmatic message: ‘You are being watched, videotaped, and expected to follow the rules’.”

• This “self-awareness effect” caused by the camera’s “neutral third eye” affects the psyches of officers and suspects alike, prompting suspects to “cool down” aggressive actions and deterring officers “from reacting with excessive or unnecessary force.” Neither party wants to “get caught engaging in socially undesirable behavior that may have costly consequences.”

• “[E]ven police subcultures of acceptable but illegitimate force responses are likely to be affected by the cameras,” the researchers write, “because misconduct cannot go undetected.... Police-public encounters become more transparent and the curtain of silence that protects misconduct can more easily be unveiled....” On the other hand, cameras may “force” officers “to endure stressful situations and arguably accept some forms of disrespect that without the cameras [they] would normally not.”

• The study revealed an interesting “spillover effect.” Overall, the use of force and citizen complaints declined both when cameras were in use and when they weren’t, the researchers point out. They speculate that this may reflect a conscious effort by officers without cameras during a given shift to competitively improve their behavior to favorably match that of fellow officers who had the “advantage” of wearing a body cam.

• There’s a “training potential” in body-worn videos. The footage “can be used to ‘coach’ officers about how they conduct themselves,” the researchers write. “We envision future police training to incorporate one-on-one sessions in which junior officers train with their own footage...and potentially improve their demeanor when dealing with suspects, victims, and witnesses.”

• While the researchers consider a cost/benefit analysis to favor BWCs, they acknowledge that one “price” is presently unclear: “What are the direct and indirect costs of storing, sharing, and managing digital evidence?” As the “velocity and volume of data” grow exponentially over time, “user licenses, storage space, security costs, maintenance, and system upgrades can potentially translate into billions of dollars worldwide.”

• However, “the cost of not having video footage may have direct implications on decisions to prosecute or on criminal proceedings more generally.” Historically, testimony by officers in court against defendants has “carried tremendous weight.... Yet it is very likely that defense attorneys, judges, the jury, and the public as a whole would steadfastly assign more weight to digital evidence.... [W]ould district attorneys...be reluctant to prosecute when there is no evidence from body-worn devices to corroborate the testimony of the officer... Would cases be dismissed if arrests or stop-and-frisk were conducted without a body-worn video, given the possible violation of human rights? Will officers’ credibility in court be assumed to be violated when police-public encounters are not recorded?”

Time will tell whether such potential consequences will prove to offset the benefits of BWCs, the researchers say.

Meantime, “mistrust and a lack of confidence...already characterize some communities’ perception of their local police,” they note. “It may take just one or a handful of cases” of unnecessary or excessive force to further “damage the legitimacy of the police” and inflict “tremendous costs” on agencies already struggling financially “in an era of austerity....

“Completely eradicating illegitimate use-of-force is unlikely, as some force will always be required against some offenders in some circumstances. Any approach should still allow for legitimate use-of-force...but for all other circumstances, a reductionist approach should aim to dramatically ‘cool down’ encounters.”

Based on the findings of this study, which the research team urges other departments to replicate in their own jurisdictions, BWCs appear to be a potentially valuable tool in achieving that goal, while “enhancing police legitimacy and transparency, increasing prosecution rates, and improving evidence capture....”

The researchers authoring the study are William Farrar, chief of Rialto PD, and Drs. Barak Ariel and Alex Sutherland of the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge in England.

Our original report on this research, based in large part on an interview with Chief Farrar, who directly managed the experiment, can be accessed by clicking here or by typing the following address for the Force Science News Archives in to your browser here .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley-Blackwell Online Open

What evidence supports the use of Body Worn Cameras in mental health inpatient wards? A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the effects of Body Worn Cameras in public sector services

Keiran wilson.

1 Health Services and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London UK

Jessica Eaton

2 Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London UK

Madeleine Ellis

Ellen thomas, alan simpson.

Body‐Worn‐Cameras (BWCs) are being introduced into Mental Health Inpatient Units. At present, minimal evidence surrounding their use in a mental health environment exists. This review examined research on the uses of BWCs in public sector services including healthcare, public transportation, and law enforcement. All eligible studies included a visible BWC, recording on a continuous loop as the main intervention. The evidence base presented high levels of bias, highly varied camera protocols, and heterogeneity of outcome measurements. This review found there is limited evidence for the efficacy of BWCs to control and manage violence within mental health inpatient wards. The technology has shown to be effective in reducing the number of public complaints in a law enforcement setting, but it is unclear how this is achieved. It appears there may be potential beneficial uses and unintended consequences of BWCs yet to be explored by mental health services.

INTRODUCTION

The use of digital technology in healthcare settings has increased over recent years and presents new opportunities for the delivery of physical and mental health services in the United Kingdom (Department of Health and Social Care 2019 ). In 2005, CCTV was first introduced as a technological surveillance tool for maintaining staff and patient safety in a range of healthcare settings (Desai 2009 ). Continued technological advances in this field have led to the development of wearable camera technologies referred to here as Body Worn Cameras (BWCs). These small transportable devices are usually worn on the outside of clothing, glasses, or headwear to produce video and audio recordings (The Metropolitan Police, 2020 ).

This technology has been in use by police in the UK since 2005 (The Home Office 2007 ) and it is estimated that over 70% of police forces have started to adopt the use of BWCs (Lum et al . 2020 ). In a police setting, research suggests BWCs may enhance transparency, supplement documentation, and deter illegal and inappropriate behaviours from both officers and citizens (Bureau of Justice Assistance 2015 ). However, there is a lack of evidence supporting their efficacy, cost effectiveness, and wider social impact. The only comprehensive systematic review of literature to date found that the use of BWCs by police officers had no significant impact on police (mis)use of force or assaults against officers (Lum et al . 2020 ).

Despite a lack of evidence to support the use of BWCs in public sector services, The National Health Service (NHS) has pledged to invest (UK) £8 million in pilot testing BWCs as a way to enhance staff safety and assist in prosecuting violence against staff (Department of Health and Social Care 2019 ). Since this announcement, we have seen the roll out of BWCs in ambulance services across the country (London Ambulance Service 2021 ) and initial pilot testing in inpatient mental health services (Ellis et al . 2019 ). Safety is a considerable issue within mental health services, where staff are 7.5 times more likely to report they have been attacked than staff in other NHS services (Royal College of Nursing 2018b ). In 2020, 14.9% of staff in mental health trusts claimed that they experienced physical violence from service users or other members of the public (NHS Staff Survey 2020 : National Results Briefing 2021 ). Despite the higher rates of physical assault against staff, only 4% of alleged physical assaults by psychiatric inpatients were reported to the police in 2018 and even fewer resulted in action taken (Doedens et al . 2020 ; Young & Ready 2016 ). In a mental health setting, BWCs allow staff to record situations where conflict may occur, and containment measures may be used. However, the use of BWCs in mental health settings is in its infancy and is a strongly contested intervention (Royal College of Nursing 2018a ).

The high rate of assault against mental health nurses contributes to the high rate of staff turnover in mental health services (NHS Improvement 2019 ; Royal College of Nursing 2018b ). Despite identifying the staffing crisis as a priority in the Five Year Forward View 2017–2019 report (Department of Health and Social Care 2017 ) and the NHS Long Term Plan (Department of Health and Social Care 2019 ), the number of mental health nurses increased by <0.5% over 2019 (Buchan et al . 2019 ) and recruitment and retention remain huge challenges (Launder 2020 ). Understaffing plays a key role in the deterioration of patient care (Baker et al . 2019 ), and BWCs may be implemented in an attempt to improve staff safety and ultimately improve patient care.

However, conflict and violence in mental health wards is a complex issue that affects both staff and patients (Bowers 2014 ; Fletcher et al . 2021 ; Kumar et al . 2001 ). Research and audits conducted in inpatient services in England revealed patients often experience verbal abuse, fighting, bullying, theft, racism, and sexual assault (Care Quality Commission 2018 ; Jones et al . 2010 ). Mental health staff have a responsibility to protect their patients from physical and psychological harm during their stay; yet, frequently staff interactions with patients can fuel conflict (Papadopoulos et al . 2012 ). Mental health nurses are the staff group most likely to be involved in face‐to‐face interactions with service users who may be highly distressed and/or frustrated by the restrictions typically imposed within inpatient settings to maintain safety, such as removing personal items, restricting smoking, or limiting movements (Bowers et al . 2015 ). There are currently evidence‐based interventions, such as the Safewards model, which have been found to reduce incidents of conflict and use of containment measures (e.g., seclusion, restraint) on mental health wards (Bowers 2014 ). However, chronic understaffing can make it difficult to implement these effective interventions more widely (McAllister et al . 2019 ).

Ethical concerns remain central to wider debates surrounding the implementation of BWCs in mental healthcare settings (Royal College of Nursing 2018a ). Those who require care in an inpatient mental health ward are often admitted against their will and are at the most vulnerable point in their patient journey (Care Quality Commission 2019 ). Further, Black and South Asian minority groups are disproportionately detained under mental health legislation in the UK, and Black patients are more likely to be subject to measures to maintain safety, such as use of physical restraint (Barnett et al . 2021 ; Payne‐Gill et al . 2021 ; Rodrigues et al . 2020 ). Implementation of BWCs would likely have the greatest impact on this already vulnerable group.

While policy makers hope this new technology will bring improvements to the delivery of mental health services, it is essential that patients receive care based upon the best current evidence in conjunction with clinical expertise and patient values (Reid et al . 2017 ). A small number of BWC evaluations in mental health wards in England have been undertaken (Ellis et al . 2019 ; Hardy et al . 2017 ), but given their relatively small scale and localised focus, a wider review is required. The lack of research on BWCs in a mental health setting means it is essential to draw upon the wider literature in the public sector to explore its effects and consequences. A systematic review provides the opportunity to appraise and synthesise existing evidence across the public sector and make recommendations regarding the potential future use of BWCs in a mental health environment (Pati & Lorusso 2018 ).

This review seeks to answer the research question: Are BWCs likely to enhance safety in mental health inpatient wards based on the literature regarding BWC use across a range of public sector services ? The primary objective is to identify and systematically review literature relating to the use of BWCs in the public sector, assessing where/how BWCs are being deployed, the methods used to conduct such research, and the effect of BWCs in these settings. The findings and implications associated with BWCs in public sector services will be discussed in relation to their suitability for mental health services.

We conducted a systematic review using narrative synthesis in accordance with the Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis (Popay et al . 2006 ). This approach facilitates synthesis of a range of methodologies and study designs and allows a focus on the wide range of BWC applications in public services. A meta‐analysis of this literature was not a suitable way to address the research questions proposed in this review (Borenstein 2009 ). For the purposes of this review, public sector services are defined as central government, local government, and public corporations delivering services to citizens, including healthcare, law enforcement, and public transportation (Office for National Statistics 2019 ).

Protocol and registration

The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO before commencement (CRD42020164878).

Eligibility criteria

Studies were only included where they met the following criteria: BWC was a standalone, visible device able to provide continuous video playback; BWC was attached to a member of staff working in a public sector service; BWC was used to record face‐to‐face interactions with the public or service users; and the study reported the methodology for evaluation. Studies were excluded if the BWC was used as a data collection tool; BWC was used outside the public sector; or BWC use was reported in an internal evaluation without reporting the methodology.

Database coverage

A search of all relevant literature was undertaken with librarian assistance using the following databases: Medline (via Ovid, 1966 to 25/05/2021); Embase (via Dialog 1974 to 25/05/2021); PsycINFO (via Datastar 1806 to 25/05/2021); Global health (via Ovid, 1966 to 25/05/2021); HMIC (via Ovid, 1979 to 25/05/2021); Web of Science (via Clarivate 1975‐ 25/05/2021); Sage Journals (via Datastar 1994‐ 25/05/2021); OpenGrey (1972 to 25/05/2021) and Google Scholar (2004‐ 25/05/2021). No limits or filters were imposed. Searches were supplemented by reference list screening and BWC websites were reviewed for publications (Reveal, Axon, Google Glass, Calla, VIEVU, Panasonic and Puma). Email alerts from all journals and RSS feeds from camera websites were utilised to ensure identification of new articles.

Search strategy

A keyword search was applied to all databases using the search terms; Body adj3 camera* OR Wearable video OR Wearable camera* OR Body worn video. An initial scoping search revealed most journal articles had yet to be indexed under a MeSH term, therefore, MeSH terms were omitted from the facet analysis.

Study selection

In May 2019, the search was conducted by JE. In May 2021, the search was repeated by KW to capture new research that was published in the time elapsed since the initial search. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed, and a full PRISMA chart can be found in Figure  1 . Referencing software Zotero was used to de‐duplicate, and articles were screened in Microsoft Excel. To ensure unbiased selection, title and abstract screening was undertaken by two independent researchers (First search: JE, UF; Second search: KW, UF). Full text screening utilising the same criteria was undertaken. Full text exclusions were documented along with reasons. Disagreements at any stage were resolved by a third reviewer (AS; n  = 6).

PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al . 2009 ).

Data collection

Data was extracted using a pre‐designed data collection tool included in the PROSPERO registration. The tool includes country, study design, sample size, setting, main method, camera user, recording subject, camera model, comparison arm, study length, outcome measures, and funding source. The form was piloted on 10 studies during the initial search to ensure suitability. No amendments were made. No limit on summary measures were implemented and all relevant results were collected. Efforts were made to contact authors for missing information wherever possible.

Quality appraisal

All studies were reviewed for selection, performance, attrition, detection, and publication bias. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool was utilised (Aromataris & Munn 2020 ). Critical appraisal of all included studies was undertaken individually by JE and UF. No discrepancies were apparent. Individual scores attained from the tool were then collated to review bias across studies.

Results were divided into healthcare, law enforcement, and public transport sectors and analysed using a narrative synthesis approach according to an established framework (Popay et al . 2006 ). With this approach, main findings from the quantitative studies in each sector were summarised and further supplemented with examples from the qualitative studies. KW, JE, and ME identified the effects, outcomes, and experiences of BWCs from the qualitative data.

Study characteristics

An overview of the 52 studies included in this review can be found in Appendix  A . Most were conducted in law enforcement settings (including police officers, prison guards, and traffic wardens; N  = 43), followed by healthcare (including physicians, frontline clinical staff, paramedics, and family carers; N  = 8) and transportation (railway ticket inspectors; N  = 1). There was a wide range of study designs, such as randomised control trials, pilot evaluations, and qualitative interviews; however, not all studies explicitly reported their chosen design.

Participants

BWC research is comprised of various units of analysis reported alongside participant population data. A total of 10 articles reported the number of cameras used in the study (7 in law enforcement, 2 in healthcare, 1 in public transportation). Participant figures are more commonly reported than number of BWCs due to frequent sharing of a limited number of cameras across entire departments. Across all studies, 46 reported a specific count of participants (6 in healthcare, 39 in law enforcement, 1 in public transportation). Other units of measurement reported in lieu of participants or number of cameras include shift patterns (Ariel et al . 2015 ), contacts or interactions with police (Young & Ready, 2016 ), geographic regions (Grossmith et al., 2015 ; Mitchell et al. 2018 ), caregiving pairs (Matthews et al . 2015 ), and physician consultations (Gupta et al . 2016 ).

BWC intervention

The model of camera used also varied widely across the studies. Police studies primarily used TASER cameras; however, 23 of these studies neglected to declare a model. One study (Ho et al . 2017 ) used TASER cameras in a healthcare setting with paramedics. However, Google Glass (4) and Calla (2) were most common in healthcare settings. There was also variability in protocol reporting. Only 17 out of 52 (32%) studies reported recording protocols, and these were primarily law enforcement. The practice of camera wearers verbally announcing recording varied and a range of visual warnings to alert others varied from audible sounds, flashing lights and activation of screens. Camera activation was either at staff discretion or mandatory for the duration of a shift.

Research quality

All studies were reviewed for selection, performance, attrition, detection, and publication bias. The JBI Critical Appraisal tool was utilised. Critical appraisal of the included studies was undertaken by three researchers (JE, UF, KW). No discrepancies were apparent. Individual scores attained from the tool were then collated to review bias across studies and assess quality. Overall, 30 out of the 52 studies included in this review were of poor quality, with a high risk of bias. Only five studies displayed low enough risk to be classified as good quality research. Quality assessment can be found in Appendix  A .

Funding and costs

A total of 19 studies reported funding sources. A further six studies did not receive funding, and the remaining 30 studies neglected to report on funding sources. Of the 19 reports of funding, 8 were funded by a federal government body (e.g., Bureau of Justice, Home Office, US Department of Justice), and 4 were funded by other government bodies such as local task force and police budgets. Five studies (Ariel et al . 2015 ; Ariel 2016b ; Ellis et al . 2019 ; Hardy et al . 2017 ; Mitchell et al . 2018 ) reported receiving camera equipment free of charge from the company. Overall, law enforcement studies account for 80% of studies with undeclared funding.

Three studies (Braga et al . 2018 ; Hardy et al . 2017 ; ODS Consulting 2011 ) report on the total costs of BWC implementation, including hardware, software, and training. On average, the cost per BWC was £1,750. However, none of the studies in this review included an economic analysis in which wider consideration of resource use, training costs, health benefits, and opportunity costs can be calculated and analysed.

Outcomes in transportation sector

Only one study examined the use of BWCs by staff at railway stations across England (Ariel et al . 2019 ). The results from this randomised controlled trial indicated a 47% reduction in odds of assaults against staff when wearing BWCs. This article positions BWCs as beneficial to employee health and safety by reducing rates of violence against staff.

Outcomes in law enforcement sector

Most studies included in this review were from law enforcement settings (43 out of 52). Twenty of those studies examined the impact of BWCs on one or more of the following outcomes (Table  1 ): police behaviour (use of force, arrest rates), citizen behaviour (complaints, assault against officers). Combinations of these four variables were the most frequently examined outcomes. Additionally, 12 studies examined both civilian and police opinions on BWCs. Other less frequently examined outcomes were court processes (Morrow et al . 2016 ; Owens et al . 2014 ), traffic stops (Peterson et al . 2018 ), stop and frisks (Young & Ready 2016 ), response time/time spent on scene (Wallace et al . 2018 ), camera activation (Roy 2014 ; Young & Ready 2016 ), and public reporting of crime (Ariel 2016a ).

Impact of BWC on police use of force, arrest rates, citizen complaints, and officer assaults

* p  < 0.05; ** p  < 0.01; *** p  < 0.001.

– Not measured.

Officer Behaviour

Two studies reported an increase in officer‐initiated contact (Wallace et al . 2018 ; Young & Ready 2016 ), and a third reported a decrease (Huff et al . 2020 ). Although (Young & Ready 2016 ) reported an increase in officer‐initiated contact, they also reported that officers were less likely to perform stop and frisks while wearing BWCs. However, BWCs were not found to impact response time or time spent on scene once contact was initiated (Wallace et al . 2018 ). Research also shows a mix of statistically significant increases (Braga et al . 2018 ; Huff et al . 2020 , Morrow et al . 2016 ) and decreases (Headley et al . 2017 ; Young & Ready 2016 ) in arrest rates, and one study reported no change at all (Wallace et al . 2018 ). No conclusions can be drawn about the impact of BWCs on officer‐initiated contact or arrest rates based on this literature.

Four studies reported significant decreases in police use of force resulting from BWC use (Ariel et al . 2015 ; Braga et al . 2018 , 2020 ; Groff 2020 ). Two further studies also reported a slight decrease in use of force but neglected to report the statistical significance of this change (Jennings et al . 2017 ; Rankin 2013 ). Additionally, one study reported a decrease in use of force rates only when controlling for compliant handcuffing (Henstock & Ariel 2017 ). However, (Huff et al. 2020 ) reported a small but significant increase in use of force following BWC activation. There appears to be a trend toward decreased use of force after implementing BWCs, but inconsistencies in methods and measures across the literature make it difficult to draw solid conclusions.

Officer opinions

When asked about BWCs, the ten studies examining police perspectives report mixed opinions. Some studies have found police officers believe the cameras are helpful and should be implemented (George & Meadows 2016 ; Pelfrey & Keener 2016 ; Ready & Young 2015 ), while others report neutral and negative leaning opinions (Hyatt et al . 2017 ). For example, officers in one study believed that BWCs enhance the quality of evidence, particularly in prosecuting domestic violence cases (Gaub et al . 2016 ). However, another study reported contradictory findings in which officer perspectives on BWC helpfulness for interpersonal violence prosecution was less favourable after BWC implementation (Morrow et al . 2016 ).

Qualitative studies examining police officer perspectives highlighted some of the perceived benefits of BWCs. One common belief was that BWCs can protect officers against citizen complaints:

You give the command, the dog pops off and comes back to you, and that’s captured on camera. I mean that’s gold to us. Later down the road if there is any civil litigation, it’s there. It’s captured for the argument that the dog stayed on too long. Canine Officer (Gaub et al. 2020 ) …don’t think they will create any problems for the officers although they may hold some officers to a higher standard of professionalism, will assist in stopping complaints about officers if they occur. Police officer (Makin 2016 )

Officer beliefs about the impact of BWCs on civilian behaviour were mixed. One study found that while some officers believed the cameras would benefit the officers, they did not believe the cameras would enhance officer safety or change civilian behaviour (Pelfrey & Keener 2016 ). This contradicts the results of another police survey in which officers reported beliefs that BWCs do change civilian behaviour (George & Meadows 2016 ). Similarly, a BWC pilot evaluation in the UK found that prison staff showed increased perceptions of safety after BWC implementation (Pope et al . 2020 ).

There have also been contradictory findings on whether police officers feel the implementation of BWCs has impacted their own behaviour. One qualitative study demonstrates possible positive behaviour changes resulting from BWC use:

This was a pretty straightforward situation. But when you know, you are having a bad day, or you are in an intense situation you know? I would normally maybe let a curse word fly. And we are not allowed to curse at citizens, but you know, we all do that from time to time. Now, I tend to watch myself a little more. Patrol officer (Koen et al. 2019 )

However, George and Meadows ( 2016 ) found that officers believed the cameras would improve the behaviour of their colleagues, but not their own.

These studies also highlighted perceived challenges and limitations to BWC use. Volume of calls, technical limitations of recording and battery capacity, and documentation procedures were all identified as problems (Gaub et al . 2020 ). Another concern raised by officers was that BWCs would be used as a tool to control and discipline the officers:

Regardless of statements used by management, the primary use of these videos will be to police the officers’ actions and to be used for disciplinary actions. Police officer (Makin 2016 )

In addition to concerns about BWCs being used to discipline officers, another officer raised a concern about officers manipulating footage:

Cameras have limited abilities and perceptions and could be used negatively by outside influences to create problems. How many times have you seen video where the clips were cut to create the perception someone wanted to portray, rather than the entire circumstance? Police officer (Makin 2016 )

Ultimately, officer opinions appear to be the most robust and widely researched aspect of BWC implementation in law enforcement. The opinions of officers vary widely, and qualitative research has captured this in detail.

Citizen behaviour

Rates of citizen complaints were frequently reported alongside police use of force and arrest rates. Despite being a measure of citizen activity, complaints are most frequently operationalised as a measure of officer behaviour. Ten studies reported decreases in citizen complaints; however, three of those studies neglected to report statistical significance of that decrease (Ellis et al . 2015 ; Jennings et al . 2017 ; Rankin 2013 ).

Methods for reporting changes in officer assaults varied across the five studies which examined this outcome. A pilot study of BWC use by a police force in Scotland reported a decrease in assaults with no statistics to support this statement (ODS Consulting 2011 ). Another study also reported a significant difference (Ariel et al . 2018 ), but this is contradicted by an earlier study which reported an increase in assaults against officers (Ariel et al . 2016 ). A further two studies reported no significant changes (Headley et al . 2017 ; Peterson et al . 2018 ). Additionally, one study reported assaults by comparing the frequency of change in assault rates per prison, rather than reporting specific changes in actual assault rates (Pope et al . 2020 ); therefore, this study cannot be directly compared to studies that reported figures for assaults. This study reports that prison sites with BWCs experienced fewer officer assaults after implementation; however, this was statistically insignificant. It is unclear from the existing literature whether BWCs have an impact on assaults against officers.

Citizen opinions

When asked how BWCs would impact police behaviour and outcomes, 99.4% of citizens surveyed in one study supported police use of BWCs. Citizens surveyed in this study also believed BWCs would improve the quality of police behaviour, increase lawfulness and transparency, and reduce corruption (Demir 2019 ). When BWCs were present in another quasi‐experimental study, citizens perceived the officer’s behaviour more positively, and ultimately perceived police as more legitimate (Demir et al . 2020 ). However, prisoner interviews conducted during a pilot evaluation of BWCs in UK prisons reported less favourable opinions about BWCs, and a perception that staff/prisoner relationships were negatively affected following implementation (Pope et al . 2020 ). Ultimately, prisoners felt less safe after BWC implementation and perceive the cameras as a violation of privacy:

It is another intrusion of the little privacy I had left. Prisoner (Pope et al . 2020 )

Like the concerns raised by police officers about officer manipulation of footage, prisoners also raised concerns about how staff are using the BWCs:

Body worn cameras are not being used as it should be. It is being used just to set up prisoners for nicking. Prisoner (Pope et al . 2020 )

While officer perspectives on BWCs have been researched in some depth, research on citizen and prisoner perspectives is far less robust.

Outcomes in healthcare sector

Five studies examined BWCs in emergency settings, including surgical consultations (Gupta et al . 2016 ), poisoning assessments (Skolnik et al . 2016 ), stroke assessment (Noorian et al . 2019 ), paramedic activity (Ho et al . 2017 ), and trauma triage (Broach et al . 2018 ). Findings indicate that diagnoses and assessments made with BWC technology are just as reliable as those made in‐person (Broach et al . 2018 ; Noorian et al . 2019 ; Skolnik et al. 2016 ). However, these studies are quasi‐experimental and observational in design, with small sample sizes (≤10). Therefore, individual preferences, practice patterns or policy decisions can impact selection criteria for participants and outcomes cannot be attributed to the intervention alone (Carlson & Morrison 2009 ).

Further, one study used medical simulation to evaluate the use of BWCs for documenting paramedic call outs. The purpose of using BWCs in this study was not to improve quality of care or safety; rather, it was specifically to improve staff documentation of paramedic activity. At present, current Emergency Medical Services documentation practices are usually taken from memory after the event. A simulation of an unconscious patient was played out by role players to investigate whether the accuracy of documentation could be improved by retrospectively watching BWC footage of the scene. Watching BWC footage after callouts resulted in 71 changes to documentation regarding missing or incorrect information from paramedic reports; the authors only report raw data and cannot comment on the relationship between the variables. This research presented BWCs as a solution to improve and streamline current ways of working. The technology shows potential for improving documentation, but this research base is still developing.

In addition to emergency assessment and documentation accuracy, qualitative findings highlighted the importance of streaming footage for dementia patients who face barriers in accessing healthcare:

I just think that it could help the doctors, because…they don’t want to come into the house… And that, honestly, was the biggest problem – she went for a year without seeing a doctor in the moderate to late‐stage Alzheimer’s range…But this could help in that way…if it was forwarded to the doctor’. Family caregiver (Matthews et al . 2015 )

Mental health

Only two studies included in this review examined the use of BWCs in mental health settings (Ellis et al . 2019 ; Hardy et al . 2017 ). Both studies reported on the use of BWCs in mental health settings, with one reporting from the north of England and one from the greater London area. The first (Hardy et al . 2017 ) was a feasibility study, which employed 12 cameras, provided free of charge by Calla, across five wards (two recovery, one low secure, one acute, and one intensive). This study reported an increase of verbal abuse and violence on three wards. A further two wards reported decreases in violence and low‐level restraint. However, two wards also reported increases in low‐level restraint. Finally, three wards reported a reduction in emergency restraint. It is important to note that these figures are only descriptive and have not been reported in relation to the type of ward. Therefore, it is not possible to make any claims about the impact of BWCs depending on level of ward security or admission type. [Correction added on 23 December 2021, after first online publication: the second sentence in the preceding paragraph has been amended and was originally “Both studies reported on the use of BWCs at the same NHS trust in the north of England.”]

Researchers also collected qualitative responses from staff and patients about their perspectives on the pros and cons of BWCs. Staff who wore cameras expressed positive perceptions:

‘I think it prevents lots of aggression and puts patients’ minds at ease knowing there is a record of what happened’. Staff member (Hardy et al . 2017 )

However, staff who did not wear cameras expressed more mixed opinions:

‘They cause more problems because the responding staff will only capture from the time of arrival hence does not give a clear picture of what has been happening prior to that’. Staff member (Hardy et al . 2017 )

Of the 57 patients surveyed, 68% felt the cameras would change staff behaviour and 63% felt it would change patient behaviour:

It may make staff more confident to approach and help distressed patients, it makes them feel safer at work so happier and more able to help patients. Patient (Hardy et al . 2017 )

However, some patients expressed less favourable perspectives:

It causes patients to be more irritable and angry when they think they are being observed. Patient (Hardy et al . 2017 )

The second study (Ellis et al . 2019 ) was a quasi‐experimental trial conducted two years after the feasibility study. This trial involved 50 cameras, again provided by Calla, across seven wards (two acute, one intensive, one forensic low secure, one medium secure, and two enhanced medium wards). This study reported on the context of each ward in more depth than the feasibility study, and also reported findings specific to the type of ward. The authors evaluated recorded incident data pre and post implementation of BWCs. Incidents were ranked by seriousness, ranging from 1 (verbal aggression) to 4 (restraint requiring tranquilising injection). Overall, a non‐significant decrease in incidents was reported, but a significant change in the seriousness of incidents across specific ward types was found. The two acute wards showed a significant increase in low level violence without restraint, and a decrease in incidents involving restraint with tranquilising injections. No difference was reported on the medium, intensive, or forensic wards. [Correction added on 23 December 2021, after first online publication: “at the same site” has been removed from “The second study.…feasibility study.” in the preceding paragraph]

Despite the low‐quality research and mixed findings, both studies report that BWCs are acceptable, beneficial, and effective tools in a mental health setting. It is important to note that both studies received cameras free of cost from the manufacturers, thus may be subject to bias. Ellis et al . ( 2019 ) provided a disclosure statement explaining that the lead author’s expenses were reimbursed by the camera company but maintained that the evaluation was conducted independently. Hardy et al . ( 2017 ) did not include a disclosure statement but did thank the camera company for providing cameras and training free of charge in the acknowledgements section of the article.

The primary objective of this review was to evaluate public sector use of BWCs in order to inform judgement about their suitability in mental health services. Results from this review highlight that BWCs are being implemented and utilised for different purposes across the public sector. In medical and emergency healthcare settings, BWCs tend to serve an explicitly therapeutic purpose by aiding in virtual assessments, diagnosis, and documentation. Similarly, in dementia care wearable cameras are being utilised for remote care and assessments to aid the safety of patients. The healthcare literature included in this review indicates that BWCs are successfully being used for telehealth purposes in a variety of contexts. Despite the apparent success of BWCs in medical healthcare settings and the growth of tele‐mental healthcare before and during the COVID‐19 pandemic (Barnett et al . 2021 ; Mishkind et al . 2021 ), there appears to be less research focussed on the potential therapeutic value of BWCs in mental health settings and much more on its role in law enforcement and prevention of violence.

This review found that mental health services are beginning to use BWCs similarly to the law enforcement sector’s use of this technology to document and deter aggressive incidents. The similarities between BWC use in mental health and police settings indicates that mental healthcare aligns more with the narrative of control and coercion prevalent in policing, rather than the arguably more patient‐centred approach found in physical healthcare. However, this distinction is not clear cut; reducing aggression and assaults in mental healthcare settings helps create a safer, calmer therapeutic environment that benefits patients, aids the wellbeing and retention of staff, and reassures families. The question remains as to whether BWCs are an effective and acceptable method of achieving that while maintaining parity of esteem between mental and physical healthcare (Panday 2016 ).

Research into the use of this technology in mental health settings remains in its infancy as evidenced by the limited number and quality of papers found within this review (Ellis et al . 2019 ; Hardy et al . 2017 ). These early pilot studies of BWCs in mental health settings present significant limitations due to low quality design, urging caution in drawing any conclusions around the impact on staff and service user behaviour.

While there does appear to be a trend toward decreased police use of force after implementing BWCs, this review found that there are inconsistencies in reporting methods and operational definitions making it difficult to draw solid conclusions based on this literature, and thus calling into question the applicability of such evidence to mental health settings. The review also indicates a reduction in complaints against police officers; however, the evidence fails to address whether BWCs result in fewer false accusations of police misconduct, or whether it deters officers from exercising illegitimate use of force. It is also unclear whether BWCs have an impact on citizen assaults against officers. Therefore, this review indicates there is no generalisable research supporting the use of BWC to reduce patient violence against staff, which is the main motivation for implementation in mental health settings (Hancock 2018 ). Despite the large evidence base examining BWC use in law enforcement settings, it is unclear if or how BWCs may enhance safety for either citizens or police officers. The heterogeneity of the samples, study settings, and cofounding factors also means to draw conclusions on the use of BWCs in a mental health setting based on law enforcement outcomes would be naïve.

It is important to recognise the different environments in which police officers and mental health staff work. Most of the research examining BWCs in law enforcement settings rely on patrol officers interacting with members of the public on the street. Mental health wards are enclosed spaces in which the wearer often has an ongoing relationship with the person they are recording. Mental health staff have a duty of care to vulnerable patients and reliance on building and sustaining therapeutic relationships is arguably not as relevant in public police–citizen interactions. Such differences may not only have a confounding influence on the nature and outcome of BWC use in mental health settings, but they may also lead to unintended consequences.

Based on the very limited evidence from mental health settings, BWCs may decrease high‐level incidents and increase low‐level incidents of aggression on inpatient wards. However, using BWCs to change patient behaviour raises questions around technological coercion (Morris 2021 ). While there is very little evidence to date on the impact of technological coercion on patient behaviour, coercive tactics that place environmental controls around patient behaviour have been linked to adverse outcomes. Research indicates that self‐harm rates on inpatient wards rise when patients feel the nurses are controlling them or limiting their freedom (James et al . 2012 ). Interviews with prisoners indicate that BWCs create feelings of powerlessness and intrusion (Pope et al . 2020 ), and similar sentiments are echoed by inpatient service users (Hardy et al . 2017 ).

If BWCs do reduce patient violence in inpatient mental health settings, they could potentially allow mental health staff to engage in more directed therapeutic work with the knowledge that they are less likely to require strong coercive techniques, such as seclusion or restraint (Stewart et al . 2010 ). However, even well intentioned safety measures such as door‐locking can create feelings of imprisonment and resentment which impair attempts at creating a therapeutic environment (Muir‐Cochrane et al . 2012 ). It is important for researchers, policy makers, healthcare professionals, and indeed patients themselves, to ask whether technological coercion is better for patients than the evidence‐based measures already available, such as the well‐established Safewards model (Bowers 2014 ).

Discussions around the risk of BWCs exacerbating symptoms and compromising care in mental health settings have begun to emerge (Olive 2019 ; Royal College of Nursing 2018a ), but there is a considerable lack of research into patient perspectives on BWCs. While officer perspectives on BWCs have been researched in some depth, research on citizen and prisoner perspectives is far less robust and consequently policy makers must acknowledge the bias in the current evidence base when considering the implications for mental health services.

Limitations & future directions

This review is the largest, and only, study of its type to date. The synthesis of evidence across the public sector has provided a wide overview of the uses and effects of BWCs and examines the minimal evidence for the use of this technology in a mental health setting. This review has identified poor methodological rigour in the current BWC evidence base and a lack of generalisability to mental health settings. Future research must explicitly examine the impact of BWCs in mental health settings, taking both patient and staff perspectives into account. There is also need for a wider consideration of the consequences of using such technologies and the consequences of implementing significant healthcare intervention within the NHS without prior rigorous research. Specifically, the lack of financial analysis is an imperative next step for researchers to address in order to establish whether BWCs will provide a cost‐effective use of funding to improve mental health service delivery.

This review only included studies with public services actively utilising BWC technology. During the initial screening process, it was evident that many studies examined BWCs beyond the scope of this review. For example, several law enforcement studies which did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review relied on archival footage, which may provide a different insight into BWC outcomes in police settings. As the evidence base grows and follow‐up periods increase, it will be beneficial for researchers to compare pre/post data and consider possible therapeutic outcomes and unintended consequences in more depth. Additionally, future research into BWCs in mental health settings should prioritise co‐production and patient involvement, as this review highlighted a notable lack of consideration for patient and citizen perspectives in research.

This review established that there is a poor evidence base for the use of BWCs in public sector services. BWCs in law enforcement is a well‐established practice with limited empirical support, and the increase in the use of this technology across other public services, such as healthcare, is still under‐researched. The use of poor‐quality law enforcement data to support the application of this technology in mental healthcare settings raises concerns around power and coercion in mental health nursing. This review highlights questions around the positive and negative impacts of BWCs in inpatient mental health settings have yet to be answered.

RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

BWCs are actively being rolled out in mental health trusts across the UK without a substantial evidence base to support their use. With this growing implementation, it is surprising that there is such a dearth of research that considers patient voices. The current review highlights the need to explore the experiences and perspectives of patients, mental health staff, and senior management to better understand the motivations, concerns, barriers, impact, and unintended/adverse consequences of BWC use in mental health settings. This research will help the mental health sector gain a greater understanding of this complex issue to better inform policies and practice.

Funding information

No external funding.

Acknowledgements

All authors have read and approved the manuscript. Authors KW, JE, and UF conducted the searches and data extraction. ME also assisted with data extraction. JE drafted the initial paper, and KW revised it for submission. AS resolved any disputes. All authors contributed to editing.

Appendix A. Summary of studies included in review

Declaration of Conflict of interest : None.

• Ariel, B. (2016a). Increasing cooperation with the police using body worn cameras . Police Quarterly , 19 ( 3 ), 326–362. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ariel, B. (2016b). Police body cameras in large police departments . Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 106 ( 4 ), 41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ariel, B. , Farrar, W.A. & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body‐worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: a randomized controlled trial . Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 31 ( 3 ), 509–535. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ariel, B. , Newton, M. , McEwan, L. , Ashbridge, G.A. , Weinborn, C. & Brants, H.S. (2019). Reducing assaults against staff using body‐worn cameras (BWCs) in railway stations . Criminal Justice Review , 44 ( 1 ), 76–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ariel, B. , Sutherland, A. , Henstock, D. et al . (2016). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi‐site experiment . European Journal of Criminology , 13 ( 6 ), 744–755. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ariel, B. , Sutherland, A. , Henstock, D. et al . (2017). “Contagious Accountability”: A global multisite randomized controlled trial on the effect of police body‐worn cameras on citizens’ complaints against the police . Criminal Justice and Behavior , 44 ( 2 ), 293–316. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ariel, B. , Sutherland, A. , Henstock, D. et al . (2018). Paradoxical effects of self‐awareness of being observed: Testing the effect of police body‐worn cameras on assaults and aggression against officers . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 14 ( 1 ), 19–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aromataris, E. & Munn, Z. (Eds.). (2020). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis . [Cited 01 06 2019]. Available from: URL: https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL
• Baker, J.A. , Canvin, K. & Berzins, K. (2019). The relationship between workforce characteristics and perception of quality of care in mental health: A qualitative study . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 100 , 103412. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett, P. , Goulding, L. , Casetta, C. et al . (2021). Implementation of telemental health services before COVID‐19: rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 23 ( 7 ), e26492. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borenstein, M. (Ed.). (2009). When does it make sense to perform a meta‐analysis? In Introduction to meta‐analysis . John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowers, L. (2014). Safewards: A new model of conflict and containment on psychiatric wards: Safewards: description of the model . Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing , 21 ( 6 ), 499–508. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowers, L. , James, K. , Quirk, A. , Simpson, A. , Stewart, D. & Hodsoll, J. (2015). Reducing conflict and containment rates on acute psychiatric wards: The Safewards cluster randomised controlled trial . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 52 ( 9 ), 1412–1422. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braga, A.A. , Barao, L.M. , Zimmerman, G.M. , Douglas, S. & Sheppard, K. (2019). Measuring the direct and spillover effects of body worn cameras on the civility of police‐citizen encounters and police work activities . Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 36 ( 4 ), 851–876. 10.1007/s10940-019-09434-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braga, A.A. , Sousa, W.H. , Coldren, J.R. & Rodriguez, D. (2018). The effects of body‐worn cameras on police activity and police‐citizen encounters: A randomized controlled trial . Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 108 ( 3 ), 511–538. [ Google Scholar ]
• Broach, J. , Hart, A. , Griswold, M. et al . (2018). Usability and reliability of smart glasses for secondary triage during mass casualty incidents . Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 1416–1422. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchan, J. , Charlesworth, A. , Gershlick, B. & Seccombe, I. (2019). A critical moment: NHS staffing trends, retention and attrition (p. 38). The Health Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Justice Assistance . (2015). Body‐Worn Camera Toolkit . [Cited 01 06 2019]. Available from: URL: https://www.bja.gov/bwc/
• Care Quality Commission (2018). Sexual safety on mental health wards . [Cited 01 06 2019]. Available from: URL: https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major‐report/sexual‐safety‐mental‐health‐wards
• Care Quality Commission . (2019). Mental health rehabilitation inpatient services: Results from the 2019 information request . [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlson, M.D.A. & Morrison, R.S. (2009). Study design, precision, and validity in observational studies . Journal of Palliative Medicine , 12 ( 1 ), 77–82. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Demir, M. (2019). Citizens’ perceptions of body‐worn cameras (BWCs): Findings from a quasi‐randomized controlled trial . Journal of Criminal Justice , 60 , 130–139. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.09.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Demir, M. , Apel, R. , Braga, A.A. , Brunson, R.K. & Ariel, B. (2018). Body worn cameras, procedural justice, and police legitimacy: A controlled experimental evaluation of traffic stops . Justice Quarterly , 37 ( 1 ), 53–84. 10.1080/07418825.2018.1495751 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Department of Health and Social Care . (2017). Next steps on the NHS five year forward view . NHS. [ Google Scholar ]
• Department of Health and Social Care . (2019). The NHS Long Term Plan . NHS. [ Google Scholar ]
• Desai, S. (2009). The new stars of CCTV: What is the purpose of monitoring patients in communal areas of psychiatric hospital wards, bedrooms and seclusion rooms? Diversity & Equality in Health and Care , 6 ( 1 ), 12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doedens, P. , Vermeulen, J. , Boyette, L. , Latour, C. & Haan, L. (2020). Influence of nursing staff attitudes and characteristics on the use of coercive measures in acute mental health services—A systematic review . Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing , 27 ( 4 ), 446–459. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis, T. , Jenkins, C. & Smith, P. (2015). Evaluation of the introduction of personal issue body worn video cameras (Operation Hyperion) on the Isle of Wight: Final Report to Hampshire Constabulary . University of Portsmouth. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis, T. , Shurmer, D.L. , Badham‐May, S. & Ellis‐Nee, C. (2019). The use of body worn video cameras on mental health wards: Results and implications from a pilot study . Mental Health in Family Medicine , 15 , 859–868. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher, A. , Crowe, M. , Manuel, J. & Foulds, J. (2021). Comparison of patients’ and staff’s perspectives on the causes of violence and aggression in psychiatric inpatient settings: An integrative review . Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing , 28 ( 5 ), 924–939. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaub, J.E. , Choate, D.E. , Todak, N. , Katz, C.M. & White, M.D. (2016). Officer perceptions of body‐worn cameras before and after deployment: A study of three departments . Police Quarterly , 19 ( 3 ), 275–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaub, J.E. , Todak, N. & White, M.D. (2020a). The distribution of police use of force across patrol and specialty units: A case study in BWC impact . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 17 ( 4 ), 545–561. 10.1007/s11292-020-09429-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaub, J.E. , Todak, N. & White, M.D. (2020b). One Size Doesn’t Fit All: The deployment of police body‐worn cameras to specialty units . International Criminal Justice Review , 30 ( 2 ), 136–155. [ Google Scholar ]
• George, M. & Meadows, R. (2016). Policing on the Surveillance Frontier: Officer Perspectives of Body‐Worn Cameras . Revija Za Kriminalistiko in Kriminologijo , 67 , 300–312. [ Google Scholar ]
• Groff, E.R. (2020). The effects of body‐worn cameras on police‐citizen encounters and police activity: Evaluation of a pilot implementation in Philadelphia, PA. 18.
• Grossmith, L. , Owens, C. , Finn, W. , Mann, D. , Davies, T. & Baika, L. (2015). Police, Camera, Evidence: London’s cluster randomised controlled trial of Body Worn Video (p. 50). Metropolitan Police. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta, S. , Boehme, J. , Manser, K. et al . (2016). Does wearable medical technology with video recording capability add value to on‐call surgical evaluations? Surgical Innovation , 23 ( 5 ), 498–504. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hancock, M. (2018). My mission to make sure NHS staff feel safe and secure at work . [Cited 01 06 2019]. Available from: URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/my‐mission‐to‐make‐sure‐nhs‐staff‐feel‐safe‐and‐secure‐at‐work
• Hardy, S. , Bennett, L. , Rosen, P. , Carroll, S. , White, P. & Palmer‐Hill, S. (2017). The feasibility of using body worn cameras in an inpatient mental health setting . Mental Health in Family Medicine , 13 , 393–400. [ Google Scholar ]
• Headley, A.M. , Guerette, R.T. & Shariati, A. (2017). A field experiment of the impact of body‐worn cameras (BWCs) on police officer behavior and perceptions . Journal of Criminal Justice , 53 , 102–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hedberg, E.C. , Katz, C.M. & Choate, D.E. (2017). Body‐worn cameras and citizen interactions with police officers: Estimating plausible effects given varying compliance levels . Justice Quarterly , 34 ( 4 ), 627–651. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henstock, D. & Ariel, B. (2017). Testing the effects of police body‐worn cameras on use of force during arrests: A randomised controlled trial in a large British police force . European Journal of Criminology , 14 ( 6 ), 720–750. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ho, J.D. , Dawes, D.M. , McKay, E.M. et al . (2017). Effect of body‐worn cameras on EMS documentation accuracy: A pilot study . Prehospital Emergency Care , 21 ( 2 ), 263–271. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huff, J. , Katz, C.M. & Hedberg, E.C. (2020). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of body‐worn camera activation on the outcomes of individual incidents . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 10.1007/s11292-020-09448-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyatt, J.M. , Mitchell, R.J. & Ariel, B. (2017). The effects of a mandatory body‐worn camera policy on officer perceptions of accountability, oversight, and departmental culture . Villanova Law Review , 62 ( 5 ), 1005–1035. [ Google Scholar ]
• James, K. , Stewart, D. & Bowers, L. (2012). Self‐harm and attempted suicide within inpatient psychiatric services: A review of the literature . International Journal of Mental Health Nursing , 21 ( 4 ), 301–309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jennings, W.G. , Lynch, M.D. & Fridell, L.A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body‐worn cameras (BWCs) on response‐to‐resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment . Journal of Criminal Justice , 43 , 480–486. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jennings, W.G. , Fridell, L.A. , Lynch, M. , Jetelina, K.K. & Reingle Gonzalez, J.M. (2017). A quasi‐experimental evaluation of the effects of police body‐worn cameras (BWCs) on response‐to‐resistance in a large metropolitan police department . Deviant Behavior , 38 ( 11 ), 1332–1339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones, J. , Nolan, P. , Bowers, L. et al . (2010). Psychiatric wards: Places of safety? Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing , 17 ( 2 ), 124–130. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koen, M.C. , Willis, J.J. & Mastrofski, S.D. (2019). The effects of body‐worn cameras on police organisation and practice: A theory‐based analysis . Policing and Society , 29 ( 8 ), 968–984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar, S. , Guite, H. & Thornicroft, G. (2001). Service users’ experience of violence within a mental health system: A study using grounded theory approach . Journal of Mental Health , 10 ( 6 ), 597–611. [ Google Scholar ]
• Launder, M. (2020). Staff shortages leaving mental health nurses ‘near breaking point’, survey finds . Nurisng in Practice. [Cited 01 08 2021]. Available from: URL: https://www.nursinginpractice.com/latest‐news/staff‐shortages‐leaving‐mental‐health‐nurses‐near‐breaking‐point‐survey‐finds/
• London Ambulance Service . (2021). Body worn cameras to be rolled out across country . London Ambulance Service. [Cited 02 06 2021]. Available from: URL: https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/2021/06/02/body‐worn‐cameras‐to‐be‐rolled‐out‐across‐country/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Lum, C. , Koper, C.S. , Wilson, D.B. et al . (2020). Body‐worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behavior: A systematic review . Campbell Systematic Reviews , 16 ( 3 ), 1–40. 10.1002/cl2.1112 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Makin, D.A. (2016). When the watchers are watched: An interpretive phenomenological analysis of body‐worn cameras . Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology , 4 ( 1 ), 1–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews, J.T. , Lingler, J.H. , Campbell, G.B. et al . (2015). Usability of a wearable camera system for dementia family caregivers . Journal of Healthcare Engineering , 6 ( 2 ), 213–238. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAllister, S. , Robert, G. , Tsianakas, V. & McCrae, N. (2019). Conceptualising nurse‐patient therapeutic engagement on acute mental health wards: An integrative review . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 93 , 106–118. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishkind, M.C. , Shore, J.H. & Schneck, C.D. (2021). Telemental health response to the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Virtualization of outpatient care now as a pathway to the future . Telemedicine and E‐Health , 27 ( 7 ), 709–711. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell, R.J. , Ariel, B. , Firpo, M.E. et al . (2018). Measuring the effect of body‐worn cameras on complaints in Latin America: The case of traffic police in Uruguay . Policing: an International Journal , 41 ( 4 ), 510–524. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher, D. , Liberati, A. , Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D.G. & The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: The PRISMA statement . PLoS Med , 6 ( 7 ), 1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris, N.P. (2021). Digital technologies and coercion in psychiatry . Psychiatric Services , 72 ( 3 ), 302–310. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrow, W.J. , Katz, C.M. & Choate, D.E. (2016). Assessing the impact of police body‐worn cameras on arresting, prosecuting, and convicting suspects of intimate partner violence . Police Quarterly , 19 ( 3 ), 303–325. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muir‐Cochrane, E. , van der Merwe, M. , Nijman, H. , Haglund, K. , Simpson, A. & Bowers, L. (2012). Investigation into the acceptability of door locking to staff, patients, and visitors on acute psychiatric wards: ACCEPTABILITY OF LOCKED DOORS . International Journal of Mental Health Nursing , 21 ( 1 ), 41–49. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NHS Improvement . (2019). The national retention programme: Two years on . NHS Improvement Plan. [Cited 01 06 2020]. Available from: URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/national‐retention‐programme‐two‐years‐on/ [ Google Scholar ]
• NHS Staff Survey. 2020: National results briefing . (2021). NHS .
• Noorian, A.R. , Bahr Hosseini, M. , Avila, G. et al . (2019). Use of wearable technology in remote evaluation of acute stroke patients: feasibility and reliability of a google glass‐based device . Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases , 28 ( 10 ), 1–4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• ODS Consulting . (2011). Flexible Research Contract: Evaluation in the Community Safety Unit—Body Worn Video Projects in Paisley and Aberdeen Self Evaluation (pp. 1–21) [Evaluation report].
• Office for National Statistics . (2019). Who works in the public sector? [Cited 01 06 2020]. Available from: URL: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/articles/whoworksinthepublicsector/2019‐06‐04
• Olive, R.R. (2019). If anyone is to be wearing recording equipment on psychiatric wards, it should be the patients . [Cited 01 06 2019]. Available from: URL: https://www.mentalhealthtoday.co.uk/innovations/if‐anyone‐is‐to‐be‐wearing‐recording‐equipment‐on‐psychiatric‐wards‐it‐should‐be‐the‐patients
• Owens, C. , Mann, D. & Mckenna, R. (2014). The Essex Body Worn Video Trial (p. 26). College of Policing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Panday, D.S. (2016). Clinical Lead – Parity of Esteem, East Midlands Mental Health Clinical Network November 2016 . 40.
• Papadopoulos, C. , Ross, J. , Stewart, D. , Dack, C. , James, K. & Bowers, L. (2012). The antecedents of violence and aggression within psychiatric in‐patient settings: Antecedents of violence and aggression . Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , 125 ( 6 ), 425–439. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pati, D. & Lorusso, L.N. (2018). How to write a systematic review of the literature . HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal , 11 ( 1 ), 15–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Payne‐Gill, J. , Whitfield, C. & Beck, A. (2021). The relationship between ethnic background and the use of restrictive practices to manage incidents of violence or aggression in psychiatric inpatient settings . International Journal of Mental Health Nursing , 30 ( 5 ), 1221–1233. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelfrey, W.V. & Keener, S. (2016). Police body worn cameras: A mixed method approach assessing perceptions of efficacy . Policing: an International Journal of Police Strategies & Management , 39 ( 3 ), 491–506. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson, B.E. , Yu, L. , Vigne, N.L. & Lawrence, D.S. (2018). The Milwaukee Police Department’s Body‐Worn Camera Program: Evaluation Findings and Key Takeaways (pp. 1–11). Urban Institute. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popay, J. , Roberts, H. , Sowden, A. , Petticrew, M. , Arai, L. , Rodgers, M. & Britten, N. (2006). Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews . 92.
• Pope, L. , Wakelinkg, H. , Box, G. et al . (2020). Body Worn Video Camera (BWVC) Pilot Evaluation . HM Prison & Probation Serivce. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rankin, L. (2013). End of program evaluation and recommendations: On‐officer body camera system (pp. 1–15). Mesa Police Department. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ready, J.T. & Young, J.T.N. (2015). The impact of on‐officer video cameras on police–citizen contacts: Findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 11 ( 3 ), 445–458. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid, J. , Briggs, J. , Carlisle, S. , Scott, D. & Lewis, C. (2017). Enhancing utility and understanding of evidence based practice through undergraduate nurse education . BMC Nursing , 16 ( 1 ), 58. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigues, R. , MacDougall, A.G. , Zou, G. et al . (2020). Risk of involuntary admission among first‐generation ethnic minority groups with early psychosis: A retrospective cohort study using health administrative data . Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , 29 , e59. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roy, A. (2014). On‐Officer Video Cameras: Examining the Effects of Police Department Policy and Assignment on Camera Use and Activation . Arizona State University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Royal College of Nursing . (2018a). Debate: Body cameras . Royal College of Nursing. [Cited 01 06 2019]. Available from: URL: https://www.rcn.org.uk/congress/congress‐events/body‐cameras [ Google Scholar ]
• Royal College of Nursing . (2018b). Violence and aggression in the NHS; Estimating the size and the impact of the problem .
• Skolnik, A.B. , Chai, P.R. , Dameff, C. et al . (2016). Teletoxicology: Patient assessment using wearable audiovisual streaming technology . Journal of Medical Toxicology , 12 ( 4 ), 358–364. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart, D. , Van der Merwe, M. , Bowers, L. , Simpson, A. & Jones, J. (2010). A review of interventions to reduce mechanical restraint and seclusion among adult psychiatric inpatients . Issues in Mental Health Nursing , 31 ( 6 ), 413–424. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutherland, A. , Ariel, B. , Farrar, W. & De Anda, R. (2017). Post‐experimental follow ups ‐ Fade‐out versus persistence effects: The Rialto police body‐worn camera experiment four years on . Journal of Criminal Justice , 53 , 110–116. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.09.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Home Office . (2007). Guidance for the Police Use of Body‐worn Video Devices .
• The Metropolitan Police . (2020). Body Worn Video (BWV) . [Cited 01 06 2020]. Available from: URL: https://www.met.police.uk/bwv/ [ Google Scholar ]
• TPS Strategy Management (2016). Body‐worn cameras: A report on the findings of the pilot project to test the value and feasibility of body‐worn cameras for police officers in Toronto . Toronto, CA: Toronto Police Service. [ Google Scholar ]
• .01w?>Wallace, D. , White, M.D. , Gaub, J.E. & Todak, N. (2018). Body‐worn cameras as a potential source of depolicing: Testing for camera‐induced passivity . Criminology , 00, 1–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• White, M.D. , Gaub, J.E. & Todak, N. (2017). Exploring the potential for body‐worn cameras to reduce violence in police‐citizen encounters . Policing , 1–11. 10.1093/police/paw057 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yokum, D. , Ravishankar, A. & Coppock, A. (2017). Evaluating the effects of police body‐worn cameras: A randomized controlled trial . Washington, DC: Metropolitan Police Department. [ Google Scholar ]
• Young, J.T.N. & Ready, J.T. (2016). A Longitudinal analysis of the relationship between administrative policy, technological preferences, and body‐worn camera activation among police officers . Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , 12 ( 1 ), 27–42. [ Google Scholar ]

• In-Person Training
• Online Training
• Instructors
• Force Encounters
• Force Science Certification
• Advanced Force Science Specialist
• Introduction to Body-Worn Cameras
• Advanced Body-Worn Cameras: Video Technology and Human Perception
• Fundamentals of Realistic De-Escalation
• Realistic De-Escalation Instructor Course
• Realistic De-Escalation for Security Professionals
• Realistic De-Escalation for Corrections Professionals
• Methods of Instruction – Policing Skills
• Wellness & Emotional Resilience
• 2024 Conference

Bodycam Videos and Honest Accountability

Following the release of President Obama’s 21st Century Policing Report , body cameras were increasingly touted as a deterrent to unnecessary use of force by police. 1 Discussions surrounding the role of police video often ignored video’s most intuitive benefit, that is, capturing evidence of disorderly, resistive, and criminal conduct within the community. Instead, video technology was emphasized as a tool for achieving police “accountability, transparency, and legitimacy.” 2 3

Without question, “accountability” and “transparency” are vital to an ordered society.  However, their timing and placement as top priorities of reform activists and politicians served as a not-so-subtle indictment of law enforcement.  Calls for accountability did more than imply police were routinely getting away with misconduct; they were often coupled with express accusations of murder, even in cases where racism and misconduct had been ruled out.

Despite the controversial motivation of police reform efforts, body camera videos continued to garner support from all sides of the law enforcement, political, and social justice (activist/academic) communities. 

Proponents of police reform believed that body-cameras would capture or deter unnecessary use of force, negligent tactics, and the disparate treatment of minorities.  Of course, with tens (if not hundreds) of millions of police contacts each year, it is inevitable that cameras will continue to record statistically rare instances of unprofessional and criminal police conduct.

That said, the culture of policing remains overwhelmingly one of selfless service, compassion, and respect for all community members. 4 President Obama conceded that “[t]he overwhelming majority of police officers do an incredibly hard and dangerous job fairly and professionally.…” 5 That sentiment was echoed by President Biden, who acknowledged, “The vast majority of law enforcement officers do these difficult jobs with honor and integrity, and they work diligently to uphold the law and preserve the public’s trust.” 6

A Vision for Policing

President Obama’s 21st Century Policing Report (2015) cast his vision for American policing, and body cameras were expected to play an important role in its execution.

In support of his recommendations, Obama relied, in part, on a 2014 report titled, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned.” 7 The report resulted from a joint effort between the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).

In their 2014 report, PERF and DoJ focused primarily on policy issues such as when to activate the body camera, how long to retain the videos, privacy considerations, officer review protocols, and disclosure guidelines. The complex issues of video technology and human performance had yet to be meaningfully addressed by PERF in its drive toward transparency and accountability.

Transparency and Accountability

As calls for police accountability increased, Dr. Bill Lewinski , the executive director and senior researcher at Force Science, immediately recognized the challenges that widespread public release of police videos could create. Dr. Lewinski recalled his initial concerns,

“Even in 2014, I supported the need for transparency in policing. But it wasn’t clear to me how simply releasing police videos into the public was going to improve community trust, especially when the public conversations around policing had become so tense, polarizing, and even volatile in some places.”

Dr. Lewinski continued,

“When we founded Force Science, it was to ensure that police were being evaluated fairly and that they faced only honest accountability. That meant police performance should only be evaluated after understanding and considering the human factors that influence sensemaking, decision-making and performance.”

Lewinski explained,

“It was the same thing with video evidence. Honest accountability requires the viewer first to understand the limitations of that technology. In other words, we all need to know what we can and what we cannot expect videos to tell us. Unfortunately, even today, it isn’t just the general public who lacks these insights. Most lawyers, academics, and even police leaders we train and consult with do not understand the differences between recording technology and the human experience. Without this knowledge, videos can provide a very different and often incorrect understanding of a force encounter. Without this knowledge, the widespread release of police video in the name of transparency can effectively undermine community trust.”

Preparing to Join the Discussion

In January of 2015, Dr. Lewinski was invited to support Pres. Obama’s Task Force as a member of the Body Cameras—Research and Legal Considerations panel. By then, Force Science had been considering the proper role of video evidence for over a decade and hoped their insights might help shape the federal response.

Dr. Lewinski described the road that prepared Force Science to join the national discussion,

“In 2007, we published The Camera Doesn’t Lie, Right? — which was our early attempt to warn of the dangers of relying on videos without understanding their limitations.  Over time, we saw the need for agencies to balance social, legal, and human performance—particularly memory implication—in deciding when officers should view their videos following critical incidents.  Our early recommendations were captured in Should Officers See Video Of Their Encounters? (2009).”

Dr. Lewinski explained his recommendations,

“We knew the decision to view video involved more than just memory and human performance considerations.  Community trust, legal, and even mental health concerns would play a role.  For that reason, we recommended that if officers give statements without first watching the videos, those officers should be allowed to view their video soon after the interview and then given a chance to provide an additional report or statement.  This hybrid approach seemed to satisfy the attorneys who wanted to capture the officer’s perspective before introducing the influence of video.” 

Dr. Lewinski understood that body camera guidelines were important.  Still, in 2009, he continued to zero in on human performance issues and the risks associated with using video to evaluate force encounters,

“Where discrepancies exist, investigators need to be knowledgeable and sensitive enough, in the absence of other incriminating evidence, to explain to the officer, the administration, and the public how an officer’s perception of an incident can be vastly different from what’s seen on a video recording and still be legitimate.”

Discrepancies between body camera videos and an officer’s report should be expected. However, explaining these discrepancies can be challenging, especially to those who are determined to prove the officer is lying. Although lying is certainly on the list of reasons videos might not align with an officer’s statement, these discrepancies overwhelmingly result from the technological limitations of video and the reality that cops are not cameras.

To help explain why videos may not always align with an officer’s perception and memory of an event, Force Science published Do Head Cameras Always See What You See In A Force Encounter? (2010) and 10 Limitations Of Body Cams You Need To Know For Your Protection (2014). These articles continued to emphasize that videos cannot be used as a proxy for an officer’s experience—a lesson that was important in 2014 and continues to demand our attention a decade later.

2024: What Have We Learned?

In their recently released report, Body-worn Cameras a Decade Later, What We Know (2023), PERF continued to explore how body camera programs might support their vision of transparency, accountability, and legitimacy (community trust). To date, the research has provided, at best, mixed results, with a 2020 meta-analysis finding that “body-worn cameras (BWCs) do not have clear or consistent effects on most officer or citizen behaviors…” 8

The PERF report and accompanying citations deserve a close read, as PERF provides their understanding of the latest research. Although PERF continues to focus primarily on body-worn camera policies and program implementation, some of its members paused to highlight the differences between video and the human experience.

Dr. Lorie Fridell , Professor Emeritus in the Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida and former Director of Research at PERF, was recognized for calling attention to the fallibility of both human perception and BWC video. Dr. Fridell cautioned that neither video nor officers will pick up every aspect of a critical incident. Dr. Fridell was quoted in the report, “In looking at potential discrepancies between [videos and officer perception], we recognize the fallibility of both sources. The discrepancy is not necessarily nefarious. It’s just a product of the limitations of the technology and the limitations of the human mind.”

Essential insights, like those provided by Dr. Fridell, convinced PERF to reconsider their 2014 recommendation regarding when officers should view bodycam videos. In their latest report, PERF has adopted the “hybrid” approach detailed by Force Science in 2007. 9

Not Fit for the Purpose

As 2023 ended, Force Science predicted that bodycam videos would remain one of the top criminal justice issues in 2024.  Outside researchers are expected to continue monitoring body cameras’ influence on police and community behaviors.  PERF’s latest report provides extensive references for those interested in these deterrent effects.

While PERF and other researchers focus on policy recommendations, Force Science will continue to drive criminal justice practitioners toward a greater understanding of how video technology and human performance intersect during force encounters.

The persistent and ever-widening use of video evidence to evaluate force encounters has made it imperative that the community, courts, and cops understand the advantages and limitations of video and the reality of human performance. 

The challenge will be to convince those who believe video alone is sufficient to evaluate an officer’s perception and judgment that videos are not fit for that purpose .

In a recent Force Science study (pending publication 2024), officers wore eye trackers and body-worn cameras as they responded to a simulated critical incident. The eye tracker video and the body camera video were then compared. For the first time, we now have definitive evidence that body camera video does not capture all of the information available to the officer. In fact, when evaluating the critical elements of the scenario, an overwhelming majority of the information (est. 76%) perceived and relied on by officers in their decision-making was not captured on the body camera.

When we evaluate force encounters, we often rely on the work of Dr. Marc Green and others to explain why officers may not have seen information that was captured on video or perceived by other witnesses. 10 This research will remain critical to understanding the differences between video recordings and human perception. What has not been emphasized enough is that, while we know officers do not perceive everything on the video, the video does not record much of what the officer IS seeing!

Beyond Video Literacy

If video is intended as a tool to increase transparency and support honest accountability, then viewers need to not only be “video literate,” they need to understand police practices, threat assessments, law, de-escalation, persuasion, and the reality of human performance.

That said, video literacy is a necessary component of these assessments.  So, what does it mean to be video literate in the context of force encounters?

First, videos cannot be used as a proxy for the officer’s experience, perception, or sensemaking.  If the video is used to evaluate an officer’s decision-making, viewers must understand the limitations of recording technology.  They must understand that an officer’s focused vision is extremely limited and does not include all the information within the four corners of their monitors.

Video-literate viewers will understand that information on the bodycam is irrelevant if the officer was not focused on it. They will understand how the camera’s lens can make people appear farther or closer, faster or slower–and even allow us to see in the dark.

Video-literate viewers will understand how perception, decision-making, and performance are influenced by stress. They will recognize that their video review is occurring rationally, while people involved in critical incidents are likely engaged in fast and frugal (“system 1”) decision-making. And they will understand that humans experience (make sense of) the world through feelings and meaning (“gist”)—making precise recall of distances, quotes, and frequency of action nearly impossible.

Exploiting Naivete

Video evidence will continue to play a central role in police investigations and litigation. Unfortunately, naïve stakeholders, including community members, police executives, attorneys, judges, and expert witnesses continue to believe that “the video doesn’t lie” and that they don’t need an expert to tell them what they can see with their own eyes.

In an effort to hold officers “accountable,” there are those who would seek to exploit the limitations of human perception, the technological advantages of video, and the ignorance of those not yet video literate. Many will ignore the reality of decision-making under stress and attempt to persuade jurors, judges, and communities that bodycam video is an accurate record of what the officer knew or should have known. It is not—and to continue to spread this disinformation is a gross violation of community trust, procedural justice, and honest accountability.

• https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/final-report-presidents-task-force-21st-century-policing [ ↩ ]
• See Police Executive Research Forum Report, Body-Worn Cameras A Decade Later: What We Know , December 2023 (“In a 2015 nationally representative survey PERF conducted of 1,203 municipal police agencies, nearly 92 percent of respondents indicated that their primary reason for deploying BWCs was to promote accountability, transparency, and legitimacy.”). [ ↩ ]
• Id. at 7 (In response to a 2014 survey conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum, the anticipated benefits of bodycams were “strengthening police accountability, preventing confrontational situations by causing individuals on both sides of the camera to moderate their behavior, resolving officer-involved incidents and complaints, improving agency transparency, identifying and correcting internal agency problems, and strengthening officer performance.” [ ↩ ]
• According to the Department of Justice (DoJ), of the approximately 54 million people reporting contact with the police in 2020, 99% did not feel there was any police misconduct involved. Even among U.S. residents stopped on the street by police, over 91% experienced either no enforcement action or received a warning. See https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/contacts-between-police-and-public-2020 [ ↩ ]
• https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/12/remarks-president-memorial-service-fallen-dallas-police-officers [ ↩ ]
• [1] E.O. 14074 of May 25, 2022, Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices To Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety [ ↩ ]
• Lindsay Miller and Jessica Toliver, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014), vii, http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p296-pub.pdf. [ ↩ ]
• Lum C, Koper CS, Wilson DB, et al. Body‐worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2020;16:e1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.111 [ ↩ ]
• The costs, benefits, and tradeoffs of when officers view video continues to be contentious, and Force Science recognizes that the answer to that question may very well come down to such details as who is conducting the interview, the purpose of the interview, and the intended use of the statement.  These are often critical decisions to be made by officers and agencies after consultation with their legal advisors, who may know best how their communities, courts, and police agencies will respond to these policies and practices. [ ↩ ]
• See, 33 Reasons for Not Seeing (from Green, M.A. (2018). Roadway human factors: From science to application. Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc.); See also Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Feigenson, N., & Tyler, T. (2018). In the eyes of the law: Perception versus reality in appraisals of video evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000137 [ ↩ ]

Great piece. Great historical perspective of BWCs (and what/who inspired their implementation). BWCs continue to be “rolled out” in jurisdictions under the auspices of “public trust” and “accountability”, yet I have not reviewed many use-of-force-related incidents that were not on already “captured” on video (usually multiple sources – i.e., BWCs, in-car systems, cel phones, fixed-location CCTV cameras, etc.), Cops KNOW they are on-camera EVERYWHERE they go (and have known this for many years). So, to suggest that strapping on a BWC is somehow novel (and behaviour-altering) in the mind of a cop, would be naïve at best. I am also seeing millions of dollars being invested into these camera systems and the supporting infrastructure (in a society where cameras are ALREADY ubiquitous), at the expense of officers patrolling the streets (at a time when most police agencies are already vastly under-strength). People can’t seem to draw a nexus between these competing interests. Perhaps we should consider strapping BWCs onto the likes of auto repair people, sedation dentists, Hollywood producers, politicians, and hedge fund managers, BEFORE we strap them on cops, who are already under greater scrutiny (usually multiple levels) than any other profession in the world!

Really. Officer, you give us a statement and then we will let you watch the video. Now officer, you said this in your sworn statement, that this occurred and the video shows that it did not, so are you not telling the truth? You have people making decisions on the use of force, that have never been out on the street, never been assaulted and never been shot at. Oh the video shows this, that, is awful. Give a statement and then see the video and then give another statement after the fact. I can see a good defense attorney putting that, right up the dark hole.

For sure, opposing attorneys are going to gain as much traction as possible from any discrepancies. And in every case, the officer will learn about them. The question becomes, when should the officer and their attorney get their first chance to consider and effectively respond to the allegations of deception. Some attorneys want to control the timing and setting for their client’s video review and so want to see the video themselves, before the officer. There seems to be three main approaches to the disclosure issue that come down to the sophistication of the attorney and the motives and purpose of the investigation. It seems each position involves tradeoffs. I’m a fan of leaving up to the officer’s attorney who knows the jurisdiction and agency. Not a satisfying answer I know.

Joel, great response, I love it.

Thank you for your research and publishing this article. It should be read by police administrators and I.A.B. investigators who are involved in use of force investigations. I speak from experience as a former I.A.B. investigator who investigated use of force complaints and O.I.S. After my LEO retirement I served as a police union representative for 11 years and represented officers involved in use of force complaints and O.I.S. IMO, the involved officer(s) should be allowed to view the BWC video to accurately document their report, as well as reviewing the video before being interviewed by supervisors or I.A.B. In Florida if the officer’s actions are subject to potential discipline, all evidence including video must be provided to the officer for review before he/she provides a statement, written or audio, F.S.S. chapter 112.

As the author states, a problem that now exists is that prosecutors, judges, the media and even police chiefs believe that they can make judgments based strictly upon what they see on the video. As someone who has been involved in use of force cases as an expert witness, I have found this to be a grave error. The judge now decides that he can make new rules on use of force just based upon his uninformed opinion. As the author states, you have to be familiar with use of force, the officer’s training and all of the human factors involved. Unfortunately, all of these people (prosecutors, judges, media, and chiefs) now feel they can make decisions without listening to any expert opinion. As most of us know, police administrators are often not very experienced in the real life use of force that street officers face. They got to the top through political influence and not through long dedication to the job and all of its different aspects. They are usually generalists with little specialized knowledge. They have had many nice, short assignments just to pad their resumes.

Further, I would have to agree that officers should be able to view their BWC before writing a report. Anyone who has been involved in highly stressful events realizes that the pieces come together over time in your memory. It is unfair to believe that you will remember every little step without time or something to jog your memory. Many times, much after the fact, I can remember saying “Oh yeah, that was when he did that”.

Don Black, great article and so very true.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

share this!

July 21, 2021

Research: Body cameras close the racial gap in police misconduct investigations

by Jennifer French Giarratano, Georgia State University

Video footage captured by police-worn body cameras is closing racial gaps in police misconduct investigations according to research by criminologists and economists at Georgia State, American and Stockton universities.

"Police bodycams—when they're turned on—even the playing field by introducing objective evidence into the investigation of complaints about police behavior," Georgia State University professor Volkan Topalli said. "This technology now helps eliminate ambiguities and conflicting accounts among Black and Hispanic complainants more often than whites, narrowing proven disparities among racial lines."

Topalli and his co-authors studied citizen complaint data from the Chicago Police Department (PD) and Civilian Office of Police Accountability filed between 2012 and 2020. Chicago PD, the second largest municipal law enforcement agency in the U.S., staggered bodycam deployment among its 22 police districts over the period. The authors examined this deployment to determine whether evidence from bodycam technology altered the outcomes of misconduct complaints and whether it led to different outcomes based on the race of the complainants.

Before the adoption of police bodycams, evidence suggests the Chicago PD citizen complaint investigations process produced biased outcomes. Of the more than 111,000 civilian complaints against Chicago PD officers between January 2000 and June 2015, only 2.1 percent were "sustained," meaning the complainant's allegation was supported by evidence indicating the incident occurred and the officer's conduct was improper. From 2010-2015, only 1.6 percent of Black residents' complaints were sustained versus an overall rate of 2.6 percent, suggesting an imbalance of outcomes along racial lines.

The deployment of bodycams during this period was associated with a 9.9-percentage-point increase in the likelihood of a sustained finding, nearly two-thirds more frequently than the mean for non-bodycam incidents.

Bodycam deployment also led to a 16.2 percent decrease in the dismissal of investigations due to insufficient evidence (not sustained) and a significant increase in disciplinary actions against police officers with sufficient evidence to sanction their misconduct. The racial disparities in not sustained findings largely disappeared.

"Police bodycams provide information that changes the outcome of complaint investigations," Topalli said. "Although cultural acceptance of this technology as 'business as usual' may take some time and effort, its adoption helps establish an important accountability process for law enforcement and can improve citizen trust in the police, particularly in communities that have experienced biased oversight."

Suat Cubukeu and Erdal Tekin at American University and Nusret M. Sahin at Stockton University are co-authors of the study, "Body-Worn Cameras and Adjudication of Citizen Complaints of Police Misconduct," published as National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER) Working Paper No. 29019.

Provided by Georgia State University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Crucial building blocks of life on Earth can more easily form in outer space, says new research

4 hours ago

Saturday Citations: Irrationality modeled; genetic basis for PTSD; Tasmanian devils still endangered

Apr 20, 2024

Lemur's lament: When one vulnerable species stalks another

Study uncovers neural mechanisms underlying foraging behavior in freely moving animals

Scientists assess paths toward maintaining BC caribou until habitat recovers

European XFEL elicits secrets from an important nanogel

Apr 19, 2024

Chemists introduce new copper-catalyzed C-H activation strategy

Scientists discover new way to extract cosmological information from galaxy surveys

Compact quantum light processing: New findings lead to advances in optical quantum computing

Some plant-based steaks and cold cuts are lacking in protein, researchers find

Relevant physicsforums posts, cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better, biographies, history, personal accounts.

12 hours ago

For WW2 buffs!

20 hours ago

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics?

Who is your favorite jazz musician and what is your favorite song, esoteric music recommendations.

Apr 16, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Only 2% of black chicagoan' allegations of police misconduct were sustained.

Jun 7, 2019

Body cameras may have little effect on police and citizen behaviors: study

Sep 10, 2020

Study: Removing 'bad apples' from police forces unlikely to significantly reduce use-of-force complaints

Jun 22, 2021

Why bodycam footage might not clear things up

Apr 3, 2018

Despite general support for police use of body-worn cameras, impacts may be overestimated

Mar 25, 2019

Black police officers disciplined disproportionately for misconduct, research finds

Oct 12, 2020

Recommended for you

Which countries are more at risk in the global supply chain?

Many prisoners go years without touching a smartphone—it means they struggle to navigate life on the outside

Data-driven music: Converting climate measurements into music

Apr 18, 2024

Researchers find lower grades given to students with surnames that come later in alphabetical order

Apr 17, 2024

Study finds world economy already committed to income reduction of 19% due to climate change

Study reveals how humanity could unite to address global challenges

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

• See us on facebook
• See us on twitter
• See us on youtube
• See us on linkedin
• See us on instagram

‘Virtual biopsy’ lets clinicians analyze skin noninvasively

Stanford Medicine researchers develop a new imaging method to create a cell-by-cell reconstruction of skin or other tissue without taking a biopsy.

April 10, 2024 - By Sarah C.P. Williams

Stanford Medicine researchers have developed a method to penetrate tissue with lasers, creating a high-resolution, three-dimensional image of its cells. Emily Moskal

The next time you have a suspicious-looking mole on your back, your dermatologist may be able to skip the scalpel and instead scan the spot with a noninvasive “virtual biopsy” to determine whether it contains any cancerous cells. Similarly, surgeons trying to determine whether they have removed all of a breast tumor may eventually rely on an image captured during surgery rather than wait for a pathologist to process the excised tissue.

Stanford Medicine researchers have developed a method that uses lasers to penetrate tissue and create a high-resolution, three-dimensional reconstruction of the cells it contains. From this virtual reconstruction, they can make cross-sectional images that mimic those generated by a standard biopsy, in which a sample of tissue is sliced into thin layers and placed on a slide to be examined under a microscope.

The new method, published April 10 in Science Advances , could be used to noninvasively scan the skin for unhealthy cells as well as provide rapid results on biopsies taken elsewhere in the body. It could also provide more information than current diagnostic approaches.

“We’ve not only created something that can replace the current gold-standard pathology slides for diagnosing many conditions, but we actually improved the resolution of these scans so much that we start to pick up information that would be extremely hard to see otherwise,” said Adam de la Zerda , PhD, an associate professor of structural biology and the senior author of the article describing the method.

Adam de la Zerda

The method was developed by Yonatan Winetraub , PhD, a former graduate student in the de la Zerda lab who now leads his own research lab at Stanford focusing in part on virtual biopsies.

“This has the potential to transform how we diagnose and monitor concerning skin lesions and diseases in the clinic,” added co-author Kavita Sarin , MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology.

Laser vision

When a dermatologist or surgeon takes a biopsy from someone’s body — whether from the skin, liver, breast or elsewhere — the tissue is usually sent to a pathologist, who slices the biopsied tissue into thin layers. The pathologist then stains each layer with chemicals called hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), which lets them more easily see the patterns, shapes and structures of cells. These H&E slides are routinely used for diagnosing cancers and other diseases. But the slides are labor intensive and are irreversible; once a biopsy is sliced in one direction, for instance, it cannot be sliced another way to provide a different view.

For nearly a decade, de la Zerda and his colleagues have been studying a different way of seeing inside the body, called optical coherence tomography. Typically used by ophthalmologists to image the back of the eye, OCT scans measure how light waves from a laser bounce off a tissue to create a rendering of its insides (similar to the way ultrasound uses sound waves to visualize organs).

As de la Zerda and Winetraub enhanced the OCT scans so they would work in organs other than the eye — developing both new hardware to collect data and new processing methods — they needed a way to verify the accuracy of their scans, so they sent the tissues they were scanning with OCT to pathologists to create H&E images.

Kavita Sarin

“We kept improving and improving the quality of the image, letting us see smaller and smaller details of a tissue,” de la Zerda explained. “And we realized the OCT images we were creating were really getting very similar to the H&Es in terms of what they could show.”

Help from artificial intelligence

The higher resolution of the OCT images opened the door to using the method to diagnose disease without producing H&Es. But de la Zerda and his colleagues thought clinicians would be more apt to use OCT if the images looked familiar.

“Every physician in a hospital is very much used to reading H&Es, and it was important to us that we translate OCT images into something that physicians were already comfortable with —rather than an entirely new type of image,” de la Zerda said.

Winetraub turned to artificial intelligence to help convert OCT scans into flat images resembling H&E slides.

For 199 skin biopsies collected at Stanford Hospital, Winetraub carried out an OCT scan before pathologists created H&E slices. He and his colleagues developed a way of putting molecular tags on the surface of the biopsies so they could be sure exactly where in the OCT scan each H&E slice came from. Then, Winetraub paired up 1,005 of these H&E images with the corresponding OCT images and entered them into an artificial intelligence algorithm which could learn how to create accurate H&Es from the raw OCT data.

“The uniqueness of this work lies in the method we developed to align OCT and H&E image pairs, letting machine-learning algorithms train on real tissue sections and providing clinicians with more accurate virtual biopsies,” Winetraub said.

Yonatan Winetraub

The researchers fine-tuned the AI program by showing it an additional 553 pairs of H&E and OCT images before testing it out on new OCT images. When three Stanford dermatologists analyzed random assortments of true H&E images and those created from the OCT scans, they could detect cellular structures at a similar rate. Any number of H&E images can be created from a single OCT image, virtually slicing the three-dimensional reconstruction in any direction.

Toward non-invasive biopsies

When a dermatologist notices an unusual looking spot on a person’s skin, they currently have two options to determine if it poses a risk: wait and see whether it grows bigger, or cut it off and send it to a pathologist for testing.

De la Zerda and Winetraub now see a third path — scanning a potentially cancerous mole with OCT and analyzing the virtual H&E images.

“Imagine if we could give physicians the ability, right there in the room with the patient, to take out an OCT camera and — rather than slice the patient up in dozens of places — image the cells inside each mole,” de la Zerda said.

Similarly, surgeons removing breast tumors currently send removed tissue to pathologists to process over several days and determine whether any cancerous cells were missed. Around 20% of breast cancer patients require a second surgery to remove more cells. If H&E images could be produced from an OCT camera in the operating room to instantaneously detect whether cancer cells remained, subsequent surgeries could be avoided.

More work is needed to move the approach toward these applications, but the researchers are confident that their approach will give clinicians a new way to carry out biopsies.

Funding for this research was provided by the United States Air Force, the National Institutes of Health (grants DP50D012179 and K23CA211793), the National Science Foundation, the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation, the Claire Giannini Fund, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the Mary Kay Foundation, the Skippy Frank Foundation, the Donald E. and Delia B. Baxter Foundation, the Center for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence and Translation, the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Alexander and Margaret Stewart Trust, the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation, and Stanford Bio-X.

• Sarah C.P. Williams Sarah C.P. Williams is a freelance science writer.

About Stanford Medicine

Stanford Medicine is an integrated academic health system comprising the Stanford School of Medicine and adult and pediatric health care delivery systems. Together, they harness the full potential of biomedicine through collaborative research, education and clinical care for patients. For more information, please visit med.stanford.edu .

Artificial intelligence

Exploring ways AI is applied to health care

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Title: 3d human scan with a moving event camera.

Abstract: Capturing a 3D human body is one of the important tasks in computer vision with a wide range of applications such as virtual reality and sports analysis. However, conventional frame cameras are limited by their temporal resolution and dynamic range, which imposes constraints in real-world application setups. Event cameras have the advantages of high temporal resolution and high dynamic range (HDR), but the development of event-based methods is necessary to handle data with different characteristics. This paper proposes a novel event-based method for 3D pose estimation and human mesh recovery. Prior work on event-based human mesh recovery require frames (images) as well as event data. The proposed method solely relies on events; it carves 3D voxels by moving the event camera around a stationary body, reconstructs the human pose and mesh by attenuated rays, and fit statistical body models, preserving high-frequency details. The experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms conventional frame-based methods in the estimation accuracy of both pose and body mesh. We also demonstrate results in challenging situations where a conventional camera has motion blur. This is the first to demonstrate event-only human mesh recovery, and we hope that it is the first step toward achieving robust and accurate 3D human body scanning from vision sensors. this https URL

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .