Police Performance Massively Improved by Surveillance

Author: Carlton Purvis, Published on May 22, 2013

A California city police chief used his department to conduct an experiment on the power of surveillance. For a year, officers were fitted with cameras to record every interaction they had with the public. Would the cameras help reduce complaints against police or use-of-force incidents? What he found was that both fell dramatically. For this note, we interviewed the police chief about his research (see his full study) and findings. Additionally, we spoke with the ACLU for their feedback.

Body Cameras vs CCTV

Past research, from a number of sources shows, that humans will exhibit more socially acceptable behavior when they know they are being watched. If the person watching is a boss, supervisor or authority figure the effect is even more pronounced. “What is less known,” Police Chief William A. Farrar says, “is what happens when the observer is not a ‘real person’, and whether being videotaped can have an effect on aggression and violence.”

The chief says that “when certainty of apprehension for wrongdoing is high, socially and morally-unacceptable acts are dramatically less likely to occur.” His hypothesis was that mobile cameras would give that extra self-awareness to deter police and the public from socially unacceptable behavior.

CCTV is a valuable deterrent, but does not provide that high rate of certainty of apprehension, he said. “When people see an officer wearing a camera, their self-awareness is heightened a bit more.” Chief Farrar says studies of CCTV in public places and speed cameras show that a reduction in undesired behavior is usually minimal. It is that extra “dosage” of self-awareness that comes with seeing a camera being worn by an officer that makes the difference, he said.

The Method

For one year, he randomly assigned half the department's shifts to wear body mounted cameras that would record interactions with the public. At any given time, 50% of the Rialto police force was wearing a camera. Officers were instructed to turn the camera on before any interaction with the public.

He tracked both use-of-force incidents (anything from “compliance holds” to pepper spray, Tasers, and firearms) and public complaints.

The Tool

The camera is a Taser Axon Flex, a three-inch long, miniature camera that can be mounted anywhere from cars to sunglasses to collars and hats. It has a 12-hour battery life and can hold 5-6 hours of footage.  It also records audio. The camera has a buffer feature that constantly records the last 30 seconds so once an officer turns the camera on, there is a record of what happened leading up to the recording. When the camera is docked to charge the battery at the end of a shift, footage for the day is automatically uploaded to an officer’s profile on Evidence.com, Taser’s cloud storage service. The cost is around $1200 per camera, which includes cameras, a battery pack, charger and a mounting kit.


****'* ***** ** * **** ***** ** ******** ** *** of *** *******: 

The ******* ** *** *******

****** *** ****-**** ***** ******** *** *,*** ************ *** ***** and ******** **** **** **,*** ***** ** ************. ****** ***** that ****** ******** **** *** ******* *** ** ** **% reduction ** ******* ********** *** * **% ********* ** ***-**-***** incidents, *** ***** ***-**-***** ******** *** ****** ** ******. ***** was **** * ********* ** ******** ** ****** ********. *** chief **** ***** **** ***** **** ***** ** **** ***-**-***** incidents ** ****** ***** ******** **** *** ******* *******. ******** saw *,*** **** ************ **** *** ****** ****** *** ***** than **** *** ** *** ** ****** *****. 

** ***-**-***** ********* **** ******** ******* *******, ******* **** ****** used. ** *** ** ***** ***** ******** **** ********** ** a ******** ******.

** **** ********* ********* ******** ******* ******* ******** **** ***** without ***** **********. **** ***** ******** **** ******** **** **** cameras **** *** *****. 

*** ****** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** **** **** ******* work ** * ********* *** **** ****** ******** *** *** public, ****** *** ***** ***** **** ******* **** ********* ** apprehension ** *** ** ***%. “**** *** *** * ********** camera ** ******, *** **** ****** **** ******** *** **** to ** * ****** *** **** ************,” ** ****. ****** of *** ********* ********* ** ******** ** *************** **** **** the ****** *** *** ****** *** ******* **** ** ******* what ** ****** “**** ********,” * ******** *** ******** ****** of **** **** ** ****** **** *******. 

***** ****** *** ******* ** **** ** ******* ** *** six **** ****** **** *** *****. ***** ** **** ** July ***, *** ******* **** ** *********** **********-**** *** *** uniformed *******, ****** *****, *** ******* ******** *** ****** ***** units.

Other ********Before deploying the cameras officers were required to attend instructional briefings and take an opinion survey. For the most part, the officers were receptive to the cameras (“Of course the younger ones tend to be a little more tech savvy. They were a little more accepting than some of the tenured officers,” the chief said.)

*** ****** *** ************ ***** ******* ******* *** **********, *** although ***** **** *** **** ********** ******* ** *******’* ******** about *** *******, ** *** **** ****** ****** ** **********, job ************, ******* ** ********* *** **** **********. 

“* ***** ********* *** *********** ***’* ****** ** **********," *** chief ****. *** ***** ****** ********* ** **, *** **’* a ***** ******* ** *** ********. ***** ******* ******* *** whole ******** **** ***** ** ******. *** ** *** ***** less **** ******* **** ********* ********** *** *** * ******* of ******* ********** **** ** ***** ** ********.”

“**** ***** ****’* *** *** ****** **. **** ** ********* a ****** ******. **** ** ********* *** *** *** *********** profession,” ** ****. ** ***** **** ** *** ****** **** departments **** ***** *** ********.

ACLU *******

"** **** **** **** ************ *** ******* ******* ** ***** ability ** ***** ** ** ********* ********* *** *** ******," said **** ****** ****** ********** *******. ******* **** ******* ********** ** ******** ******** *******'* **** control ** ******* *** ******* ** *** ***. *********** ****** also **** ***** ******** *********** ****** ** *****, *** ** recordings *** ****** **********.

"*** ***** *** ******* ********* ** ******, *** ** **** have ******* ************," ******* ****. "**** ***** ** ***** **** someones ***** *** ****** ************* **** ******* -- *** *** of **** ** ***** ********. ** *** ***** ** *** that [*** **] ** ***."

******* **** *** ******* ** *** ***** *** ****** ***** and **** **** ******* *** * **** ******** ********* ** things, ********* *** ******** ** ******. 

IPVM ********

*** ******* ** **** ***** ********* ******* ******* ******* ** this *****. **** *** *** ******** ** *** *****, ****** perceptions ** *** *******, ***** **** ********** ***** ** *** the ********** ******* ******* *** ********* ************ **** ** ********. **** cameras ***** **** ** * **** **** *** ***********, **** the ****, **** * ******* ** ********* *****. *** **** may ** ***** *** ******* ********, *** *** ********** ****** could **** ** ******** *** **** (****** ** **** * DHS *****). 

******** **** ****** *** ** ***** ******** *** ****** ********* this ***** ** * ***** ************ **** *** ****** *** number ** **********. *** ******* ****** ** **** * ******* ****** officer *******, *** ***** *** ***** ***** ** ** *****, like**** *** **** ******* **** ** **********, ***** **** **** *** ****** **, ******** *** ***** going ** ********* *** ****** **** *** *****. *** ************* ** body ******* **** ****** ** *** *********** ** ****** *********** to ******** ****** ****** ** **********. *** ***** **** *** cameras *** *** ********* ** ************ ** ***%, *** **** is **** ***% ** *** ****** ******** ******** ******** *** break *** *****.

Comments (10)

I can think of many times when I would have loved to have video and audio of an interaction with a citizen who later claimed I was rude or had used force against them when they were doing nothing to cause me to have to use force.

So I was looking for the statistic in the study on how many complaints against officers were either deemed "exonerated" (which means the officer did exactly what the complaint says he did, but that was what the officer was supposed to do), or the officer was cleared because the complainant was lying about the incident. Unfortunately Rialto is too small, from the study:

"In terms of complaints against officers, we were unable to compute a treatment effect as planned, since the overall reduction was so large that there were not enough complaints to conduct any meaningful analyses (only one complaint lodged for an incident that has occurred during control conditions and two for incidents that occurred during treatment condition). Importantly, there was an overall reduction from 28 complaints filed lodged in the 12 months before the trial to the 3 during the trial - or 0.70 complaints per 1,000 contacts compared to .069 per 1,000 contacts."

I read that as the citizens don't file complaints against police when the citizen is lying about what happened because they know they are on camera and will be caught lying about it.

Great stuff. I'm all for this technology getting better. It will be especially useful for determining at trial if a consent to search was freely given voluntarily. It should eliminate a lot of court hearings on motions to suppress evidence.

Gator, great feedback! Two questions:

  • Do you think many police officers would object to this as 'big brother'?
  • What do you think about the cost? Those taser units I believe are $1,000+? Hard to justify or?

1) Some will. Mostly the older ones that are used to being lone rangers. The initial back lash against GPS units monitoring patrol car positions back to the dispatch center and supervisors (years ago) was huge. Most units quit working within 24 hours from damage. Now it's no big deal, it's accepted. The same will happen with body cams.

2) With studies like this the ROI will become obvious. Imagine all the staff hours used up investigating complaints against officers. If a department can take one detective out of Internal Affairs and put them back into doing what cops do best, that would pay for the cams alone. Rialto PD has 110 officers, so one investigator back on patrol would pay for all officers cams in one year.

And when factoring the reduction of law suits and civil payments, the numbers might become so clear over time that the city's Risk Manager may require the PD to outfit all officers with cams.

OR, this could all be smoke and mirrors if they are trying to justify the expenditure of funds....the study doesn't say if this was a federally funded grant. More studies need to be done, because it looks promising.

Sorry about the spelling, wish you had auto spell check! :)

Fascinating. Being of British origin, public surveillance and monitoring seem generally eminently resonable for both deterence and factual confirmation surrounding incidents. Ditto biometric data. Americans seem less sold on this approach.

Richard Dawkins another Brit, was asked if he believed in the jury system. He said: if I'm guilty, yes. I have a chance of being acquited. If I'm innocent, no. I have a chance of being convicted. (I am paraphrasing).

I think this monitoring concept really protects both parties from condition b) as much as condition a). The resulting evidence is a quantum improvement over each party's subjective recollection, not to mention a third party observer's subjective recollection.

The ACLU's stance is a little paradoxical. They don't want to give officers the ability to turn off the cameras, yet they are concerned about sensitive witness testimoney ending up on CNN. I don't understand their stance.

If an officer chooses to turn a camera off and an incident occurs, that is going to look far worse to the public and/or jury than if he didn't have the ability to record it in the first place. It seems departments could define clear rules defining when an officer is allowed to turn off his camera (and he could simply state qualifying reason on the recording before turning it off).

If I am allowing a police officer on to my private property or into my home, I would like the right to request that their cameras be turned off. Obviously if they find evidence of criminal activity once inside the cameras are going to come right back on, but at that point I have relinquished my right to privacy.

As a former twenty year law enforcement officer I wish we had that technology available back in the day. I personally bought and used a Radio Shack microcassette recorder with voice activation and used it religiously. The best $75 dollars I ever spent on equipment.

At my department, we have just deployed two VieVu body worn cameras. I have been initially been impressed with the quality of the video and the audio. We are providing to our bike patrol officers who have the greatest number of citizen to officer contacts in the field. As the number of federal consent decrees involving use of force suits expands nationally, I could see US D.o.J recommending these as a condition of the decree. On an officer safety front, I had heard (have not been able to verify) that a U.K. officer suffered a fractured skull after a suspect used the equipment against the officer in an arrest/use of force situation.

Mark, good feedback, thanks!

You got be thinking about use of force statistics. I found one (old) US gov report that cited 26,000 complaints per year on use of force, with 8% were sustained against the officer.

John:

Yes, as they say "the camera rarely blinks". I recall an IACP study which revealed that in 93% of the cases where a complaint is filed regarding police conduct and there is video evidence, the officer is exonerated. In the worst case scenario, the camera must speak for the officer who cannot speak for him/herself.

An interesting piece of news today (for a lot of reasons): A judge declared New York's stop and frisk program unconstitutional. Part of the ruling says the NYPD has to do a pilot program where five precincts fit officers with body cameras to record their interactions with the public. It'll be interesting to see how the results compare to this study.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports on Police

Hikvision Wins Chinese Government Forced Facial Recognition Project Across 967 Mosques on Jul 16, 2018
Hikvision has won a Chinese government tender which requires that facial recognition cameras be set up at the entrance of every single mosque...
Belgium Bans Private Facial Surveillance on Jul 06, 2018
Belgium has effectively banned the use of facial recognition and other biometrics-based video analytics in surveillance cameras for private,...
China Public Video Surveillance Guide: From Skynet to Sharp Eyes on Jun 14, 2018
China is expanding its video surveillance network to achieve “100%” nationwide coverage by 2020, including facial recognition capabilities and a...
French National Police Buy 10,400 Hikvision Body Cameras on May 31, 2018
France’s national police forces bought 10,400 Hikvision body cameras earlier this year, in a high-profile deal that’s coming into effect as the...
Amazon Enters Home Security Services on Apr 26, 2018
Move over ADT? It is certainly what investors have feared for ADT, especially since Amazon acquired Ring. [Update: We spoke with Amazon and have...
ISC West 2018 Access Control Rundown on Apr 06, 2018
For ISC West 2018, what is new and interesting in access control?  This rundown will bring you up to speed on the exhibitors, what they are...
30+ Emerging Tech Companies Examined on Mar 28, 2018
ISC West has a new segment for 2018: the 'Emerging Technology Zone', which they boast: Featuring 50 of the latest and greatest startup...
Audio Usage In Video Surveillance Statistics on Mar 28, 2018
Audio is more widely available and easier to use than ever, with many IP cameras building audio in and often making integration as simple as...
Chinese Police Wearing Facial Recognition Are Here on Feb 06, 2018
This is a very interesting and highly atypical usage of facial recognition that the Chinese government touted this week: It is a PRC police...
Washington DC Surveillance Hackers Arrested on Dec 29, 2017
The US Department of Justice has announced that "Two Romanian Suspects Charged With Hacking of Metropolitan Police Department Surveillance Cameras...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Directory of Video Surveillance Startups on Jul 18, 2018
This directory provides a list of video surveillance startups to help you see and research what companies are new or not yet broadly known entity...
Ladder Lockdown and Ladder Levelizer Tested on Jul 18, 2018
Ladders are a daily necessity for surveillance and security installers, but working on an unstable surface can be extremely dangerous. In addition...
FST Fails on Jul 17, 2018
FST was one of the hottest startups of the decade, selected as the best new product at ISC West 2011 and backed with tens of millions in...
Axis ~$100 Camera Tested on Jul 17, 2018
Axis has released their lowest cost camera ever, the Companion Eye Mini L, setting their sights on a market dominated by Hikvision and Dahua. Can...
Amazon Ring Alarm System Tested on Jul 16, 2018
Amazon Ring is going to hurt traditional dealers, and especially ADT, new IPVM test results of Ring's Alarm system underscore. IPVM found that...
Hikvision Wins Chinese Government Forced Facial Recognition Project Across 967 Mosques on Jul 16, 2018
Hikvision has won a Chinese government tender which requires that facial recognition cameras be set up at the entrance of every single mosque...
Installing Dome Cameras Indoors Guide on Jul 16, 2018
IPVM is producing the definitive series on installing surveillance cameras. This entry covers one of the most common scenarios - installing dome...
Security Sales Course Summer 2018 on Jul 13, 2018
Based on member's interest, IPVM is offering a security sales course this summer. Register Now - IPVM Security Sales Course Summer 2018 This...
US Tariffs Hit China Video Surveillance on Jul 13, 2018
Chinese video surveillance products avoided tariffs for the first two rounds. Now, in the third round, many video surveillance products will be...
Last Chance - July 2018 IP Networking Course on Jul 12, 2018
Registration ends today, Thursday. Register now. This is the only networking course designed specifically for video surveillance...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact