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.