Police body‐worn camera policies as democratic deficits? Comparing public support for policy alternatives

• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Author: Daniel E. Bromberg,Camille Faubert,Étienne Charbonneau
• Date: 01 August 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12589

DOI: ./- .

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Police body-worn camera policies as democratic

deficits? Comparing public support for policy

alternatives

Daniel E. Bromberg1Camille Faubert2Étienne Charbonneau3

Carsey School of Public Policy,

University of New Hampshire, Durham,

New Hampshire, USA

École nationale de police du Québec,

Québec, Nicolet, Canada

École nationale d’administration

publique, Québec, Montreal, Canada

Correspondence

Daniel E. Bromberg, Carsey School of

Public Policy,University of New

Hampshire,  Henry Law Avenue

Dover, NH ,Durham, NH, USA.

Email: daniel.bromberg@unh.edu

Funding information

Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities

Research Council, Grant/AwardNumber:

--

Abstract

Research Summary: Policies that govern the use

of body-worn cameras (BWCs) by police vary widely

between American cities. However, it is currently un-

clear whether citizen preferences for these policies vary

in a similar manner. More specifically, do BWC policies

reflect citizen preferences or are existing policies disfa-

vored by a majority of the public? To investigate these

questions, we randomly sampled  respondents for

each of the three representative metropolitan areas, Los

Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA; and Charlotte, NC, in addi-

tion to a further  Americans across the country to

inquire about policy preferences. We found that most

respondents prefer the BWC policies recommended by

the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to those

currently implemented in their regional police depart-

ments. In other words, elements of the BWC policies in

Los Angeles, Seattle, and Charlotte do not reflect resi-

dents’ preferences.

Policy Implications: The policy stating that footage

access should be given to parents of minors, a deceased

subject’s family members, or anyone filmed in an

encounter,a model promoted by ACLU,is a clear favorite

in the United States at large, but also in the three cities

we studied. The policy stating that footage access should

not be given to superior officers to find disciplinary

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. ©  American Society of Criminology. 649wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp

650 BROMBERG  .

infractions, also backed by the ACLU, is less popular

among Americans at large and residents of Seattle.

Beyond the high support for BWCs within the Ameri-

can population, decision makers need to make sure that

the policies that govern the use of this tool respect demo-

cratic principles. Therefore, the voice of citizens needs to

be heard to avoid a democratic deficit.

KEYWORDS

body-worn camera, democratic deficit, police, policy preference,

public opinion

In the aftermath of Michael Brown’s death in , despite public pressure, the city of St. Louis,

MO, opted not to equip its police officers with body-worncameras (BWCs). It was not until  years

later, following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, that officials in St. Louis made the

decision to adopt BWCs.Since , many law enforcement agencies across the United States have

emulated this response with the aim of increasing police transparency and limiting incidents of

police misconduct (Hyland, ; Lum et al., ; Sousa et al., ). When politicians invest mil-

lions of dollars in BWCs, they are actively carrying out the will of the people reflected by camera

popularity (Sousa et al., ; Stround, : ; Todak et al., ; White et al., ). That said,

the implementation of cameras across the United States, and the policies with which they are

accompanied, are as varied as they are popular. In addition tothe  recommendations put forth

by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU; ), some cities and states chose to govern the

use of police BWCs in their own ways. To rectify these inconsistences, numerous scorecards have

compared BWCpolicies across municipalities (Fan, ; Upturn, ; Urban Institute, ), and

even within a given state. State lawsframing the use of BWCs also vary across states (National Con-

ference of State Legislatures, ). These variations are discussed in Fan’s () book in which

she compares  BWC policies along  dimensions. Forexample, she contrasts the ACLU’s sug-

gested policy for protecting victims, witnesses, and minors (ibid., p. ) with hundreds of poli-

cies both “democratically framed protections by elected legislators and those designed by police

departments carries lessons for crafting policies” (Fan, : ). What remains largely under-

studied are citizen expectations of the policies that govern the use of these cameras by police.

Do policies differ regionally because they reflect local citizen preferences? In his book “Unwar-

ranted,” Friedman postulates that (:xii)“(...)whenitcomestopolicing,theordinaryrulesof

democratic governance seem to evaporate. Policingoff icials decide for themselves how toenforce

the law.The rules governing policing often are not public. Even more rarely are they adopted with

public input.” This study examines whether a policy gap exists between citizen preferences and

law enforcement policies potentially hindering effective implementation of BWCs.

In the rush to employ BWCs, and the attempt of scholars to consider the impact and risks, few

practitioners or academics have adequately examined the implementation of BWCs. Although

there has been “a five-fold increase” in available BWC studies since  (Lum et al., :),

there remains inconsistent implementation, causing unanticipated responses from citizens and a

lack of effective BWCs use by law enforcement and prosecutors. Malm (: ) argues that

it is difficult to distinctly attribute these challenges to the inherent limits of cameras or the