Police, Public, and Arrestee Perceptions of Body-Worn Video: A Single Jurisdictional Multiple-Perspective Analysis

• Author: Geoffrey C. Barnes,Christine McComb,Darren Henstock,Roy Newland,Joseph Clare,Murray Lee,Emmeline Taylor
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016819846236
• Date: 01 September 2019
• Published date: 01 September 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Police, Public, and Arrestee

Perceptions of Body-Worn

Video: A Single Jurisdictional

Multiple-Perspective Analysis

Joseph Clare

1

, Darren Henstock

2

, Christine McComb

3

, Roy Newland

2

,

Geoffrey C. Barnes

3

, Murray Lee

4

, and Emmeline Taylor

5

Abstract

This article analyzes police, public, and arrestee survey responses from a single jurisdiction to give a

multiple-perspective insight into the use of body-worn video (BWV) cameras by police. Police

attitudinal data were collected from before (n¼190), during (n¼139), and at the conclusion

(n¼221) of a BWV implementation trial. Public attitudes were collected at the conclusion of the

BWV implementation trial via online survey (n¼995 respondents) and intercept survey (n¼428

respondents). Arrestee attitudes (n¼302) were collected for detainees in police custody over a

6-month period immediately preceding the BWV trial. Results showed (a) all three perspectives

were supportive of the use of BWV, (b) the extent to which police felt BWV influenced their

behavior tempered during the trial, (c) the public who had encountered BWV-wearing officers and

the arrestee sample indicated limited belief that BWV would reduce bad behavior, and (d) there was

clear contention about the policy and practice decisions around recording. These findings have

significance for BWV trials, commenting on the importance of collecting police attitudes at multiple

points, separating the attitudes of public who did encounter police-wearing BWV, and data col-

lection/policy for evaluation outcomes.

Keywords

body-worn video cameras, police surveys, public surveys, arrestee surveys

1

The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

2

Digital Policing Program, Capability and Coordination Portfolio, Western Australian Police, Perth, Western Australia,

Australia

3

Evidence-Based Policing Division, Western Australian Police, East Perth, Western Australia, Australia

4

University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

5

City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Joseph Clare, The University of Western Australia, M253, 35 Stirling Hwy., Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia.

Email: joe.clare@uwa.edu.au

Criminal Justice Review

2019, Vol. 44(3) 304-321

ª2019 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734016819846236

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

This article summarizes findings from police officer, public, and arrestee surveys focused on

attitudes toward police use of body-worn video (BWV). These multiple-perspectives were generated

within a single jurisdiction and contributed to a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of BWV by the

Western Australia Police Force (WAPOL). The aim of this article is to add to the general body of

literature critiquing attitudes toward the use of BWV technology in a policing context. The novel

contributions of this article are to add to the limited research: (a) assessing officer perceptions of

BWV at multiple points through implementation; (b) analyzing the impact of actual police–public

interactions in the presence of cameras (as opposed to hypothetical opinions about the technology);

(c) utilizing multiple survey methodologies within a single design, highlighting the importance of

methodological decisions for evaluation findings; and (d) including the arrestees’ perspectives on

this emerging technology. The analysis explores attitudes toward BWV as a source of evidence, the

impact it has on community relations and police/public behavior, the complexity around consent and

recording practices, and the relationship between BWV and complaints against police. The outcome

of these Australian-based surveys indicate overall support of this technology but also highlight some

important procedural issue s about recording and caution a gainst expecting BWV to produc e a

“civilizing effect” for public behavior (White, Todak, & Gaub, 2017). The findings are discussed

with respect to previous similar research and the broader implications for BWV technology in a

policing context. The remainder of the introduction briefly summarizes what is known about BWV

cameras in policing and outlines the research focus for the current study.

The Inconsistent Relationship Between BWV Cameras and Behavior

There has been substantial recent effort to undertake RCTs of the implementation of BWV in a

policing context (Ariel, Farrar, & Suthe rland, 2015; Ariel et al., 2016; Braga, Co ldren, Sousa,

Rodriguez, & Alper, 2017; Braga, Sousa, Coldren, & Rodriguez, 2 018; Drover & Ariel, 2015;

Henstock & Ariel, 2017; Owens & Finn, 2018; Peterson, Yu, La Vigne, & Lawrence, 2018; Wallace,

White, Gaub, & Todak, 2018; White, Gaub, & Todak, 2018; Yokum, Ravishankar, & Coppock,

2017). In addition to this, Piza (2018) and Lum, Stoltz, Koper, and Scherer (2019) have undertaken

comprehensive literature reviews to identify the policy implications and knowledge gaps associated

with police use of BWV. Despite the replication of some patterns across studies, there is substantial

inconsistency in the observed relationship between BWV and the behavior of police and members of

the public.

There is good reason to expect that BWV should cause people to behave differently, assuming

they know the technology is present, with this change in behavior driven by the awareness they are

being watched (the “Hawthorne effect”; supported by a large body of research across a range of

contexts: for a systematic review, see McCambridge, Witton, & Elbourne, 2014). At this stage, it is

not clear the extent to which the Hawthorne effect can explain behavior when BWV is present. From

a police perspective, evidence that the cameras improve behavior does exist with respect to reduced

complaints against police (Ariel, 2016b; Ariel et al., 2015; Ariel, Sutherland, Henstock, Young, &

Sosinski, 2017; Braga et al., 2017; Ellis, Jenkins, & Smith, 2015; Peterson et al., 2018; White, Gaub,

et al., 2018) and reduced (presumably unjustified) police use of force (Ariel et al., 2015; Braga et al.,

2017, 2018; Henstock & Ariel, 2017; Jennings, Fridell, Lynch, Jetelina, & Reingle Gonzalez, 2017;

White, Gaub, et al., 2018). However, BWV has also been found to have a negligible impact on police

use of force (Ariel, 2016b; Ariel et al., 2016; Headley, Guerette, & Shariati, 2017; Peterson et al.,

2018; Yokum et al., 2017) and civilian complaints (Ariel et al., 2017; Yokum et al., 2017). Addi-

tional inconsistency is added by studies that demonstrate an op posite to the Hawthorne effect,

producing increases in assaults against BWV-wearing officers (termed a “backfire effect”; Ariel

et al., 2016, 2018) and findings that short-term positive effects of BWV on decreasing police

complaints dissipate over time (White, Gaub, et al., 2018).

Clare et al. 305