Where Is the Goal Line? A Critical Look at Police Body‐Worn Camera Programs

• Date: 01 August 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12374
• Author: Kyle McLean,Geoffrey P. Alpert
• Published date: 01 August 2018

POLICY ESSAY

POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERAS

Where Is the Goal Line? A Critical Look at

Police Body-Worn Camera Programs

Georey P. Alper t

University of South Carolina

Griffith University

Kyle McLean

Florida State University

When police were provided with dash-cam or in-car recorders, it was argued

they would be able to confirm the stories officers were telling and assist with

prosecutions, while capturing improper police actions. Soon after their im-

plementation, the in-car videos along with closed-circuit television (CCTV) were being

used to justify police activities, played in court to help convict criminals, and reviewed

for police misconduct. These videos have been lauded for confirming proper behavior in

driving-under-the-influence (DUI) enforcement, sustaining comments and actions officers

attributed to subjects, and showing the dangers of high-speed pursuits, among other ac-

tivities. When the first generation of cameras was rolled out in the 1980s, there was no

agreed-upon goal for them, some video was grainy, cameras were not always pointing in

the right direction, they were not always working, they were not always turned on, and

tapes were sometimes full or damaged (International Association of Chiefs of Police[IACP],

2004). Watching the videos was, for the most part, a boring exercise. The video evidence,

however, was helpful in understanding the daily routines of officers (Meyer, 2014) and

helped prosecute drunk drivers. Mothers Against Drunk Driving helped convince govern-

ment and private funders to purchase the equipment for law enforcement. Quickly, fears

and apprehension transformed into satisfaction and support, as the videos more often than

not exonerated officer behavior and in many cases reduced citizen complaints.1In the late

1990s, there was an emphasis for agencies using the technology to develop a thorough

Direct correspondence to Geoffrey P. Alpert, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of

South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (e-mail: geoffa@mailbox.sc.edu).

1. Some issues needed to be evaluated, however, including the reasons for the suspension of random

reviews of tapes (Eiserer, 2012).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12374 C2018 American Society of Criminology 679

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 3