The Rialto Police Department s Body-Worn Video Camera Experiment. Chief William Farrar & Dr Barak Ariel

Transcription

1 Sergeant Scott Linnborn Professional Standards Division Cedar Park Police Department 6th International Conference on Evidence- Based Policing The Rialto Police Department s Body-Worn Video Camera Experiment Chief William Farrar & Dr Barak Ariel 1

2 Rialto Police Department 28.5 square miles population of 100,000 residents Mid-sized police department in California 54 front-line, uniformed officers Total of 115 sworn police officers and 42 nonsworn personnel In social contexts, knowing that one is beingobserved leads to modifications of behaviour and often into socially-desirable-responses When individuals are observed by rule or normenforcing agents, this self-awareness effect is believed to be stronger, given the potentially negative implications for the rule violation Chartrand & Bargh (1999); Jones & Nisbett (1971); Wicklund (1975); Paulhus (1988); Munger & Shelby (1989) 61% of police departments used video cameras in patrol cars in 2007 (U.S. Department of Justice 2010) Cameras are likely to: (1) improve accountability (2) reduce complaints of police misconduct (3) save thousands of dollars in court costs (4) lower overtime costs for investigations and court appearances (5) ability to collect evidence for trial (6) increased professionalism by forcing officers to give more attention to following agency rules 2

3 Oakland 13.5 Million Los Angeles 125 Million Past 10 Years Denver 10 Million Past 8 Years Milwaukee 14 Million Past 10 Years New York Million Cleveland 8 Chicago 82.5 Million Past 10 Million Past 10 Years Years Rialt o February 13, 2011 to February 12, 2012 = 24 February 13, 2012 to February 12, 2013 = 3 (-87.5%) 2009 = 36 (91.66%) 2010 = 51 (94.11%) 2011 = 28 (89.28%) Control = 1 Experiment = 2 * Reduction was so large not enough complaints for meaningful analysis February 13, 2011 to February 12, 2012 = 61 February 13, 2012 to February 12, 2013 = 25 (-59.01%) 2009 = 70 (64.28%) 2010 = 65 (61.53%) 2011 = 60 (58.33%) Control = 17 Experiment = 8 *This is important as it shows the reduction is the result of the cameras. *All 8 experiment use of force incidents were captured on video. 3

4 Convictions due to video evidence Domestic Violence Cases Cost savings on complaint investigations Cost savings on use-of-force investigations Cost savings on use-of-force lawsuits Reductions in frivolous complaints Paperless reports RCT 61% of police departments used video cameras in patrol cars in 2007 (U.S. Department of Justice 2010) Cameras are likely to: (1) improve accountability (2) reduce complaints of police misconduct (3) save thousands of dollars in court costs (4) lower overtime costs for investigations and court appearances (5) ability to collect evidence for trial (6) increased professionalism by forcing officers to give more attention to following agency rules 1. Reduction in use-of-force incidents from 61 to Of the 25 use-of-force incidents, 17 were control and 8 Experiment 3. Of the 8 use-of-force incidents on the Experiment days, all 8 were recorded on video 4. Reduction in complaints from 24 to 3 or from 0.7 complaints per 1,000 contacts to 0.07 per 1,000 contacts 5. Contacts increased from the previous years - no backfiring effect 6. Survey of all officers before and during RCT shows no significant changes in officers self-legitimacy 4

5 1. Pocket or center chest 2. Shoulder lapel or general vicinity 3. Glasses mounted 4. Cap method Obstruction of lense 5

6 THE TWO DOMINANT FORCES IN BODY WORN CAMREAS The TASER AXON Body Camera The TASER AXON Body Camera (cont.) A cloud based body camera system 640 x 480 VGA video resolution at 30 FPS 130 field of view camera lens Retina Low-Light recording capability at less than 1 lux Approximately 4 hours video storage under highest quality recording settings; up to 9 hours storage under medium quality recording settings; and up to 13 hours storage available at lowest quality recording setting More than 12 hours of battery life under normal operation 6

7 The TASER AXON Body Camera (cont.) The TASER AXON BWC continually buffers thirty seconds of video before the user activates the camera When activated the camera then records to internal storage the previous thirty seconds of buffered video (no audio) and both audio and video until the user deactivates the camera Users dock the TASER AXON BWC at the end of their shift at their district or section The docking station uploads recorded video to the cloudbased Evidence.com over the internet Users cannot alter or delete recorded files from the camera The docking station also recharges the camera The TASER AXON Body Camera (cont.) Evidence.com allows recorded videos to be accessed anywhere on a personal computer with available and sufficient internet to stream large video files Evidence.com allows recorded files to be shared with anyone with an address by ing the intended recipient a link to open and view said files All files accessed through Evidence.com are logged for accountability purposes to document any viewing or copying of files All users of Evidence.com are required to have a user account to access the system in any capacity The VieVu LE3 Body Camera 7

8 The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.) A local storage based camera system (HD) or (Widescreen SD) at 30 FPS 68 field of view camera lens Enhanced Image Quality and Low Light Capability 5 hours of recording time at SD, 3 hours at HD quality 72 hours of standby battery capacity when not in use The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.) The VieVu LE3 camera does not buffer video The camera records audio and video only when activated Two to three seconds delay before the camera records The VieVu LE3 BWC unit is connected by a USB cable at the end of the shift to a Department computer Video files are uploaded by installed software on the computer to local-based storage: Eyewitness Data Vault Users cannot alter or delete recorded files from the camera Camera can be recharged slowly while connected to the USB cable or faster using an included wall charger There is no docking station required for these cameras The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.) 8

9 The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.) Veripatrol complementary client software is included with the purchase of the VieVu LE3 BWC unit Eyewitness Data Vault software was previously installed by Department IT personnel on recently upgraded Department computers currently used in the districts to facilitate police car digital video recordings (DVR) The VieVu LE3 BWC was integrated for the purpose of this BWC project into the Eyewitness Data Vault software system as a local-storage option using the Department intranet to store and review recorded files The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.) Recorded files uploaded onto the Eyewitness Data Vault locally-stored server may be accessed by Department computers with the proper permissions and software installed by IT support not a cloud system All files accessed through Eyewitness Data Vault are logged for accountability purposes to document any viewing or copying of files Users of VieVu LE3 BWC units are not required to have an Eyewitness Data Vault user account to use this BWC system in the field Supervisors currently have assigned Eyewitness Data Vault accounts to manage police car DVR videos 9

10 /Wearable_Cameras_Capitol_Hill_Final_Prese ntation_jerry_lee_symposium_2013.pdf / body-camera-powerpointpresentation.pdf 10