Introduction
Body-worn cameras are intended for the purposes of assisting and supporting officers in playing their role, protecting officers from unfounded accusations, and providing evidence for conflict resolution and criminal investigations. The cameras record everything and everyone relating to investigations, law enforcement, and any call for service. Many events today are recorded on simple available electronic devices such as phones. These recordings have spurred debate on the need for the implementation of the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcers. Many people have advocated for a nationwide roll-out of such a program believing that it will help in the building public trust and transparency in the law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies today leverage on current technological developments such as the use of video documentation devices to increase transparency and develop public trust (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015) .
Public criticism of the police department arising from the use of excess force on civilians has brought about heated discussions about the application and relevance of body-worn camera programs in the profession of law enforcement. Body-worn cameras are small portable devices that come in various forms and are meant to be attached to police uniform as part of it (Coudert, Butin, & Métayer, 2015) . The different forms in which they are availed are all non-intrusive to the daily functioning of the officers. They can be attached to various components of the uniform such as the vest, glasses, or head gear. Some also come in the form of headsets. Body-worn cameras are meant to provide both video and audio footages of the daily activities and contacts of the wearing officer. Public trust is an important aspect in law enforcement since it drives the effectiveness of officers and lends legitimacy to the law enforcement process. Public trust is built through ensuring transparency between the policing agency and the community. The rebuilding of public trust through improved transparency can be achieved via a body-worn camera program. Such a program has the potential to initiate and develop the idea of rebuilding public trust by identifying and correcting unacceptable behaviors in the law enforcement profession (Elliott, 2015) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Law enforcement agencies have embraced body-worn cameras and adopted the technology for use by their members. The adoption of the technology has happened rapidly and to a wide margin, rendering relevance to the question of how the police should use the devices rather than if they should use them (Ramirez, 2015) . Previous studies have sought to educate on the effectiveness and limitations of body-worn cameras while turning a blind eye to the best practices in the use of the technology. This study will use the supportive approach to explore the intersection of this technology and procedural justice behavior in police officers in addressing this knowledge gap. It will look into the available literature with the objective of seeking answers for the following four research questions:
How do body-worn cameras affect the perspective of the community towards police officers and the policing department?
Does community interaction and satisfaction with the police officers change depending on the presence or absence of body-worn cameras?
Does the propensity to activate the cameras among police officers vary during interactions and confrontations with the public?
Does the presence of a camera and its use influence how a police officer behaves?
This study will be insightful about the incorporation of BWC’s as part of the regular uniform of the police force. It will provide the public and the officers’ perceptions of the body-worn camera technology. It will as well have important insights for policy makers as far as law enforcement and improvement of relations between the police department and the community is concerned.
Review of Literature
Public Perception and Body-Worn Cameras
Leaders have been put to task to equip the police department with BWCs in efforts to effect social transformation through improving relations between officers and the general public whom they serve (Mateescu, Rosenblat, & Boyd, 2015) . Past studies have established that the use of BWCs improves the behavior of both the general public and police officers during confrontations, relative to conditions in their absence. The use of the cameras has been associated with decrease in excessive use of force by the police, fewer complaints from the public against officers, and decreased resistance in the event of an arrest. Recordings from the cameras have been used to substantiate or disapprove accusations against members of the police force, as evidence during prosecutions, and as tools for the expedition of conflict resolution.
The Influence of BWCs on Police Behaviors
The practicability of the use of the technology of body-worn cameras is largely influenced by departmental policy. Discretion for the use of the devices applies to the conditions in which members of the police department are required to use them and how often a member decides to activate the cameras. Young and Ready (2016) found that mandatory-use departmental policies are effective in increasing the number and frequency of activations among police officers. Officers who willingly choose to wear the cameras were also found to be more frequent users of the technology than those who felt obliged to use them by the policy of discretionary use. The researchers in fact found a significant decrease in camera activations when the policy was changed from mandatory to discretionary. This is an indication that despite the departmental reverence for the cameras as valuable tools, police officers have varying levels of support and enthusiasm towards them (Ready & Young, 2015) .
The use of the body-worn camera technology also raises questions about the safety of the officers. Ready and young (2015) found that BWC use can potentially increase instances of use of extra force by officers. They also established that it can also increase the number of assaults on officers and cases of violent arrest of non-resistant people. Cases of violent arrests decreased in departments where the officers obeyed policies about when and where not to activate the cameras. There were more instances of use of force in departments where the officers did not closely follow the policies as passed. The study associated an increase in cases in cases of use of force with increase in officer discretion about when to use the technology. The study established that body-worn cameras are not used in all situations. The study findings indicated immense variations in the frequency of camera activations in the course of duty (Ready & Young, 2015) .
The use of the body-worn camera technology in the police force is evidently not a universal phenomenon, and an expectation for 100% activation would be unrealistic. There are various conditions and circumstances under which it would be inappropriate for an officer to activate the cameras. Officers with less frequent activations were found to respond more to calls for duty from the public received by the department (McClure, Vigne, Lynch, Golian, Lawrence, & Malm, 2017) .
The Arizona State University (ASU) study . The Phoenix Police Department was the subjects of a study by done by ASU. The department had received a $500,000 award from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the SMART Policing Initiative. The money was used to procure body-worn cameras for officers deployed in the Maryvale district. The department wanted to particularly examine the effects of the technology on cases of domestic violence and their judicial outcomes as well as complaints and allegations of assault made against officers. The study focused on particular types of incidences which included status offenses, cases of violence, and traffic offenses. Officer productivity was shown to have considerable improvement, going by the number of arrests made. There was a 17 percent increase in number of arrests made by officers using the cameras while the number of arrests by officers without the recording device rose by 10 percent. There was a slight drop in the number of complaints made against officers. Complaints rose by more than 10 percent among officers not using the cameras in one of the covered areas. There was a dramatic rise in number of complaints reported in other areas that were not included in the pilot program.
Additionally, the study found that those officers who had had complaints leveled against them in the precincts covered in the pilot program were less likely to have the accusations for unwarranted use of force sustained. The camera recordings were instrumental in the validation or disapproval of an officer’s account of the encounter even after the filing of a complaint. The ASU study supported this critical role of the camera technology. The study found that many claims of inappropriate behavior and encounters could not be pursued since they could not be validated through the evidence provided by the camera recording. According to the data obtained by the Phoenix Police Department from the pilot program, there was no relevant drop in cases of assault on the officers in the course of the study (Coudert, Butin, & Métayer, 2015) .
The Rialto study. The Rialto study was done in Rialto, California, in a period of one year from February 2012 through February 2013. The study is perhaps the most significant to this day on the body-worn camera technology. The Rialto Police Department undertook this study in conjunction with Ariel et al. and used field trials to examine the role and impact of the cameras in relation to the reported incidences of use of force and complaints from citizens (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015) . The study focused on a sample of 54 frontline members of the police force who were randomly chosen. They were studied during their regular shifts in their course of duty either wearing or not wearing body-worn cameras. The study explored 988 shifts worked by the sample. The officers used cameras in 489 of the 988 shifts. Data sourced from these shifts was analyzed to come up with the results. The patrol shifts were split into random groups for the whole year that the study was undertaken. The control group did not have BCWs while the experimental group had. There was a total of 25 cases of use of force that were reported by citizens at the Rialto Police Department during the course of the study. Only nine of the reported cases involved officers in the experimental group. The year of study recorded a 60% drop in cases of use of force and an 88% decrease in assault cases filed against officers.
The Mesa study. The Mesa Police Department of Arizona also conducted a study to examine the effect of BWCs on police performance and behavior. The results of the Mesa study show that the body-worn camera technology can significantly influence actions, decisions, and policies in the police department. This impact is especially vivid in encounters with members of the public where the officer is well aware that the recording is available and will provide grounds for further scrutiny of their behavior (Ready & Young, 2015) . The study was not very different from the Rialto study in that it followed the same survey methodology, breaking the sample into random groups -a control group and an experimental group. The study found that the experimental group (those with cameras) exercised more caution in their work and had relatively lower probabilities of engaging in risky behavior since they were also more aware of their conduct and the associated consequences. The use of the BWCs provides potential for more accuracy and precision in scrutiny over violation of department policy and over criminal processes. The findings of the study were that the use of cameras increases self-awareness among officials since they know that the recording can be internally reviewed by their supervisors or externally reviewed at the request of the public thus implicating them in case of any misconduct (Ready & Young, 2015) . The mesa study is therefore another study that found that the use of BWCs improves the behavior of police officials during encounters.
The three studies offer a concrete foundation upon which research on the use of BWC technology can be built. According to these studies, the effectiveness of the body-worn cameras when observed in the lens of the police-public encounters is mainly positive. This suggests that the public perception of the police force can be greatly influenced, and to a significant level, by the use of BWCs. Adan, a police chief of the Rialto Department asserted that they had relatively fewer numbers of sustained complaints made against their officers during the study period, compared to other periods (Coudert, Butin, & Métayer, 2015) . Police officers today find their decisions, actions, and behavior under intense scrutiny, necessitating more research on BWCs and the regulations that govern their use.
Results and Discussion
The implementation of the BWC program is a massive and relatively new project in the law enforcement department. The public is keeping a close eye on the project to look out for improved behavior among police officers and therefore pass judgment. This excitement is the result of continued public outcry about police brutality during encounters with the public, brutality which has been captured variously on devices such as phones and video recorders held by the public. The effect of the cameras are however more complicated than simply improving the behavior of the officers and the public. Following a just and fair procedure was more important than the presence of the cameras in increasing public trust. Faced by an encounter with the police, most members of the public don’t care if the officers have cameras, and usually don’t recall afterwards, since all that matters at the moment is justice and freedom. The activation of cameras among police officers differs considerably depending on the various policing policies and activities. Officers who are asked about their cameras tend to use them more frequently while those who activate their cameras only occasionally respond to more calls to duty. Officers using BWCs also make less arrests compared those without the technology.
The studies explored reveal that the BWC technology is a reliable tool for the improvement of police practices, provision of more transparency and accountability, and rebuilding of public trust in the police department. Transparency implies giving the public access to the daily operations of the police and to their files of misconduct, to records of lawsuits and court decisions reached by the local authorities, and to documents concerning ongoing lawsuits involving victims of police assault and misconduct. The success of any project is only as good as the efforts put in its implementation. A study done in Las Vegas revealed that video evidence is instrumental in preventing public misconduct among citizens with a high likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior (Sousa & Madensen, 2016) .
Although there is limited empirical research on the impact of BWCs on police officer behavior and the public, preliminary findings show support for the use of the cameras. The literature reviewed here provides only positive results for both the public and the officers. The findings of this research, though consistent with those of previous studies that focused on body-worn cameras, also offer new insights. Procedural justice is associated with stronger public satisfaction with encounters with the police force. The simple action of wearing a camera did not have any significant effect as far as improving public perception of the police force is concerned. The active use of the cameras, however, has a high potential of changing public perceptions of members of the police department. The amount of research on this topic is set to grow in the future since law-enforcement agencies are increasing implementing the BCW program and more data is becoming available. This implementation is happening on a nationwide scale, another indicator that the cameras play a vital role in improving performance.
Conclusion
This study finds that the use of body-worn cameras affects the community’s perception of the police officers, a perception that is largely informed by the behavior of the officers during encounters with members of the public. The behavior of members of the public during encounters also changes in the presence and activation of cameras. There is much to be gained both by the public and the police from the use of cameras. The technology has the potential to improve the performance of the police and reduce instances of assaults on police officers. An improvement in behavior would mean that perceptions also change from both sides for the better.
The use of the cameras is however not simply a policy solution because their effectiveness is subject to various concerns such as variations in officer perceptions and the prevailing circumstances. As the adoption of body-worn cameras continues in many police departments across the country, many questions about their particular effects and the context of their use will arise, necessitating more studies in a bid to fully benefit from the technology.
References
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015, Sep). The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31 (3), 509-535.
Coudert, F., Butin, D., & Métayer, D. L. (2015). Body-worn cameras for police accountability: Opportunities and risks. Computer Law and Security Review, 31 , 749-762.
Elliott, J. (2015). Body-Worn Cameras: A Step Toward Trust and Legitimacy for Campus Police. University Honors Theses, Paper 146 .
Mateescu, A., Rosenblat, A., & Boyd, D. (2015, Feb). Police Body-Worn Cameras. Retrieved Oct 9, 2018, from Data&Society: https://www.datasociety.net/pubs/dcr/PoliceBodyWornCameras.pdf
McClure, D., Vigne, N. L., Lynch, M., Golian, L., Lawrence, D., & Malm, A. (2017). How Body Cameras Affect Community Members' Perceprions of Police. Retrieved Oct 9, 2018, from ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323615924_How_Body_Cameras_Affect_Community_Members%27_Perceptions_of_Police_Results_from_a_Randomized_Controlled_Trial_of_One_Agency%27s_Pilot
Ramirez, E. P. (2015). A Report on Body-Worn Cameras. Los Angeles: Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.
Ready, J. T., & Young, J. T. (2015). The impact of on-officer video cameras on police–citizen contacts: findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11 (3), 445-458.
Sousa, W. H., & Madensen, T. D. (2016). Citizen acceptance of police interventions: an example of CCTV surveillance in Las Vegas, Nevada. Criminal Justice Studies, 29 (1), 40-56.
