Running head: 1

Tiana R. Stewart

Marymount University

2

Abstract

Studies of body worn cameras are shown to decrease undesirable law enforcement behavior;

other studies say they may give rise to concerns of over-deterrence, privacy, and resistance in law

enforcement. Currently, there is a desire for a new policy requiring all law enforcement to wear

body cameras. This paper begins with a review of the brief studies that have been conducted on

body-worn cameras to show the possible benefits of implementing body-worn cameras.

Concerns of over-deterrence, privacy, and resistance are explored. Some recommendations are

discussed.

Keywords: Law enforcement, police officers, body-worn cameras, surveillance,

overdeterrence, privacy, resistance

3

Imagine hearing a story on your local televised news about a police officer shooting at an

unarmed individual. The only witnesses are the officer and the dead citizen. In some situations,

a phone camera recording is taken. In the news, this has been a reality. Police Officers are

supposed to protect us from the evils of society, not become the evil we fear. In the past decade,

there have been numerous, heavily broadcasted U.S. News stories related to police brutality.

Most often, these are hate crimes targeted at race and/or sexuality. Other times, it is a lack of

mental health training. These types of crimes are nothing new, but the mystery of it all is, why is

it still happening.

One of the most publicized events has been the shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson,

Missouri police officer, Darren Wilson. Brown was unarmed, yet shot at twelve times. The

police officer was not convicted. The results of Darren Willson’s trial upset many all over the

nation. This case brought unrest to Ferguson, including protests, riots, and more violence. It

sparked the infamous saying “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” in protests around the United States. It’s

cases like these that have brought on a heavy critique of police behavior and unnecessary use of

police force. Law enforcement is under more scrutiny, than maybe ever before. One way that

citizens, and some political figures, think tension, between law enforcement and the community,

may be resolved is through excessive transparency. That is one policy recommendation would

be body-worn cameras that would allow for police officers’ every move to be documented. That

includes their lunch breaks. That even includes the private residences and cars that police

4

encounter on a normal day. More and more large agencies are adopting this technology, and

many citizens are demanding that their cities do the same (Roy, 2014).

Policing has seen much technological advancement such as GPS monitoring, in-car

cameras, and closed circuit television cameras (Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014). Body-worn

cameras may be next. Body-worn cameras are exactly as they sound. Officers would be

required to wear a camera on their uniform, hat or maybe even eye wear (Witherspoon, 2014).

Although much research has not been done, there is some research that supports the

benefits of body-worn cameras on law enforcement. Amongst these benefits is a decrease in the

use of force, as well as a decrease in citizen’s complaints (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2014).

Furthermore, Harris suggests that body-worn cameras will increase fourth amendment

compliance (2010). Body-worn cameras not only provide such benefits for citizens, but also for

law enforcement officers. Coppola (2010) argues that these cameras will reduce liability and

improve police safety. Police departments in Erlanger, Kentucky and Lafayette, Colorado have

listed financial reasons as the primary reason for switching over to body-worn cameras from in-

car cameras (Coppola, 2010). Body-worn cameras seem to be a more affordable option than in

car cameras. Furthermore, much of social psychology research suggests that individuals will

behave differently when they know they are being watched. The benefits of body-worn cameras

are numerous, but one thing that is not mentioned much, in media or published studies, is the

possible issues that may come from instituting body-worn cameras. The purpose of this paper is

to explore the possible concerns of body-worn cameras. Although studies of body worn cameras

5

are shown to decrease undesirable law enforcement behavior, other studies say it may give rise to

concerns of over-deterrence, privacy, and resistance in law enforcement.

Literature Review

For the past 60 years, video recording has helped both police officers and citizens hold

one another accountable. The use of video surveillance in policing dates back to the 1950s,

when cameras were first used at traffic lights (Roy, 2014). Over time, more advanced

technology has been introduced. We are currently in an era in which body-worn cameras may be

the next step. With camera phones already catching many officers in the wrong, police may need

their own recording device. Body-worn cameras would provide a unique view at law

enforcement interactions with the community. It would show a recording, from beginning to

end, of an interaction between law enforcement and the community. It would give us a view

from an officer’s perspective. In the United States, only three studies have examined the effects

of body-worn cameras. This lack of research could be due to a very recent call for body-worn

cameras in the United States.

However, there is other research that may assist in predicting the effects of body-worn

cameras. Much research has shown that when humans know that they are being watched, they

alter their behavior. Several experiments in Social Psychology have uncovered a likeliness to

avoid negative outcomes or react in ways that are more socially acceptable, when even the

slightest cues of being watched are present. Bateson, Nettle and Roberts conducted one example

of such a study in 2006. This study provides evidence that being watched dramatically increases

6

cooperative behavior to the public good. One explanation, offered by the authors, is that

reputational concerns motivate cooperative behavior.

The explanation offered by Bateson et al. (2006) may also be used to explain behavior of

law enforcement when cameras are nearby. So far, most evidence on how cameras deter socially

undesirable behavior has been focused on closed circuit televisions (CCTV), speed cameras and

in-car cameras. These different forms of video recording have helped to monitor, record and

hold accountable both police officers and citizens’ behavior. In-car cameras are the first to be

adopted by police in the United States (Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014). CCTVs cause a 16%

decrease in crime, but not in serious or violent crimes; Speed cameras cause a 65% reduction in

speeding (Farrar & Ariel, 2015). Although very novel in application, body-worn cameras may

also have similar benefits of reducing crime.

British police officers were the first to show an interest in body-worn cameras (Harris,

2010). They used head cameras tested on 300 officers for a 17-month period. This study

discovered a few major benefits for police officers: quicker detailed records, quicker resolutions,

easier prosecutions, and a reduction in public offenses. These benefits would help community

relations in the United States. Harris (2010) suggests that a further benefit would be compliance

with the fourth amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures). This could

be true as officers that participated in the Britain study did report an increase in their own

professionalism and performance as a result of the cameras.

The few studies conducted in the United States yield similar findings. Within one month

of Michael Brown’s death by a police officer, fifty body-worn cameras were issued to Ferguson’s

7

officers through donation from a private company. This may be the the start of better

community relations. More than a dozen other U.S. cities have announced similar plans. “Law

often results from moral panic” (Wasserman, 2014). Equipping officers with body cameras is

one policy that has emerged due to the panic of the general public. It is important to review the

research before implementing a new policy.

How officers will perceive body-worn cameras is one significant factor to consider.

Jennings et al. (2014) examined officers’ perceptions of body-worn cameras in Orlando, Florida.

Much like the officers in Britain, these officers are also open to and supportive of body-worn

cameras. Most police officers reported that they predict body-worn cameras will bear benefits

including improving citizens’, their own, and fellow officers’ behavior. This reporting is much

like the reporting of the officers in the Britain study.

Further research suggest that police officer perception of body-worn cameras may depend

on whether or not they are required to wear body-worn cameras (Roy, 2014). Although data

from the Mesa Police Department, in Mesa, Arizona, showed many differences between

volunteer body-worn camera officers and mandatory body-worn camera officers, there were

three that were most significant. The mandatory assigned group was more likely to give verbal

warning and arrest suspects than the volunteer group. The volunteer group, on the other hand,

was twice as likely to issue citations.

The first randomized control trial using body-worn cameras was conducted in Rialto,

California across a 12 month observation period (Ariel et al., 2014). In this study, officers were

randomly assigned to experimental shifts, in which they wore body-cameras. The findings of

8

Ariel et al. (2014) suggest that body-worn cameras decrease both the use of police force and the

number of complaints filed against officers.

Wasserman (2014) also used data from Mesa, Arizona to explain the difference between

camera-equipped officers and non-camera equipped officers. Three major findings were made.

Camera equipped officers (1) made fewer stop-and-frisks and fewer arrests, (2) gave more tickets

and citations, (3) were more likely to initiate contact with citizens (Wasserman, 2014).

Wasserman (2014) also presented results from a Rialto, California study that showed camera-

equipped officers were less likely to use weapons or initiate physical contact. A reduction in

citizen’s complaints and use-of-force incidents was also observed.

Evidence from these studies provide a compelling argument as to why body-worn

cameras are very beneficial and could assist in improving community relations with its’ policing

officers. Despite evidence from the studies above, information from these studies are limited to

small cities. Thus the benefits may be limited. Body-worn cameras will require financial and

diligent commitment in order to effectively work. Although, we are in a state of moral panic, as

a result of current police events, it is important to gain an understanding of the negatives that

may happen if we instill this policy of mandatory body-worn cameras. This paper will

contribute to the existing literature by providing one of the first critiques of existing literature, as

well as exposing some of the downsides of requiring all officers to have on body-worn cameras.

Over-Deterrence

One issue of body-worn cameras is the over-deterrence that may occur. The deterrence

theory relies heavily on the early findings of social psychology, mentioned above. The

9

deterrence theory relies on how self-awareness of being watched leads to socially desirable

behaviors (Ariel, 2014; Farrar, 2013). It is not yet determined if being watched produces

cooperative behavior or deters non-compliant behavior. Proponents of body-worn cameras may

not care, just as long as police officers are doing the “right” thing, and are held accountable when

they do not.

Deterrence sounds great, and to some it could be the greatest benefit of body-worn

cameras. However, this transparency can lead to an unintended negative consequence. Over-

deterrence is likely to result from body-worn cameras. Studies from Arizona, California and

Florida pointed out compliance as a benefit, but did not address what happens when a law

enforcement officer is too compliant.

When someone adheres to the rules too closely, it is known as over-deterrence. Ethan

Bernstein, an organization-behavior scholar, says that when employees are being watched, they

will only do what is expected of them (2014). Furthermore, Bernstein (2014) states that

excessive transparency stifles creativity and productivity. In other words, innovative behavior

will decrease as the use of body-worn cameras is increased.

Law enforcement needs this creativity and innovative behavior to handle different

situations. No two instances are the same, and often times it is their judgment from experience

that successfully diffuses a situation. Over-deterrence in policing mean a major decrease in the

educated risk taking and problem solving that can save lives. A decrease in productivity was

seen in the Arizona study. One difference mentioned was that camera-equipped officers were

less likely to even respond to dispatched call than those without cameras (Wasserman, 2014).

10

Mary Erpenbach (2008) asserts that with an abundance of video recordings, officers are second-

guessing themselves. Second-guessing one’s self and hesitating, could get an officer killed.

Citizens want officers to follow the rules, but we also need them to be confident in their work.

Body-worn cameras may hinder this ability and confidence.

Privacy

Another concern of body-worn cameras is the invasion of privacy (White, 2014). Much

resistance to body-worn cameras stem from legal issues regarding privacy rights and the

expectation of privacy, especially inside one’s residence (Draisin, 2011). Proponents of body-

worn cameras suggest that protecting privacy is what instilling this new policy will do. Harris

(2010) says that body-worn cameras will increase fourth amendment compliance. Illegal search

and seizures do happen too often, and body-worn cameras may prevent it from happening.

However, the threats to privacy are a much bigger concern.

Without a framework put in place to ensure that body-worn cameras will not become yet

another form of surveillance for the public, privacy risks will always be a major concern that

may overweigh the benefits of such a system (Stanley, 2013). No one wants to be monitored

constantly. Privacy is at the foundation of our government. Most states have laws put in place

to block warrantless capturing of photo or video images of people when they have an expectation

of privacy (White, 2014). It may be significant to note that body-worn cameras will also capture

those who are not suspects. Privacy is of concern to everyone in not only their homes, but also

their workplaces.

11

Continuous and over excessive surveillance has some psychological effects on police

officers. Surveillance and monitoring are major stress factors for employees that often lead to

anxiety (Botan & Vorvoreanu, 2005). Stanley (2013) suggests that law enforcement is not

exempt from this effect, as they too are stressed and anxious about constant surveillance. Police

officers encounter so much stress on their jobs. Adding an additional stressor may not be

healthy for them. Organizational changes are one factor of stress (Botan & Vorvoreanu, 2005).

An additional stressor could stifle their ability to perform their job effectively. Police unions

have even resisted the use of body-worn cameras because of privacy concerns (Hoss, 2012).

Witherspoon (2014) suggests that other officers in Missouri are resistance to body-worn cameras,

because of their privacy concerns.

Resistance

Resistance from police officers is not something that would benefit society. By

implementing body-worn cameras when officers are resistant, we create more issues in

community relations. Officers who resist body-worn cameras are less likely to be as effective as

those who want to wear they body worn cameras. Earlier in this paper, we examined the

differences between those who are required to be camera-equipped and those who volunteered to

do so (Roy, 2014; Wasserman, 2014). These differences may also be observed between officers

who happily adopt the new policy and those who are resistant to the new policy. Research cited

by proponents of body-worn cameras point out many benefits of officers and citizens, but they

fail to explore the effects of resistance on the new policy. Ignoring officers’ concerns could

12

make all the difference in whether or not body-worn cameras work effectively. More research is

needed to examine the effect of resistance on officers.

Conclusion

Policing is no stranger to technological advances, including speed cameras, GPS tracking

closed circuit televisions, and car cameras. Body-worn cameras may be the next step for law

enforcement. The purpose of this paper was not to argue against body-worn cameras. As

mentioned in the literary review, as well as the introduction, body-worn cameras yield a unique

perspective and many benefits for society and community relations. Body-worn cameras will do

a better job at holding irrational officers accountable, as well as holding irrational citizens

accountable for their actions.

The purpose of this paper was to introduce an unexplored perspective of body-worn

cameras, including its psychological effects on police officers. Body-worn cameras are not all

good. There are some negative effects of body-worn cameras. These concerns should be

considered before moral panic leads us to make sudden policy changes that may yield more

negative than positive.

Studies of body-worn cameras are shown to decrease undesirable law enforcement

behavior, but they also give rise to other concerns. It is inevitable that body-worn cameras will

eventually be implemented everywhere. However, it is recommended that efforts be made to

address concerns of over-deterrence, privacy, and resistance in law enforcement before

implementing body-worn cameras. It is also the recommendation that more attempts be made to

research the effects of the concerns addressed in this paper.

13

References

Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2014). 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, , 1-27.

In this article, Ariel et al., conducted a study in Rialto California on the effect of body-

worn cameras. This study provides more benefits of body-worn cameras. This article also

explains the deterrence theory, useful in the over-deterrence section of this paper.

Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a

real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2(3), 412-414. doi:652W0277316J5V42 [pii]

This study explained what Social Psychology has been saying all along about being

watched. This study is a more recent experiment that shows the relevance of this theory.

This study was useful at providing a prediction on the benefits of body-worn cameras.

Botan, C., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2005). What do employees think about electronic surveillance at

work? (pp. 123-144). Melbourne: Idea Group Publishing.

This paper is not directly related to body-worn cameras. However, these organizational

psychologists explain what constant surveillance does to employees. This paper was

useful at providing supporting evidence about the invasion of privacy.

Coppola, M. (2010). Officer-worn cameras expand point of view. TechBeat Dated, , 6.

This article provided a background about body-worn cameras. It explains the benefits of

body-worn cameras and other forms of police surveillance. This article was useful at

providing further evidence on the benefits of body-worn cameras.

Draisin, L. (2011). Police technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and body worn cameras.

14

This article provided an in depth analysis of body-worn cameras. This article was useful

at providing a clear overview of body-worn cameras’ benefits, studies and possible issues

with them.

Erpenbach, M. (2008). The whole world is watching: Camera phones put law enforcement under

surveillance. Law Enforcement Technology, , 40-41.

This article was one of the first to publish concerns with constant surveillance.

Erpenbach’s focus of this article was on camera phones, and how this may be an

impediment to police work. The author explains how surveillance works for and against

law enforcement. This article was beneficial to providing insight on how officers feel

about surveillance.

Farrar, W., & Ariel, B. (2013). Self-awareness to being watched and socially-desirable behavior:

A field experiment on the effect of body-worn cameras and police use-of-force.

Washington, DC: Police Foundation,

This study was conducted in California. It’s results provided even more benefits of body-

worn cameras in another city. This study also provided more information on the

deterrence theory and self-awareness effect.

Harris, D. A. (2010). Is the exclusionary rule a good way of enforcing fourth amendment

values?: Picture this: Body-worn video devices (head cams) as tools for ensuring fourth

amendment compliance by police. Tex.Tech L.Rev., 43, 357-1319.

This article focuses on body-worn cameras in Britain. It mentions the benefits that came

from the study, as well as legal implications for the fourth amendment. This article was

useful at providing a unique perspective of what’s happening overseas.

15

Hoss, C. W. (2012). The future of police body worn technology how cameras, sensors and

uniforms may save lives.

This article discusses more benefits of body-worn cameras. It highlights the importance

of privacy issues and having officers on board with the new policy. This article was

useful at supporting this paper’s argument about privacy concerns.

Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., & Lynch, M. D. (2014). Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions

of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6),

549-556.

This study was on the perception of officers in Florida on body-worn cameras. It shows

that officers are generally supportive. This article was useful in looking at police

perception in a specific city.

Roy, A. (2014). On-‐Officer Video Cameras: Examining the Effects of Police Department Policy

and Assignment on Camera use and Activation,

This article looked at differences between police officers required to wear body worn

cameras and those who volunteered. This article was useful at predicting outcomes

should officers be required to wear new body-worn cameras.

Stanley, J. (2013). Police body-mounted cameras: With right policies in place, a win for all. New

York: ACLU,

Stanley examines the privacy issues of body-worn cameras on police officers. He

explains that although privacy is a concern, everyone wins. This article was beneficial to

supporting the privacy concerns of this paper.

16

Wasserman, H. M. (2014). Moral panics and body cameras. Wash.UL Rev.Commentaries

(Nov.18, 2014), , 14-31.

This paper provided detailed background on police surveillance and body-worn cameras.

It looked at the U.S. Studies and discussed their benefits. This article also brings up it’s own

concerns for implementing body-worn cameras. This article was useful in both background own

body-worn cameras, as well as supporting the over-deterrence section of this paper.

White, M. D., Booz Allen Hamilton, & United States of America. (2014). Police officer body-

worn cameras: Assessing the evidence.

This is an all around assessment of body-worn cameras including studies, benefits and

concerns of body-worn cameras. This article was useful throughout the entire paper. It

gives a different understanding of some studies.

Witherspoon, P. (2014). Police body cameras in Missouri: Good or bad policy? an academic

viewpoint seen through the lens of a former law enforcement official. An Academic

Viewpoint seen through the Lens of a Former Law Enforcement Official (December 2,

2014), (2)

Witherspoon used to work with law enforcement. This article provides a unique

perspective of police officers. This is the only article written by an officer about body-

worn cameras. It supports some of the concerns of this paper.