Many Police Departments who have implemented body worn cameras (BWC) have been surprised to find significant additional costs. Body cameras are not simply purchased and used like a flashlight. IT support systems and staffing are required at significant additional cost to reliably store and manage video – often for years. Therefore Police Departments need to consider the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) over 5 years. The BWC hardware itself is often far less than half the five (5) year TCO. This report provides (1) a methodology for calculating a TCO analysis, and (2) a TCO summary for two leading BWC alternatives. Download the White Paper
POLICE BODY CAMERAS: THE REAL COST MAY SHOCK YOU
Police departments have been shocked to find a significant amount of additional costs associated with body cameras. Don't let your BWC program get derailed, consider all the costs before getting started. View the infographic.
MANUAL BODY CAMERA RECORDING START - LESS THAN 30% POLICY COMPLIANCE
The DoJ Bureau of Justice Assistance Smart Policing report published in September 2015 found that Phoenix police officers manually activated body-worn cameras less than 30% of the time their policy required them to do so. This is a primary reason why our smart BodyWorn camera provides Policy-Based Recording, and automatically starts video recording whenever possible. Having a body-worn camera, but not recording video when department policy says video should be recorded, is worse than no body camera at all. Failure to record video according to Police Department recording policy raises major doubts about police accountability and transparency. SEE SPOTLIGHT REPORT - CLICK HERE.
BODYWORN DIGITAL BROCHURE
BodyWorn™ overcomes shortcomings of existing police body cameras, such as the body camera falling off or getting stolen, camera pointing in the wrong direction, relying on the officer to remember to turn it on before an incident, and having to manually dock it back at the station at the end of the shift to offload video. DOWNLOAD PDF
ELIMINATING RACIAL BIAS
The recent events in Ferguson, MO and the death of Eric Garner in Staten Island, NY have ignited a national controversy about racial profiling, police accountability, and public trust in 21st Century Policing. There is a general consensus that police officers should wear and use body-worn video cameras. There is also clear consensus that police body-worn video cameras should not record all the time. As a result, there are big questions about when to record body-worn video, and when to stop recording body-worn video. This paper discusses how to eliminate racial bias in recording body-worn police video. DOWNLOAD THE WHITE PAPER
Generation 2 Body-Worn Cameras and the Evidence EcoSystem™
The purpose of this paper is to point out what is possible today in body-worn camera technology, and how it fits into the overall Evidence EcoSystemTM. No specific product names are mentioned in this paper, and no specific vendor product capabilities are compared, because that was not our purpose. Generation 2 body-worn cameras can provide many benefits for Public Safety and Public Privacy Rights. Generation 1 body-worn cameras were a useful first step, but so much more is possible, practical, and cost-effective. DOWNLOAD THE WHITE PAPER
POLICE TRANSPARENCY VERSUS VIDEO REDACTION COST AND LEAD-TIME
The recent deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, Eric Garner in Staten Island, NY, Walter Scott in North Charleston, SC, and Freddy Gray in Baltimore, MD have ignited a national controversy about police accountability and public trust in 21st Century Policing. There is an emerging consensus that police officers should wear and use body-worn video (BWV) cameras to record interactions with the public. However, body-worn cameras raise big questions about privacy rights, access to recorded video, the cost and delay of video redaction, and police accountability and transparency. This document considers these issues, and offers a technology solution to what appears to be an intractable tradeoff between police accountability and transparency, and the cost and delay of manual video redaction. DOWNLOAD THE WHITE PAPER
POLICE OFFICER LEGAL RISK FROM A WIDE FIELD OF VIEW IN A BODY-WORN CAMERA
A number of recent body-worn camera Requests for Proposal have included a lockout specification of a minimum number of degrees for a body-worn video camera Field of View. In general the impression is given that the wider the field of view, the better. This paper argues that bigger is not better. Instead, a narrower field of view similar to a police officer’s field of view is better. In a police officer’s peripheral vision, detail is invisible. Video camera recording of peripheral vision detail is crystal clear on a video playback. A Police Officer should only be held accountable for visual detail he can actually see. DOWNLOAD THE WHITE PAPER