FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!
Brian Cain

Brian Cain

Brian Cain is a sergeant with the Holly Springs (Ga.) Police Department, and is known as the "Millennial cop" on Twitter. He has been in law enforcement since 2000. He hosts and produces a podcast for Millennials in law enforcement.

Doug  Wyllie

Doug Wyllie

Doug Wyllie has authored more than 1,000 articles and tactical tips aimed at ensuring that police officers are safer and more successful on the streets. Doug is a Western Publishing Association “Maggie Award” winner for Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column. He is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and a member of the Public Safety Writers Association (PSWA).

Michael Bostic

Michael Bostic

Mike Bostic, of Raytheon Corp.'s Civil Communication Solutions group, specializes in open architecture, systems integration of communications and data programs. Mike spent 34 years with the LAPD. He managed IT and facility development, as well as the SWAT Board of Inquiry, which developed new command-and-control systems.

How are On-body Video Cameras Holding up?

An overview of the good and bad of on-body video systems for police officers.

May 02, 2014  |  by

Photo: Mark W. Clark
Photo: Mark W. Clark

I recently had the opportunity to review the latest hardware offering from Vievu, the LE3 video system and the software package that goes along with it. (I've also used the TASER Axon Flex, a different type of officer-worn system.) This recent hands-on review got me thinking about the state of the industry for on-body video for law enforcement. We've had about five years of serious development of these small systems and have reached a point where we can take an objective look at the good and the not so good parts of the systems.

The good thing is that companies are making these things and making them quite good. The latest cameras are very handy and offer the opportunity to produce the best evidence of a police-citizen contact. There are countless examples of people's worst behavior and officers' best behavior captured for all the world to see. The reverse is also true.

If you've been in policing for any length of time, you can recite examples of confrontations that you would have liked to have recorded. Now there isn't much reason to not have the video cameras on-board. These little cameras are not that expensive and I bet most officers would like to have one. Most aren't that much different than a smart phone camera, but there is much more to on-body video for law enforcement.

The existence of these cameras has created a flurry of policy considerations and evidentiary issues to deal with. The biggest issue I seem to hear about is how to keep the digital files safe from tampering. But who are they trying to keep the files safe from? Officers?

Just about every company that makes the on-body cameras for police have software and storage packages to go along with the hardware. I have yet to see one that doesn't advertise that the files are tamper-proof, secure, safe from digital alteration, etc. How does that sit with the average officer who is sworn to the highest level of integrity?

I want to challenge the popular thinking on this much publicized security feature. I say that these tamper-proof features are a waste of code.

Seriously, how many officers have the time or skills to manipulate video? Most government computers are locked down so tight that they don't have anything close to video editing software. The reality is, if an attorney wants to attack the purity of video evidence, then they can get their expert pixel-peeper on the stand to show how it was or was not altered. Having a software package that touts the security of video files is hardly a deterrent for a highly motivated defense attorney.

Officers have been securely handling evidence since Sir Robert Peel wrote his manifesto. Why should the introduction of a new mounting system for a video unit create such a stir of distrust of the public servant? The reality is that these security features are there to satisfy the attorneys that the video files are in their original, unsullied state. Of course police administrators want to be sure that the systems meet the approval of everyone involved in the criminal prosecution, so it is a selling point to the people holding the purse strings as well.

My best advice for the manufacturers of on-body video systems for law enforcement is this: Keep it simple. Don't add things to the mix that don't need to be there. Make the camera systems simple and build the back-end processes to be simple for the end user.

Give the officers the best and most secure mount available, but keep it simple. Mount it so that officers don’t have to worry about it during their shift. It has to be secure and keep the camera pointing in the right direction. There is no perfect mounting solution, but the mount has to be functional and easy to manage.

As for the cameras, low-light capability is a big issue. Grainy, dark video is unusable as visual evidence. Also, the cameras have to have a degree of water resistance. I’ve heard of sweat causing problems with some of these units.

The sound capture has to be good as well. It’s important to hear what is taking place. It doesn’t have to be HD stereo, but it has to be clear.

Battery life can be an issue as well, but I have yet to hear any officer complain that the video battery died during the shift.

Finally, the back-end processing has to be simple for the officers. You can’t have officers monkeying around with tedious software packages at the end of their shifts. Make it simple for the officers to upload, download, catalog, and find their files. Officers just want to go home after their shifts.

Comments (4)

Displaying 1 - 4 of 4

jack @ 5/6/2014 8:44 AM

Possible to do an article on a review of the units that you tested? this article was a waste of my time.

Doesky @ 5/8/2014 12:10 PM

Seriously, how many officers have the time or skills to manipulate video?

They don't need much skill to "accidentally" erase the video. I wager that happens quite frequently.

I'm attempting to get these tamper proof setups on the local citizen-door-kicking hit teams here to try to put a clamp on their out of control tactics. Thanks for the links. I need to identify the most tamper resistant setup as possible. Also put in place a citizens review board for the videos and also sanctions on officers who "forget" to turn on their cameras.

Cash @ 5/13/2014 7:26 AM

I agree I was wanting a review of particular systems.
As a 7yr Deputy of at a 500 person agency where I have worked in both Patrol and the investigative division I caution you to be careful to create a good balance of oversight without micromanaging your officers. An officer who's every move is scrutinized in a sterile environment where the reviewer does not experience the same threat level the officer did at the time of the incident can cause officer to respond to threats with insufficient force to control the situation for fear of latter retaliation by the agency. Also be certain not to try and correct a problem with lack of training/management with technology. Technology is an awesome tool but it is not the solution to under training and mismanagement of subordinates.I'm not familiar with your particular agency I'm just outlining issues I've witnessed at other agencies.Technology is better accepted by officers when presented as a tool to help them not oversight/oppression

adam @ 6/5/2014 4:17 AM

I am afraid that the point you are making is completely incorrect.

Video recorded on a removable media card can at any time be easily deleted or lost.
For instance if the officer wishes to delete the footage they only need to pop into a high street computer retailer plug in the card and re format it.

•Formatting a memory card will erase all of the data stored on the device.
•Formatting is irreversible

Unless you record to a secure (non removable) internal memory which ensures chain of custody and evidence integrity.
The Integrity of the officer and the evidence will always be questioned with removable memory.
Some of us responsible manufacturers continue to try and educate but Police Agencies' continue to purchase these lower priced devices with removable Micro SDHC cards. Madness. Waste of tax dollars.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Blog Posts

Recharging Your Batteries: The Benefits of "Unplugging"
There is certainly benefit to being current on events involving the people you consider...
Speaking on the Unspeakable: Ending the Pandemic of Police Officer Suicide
I've talked with officers who have lost a colleague to suicide—as well as many widows of...

Police Magazine