Understanding the tech: 10 things

to know about BWCs and storage

Here are 10 of the biggest technological considerations you
should understand
Dec 10, 2016

This feature is part of our 2016 Guide to Body-Worn Cameras, a supplement that

brings a sharpened focus to some of the most challenging issues related to the use
of body-worn cameras and digital video evidence. To read all of the articles
included in the guide, click here.

Rapidly advancing technology and social-political forces have made body-worn

cameras (BWCs) the hot topic of the day in law enforcement circles. As with other
revolutionary products and technologies, many vendors have jumped into the
market, hoping to tap some of the billions of dollars that are already being spent on
BWCs and their associated accessories and services. In order to make the most
well-informed purchasing decisions, command staff must understand how the
different cameras operate, what options are out there, and how they plan to use
the technology.

Here are 10 of the biggest technological considerations you should understand.

1. DESIGN
 As with other revolutionary products and technologies, many vendors have jumped
into the market, hoping to tap some of the billions of dollars that are already being
spent on BWCs. (Photo/iStock)

RELATED ARTICLES


8 body camera concerns police and the public need to know


How to deploy a smart, successful BWC program


4 concerns your BWC policy must address

RELATED FEATURE

Download PoliceOne's Free 2016 Guide to Police Body-Worn Cameras

This free PDF will educate police how to stay atop the evolving policies, training and technology
shaping law enforcement.
The earliest BWCs were typically “lipstick” cameras that were tethered to a
recorder/battery module by a cable. Better engineering and the understanding that
cops already have enough gear dangling off of them meant that the devices evolved
into a single unit, with some variations and options between brands.

The typical design today is a small device about the size of a deck of cards with a
camera facing outward in the upper corner or in the middle of the device. The
opposite face of the device may have an LCD display for reviewing the video, a clip
to hold it in place on the officer’s body, and/or controls to operate the recorder.
Some vendors may also place the LCD display on the outward-facing side, so
anyone being recorded can see exactly what is being recorded at all times.

The LCD display can be a nice feature, but it can also add cost, a slight amount of
bulk, and can decrease battery life. Some models have the option of sending video
to a synced smartphone via a wireless Bluetooth connection. Unless your officers
often have a need to review video immediately, choosing a model with no LCD
display may be a way to save money and battery.

2. CAMERA PLACEMENT

Some models have provisions for attaching a camera to the officer’s head or
shoulder, via an eyeglass frame, helmet, or ball cap clip, or an attachment to the
uniform epaulet. A camera coaxially mounted on the officer’s head can provide
more information than one on his chest, as it will show where the officer is looking,
and may give a better perspective on the environment. It also requires a tethering
cable.

In scenarios where you’re considering equipping motorcycle patrol with cameras,

consider the fact that helmet-mounted cameras will show whether the officer is
checking cross-traffic at intersections before proceeding through. This could be
very important in a later accident investigation or personal injury lawsuit. 

Because we tend to move our heads more than our torsos, video from a head-
mounted camera can be shaky and disorienting. Testing and review of videos from
both body and head-mounted cameras makes it clearer which is best suited for
your application.

3. PROS AND CONS OF POWER INDICATION

Most BWCs have some type of visual indicator that the recorder is on, often via an
LED on the camera or recorder. These are good for transparency in police
operations, but can be a tactical hazard. The last thing a cop on a high-risk traffic
stop or building search wants is a light to serve as a target. There is usually an
option to switch off the activation light, but some are more easily operated than
others.

How the BWC attaches to the officer might have the least amount of technology
involved, but remains a very important factor. If the attachment isn’t secure
enough, cameras will be lost and possibly broken frequently. Spring-loaded clips
work well on belts, but not so much on shirt fronts. Every vendor seems to
approach this problem differently. One employs a vest tailored to look like a
sleeveless uniform shirt that is worn over the regular uniform, and also acts as a
body armor carrier. The BWC slips into a custom-made pocket under the placket,
with a plastic-reinforced hole for the lens. This is a novel and very secure way of
carrying the BWC, but also ties you to a single uniform vendor and may require a
costly new issue of carrier for every officer who will carry a BWC.

As with uniform fittings and choices, the method of mounting the BWC can be an
individual preference. If possible, field test proposed devices and get feedback from
the troops to ensure they will work as well as the vendor says they will.

4. BATTERY LIFE

Most BWC models have internal, rechargeable batteries that will power the
recorder for three to six hours.

This amount of battery capacity is necessary because the devices are usually
powered up for the entire duration of the duty tour, even if they’re not in record
mode. As with most modern in-car camera systems, BWCs usually have a “pre-
event” recording mode, where the last 30-120 seconds of video are saved in buffer
memory. When the officer activates the recorder, the contents of that buffer are
automatically appended to the front of the recording, though absent sound. Sound
is usually not captured by the pre-event buffer for privacy reasons, but some
vendors offer the option to record sound at all times.

No battery is 100 percent efficient, and all of them have service lives, usually
measured in charge-discharge cycles. For example, after 500 charge-discharge
cycles, the battery might have 80 percent of its original storage capacity. The
original battery capacity exceeds the time the BWC is likely to run so as to make the
battery still usable when its capacity declines.

Most devices recharge their batteries when they are placed into a charging dock,
which often also downloads the recorded video into an archive and erases the
recordings on the camera, so it’s ready for the next shift. A few may use a micro-
USB cable, such as is common in many consumer electronics. A full charge can take
anywhere between one and six hours.

5. STORAGE CAPACITY

Most BWCs have internal storage capacities of 16 or 32 gigabytes (GB). Like with all
other electronics, the ability to store a lot of data in a very small space has
improved dramatically. Most BWC recordings come in around 1 GB per hour,
although that can increase substantially if a higher resolution is selected. Standard
resolution is what you get on a non-HD TV screen, around 800 MB (0.78 GB) per
hour. A 720p resolution quadruples that size, while HD-level 1020p resolution is
sixteen times as much information. For most agencies, the standard or mid-level
resolution is enough for their needs.

The only time internal storage is likely to be an issue is if you have a situation where
an officer has to use the same BWC for multiple shifts without offloading the
recorded video to a server. This doesn’t happen often, but if it’s a possibility, you’ll
want to choose the largest internal storage capacity you can get.

6. ACTIVATION METHODS

The most common activation method is a user-operated button or switch on the

device itself. Every vendor has a different idea of where and how these should
work. At least one has a sliding shutter that activates the recorder when it is pulled
down, exposing the camera lens. There is also a big colored dot next to the lens,
drawing attention to it. This makes it evident to everyone when the camera is
recording, and makes covert recording impossible, as the lens is covered when the
recorder is off.

When choosing a BWC, keep in mind that the user may be wearing gloves when
they need to activate the recorder, or they may be under intense stress, where fine
motor skills deteriorate. The activation switch needs to be something the user can
hit reliably under adverse conditions.
Some vendors have a provision for voice activation, so the officer can trigger the
BWC into record mode just by speaking a command. The voice activation software
is “trained” to the user’s voice, so the same command spoken by someone nearby
won’t activate the camera. If that voice system is operating, it also draws power
from the battery.

Newer BWC models are increasingly aware of their environment. Some will link to
an in-car recorder system, activating when the car system does (or activating the
car system when the BWC is triggered), or will power up when the car door opens.
Obviously, the in-car and BWC systems need to be compatible to make this work.

Some will start recording if internal accelerometers sense the officer running, if
there are violent movements (as would be the case if the officer was struggling with
someone) or if he or she goes flat on the ground. It isn’t a big reach to expect future
generations of BWC will be linked to a fitness bracelet or other device that monitors
the user’s heart rate or other stress indicator. 

7. CREATING A NETWORK

Another innovation is the formation of a network with the patrol car and/or or
other BWCs in the vicinity. A network and the appropriate infrastructure (such as a
strong wide-area data network) allow recordings to be broadcast to the patrol car
and streamed to another car or to an operations center in real time. The operations
center might also be able to trigger the recorder remotely. If other BWCs are
included in the network, activation of one BWC could trigger activation of all the
others within a defined perimeter, giving multiple perspectives on the same
incident.

8. UPLOADING DATA

There has to be a way of getting the video recordings off of the BWC and into long-
term storage. Most vendors use a combination dock and charger where the BWC
resides when it isn’t in use. On being placed into the dock, a connected server
downloads the recorded video and any other data and transfers it to a local server,
or the cloud. When the data is downloaded and verified for integrity, the recordings
are deleted from the BWC. At the same time, the battery is recharged and the
device is made ready for the next user or next shift.

When an officer begins his or her shift, most systems have them log in to a
computer connected to the dock. The system assigns a BWC to that officer for the
shift, and encodes the officer’s name, badge number, and other data onto the
internal memory. This “tags” every recording with that officer’s ID.

Another method, not often used, is to transfer the video wirelessly via any Wi-Fi
connection the system has approved. This could be an opening for a security
problem, but the larger issue is the time it takes for a large video file to move over a
wireless connection. Hardwired connections are usually a better choice, but your
situation may make the wireless option better.

Because of the size of the video files that will accumulate, most vendors have a
system that stores the video in the cloud. The cloud is likely one or more servers
located at huge server/data “farms” owned by companies like Google and Amazon.

Unless your agency is one in a high-tech locale or some other place with very high-
speed internet connections, uploading that video is likely to create a logjam
between your agency and the internet. Most of the U.S. makes do with internet
connections averaging 11.4 Mbps, or megabits per second. If you have one of those
11.4 Mbps connections, uploading 1 GB of video will take about 14 minutes (there is
a useful transfer time calculator available here, and that assumes no other online
traffic during that time. Multiply that by however many cops will be using a BWC
every day. Keep in mind that your download and upload speeds can be very
different. To get an idea of what you’re dealing with, visit SpeedTest.org.

If you’re adopting a BWC system that uses the cloud, take into account this
bandwidth problem. Your internet service provider may be able to suggest some
solutions, including a bigger data pipe — for a fee, of course.

One possible alternative is to have officers take the BWCs home with them and use
their own internet connections to transfer the video while recharging the devices.
This method invites questions of security, as a user could conceivably delete video
that was unfavorable to him, and copy it for another use (such as posting it on
YouTube). Most of the BWC vendors incorporate safeguards to ensure against this,
but it still invites an additional risk.

9. UNDERSTANDING METADATA

Metadata is “data about data.” Most of us are familiar with digital photography, but
you might not know that nearly all digital cameras encode a significant amount of
metadata with each photo file. The metadata can include the model and serial
number of the camera, the exposure data, the time and date, and if the camera has
a GPS function, the location where the photo was taken.

Video metadata can include all of this information, and much more. As mentioned
above, most systems will tag each recording with the officer’s name or other
identifier. The system might also be able to capture direction of travel, speed, and
location sufficient to plot the physical path of the BWC on a moving map. If the BWC
is networked with other recorders, it could include what other cameras were in the
vicinity and whether they were recording.

10. STORAGE AND ACCESS

Storage and management of video is the elephant in the room for any discussion of
a BWC program. Unless you have a very small agency with a short retention policy
on recordings, local storage is probably out of the question. Hard drive storage is
cheaper than ever before, but a 10-cop department will still fill up a one-terabyte (1
TB) hard drive ($30-$50, plus the computer it’s connected to) in a bit over six
months.

Your retention policy will have a huge impact on your storage requirements. If you
decide you need to keep everything indefinitely, multiply the scenario above to fit
the size of your operation. Know that buying new drives will be an infinitely
recurring cost, doubled by the need to have backup copies of everything.

Most departments decide eventually to use the cloud. It’s usually preferable to use
the BWC vendor’s video management solution, as opposed to trying a homegrown
method. The vendor is going to have a front-end user interface that will be easier to
use with more features than you can create locally. It will make the best use of
whatever features the vendor has built into its products, and it’s probably going to
be cheaper than other solutions.

The user interface is the indexing and viewing software you will be using to review
videos. It’s critically important that this software is something you’re comfortable
with and that it offers the features you need. If the software is difficult for you to
use, you’re going to be wrestling with it every time you need to see or copy a video.

Features to look for include:

Search options. How many parameters can you use to locate relevant video clips?
These might include an officer’s name, ID number, day, time, geo-coordinates,
incident or case number, type of incident (field interview, traffic stop, crime report,
etc.), length of clip, and others unique to your operation.

Security features. There needs to be several levels of security, each with rights

that expand with the level. The basic level might give only the ability to see clips
that user had made. A sergeant could have access to clips made by anyone in his
squad. Only upper levels of security would permit the user to copy the video to
external media.

Chain of evidence. Security should also track every action by every user, so that
any change or copying can be tied to the person who did it. Users must be careful
about signing in to the software and then walking away from the computer to do
other things.

Thumbnail indexing. Many video management packages create a thumbnail, or

small still frame, from the video every few seconds. This allows for quick review
when you want to get to the portion of the video where the action takes place.

Viewing options. By default, videos usually play in a small viewing window, with
the perimeter surrounded by metadata. There should be an option to view the
video full screen.

Redaction capabilities. Before a video is released to an outside entity, you’ll often

want to redact selected information, such as license plate numbers, faces of
uninvolved witnesses, children, etc. Absent some automated processes, manually
redacting this information, usually by blurring the details, is a tedious and time-
consuming process. Some vendors offer auto-redaction features that will follow any
object you designate, and redact it throughout the entire video.

Selective overlays. Most viewing software allows the user to overlay text on the
screen that provides time and date, officer’s name, speed, whether emergency
lights are on, etc. You should have the option to include or remove all of that
information with every video. 

A retention policy governs how long you will keep each video recording before it’s
deleted to save space and storage costs. The vendor will likely have a suggested
retention policy, but this is something you will want to discuss with your
prosecutor’s office and risk manager. If you have a pay-as-you-go storage contract,
every retention decision is a compromise between cost and the risk of deleting a
record you might need later.
Some vendors offer an “all you can eat” storage plan, often folded into a
maintenance and service agreement. The vendor will charge you a fixed fee per
month per user, no matter how much video that user might create.

Deciding which option is best will depend heavily on your agency size, your
situation and needs, and on your retention policy. Most vendors estimate that each
officer/user will generate about 1 GB of video per day, on average. Multiply the
number of officer workdays in a month to get an idea of how much video data you
will be generating.

For example, say you have a small agency where you field three officers on day
shifts, three on evening shifts, and two on the overnight shift. That’s eight officer
workdays each day, or 240 in a month. It will take you a little over four months to
generate 1 TB (1024 GB) of video, assuming a 100 percent retention policy.

Amazon Web Services is the leader in online storage, and serves everyone from
Netflix to the U.S. Government. Their standard storage rate is $0.03 per GB/month,
with small price breaks as you start accumulating more video. At four months,
storage will cost you about $30 per month, increasing by around $7.00 each month.
A big advantage in using a massive service like Amazon is that your data is
guaranteed to be backed up, with the redundant copies probably existing on
different parts of the planet.

Storage is not the only cost associated with online video. You will also pay for
bandwidth, which varies by how much you transfer from storage to your local
computer. Expect to pay about $0.09 per GB downloaded.

Adopting a body-worn camera program can be an expensive and complex

undertaking, but most agencies that have used the cameras don’t want to be
without them. It’s a worthwhile investment that pays off on several levels.
 Body Worn Camera Data Storage: The Gorilla
in the Room
The vast amounts of video data -- and the metadata to track and
manage the video clips for retention and chain of custody purposes
-- is a technology issue that CIOs are trying to address.
September 04, 2015 • 
Tod Newcombe

 Facebook
 LinkedIn
 Twitter
 Print
 Email

Editor's note: This is part two of a three-part series in which Government Technology
looks at the technology considerations for body worn cameras.  Read part one here.

When the Chula Vista, Calif., Police Department started giving body worn cameras to
a handful of police officers, they quickly learned that a 30-minute video took about
800 MB of storage space. The department crunched the numbers and realized that if it
equipped every one of its 200 sworn officers with cameras, they could potentially
generate 33 terabytes of data every year, according to Police Chief Magazine.

When it comes to BWCs, data storage is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Video, as
every CIO knows, is a data hog. And BWC systems can produce vast amounts of
video data, as well as the metadata to track and manage the video clips for retention
 and chain of custody purposes. Data storage is a technology issue and it’s one that
CIOs try to address in the most cost-effective manner.
 
But in the case of BWCs, policy is inextricably linked to the question of storage.
Retention policies can play havoc with the portion of a BWC budget that’s dedicated
to storage. Some jurisdictions say non-evidentiary video should only be kept for 60 to
90 days. Some departments say it should be longer, others say less. The Oakland,
Calif., Police Department, which currently has 600 BWCs deployed, retains video for
a remarkable five years. As a result, storage needs have grown significantly over the
past couple of years and the department now captures on average almost 7 TB of
video data per month, according to Officer Dave Burke. And if a video becomes
evidence in a court case, the retention requirements can be even longer. “What if
there’s an appeal in the case 10 years down the road?” asked a CIO. “What are the
requirements and policies for handling those scenarios?”
 
Many cities, under pressure to implement BWCs, have found data storage and related
costs to be a major stumbling block. Last year, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-
Blake vetoed a BWC proposal after concluding that data storage costs and other
details were not sufficiently taken into account. Baltimore city officials estimated
video storage costs at as much as $2.6 million annually.
 
Experts agree that issues concerning privacy must be balanced with storage capacity,
transparency and state laws. The Police Executive Research Foundation (PERF)
released a report on BWCs in 2014 (Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program)
that looked at existing BWC programs around the country and developed a list of key
lessons learned when it comes to data storage: 

 Consult with prosecutors and legal advisers.

 Explicitly prohibit data tampering, editing and copying.
 Include protections against tampering with the data prior to downloading.
 Create an auditing system.
 Explicitly state who will be authorized to access data.
 Ensure there is a reliable backup system.
 Specify when videos will be downloaded from the camera to the storage system and
who will download them.
 Consider third-party vendors carefully.

For the final point, PERF reported that police departments, legal advisers and
prosecutors were comfortable using third-party storage solutions, but to consider the
vendor’s technical capabilities and whether the system includes protections, such as
audit trails and backup.
 
The National Institute of Justice points out that as video becomes more important to a
police department, storage adjustments will need to be made. “The length of storage
time can cost numerous man hours in addition to the actual costs of the storage
device.” It goes on to say that advanced data storage systems can provide end-to-end
data management that includes safeguards to control data handling and assist in chain-
of-custody control. 

THE CLOUD OPTION

The use of cloud technology as part of a BWC storage solution really hasn’t been on
the radar for police departments because most cloud computing platforms don’t meet
the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) requirements. In a 2013
survey of state and local law enforcement officials by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the Ponemon Institute and SafeGov, only 15 percent were using
cloud technology for storage; 35 percent were considering it; and 50 percent were not
pursuing it at all.
 
But the situation has changed recently as some big vendors — most notably Microsoft
— now offer cloud storage that meets FBI requirements. With the standardization of
cloud storage (and other capabilities) police departments have an opportunity to gain
from some of the cloud’s more recognized benefits: cost effectiveness, scalability and
access to innovation. Savings estimates, when comparing cloud storage to an on-
premises solution, with servers, labor costs and networks, can range between 30 and
60 percent, according to industry analysts. These benefits are buttressed by the IACP
survey, which found that state and local law enforcement officials were considering,
adopting or planning to use the cloud to save money (61 percent); reduce on-premises
infrastructure and software support (52 percent); and to take advantage of new
innovations (33 percent).
 
The city of Oakland, which as more than 600 BWCs deployed, had been storing video
in an in-house system for five years. But that retention policy had overburdened the
department’s servers. The department considered reducing the number of years to
three, but ended up opting for a CJIS-compliant cloud solution from VIEVU, a
Seattle-based maker of BWCs that runs on Microsoft’s Azure Government Cloud
platform.
 
The solution is expected to give the Oakland police almost unlimited room to store
video, Officer Dave Burke told Government Technology in February. The platform
will let the department use digital signatures to verify a video’s authenticity, should it
later be used in court; it will also generate a running audit log of the video database
and provide courtroom-ready transcriptions.
 
Other technical considerations for a video storage solution, whether cloud-based or
on-premises, would be advanced search and analytical tools that include facial
recognition to help narrow down the relevant video for evaluation. Storage tools
should also support the redaction of visual content to protect the privacy of people
who interact with police but are not part of any investigation.

PARADIGM SHIFT FOR EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT

Recently the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that when a district attorney’s office
opens a case, police departments must have all evidence in place within 10 days or
less. In other words, documents, physical evidence, images, recordings and any video
has to be turned over in that time. Such policies have put pressure on police
departments to have consolidated evidence management systems that are up to the
task.
 
The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) has a management system for physical
evidence, but not one that can take into account all the new digital evidence the
department now collects from more than 600 officers who are equipped with cameras.
“We want to be able to package all that up in an electronic manner and provide it to
the DA’s office without any delay in delivery,” said Rishma Khimji, interim director
of APD’s tech services.
 
A BWC system can touch a number of other critical police information systems,
ranging from CAD and records management to content management. But evidence
management is the one system that will experience the biggest impact from video. In
Duluth, Minn., the city’s 11 BWCs are generating 8,000 to 10,000 videos per month,
according to Police Chief Gordon Ramsay. The Rialto, Calif., Police Department
generated 2.3 million videos over a three-year period. With that amount of video
evidence entering a police department’s overall evidence database, the need for a
robust, enterprise management system becomes more crucial.
 
An evidence management system automates search and retrieval, organizes evidence
data, provides security safeguards, creates a workflow, and can report, track and audit
evidence from the moment it is captured on the camera to the time of disposition.
Well-designed evidence management systems automate much of the workload done
by users, while expanding the effectiveness of the data, not to mention distributing it
more broadly across a law enforcement agency.
 
 As the scope of evidence management expands, it presents certain IT challenges.
First, backup and disaster recovery become critical as evidence management software
and data assume a workload once managed by users and with paper. Second, security
becomes more essential as the amount of digital evidence increases. In addition, IT
can expect to develop an archiving strategy, including offline storage, and prepare for
growth as the scope of BWCs undoubtedly balloons. All of those factors can be
further impacted by policies and future policy changes.
 
Albuquerque’s physical evidence management system creates an electronic catalog of
every physical item that gets barcoded and stored for later retrieval. The police
department would like to create a similar process for its video evidence. “What we
need is a video evidence system that allows for an easy way for officers to enter what
they have captured both from BWCs as well as backup cameras carried by some
personnel,” said Khimji. Besides images, video and physical items, the system also
must capture and catalog 911 calls and other audio recordings as well. In other words,
APD could use a sophisticated, consolidated evidence management system to meet its
growing needs.
 
“The amount of evidence we have to give the DA’s office is so large that we have to
come up with the right kind of evidence repository system that will contain all that
information, based on the case and officers,” she added.
 
The Santa Clara, Calif., Police Department has created an evidence management
system to catalog all of the digital evidence officers collect. IT provides a customized
security level access, a documented chain of custody and a nearly automatic sharing
of digital evidence. The system is used by approximately 100 people in the city’s
District Attorney’s office and they have the ability to stream video or download files.
 
Next up: How privacy concerns are driving the need for better security; and the
struggle to pay for the new technology.

 Facebook
 LinkedIn
 Twitter
 Print
 Email
BODY WORN VIDEO AND RECORDS RETENTION
With the popularity and affordability of Body Worn Video (BWV) equipment, many OMAG members are
purchasing devices for their police officers.  Members learn quickly that the expense of the equipment
purchase doesn’t compare to the cost of storing the video or data. OMAG Legal receives regular inquiries
regarding storage/retention requirements and issues when it comes to BWV. As a service to our members,
OMAG’s Legal and Risk Management Departments have developed this article addressing the most frequently
asked questions regarding BWV retention.  

As of this writing, there is no legal obligation to store body (or dash) camera videos for any length of time. As
such, the decision to store or not store is left to the municipality subject to the requirements of State law. The
municipality should consider adopting a retention policy that takes into account the legal factors outlined in the
statutes discussed below. In particular, if there is video of a use of deadly force (whether it causes death or just
injuries or even where no one is actually hurt), those videos should be preserved (OMAG recommendation)
and should be sent to OMAG Legal for review. Videos depicting a use of force incident causing significant
bodily injury should also be preserved (OMAG recommendation).  The Statute of Limitations for Civil Rights
claims is 2 years and there is a 6 month grace period to serve a Civil Rights suit after it is filed. For video
capturing incidents which may lead to a Civil Rights claim, a 3 year retention would be ideal and a best
practice.

The following Statutes are implicated when determining whether BWV videos should be preserved.

OPEN RECORDS ACT

“In addition to other records which are kept or maintained, every public body and public official has a specific
duty to keep and maintain complete records of the receipt and expenditure of any public funds reflecting all
financial and business transactions relating thereto, except that such records may be disposed of as provided by
law.” 51 O.S. 24A.5. “Except as may be required in Section 24A.4 of this title, this act does not impose any
additional recordkeeping requirements on public bodies or public officials.” 51 O.S. §24A.18. So the Open
Records Act applies to records already in existence but only requires that financial records be kept. And even
financial records can be disposed of “as provided by law.” Law Enforcement records have a specific statute,
Section 24A.8, which mirrors this general non-requirement “Nothing contained in this section imposes any
new recordkeeping requirements. Law enforcement records shall be kept for as long as is now or may hereafter
be specified by law. Absent a legal requirement for the keeping of a law enforcement record for a specific time
period, law enforcement agencies shall maintain their records for so long as needed for administrative
purposes.” 51 O.S. §24A.8(C); see also Oklahoma Assoc. of Broadcasters v. City of Norman, 2016 OK 119,
¶¶25-30 390 P.3d 689 (Sec. 24A.8 is part of the entire Act and any ambiguities regarding disclosure
obligations will be resolved in favor of disclosure). The question is whether any other law would apply
because the Act may not require retention but it does specifically limit that “this act” does not impose
requirements thus opening the door for other Statutes.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT ACT

“"Local record" means a record of a county, city, town, village, township, district, authority or any public
corporation or political entity whether organized and existing under charter or under general law unless the
record is designated or treated as a state record under state law.” 67 O.S. §203(c). “The governing body of each
county, city, town, village, township, district, authority or any public corporation or political entity whether
organized and existing under charter or under general law shall promote the principles of efficient records
management for local records. Such governing body shall, as far as practical, follow the program, established
for the management of state records. The Administrator shall, insofar as possible, upon the request of a
governing body provide advice on the establishment of a local records management program.” 67 O.S. §207. 
“[S]hall, as far as practical, follow the program, established for the management of state records.” The
Attorney General has declined twice to say what “as far as practical” means. See 2001 OK AG 46, ¶27, 2002
OK AG 13, ¶8 (in both instances the Attorney General opines that this is beyond the scope of the his opinion
authority under 74 O.S. §18b(A)(5)). There is no need to fret: the Act delegates the authority to draft records
retention policies to each agency of the state. 67 O.S. §206. The guidance in drafting a policy from the
administrator is “How long do I keep records? Each record has its own disposition/retention schedule, which
indicates the minimum length of time the record should be kept. A record’s retention period is based on its
administrative, fiscal, legal or historical value.” Link. The Act does state “Except as otherwise provided by
law, no state record shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of unless it is determined by the Archives and
Records Commission that the record has no further administrative, legal, fiscal, research or historical value.”
67 O.S. §210. §206(A)(1) and (3) arguably create a Cost/Benefit Analysis approach to the adopting of policies
on retention: “[Each Agency head shall] Establish and maintain an active, continuing program for the
economical and efficient management of the records of the agency” and records can be submitted to
destruction when the record is “not needed in the transaction of current business and that do not have sufficient
administrative, legal or fiscal value to warrant their further keeping.”

OMAG recommends that each municipality adopt policies on retention that take into account whether the
record is needed for current business transactions and, if not, whether the record has administrative, legal,
fiscal, research and historical value of records and then provide for their retention based on those factors. 

UNIFORM ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT

Two defined terms that are relevant to the discussion are “"Electronic record" means a record created,
generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means” and “"Governmental agency" means
an executive, legislative, or judicial agency, department, board, commission, authority, institution, or
instrumentality of the federal government or of a state or of a county, municipality, or other political
subdivision of a state.” 12A O.S. §15-102(9) & (11). So the act is going to apply to cities and towns, but the
Act is very deferential to government to decide its retention for itself: “Each governmental agency of this state,
in cooperation with the Archives and Records Commission, shall determine whether, and the extent to which,
it will create and retain electronic records and convert written records to electronic records.” 12A O.S. §15-
117. The Commission that is referenced was originally created by 74 O.S. §564, but it’s since been moved to
67 O.S. §305. The statutes limit the jurisdiction of the Commission to the State and its Agencies and does not
define State as including political subdivisions.

OMAG’s opinion is that this Act applies to  municipalities and would apply to body cam video, but imposes no
affirmative requirements on retention.

BWV CATEGORIES
Police Officers utilizing BWV devices must adhere to a department policy that not only governs the initiation
and termination of recording, but also the categorizing of the recording.  At the end of recording, or end of
shift, the officer must choose if the video segments are critical, non-critical, or would be considered evidence.  
For the purposes of BWV categories, a few examples of critical, non-critical, and evidence are listed below:

I.    Critical
  a.    Vehicle stop where seizure and/or arrest is made
  b.    Injury to an officer or suspect
  c.    Use of force
  d.    Formal or administrative complaint/investigation
  e.    Or as determined by policy
II.    Non-critical
  a.    Warnings
  b.    Tickets
  c.    Routine interactions with public
III.    Evidence
  a.    Any images or video captured that an officer reasonably believes constitutes evidence in a criminal case

OMAG recommends a 3 year retention for a critical category and a 180 day retention for non-critical category.
Evidence should be maintained for the amount of time required by statute, until the case is adjudicated, or all
appeals have been exhausted. 

Body Worn Video and Records Retention was written by Matthew Love and Kevin McCullough.  You may
contact the authors at mlove@omag.org or kmccullough@omag.org .  The information in this bulletin is
intended solely for general informational purposes and should not be construed as or used as a substitute for
legal advice or legal opinion with respect to specific situations, since such advice requires an evaluation of
precise factual circumstances by an attorney.

Police Officer Body-Worn

Cameras and the Courts
by CBJ Team | Feb 26, 2019 | Legal News | 0 comments
In the courtroom, footage from police officer body-worn cameras and dashboard
cameras is frequently utilized by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike in order to
show officers’ interactions with victims, witnesses, and defendants. This footage
provides a detailed, firsthand account of what happened during a police encounter,
increasing transparency and accountability.
Advantages of Using Dashboard and Body-
Worn Camera Footage at Trial
Footage from police officer body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras is often
admitted at trial to corroborate an officer’s version of the circumstances regarding an
arrest. To that end, state and federal courts have acknowledged that this type of
footage is a useful tool in verifying an officer’s testimony. See People v. Fenton, 2017
NY Slip Op. 51977 (N.Y. City Ct. Dec. 14, 2017) (finding officer “credibly testified
and her testimony was corroborated by body camera footage”); Reyna v. State, 2017
Tex. App. LEXIS 6202, at *10 (Tex. Ct. App. July 6, 2017) (concluding that
dashboard camera video corroborated the officer’s testimony that the traffic stop was
supported by reasonable suspicion). Further, courts have found that assertions in
affidavits—taken in connection with body-worn camera videos and the officers’
accounts of what occurred—present accurate summaries of police interactions. See
United States v. McKee, 157 F. Supp. 3d 879, 898 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2016).
Additionally, dashboard and body camera footage can increase police transparency
and accountability, and the footage can be used by officers to dispel allegations that a
defendant’s rights were violated. For example, in City of Topeka v. Murdock, a
Kansas court found the consent exception to the search warrant requirement was met
when body camera footage depicted the defendant telling the officer, “Well, come
in.” City of Topeka v. Murdock, No. 116, 213, 2018 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 12, at
*7 (Kan. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2018). In another case, a federal district court in Wisconsin
held that a defendant’s Miranda rights were not violated where body camera footage
showed that the defendant’s statements were volunteered, and not in response to
questions from law enforcement. United States v. Kitchenakow, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1062,
1071 (E.D. Wis. March 2, 2016).
Admitting Dashboard and Body-Worn Camera
Footage into Evidence
However, the use of footage from police officer body-worn cameras in a courtroom
setting is subject to various rules of evidence and legal considerations. First, video
recordings must be authenticated to be admitted as evidence, meaning a witness with
knowledge of the contents of the recording must testify. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). With
body cameras, this footage is typically authenticated by testimony from the officer
who drove the car or wore the body camera.
Further, before body camera footage can be admitted into evidence during trial, it will
be subjected to at least three key considerations by the trial judge. For one, the judge
will consider whether the body camera footage contains hearsay—a statement made
outside of the current trial or hearing that is being offered into evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay is generally
inadmissible unless it falls under an exception to the rule. Accordingly, while body
camera footage itself is not hearsay, any oral or nonverbal assertions contained in that
footage that are offered for the truth of the matter asserted must fall under a hearsay
exception in order to be admitted into evidence. For example, if a body camera
captures footage of the victim identifying the defendant, it may be admissible under
the “out-of-court identification” exception to the hearsay rule. In re T.W., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 105346, 2017-Ohio-8875, ¶ 18.
Second, trial judges must also weigh the probative value of body camera footage
against its potential prejudicial effect on the defendant before ruling on its
admissibility. Even highly probative evidence can be subject to exclusion if it
significantly prejudices the defendant—for example, if the evidence induces the jury
to decide the case on an improper basis, rather than on the evidence actually
presented. United States v. Conner, 583 F.3d 1011, 1025 (7th Cir. 2009). However,
courts frequently admit body camera footage into evidence as both probative of the
issues raised at trial and not unduly prejudicial. For example, last year the Nebraska
Court of Appeals rejected a defendant’s argument that a portion of the arresting
officer’s body camera footage was unfairly prejudicial. State v. Reed, No. A-17-416,
2018 Neb. App. LEXIS 163, at *15 (Neb. Ct. App. June 5, 2018). The Court
determined that the defendant’s statements made in the immediate aftermath of his
brother’s death were highly probative and not unfairly prejudicial.
Finally, if the officer who wore the body camera is unable to testify in court, the
footage may be inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront the
witnesses who testify against him/her in the form of cross-examination during trial.
U.S. Const. Amend. VI. Because footage from police officer body-worn cameras is
communicative—much like an officer creating a written report—a defendant could
argue that he/she should be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the officer who
wore the body camera. However, courts have yet to decide whether body camera
footage violates the Confrontation Clause.
In short, although dashboard and body camera footage can be highly probative, its
admissibility is not necessarily guaranteed. Courts will continue to grapple with the
admissibility of footage that presents hearsay problems and constitutional issues. But
officers can generally expect dashboard and body-worn camera video to be admitted
into evidence and use it as a tool to corroborate testimony and justify their actions
during encounters with victims, witnesses, and defendants. Crabbe, Brown & James,
LLP Managing Partner Larry H. James has served as General Counsel to the National
Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) since 2001. The National FOP is the world’s largest
organization of sworn law enforcement officers with more than 350,000 members in
more than 2,100 lodges across the United States.
By Carlos Gamino

If you’re like many people involved in the criminal justice system, the police
who arrested you were wearing body cameras at the time of your arrest. Is
that possible for the police to turn that footage over to the prosecutor in your
case, and if so, can the prosecutor use body cam footage against you in
court? Here’s what you need to know.

Can Body Cam Footage Be Used Against You in

Court?
Body camera footage is used in court every day across Wisconsin. It’s an
official record of the circumstances of a person’s arrest, and it is admissible in
court. In fact, body-worn camera and dashboard camera footage are often
admitted at trial to corroborate a police officer version of events. This footage
often includes the circumstances leading up to an arrest, during an arrest and
after an arrest.

State and federal courts have acknowledged that this type of footage can be
useful in verifying a police officer’s version of events. Therefore, it is
admissible in court and the prosecutor in your case can use it against you.

Related: What are cybercrimes?

Body Cam Footage Goes Both Ways

In some cases, body camera footage can be used to show that a police officer
acted improperly during your arrest. In a situation like that, your criminal
defense attorney will request to see the footage and may ask that it be
entered as evidence in your case.

Related: What is a mistake of fact in a criminal case?

Do You Need to Talk to an Attorney About Body Cam

Footage of You Being Used in Court?
Regardless of the type of crime you are accused of committing, you are
entitled to legal representation. Whether or not the police have body cam or
dashcam footage of your arrest, you should consult with an attorney who can
help you get the best possible outcome in your case. Call our office at 414-
 body cam (bodycam)






By

 TechTarget Contributor

A body cam (bodycam) is an audio/video recording device that is clipped to a

person's clothing, usually on the torso. Body cams are a type of body worn video
(BWV) device, which also includes devices like Google Glass and action
cameras like GoPro. Body cams are used in recreational activities, surveillance,
journalism and healthcare.

Law enforcement agencies are the most common organizations to use body

cameras. Body cams are used to record the activities of officers in the
performance of their duties and interactions with the public. Body cams are also
used in the military to record training and events on the battlefield.

Body cams generally include an HD camera with a microphone. Most body cams
have an on/off button for the camera and a separate button for the microphone to
accommodate differing state laws on audio recordings. Some designs feature
lights for dark environments and onboard storage or streaming video.

Body cams were largely implemented in law enforcement to address concerns of

a lack of transparency and accountability. Recently, they have become more
widely used in police departments after the rise of several high profile cases
involving alleged police brutality. By documenting events, body cams and dash
cams provide forensic evidence and serve as an objective view of transpired
events. Privacy concerns exist, especially with the application of facial
recognition, about the potential of such technologies to be used as surveillance
of the population.

This was last updated in August 2017

Continue Reading About body cam (bodycam)

 From drones to body cams, tech is changing the fight against crime

 Video storage takes its turn in the spotlight

Related Terms
Microsoft Assessment and Planning (MAP) Toolkit
Microsoft Assessment and Planning (MAP) Toolkit is a free utility IT can use to determine
whether its infrastructure is prepared ... See complete definition

mobile app
A mobile app (or mobile application) is a software application developed specifically for use
on small, wireless computing ... See complete definition

Wien's constant
Wien's constant is a physical constant that is used in defining the relationship between the
thermodynamic temperature of a black... See complete definition
 How College of Policing Guidance
Enables Body Worn Camera Abuse

Kevin Donoghue, solicitor, reviews the College of Policing guidelines on body worn cameras in light of a recent
court case.
By Kevin Donoghue, solicitor

For many years I have said that the College of Policing’s body worn camera (BWC) guidance is
not fit for purpose. In particular, I have railed against the idea that the police can be trusted to
use their cameras properly. A recent court report highlights the inevitable consequences.

Last week I read a shocking story by Neil Docking of the Liverpool Echo: “Bent coppers
covered up officer battering man in his home.”

The story is worth reading in full by clicking on the link above. (It opens in a new tab so you can
come back here afterwards.) It could be used as a case-study for police corruption and reflects
very poorly on Merseyside Police.

Mr Docking describes how four police officers:

 Darren McIntyre
 Laura Grant
 Lauren Buchanan-Lloyd
 Garrie Burke

lied and lied after the victim was repeatedly punched and left pouring with blood.
His story includes details of:

 an unprovoked police assault on an innocent man, Mark Bamber

 threats of (unlawful) arrest to an innocent bystander for legally filming the incident
 unlawful arrest and detention
 police body worn video camera abuse
 unauthorised review of footage
 police officers colluding to avoid liability for misconduct
 delays in uploading BWC evidence
 lying in witness interviews/ statements
 blanket denials by officers despite overwhelming evidence
 criminal prosecution of Merseyside Police officers resulting in a Crown Court jury trial
 police officers found guilty of perverting the course of justice and (in one case) assault.

Long-Standing Body Worn Camera Abuse Concerns

A key part of this case centred on the abuse of police body worn cameras. Sadly, concerns about
this problem are not new.

Seven years I wrote this blog post: Why the Police Should Change Their Body Camera Policy

In it, I explained how the Metropolitan Police were trialling the use of body worn cameras. I
noted that:

It is expected that the body cameras will only be used when the police respond to incidents and
during stop & search operations, rather than during day-to-day interactions. The Commissioner
says this is because leaving the cameras on all the time would be ‘too intrusive’.
I urged the Met, then led by former Merseyside Police Chief Constable Sir Bernard Hogan-
Howe, to set a policy of recording every interaction with the public:

to counter suspicions that officers would deliberately not turn their body cameras on
noting that:

Other forces are watching with interest and are expected to adopt body cameras if the test is
successful.

The Present Body Worn Video Camera Problem

When I wrote that blog post I was most concerned about cameras not being activated. But, as the
Mark Bamber story shows, this did not go far enough. The problem extends to things like:

 keeping body worn cameras running

 officers turning away to avoid filming police assaults
 delaying uploads of video footage
 unauthorised viewing of footage
 police officer collusion
 fabricating statements.
 College of Policing Body Worn Video Guidance
Merseyside Police employed all the officers in the Mark Bamber case.

That force applies the College of Policing’s 2014 guidance on body worn video. (It has its own
Body Worn Video policy which you can read here.)

What is the College of Policing, and Why Do Police

Forces Follow its Guidance?
The College of Policing describes itself as:

a professional body for everyone working across policing. It is an operationally independent

arm’s-length body of the Home Office.
It claims that:

 We connect everyone working in the police and law enforcement to understand their
challenges.
 We use evidence-based knowledge in everything we develop.
 We help police officers and staff; researchers, academics and learning providers; the
international policing community; and the public.
 We give a voice to professional policing on standards, skills and capabilities.

Review of the College of Policing Body Worn Video Guidance

Here I refer to the College of Policing’s body worn video guidance instead of Merseyside
Police’s policy. This is because the College issues best-practice guidance for all national police
forces, including Merseyside Police.

The Relevant sections are as follows (my emphasis in bold):

Section 5 – principle 4 and principle 5

Principle 4 – The operational use of body-worn video must be proportionate, legitimate and
necessary.

Principle 5 –Use of body-worn video will be incident specific. Officers will use common sense
and sound judgment when using body-worn video, in support of the principles of best evidence.

Operational considerations
 Recording an incident – basic principles and techniques

The decision to record or not to record an incident rests with the user. However, users should
record incidents whenever they invoke a police power.

Under normal circumstances, all BWV users present at an evidential encounter, regardless of
the fact that other BWV users may be present, should record the incident. Users should always
take into account the circumstances and the people involved, for example, vulnerable persons.
Failing to record an incident may require explanation in court, although in some instances it is
not appropriate to make a video recording. In such cases users should record the fact in their
pocket notebook.

Users may not indiscriminately record entire duties or patrols.  Recordings must be incident
specific (whether or not the recording is ultimately required for use as evidence).

All recordings can be used in evidence, even if it appears to the user at the time of the incident
that this is unlikely (eg, a stop and search with a negative result). All recordings should be
treated as evidential until it is confirmed otherwise. If it becomes obvious that the recording
will not be evidential, unless there are other extenuating circumstances, users should stop
recording immediately.

Users should capture as much evidence as possible (including the context of the encounter)
and should always try to record as much of an incident as possible. Users should begin
recording at the start of an incident or at the earliest opportunity thereafter, for example:

 as soon as users are deployed to an incident

 as soon as they become aware that any other encounter is likely to occur in front of them.

In order to comply with the DPA and HRA, wherever practicable, users should restrict
recording to the areas and persons necessary in order to obtain evidence and intelligence
relevant to the incident. Users should always attempt to minimise collateral intrusion on those
not involved.
And note this section:

Selective capture

The BWV user should record entire encounters from beginning to end without interrupting
the recording. There will, however, be occasions when the user may wish to consider
interrupting the recording of an incident. In such circumstances the user may decide to start
and stop recording at any point during an encounter. This practice is referred to as selective
capture.
 For example, it may be necessary to stop recording an incident in cases of a sensitive nature or
if the incident has concluded prior to the arrival of the BWV user. In all cases the user should
exercise their professional judgement in deciding whether or not to record all or part of an
incident.

If the user chooses to interrupt or cease recording at an ongoing incident, they should record
their decision and rationale (if practicable in the circumstances) by making a suitable verbal
statement on the BWV material and also in a pocket notebook or other log.

Selective capture can also be used to describe the process of temporarily stopping and restarting
recording in order to bookmark (see bookmarking) the recorded material.

Selective capture never involves deleting images. There are no circumstances in which the user
can justify unauthorised deletion of any images that have already been recorded.

Any such action may result in legal or disciplinary proceedings.

Interpreting the College of Policing Guidance

There are four main points to take away:

1. police officers have absolute and total discretion when to use their body worn cameras, subject to
certain requirements (like invoking a police power)
2. they should not leave cameras running and, instead, must target their use to specific events and
people
3. recordings must be treated as evidence (which means that they must be preserved unmolested)
4. police officers should capture as much of the incident as possible, ie. Start recording when
deployed or as soon as necessary to capture evidence. But this is open to interpretation, and
officers can start or stop recordings during incidents as they see fit.

The practical effects of some of this guidance can be seen in Neil Docking’s Liverpool Echo
report. Evidently, the officers used some of their training (described below in bold) before going
rogue:

The jury was told McIntyre, Grant and Buchanan-Lloyd all switched their cameras on at the
start of the incident, which they were trained to keep on, as it is key evidence.

However, Grant and Buchanan-Lloyd both turned off their cameras when things became violent,
which Mr Barton [the Prosecutor in the case] said was a deliberate attempt to prevent
independent evidence being recorded.

The court heard Grant hesitated then turned away from the violence to turn off her camera and
Buchanan-Lloyd did the same.
Buchanan-Lloyd later said in an interview that she and Grant discussed turning their cameras
off and whether they would say their batteries died, but decided this would be too suspicious.

No Excuses for Police Body Worn Camera Abuse

Clearly, giving individual officers’ wide discretion about using body worn cameras is
problematic. The police don’t need to see their fellow officers prosecuted to know that. They
have academic research to back it up.

In September 2020, a report by Cynthia Lum et al was published on the College of Policing’s
own website.

(This is the same site where police officers can read the body worn camera guidance used by UK
forces outlined above.)

The report described a meta-analysis of 30 studies considering the effects of body worn cameras
on policing. Most of the studies were based on police in the USA, but some focused in whole or
part on UK police forces.

Its authors noted that:

Today, BWCs are likely the most rapidly diffusing technologies in modern police history.
Although it is difficult to determine how many BWCs are in circulation today, there have been
some estimates. In the United Kingdom, one assessment by a privacy watchdog group found that
over 70% of police forces had acquired cameras by 2019 and were rapidly moving toward full
adoption.
It found that in most forces where body worn cameras were issued officers had to use them:

a large portion of the agencies (83%) had official policies that requi
Body-worn cameras (BWC) have become a necessity in law enforcement agencies of
the present day. Rise in several incidents has brought forward a greater need for better
mechanisms to support the accountability of officers and assist in evidence collection.

In November 2018, a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), based off
metrics from 2016, over 47% of general-purpose law enforcement agencies had
acquired body-worn cameras; a number that rose to 80% for large police departments.

These numbers have substantially increased over the years.

Besides enhancing evidence collection, body cams serve as a great tool to assist police
officers. They also improve the chain of custody by recording footage of physical
handling of evidence (or potential evidence items) at a crime scene.

Then Why Are Body Worn Cameras

Not Incorporated Statewide? 
The answer to the above question is that there is one major issue in digitizing police
forces anywhere with body cameras - video storage.

With each device recording for entire shifts without delays or breaks, several terabytes
of body camera video storage are required.

This blog talks about the challenges faced when working with body cameras when it
comes to video storage as well as practical solutions for them.
 

Challenges faced
by Law Enforcement Agencies
(LEAs) 
1. Expenses When Working With Body Camera
Video Storage 
Incorporating body cameras calls for a big budget. Knowing a department may have
hundreds or even thousands of officers on the field, to have the gear dispatched to
each of them is definitely a challenge.

According to the official website of the City of New York, NYPD rolled out over
6000 body worn cameras during its body-worn camera program that started in April
2017 and spanned over the next two years.

Dispatching body cameras to officers isn’t the end of costs. With each officer that
using bodycams, there will be several terabytes of video data incoming daily. Each
officer’s shift will be recorded and saved. Hence, a tremendous amount of storage is
required for each video file.

However, in a list compiled by the Government of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado,
entailing facts on body worn cameras, a statement getting a foremost mention takes
the spotlight.

Acknowledging the fact U.S. law enforcement spends approximately $2 billion in

settlements each year to resolve claims, it has been observed that agencies using body
worn cameras report a dramatic decrease in complaints and claims.

2. The Deployment for Body Cam Video Storage

The decision of picking a storage solution comes down to where is the storage
deployed.

Is it on local storage mediums at your law enforcement headquarters, or have you

opted for a cloud solution? Or it may be a hybrid storage model utilizing both.

There are numerous reasons to choose either, but we will get to it later.

3. Security Concerns With Body Cam Video

Storage 
With Video Evidence Lying in Disparate Systems - Securely Managing Access and
Maintaining a Chain of Custody Could be a Daunting Task 
Overcame the high storage costs? Chosen your medium to save your body cam
footage? Great!

But is the medium secure?

Body camera video may carry critical information and must be kept out of
unauthorized access at all costs. It may act as digital evidence for various criminal
cases in many circumstances.

So, does your choice of video storage and management platform offer that level of
security?

If it does not, we know for sure one that does – VIDIZMO.

Read more on what VIDIZMO has to offer for Evidence Security.

4. Compliance Regarding Body Camera Video

Storage 
Body camera video storage is a critical matter. Several compliance requirements
surrounding data of this nature need to be implemented as part of the law.

Two of these are by the California Rules of Court and the Criminal Justice
Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy.

You would have to compliant with GDPR based off your region, and FedRAMP
based off your industry and prospects.

With all these compliance needs being a necessity, the question being raised is
whether your video storage platform meets these compliance standards?

5. Codec Issues Surrounding Body Camera Video

Storage 
With most body worn cameras utilizing proprietary codecs and containers, there is an
issue of incompatibility.

Storing footage from these body cameras in their proprietary codecs results in
playback issues, especially when shared with prosecutors, defense attorneys, the court,
or other scenarios.

Therefore, the need to generalize all codecs and make them compatible with all video
players is a necessity.

6. Search Within Body Cam Video Library 

Several other issues play a role in storing body camera video files. These include
proper meta-tagging of video files to make it easier to search and retrieve them later.

With several hours of footage coming from each officer daily, a manual video-to-
video search is an impractical idea.

Not only should your body cam videos be more optimized for searches, but the search
itself should have advanced features to provide better accessibility and accurate
results.

7. Redaction In Body Cam Video 

Concerning critical video footage such as those recorded off body cams and CCTVs, a
compliance requirement is the redaction of sensitive information.

This information, which is often generally termed as PII (personally identifiable

information), includes images of faces of individuals and license number plates. All
this information being present in body camera video data calls for a PII redaction
video software solution.

The standard process is to store video on a certain platform, which acts as a storage
medium. Then, the video is exported to a platform with a redaction tool, gets
processed, and then saved it back to storage.

As apparent, this process is both lengthy and time-consuming; something which turns
out to cut down efficiency for law enforcers.

We need a platform that offers us video storage with a built-in video redaction
software that makes the job easier and less time-consuming.

8. Transcription Using Audio In Body Cam

Footage 
Body cam video recordings often contain audio that is rather unclear and
indecipherable. The circumstances in which they are recorded impact the quality of
the audio.

However, body cam video recording transcriptions play a key role in several cases,
and act as valuable data itself.

A good example is the missing people and murder case of Brian Laundrie and Gabby
Petito from Utah in the later part of 2021.
The audio quality becomes a huge hurdle when the audio must be transcribed. The
task becomes even more difficult when the audio carries multiple languages, jargon,
unrecognizable terms, or other factors.

The transcription process can be made easier and more accurate, but the audio file
needs to be passed through a few processes that require different tools.

Things would be much simpler if the entire task could be performed on a single
platform.

9. Playback Issues With Body Cam Footage 

Body-worn cameras make use of RTMP (Real-Time Messaging Protocol) and RTSP
(Real-Time Streaming Protocol) encoding protocols in their video files.

However, this protocol is supported by a decreasing number of browsers as the days

pass. This incompatibility makes the video not playable on most internet browsers.

The solution to this issue it to make a conversion to Apple’s HLS (HTTP Live
Streaming) protocol. This is extremely necessary, as it makes the video file
compatible with all existing browsers and video streaming players.

What Can Be Done To Solve These

Problems? 
We have already discussed the issues that law enforcement organizations face with the
implementation and widescale use of body cameras. Most issues circle around the
matter of video storage.

But what can be possible solutions for these problems? Let us investigate these.

Cloud Storage
Video is a medium of data known for excessive amounts of data consumption. With
video qualities forever increasing, such as better resolutions thanks to camera
technology with greater megapixels and HDTV, the demand for greater storage has
followed.

Implementing body-worn cameras for police officers opens a gateway to a never-

ending need for data storage.
So, what can be done to resolve this? What options of storage would be feasible to
handle such a huge amount of data?

One of the ways to counteract this is to implement a local, on-premises storage

system. However, this solution seems impractical for several agencies.

Adding additional storage media has its limitations. Moreover, there are several risks
in terms of security and data loss.

Another option is to go for cloud storage. The storage is provided by a service

provider located remotely and easily manages your storage needs.

This option is more feasible as it eliminates several negative factors when working
with disparate, local storage systems.

Cloud storage also enhances accessibility. The video content is stored on the cloud
can be remotely accessed by officers anywhere.

By utilizing cloud storage, we cut down the costs of locating evidence data on local
storage and physically transporting video evidence from one location to the next.

A third solution is to go for a mix of both – a hybrid model. Local storage holds
frequently accessed video content while the rest is stored on the cloud. 

Security 
Data security is also one of the primary concerns when working with body camera
video storage. The storage medium or service provider chosen must enforce measures
to keep data secure.

Bodycam videos could hold crucial evidence and confidential data. Any form of
cybersecurity attack could prove to be chaotic.

Accessibility is another element of concern. The ability to implement varying access

to various files stored, with limitations as to who can view, download, and modify
files, are some of the prerequisites that are necessary for a storage medium utilized for
body camera video storage.

Implementing a storage medium that is encrypted with a standard, such as AES-256

(Advanced Encryption Standard, one of the strongest yet), is the ideal solution to
ensure the security of your data at rest.

You also need to ensure that the videos stored on a storage medium are secure when
in transit, during playback or retrieval. Therefore, the service must incorporate
a secure video streaming platform with SSL/TLS encryption to protect video from
“man-in-the-middle” attacks and similar threats.

Transcoding 
There is also an issue of compatibility or playback for any video file with bodycam
video storage.

The best solution at hand is to transcode it into a generalized codec with varying
bitrate frequencies to allow them to be playable on all mediums and under all
conditions.

Generalized codecs will be device and software agnostic, hence making it easier to
stream evidence on the organization’s own systems, or those with the legal bodies it is
shared with, such as courts.

Read more on what other practices should you consider with our 5 Tips On How
To Present Video Evidence In Court

A Complete Solution – A Digital

Evidence Management System  
You could move your body-worn camera footage to the cloud, add security measures
around it, build a system to log a chain of custody, transcode, redact or transcribe
this footage. Or you could let the experts handle it. 
A digital evidence management system (DEMS) could prove to be the ultimate
solution surrounding all matters concerning body camera video storage and handling. 

The platform could provide access to cloud storage, be it their own or through a
partner’s integration, with added measures for security. Moreover, a system such as
that would have built-in mechanisms to assist you in automatically transcoding and
tagging video content. 

A DEM system would not be limited to that, however. It will provide you with exactly
what you need when it comes down to handling your stored video content.

It may be as simple as sorting video files into individual cases or comparatively

complex applying AI (Artificial Intelligence) based services such as redaction
and multilingual transcription on the videos. 
Before you set off to search for the perfect DEMS solution, we would like to stop you
right there. That is because the ideal DEMS solution is available right here –
VIDIZMO. 

VIDIZMO Digital Evidence

Management System  
 

VIDIZMO, a Gartner recognized solution provider for video content management,

offers its state-of-the-art Digital Evidence Management System (DEMS). Recognized
as a major player of the 2020 IDC MarketScape, VIDIZMO’s DEMS solution allows
you to perform transcription on your videos and redact elements to protect personally
identifiable information, to meet several compliance requirements and accessibility
standards. The solution enables you to choose between government cloud service, on-
premises storage, or hybrid infrastructure deployment options. 

VIDIZMO Digital Evidence Management System provides you with:

1. Bulk Ingestion: Bulk ingest digital evidence from any source such as Bodycams,
Dashcams, and CCTV Cameras, enabling evidence collection and segregation
through multiple, autonomous portals.
2. Integration: VIDIZMO’s device agnosticism allows massive possibilities for
integrations and ingestions. Integrate with your existing IT applications, such as
CAD, RMS, and CMS systems. Integrate with SSO for authenticated access and
interoperability and much more.
3. Accessibility: The use of a web app makes evidence viewable and accessible through
all devices.
4. Secure Evidence Sharing: Leverage a broad range of controls for end-to-end
evidence security and privacy. Ensure the highest level of protection for your digital
evidence using a robust set of security features and functions.
5. Artificial Intelligence: Make the use of AI to automate processes such as redaction,
transcription, translation, analytics generation and more.
6. Translate & Transcribe: Automatically transcribe audio and video evidence
simultaneously in 4 languages, or one out of around 40 in a single iteration.
Similarly, translations are available in over 50 languages.
7. Integrity of Evidence: Verify the originality and integrity of your evidence files
with the standard SHA-3 cryptographic hash function. This detects the presence of
any tampering and alerts the system and individual that evidence is assigned to.
8. Flexible Deployment: Deploy the solution as SaaS in Azure or AWS Cloud
(Government or Commercial), in an on-premises data center or in a hybrid
infrastructure.
9. Meeting Compliance Policies: Meet compliance requirements, such as CJIS,
FedRAMP, GDPR, HIPAA, ADA, DoD, CRoC, FOIA and more, through a wide
variety of features as well as through project hosts and partners.

VIDIZMO DEMS’ set of diverse features are not limited to what we have mentioned
above, however. There is a lot more that you can explore by paying a visit to our
website or directly exploring the features of the Digital Evidence Management
System.
WE OFFER MUCH MORE
SEE ALL FEATURES!

If your organization wants to implement a DEMS solution with the flexibility to

implement body worn camera technology, feel free to contact us  or visit our site for
more information on our products.

CONTACT US
Or test out the product yourself with a free trial!

GET STARTED FOR FREE

Posted by Muhammad Nabeel Ali

Nabeel is an Associate Product Marketing Manager at VIDIZMO and an expert

in evidence management technologies. He is actively researching on
innovative trends in this domain such as Artificial Intelligence. For any queries,
feel free to reach out to nabeel.ali@vidizmo.com
 Tags: Digital Evidence Management Evidence Evidence Management
Software Body-worn camera data Police data storage Challenges of data
storage Evidence Formats Large video files

Table Of Contents
1. Then Why Are Body Worn Cameras Not Incorporated Statewide? 
2. Challenges faced by Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) 
3. What Can Be Done To Solve These Problems? 
4. A Complete Solution – A Digital Evidence Management System  
5. VIDIZMO Digital Evidence Management System  

Related Articles

Evidence Disclosure: Proven Ways of Staying Compliant

Topics: Digital Evidence Management, Evidence, Evidence Management Software, Body-Worn Camera Data, Police Data

Storage, Challenges Of Data Storage, Evidence Formats, Large Video Files
Why is There a Need For Digital Evidence Software?

Topics: Digital Evidence Management, Evidence, Evidence Management Software, Body-Worn Camera Data, Police Data

Storage, Challenges Of Data Storage, Evidence Formats, Large Video Files

Disclosure of Evidence Rules and its Impact

Topics: Digital Evidence Management, Evidence, Evidence Management Software, Body-Worn Camera Data, Police Data

Storage, Challenges Of Data Storage, Evidence Formats, Large Video Files

VIDIZMO Whitepapers
←
→
 1
 2
 3
 4
Post a comment

First Name

Last Name

Email Address
Comment
 VIDIZMO is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy, and we’ll only use your personal information to administer
your account and to provide the products and services you requested from us. From time to time, we would like to contact you
about our products and services, as well as other content that may be of interest to you. If you consent to us contacting you for
this purpose, please tick below to say how you would like us to contact you:

 I agree to receive other communications from VIDIZMO.

You can unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For more information on how to unsubscribe, our privacy
practices, and how we are committed to protecting and respecting your privacy, please review our Privacy Policy.

By clicking submit below, you consent to allow VIDIZMO to store and process the personal information submitted above to
provide you the content requested.

Submit Comment

About
VIDIZMO offers two products, a Gartner-Recognized YouTube-like platform
EnterpriseTube, and the IDC-Recognized Digital Evidence Management Solution for
law enforcement, along with other standalone video solutions like Redaction.

With flexible deployment options (on-premise, in the cloud, as a hybrid model or as

a SaaS application), the solutions allow organizations to store, process, manage,
protect & share content with public and private audiences securely.

VIDIZMO solutions fully utilize and integrate with customer’s IT investments such as
SSO, Hyper-V, VMWARE, Cloud, Wowza Steaming Engines, Wowza Cloud, ECDN,
 SharePoint, or other Content Management Systems, to provide end-to-end
enterprise video, digital media asset & evidence management solutions.

Products & Solutions

 EnterpriseTube
 Digital Evidence Management System
 Virtual Training & Learning
 Redaction
 Recorded Zoom Meeting Management
 Recorded MS Teams Meeting Management
 On-Premise Video Streaming

LEGAL
 Privacy Policy
 Terms of Use
 Security & Privacy
 Compliance
 Agreement and Terms
 Subscription Service Agreement
 Request Subscription Change

Resources
 About Us
 Case Studies
 Blog
 Write For VIDIZMO
 Videos
 Support
 Whitepapers
 Press Releases
 Careers
 Helpdesk
 Service Status
 All Resources

