body cameras report

8/9/2019 Body cameras report

1/28

TY O OU S TO NAnnise Parker

Mayor

HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENTCharles McClelland Jr

Chief of Pollee

S T T U S R E P O R T N D F IN D IN G S

O D Y W O R N C M E R S

O F FIc OF PLANNINGMR R R Y J YiuM DEPUTY DIRECTOR

APRIL 2 14


2/28

CITY OF HOUSTONINTER OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

TO:

Charles A. McClelland, Jr.FROM:

Larry

Yium, Deputy Director hief of Police Office of lanning

VIA: M. I Montalvo, Executive AssistantChief DATE: April 30, 2014Office of the hief of Staff

SUBJECT: Status Report and Findings from FieldTest of 100 Body Worn CamerasCOP 12-44028

IntroductionAfter an earlier and smaller pilot project , the Department starteda l arge sca le f ie ld test phase ofbody w orn c am er as B W C) in mid-December, 2013. This test was the second phase of thedepartment’s goal to provide this technology to all uniformed officers. The test consisted ofdeploying one hundred 100) cameras throughout various uniformed divisions. The Vievu LE2camera sys tem was selec ted for this phase of the overall B WC p ro gra m, p rim ar il y f ro m theresults of the ini tial pilot project and f or th e s yste m’s c ap ab ility of integrating with thedepartment’s current in-car video system.

The puipose of the f ie ld testwas to determine the following:

• Operational issues officer acceptance• Refinement of policy and guidelines after actual experience• Determine the infrastructure impact on the depar tment ’s information network from the

deployment of the cameras

The Houston Pol ice Department has already determined earlier the value of a dd in g th istechnology to its operation. The value comes in terms of accountability to the public, supportingthe actions of officers, and improving training. As such, detailed enumerations of these issues arenot included in this report.

Executive SummaryAfter initial reluctance by the officers, there was widespread acceptanceof BW C by the officers.The quality and usability of the videos improved, as officers b ec am e m or e f am ilia r w ith thedevices, their placement on the uniform, and the ir uses. Additional refinement to the relatedpolicies and obtaining the latest technology are part of the next steps. Information f rom other C market indicates that this is still a fast evolvin

vever, there was nothing in thefield test that the department should reconsider its original plan for widespreaddeployment of these devices. Funding should be sought for both the devices and theinfrastructure needed to support this program IIPD should evaluate the newest technologyavailable in BWC. The key for the future success of this initiative is that there is sufficient


3/28


4/28

C harl es A. M cC lelIa ad r p ril 30 2014

Operationally these were the significant findings:

•

fterinitial reluctance by officers there was general accep tance by the officers o f BWC especially after video was captured that showed how it could benefit officers in their

work.• Post surveys and interviews sh ows that most officers found the BWC easy to use; citizens

often change d th eir behavior upon becoming aware o f the camera; and officers said that itdid not substantially change the w ay they p oliced.

• Concerns about the actual BWC devices include

• Co ncerns about retention o f video captured include:o Applicability of the “Michael Morton Act ” re ganl ing the preservation of evidence

for both the District Attorney and the Municipal Courts.

o Retention time for different scenarios.

discovery request issues.

public information/

• The BWC issued are con tinued to be deployed and in use by the various units. Assistan tC hie f Chen and Capt. Skillem are bringing forth issues for resolution as they arise.

to turn the camera on many no ted that a stressful orquick developin g s ituations they e ither forgot to turn on the BW C o r worried

u t it rather than immediately handling the scene.

In terms of policy the cameras have not been deployed lon g e nough to total ly f erret out how theinterim policy fully addresses all of the i ssues. H owe ver decision s w ere made regarding the type technology desired in future camera acquisitions which affects the policy. These decisions

O nz ol u t iviti e s


5/28

Charles A. MeClelland Jr April 30, 2014

a The department is monitoring the use of BW C on the national level, as the technology,usage, retention, and associated legal issues are evolving issues with multiple opinionsand alternatives. This wa s confirmed last month when Planning hosted a telephone

conference with the D C Metro Police on this subject with over twenty five Major CitiesChiefs agencies participating.• A Request for Information was issued last month to see the market’s latest products and

ca abilities Resonses are received and evaluated.

Recommendations Next Steps• Seek funding from all potential sources for additional BW C and infrastructure

improvements.• Concurrent with the acquisition of a dd itio na l B WC , th e department should take the

necessary steps to expand its data transmissions infrastructure bandwidth anddownloading capabilities). This will ensure that when additional BW C are acquired, therewill be no delays in deployment, due to the lack of infrastructurea t the stations.

• Continue to work through the retention and access of captured data; determine if the useof Video Disposition Officers in each division is the most effectivemeans to address thisissue.

• Refine the process of providing captured video for discovery and public informationrequests, especially for third parties. Address the issue of redaction of persons captured invideo. Ft. Worth Police Department, which has the largest BW C deployment in Texas,indicated they are hiring additional civilian staff to respond to these types of requests.

• Formalize the current inter im policy into a general order ; address the process forsupervisory/management review of the video captured.

Larry J. Yium, Deputy DirectorOffice of Planning

should be available in the next thirty

ljy:ljy


6/28


7/28

CITY O F HO USTO NINTER OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

TO: Charles A. McCIelIand, Jr.Chiefof Police

VIA: J. H. ChC 1 Assistant ChiefStaff Services Command

M. L. Skillern, CaptainBody Worn Camera Committee

DATE: April 28, 2014

SUBJECT Executive Summary Body WornCamera Pilot

In mid-December of 2013 the Houston Police Department set out on an extensive test of BodyWorn C am er as B W Cs . T he department purchased 100 uni ts and the associated software whichintergraded with the current in-car video system. Officers selected for the program were from across section of patrol, tactical units, warrant execution units, bicycle officers, mounted officersand traffic units. Officers were trained in both operation and policy in a o ne d ay session, theninstructed to beginusing their devices.

Ini tial feedback from the officers received during the training was much less than positive.Officers wereconcerned about many things, some of the most prevalent concerns were:

1. The department is now going to watch every call I am on and initiate an investigationinto any small thing they see wrong.

2. Sometimes what may otherwise be considered inappropriate language in mostsettings will be necessary, considering the situation. Th e department is now going to“ding” me whenever this happens.

3. sometimes may forget to turn i t on. Th e department is going to come after me everytime this happens.

During the training, the officers were told tha t the device is more to protect them than anything.T ha t a lth ou gh th er e w ill b ea supervisory review put into place, just as is currently done withMDC transmissions, nobody is going to be watching alt of their videos and looking forviolations, Also, reasonableness will be used in judging officers’ actions in any situation whenan incident is being reviewed Further, as with any new technology, it will take some timegetting used to and if they fail to initially turn on the camera, to do so as soon as they remember.

However, in instances the audio was found to be excellent anddid aide in determining what happened on the scene. After a few weeks, it was found that mostof the officers adapted well to using the camera and took steps to capture better footage. Officerswould alter the way they mounted the devices, stood differently at scenes and illuminated morearea in an effort to get a clearer picture of what was transpiring. It was also found that some

With these instructions and direction, the off icers set out t”I —


8/28

Charles A McCIelland Jr April 28 2014

officers would narrate their entire scene from the initial encounter through any arrest or vehiclesearch and up until the f inal disposition of the cal l so a stronger court case could be made

At the end of 70 days a survey was pushed out for the officers to take online Eighty of theparticipants responded and the results can be found attached In summary most of therespondents found the devices easy to use They also found citizens changed their behavior moreoften than not when becoming aware of the camera Conversely most of the officers stated itdid not change the way they policed

Following the survey the officers were asked to attend a “live feedback” session to discuss theBWCs During these sessions w e found that of the officers who came the ir attitudes hadchanged markedly from the initial training Officers largely reported liking having the camerasand that it captured their daily events here were some complains about the devices both fromthe survey and the live feedback sessions he recurring ones are detailed below

No spe ci fi c g roup had any i ss ue s with the device not found by others with the exception oftraffic units noting that the seiçcted device often did not have

Additional Factors Discovered During the Trial

Discovery issues were on the forefront of many of the discussions during the trial The recentpassage of the “Michael Morton Act” causing all evidence associated with any offense needingto be turned over to the defense became an issue How it relates to BW C videos is tha t on anyscene associated with a prosecution any video taken by any officer will need to be added to thecase file and indicated so in the report If this did not happen it was feared the integrity of thecase could be compromised for failing to comply with the new discovery law Safeguards were

4 Forgetting to turn on Many off icer s not ed tha t in stressful or quick developingsituations they either forgot to turn on their BW C or found themselves worryingabout it rather than immediately handling the scene This however as with any new


9/28

Charles A. McClelland Jr. April 28 2914

put in place to prevent this from happening. First the policy clearly states tha t every off iceronthe scene is responsible for either listing in their report that a BW C recording exists or ensuringthe primary unit states so in their report . Second WIRES wa s modified to have a check boxindicating whether or not video evidence e xists. T he Harris County District Attorney’s officewas made aware of both of these departmental requirements in an attempt to help them locatewhich crimes may have video evidence. Additionally a list was sent weekly from HPD to th eDA’s office of every case in which w e had a BWC video attached to a c as e n um be r. T he DA’soff ice then cross referenced this with their list of cause numbers and incident report numbers tomake sure no cases were missed.Another issue that arose was prosecutors and DA investigators having access to the videos theyneeded for prosecution. As a short term solution each division which used o r cou ld potentiallyneed BWC videos ha d a person trained a Video Disposition Officer wh o was able to view andmake copies of the v id eo s. T he prosecutors and DA investigators were then able to contact thedivision concerned or the natrol s ta tion of and obtain a cc video

Retention wa s also a topic of discussion Videos th at a re tagged marked in the downloadsystem in association with any crime are automatically retained in association with the statuteof limitations for that offence. At that point much like is currently done with tagged propertythey then come up for deletion. A division will then make the decision to hold the video forlonger or allow it to be d ele te d. Vid eo s no t associated w ith an y specific crime such as adisturbance cleared information or a false burglar a la rm a re se t for automatic deletion after 90days. This will greatly help our i ssue of storage and video management.

Municipal citationvideos were another i ssue tha t arose . Meetings with Judge Hart tlc were heldto ascertain the Municipal Cour ts position of v ideo ret en ti on for traffic stops and how the“Michael Morton ct” applied. It was their position that all videos associated with anymunicipal violations should be kept indefinitely regardless of storage costs. It was finallyagreed upon that a 2 year retention period would be appropriate for municipal violations.

determination was made as of the date of this letter as to which solution would be best thedepartment.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Overall the BW C test was very successful. The major lessons learned were that althoughinitially skeptical of their use officers became not only accustomed to using the dev ice but mos twere happy to have it as an additional tool. T his was p roven by more th an o ne officer beingquestioned or investigated about an incident and the video proving their sjde of the enConversations with union nersonnel indicated the same perspectivr

were found to make sure the DA’s were aware of the


10/28

Charles A. McClelland Jr April 28 2014

existence of video evidence nd ge t that evidence to them in the most efficient manner. Also agood system of retention and video deletion was set in place wh ich wil l both satisfy the legalrequirements of discovery as we ll has help with the departments stor ge costs.

In summary the committee recommends th at th e program not only continue but expand toinclude every uniformed officer witt n the t as fH ” does see the need

inally the draft policy which has b een vetted by legal shouldbe codified into a General Order. We continue to move forward with the project and will keepyou continually upd ted on its progress.

mls:mls

iL

M. Skiliern _::z:::M. L. Skillem pt inBody Worn mer Committee


11/28


12/28

Houston Police Department

Body Worn Cameras Survey Details

1 Cameras 7 Days

Exhibit C

Prepared by

Office Planning

Sergeant Stephen Morrison Ph D

March 18 2 14


13/28

o y Worn Cameras Survey Details

During the second week of December 2013, approximately 100 officers were issuedBody

WornCameras BWC . 70 days later these officers were asked to complete a survey concerning the useof the BWC. Additionally these officers were asked to attend meetings held during the firstweek of March 2014. During these meetings these officers were asked to report the observationson the BW C in an open forum. They were asked to report the positives and the negatives of theBWC. The fol lowingis a report on the results of the survey as well as the group meetings.

Participant Departmental ssignments

Traffic Enforcement 10

Central Days 7Central TACT 2Central DG U 2Central Evenings 6Central Nights 6Central WET Unit 2

North Days 6North Evenings 7North Nights 8North TACT 8

S.O. Days 2S.O. Evenings 4S O Nights 2S.O. Mounted 2

CR U 28

As of 3/5/2014 —80 officers completed the online survey below are the results obtained fromresponses to th e survey. The survey was posted on Survey Monkey Web page and officers wereprovided a link to the Web page and requested to participate.

Question Row many years do you currently have on the department?

Average number of years with the department for the respondents: 7.67 years

Question 2. What is your current age?

Average age of respondents: 34.5 years of age.

Question3

Did you f lnd the RW C was easy to use?

7

____ ________


14/28

o Ye s

Question 4 What activities did y ou fm d that the BW C was the most useful? Check allthat apply

QuestionS When wearing the BWC did it feel comfortable oruncomfortable?

46

5

45

4

35

25

20

32

L

Citizen Encounter Traffic Stop

29

Interaction With Others

5

45

4

35

3

25

20

35

Comfortable

Uncomfortable


15/28


16/28

Question 8 What activities or during what occasions did you find that the W was the leastuseful or problematic?

No Answer or Comment 12

Some responses as follows: z• When using discretion

• Situations where there was no time to think about turning on the camera

• Rain• Struggling with suspect• Foot chase• Getting ou t of car camera pulled off several times

Question 9 W hen d ow n lo ad in g the data at the en d of your shift did you find theprocess?

5

45

35

30

25

20Difficult/Time Consuming Easy/Timely

_____________


17/28

Question 1 Did you have an occasion in which a citizen became aware of the BWC andtheir demeanor changed?

Question 11 Did you feel safer while wearing the BWC?

4 24

4

39 8

39 6

39 4

39 239

39

38 8

38 6

8 4

No Yes

65

6

55

5

45

4

35

3

25

2

15

No

21

Yes

6


18/28

Question 2 Did you find yo u rs l policing differently due to the fact that the interaction f unction o polic ing was being recorded?

Question 3 Police officers have to be willing to cha llenge those they encounterviolat ing the law. Do you feel there w a reduction in level o challengedue to th e body camera being present?

6

55

5

45

35

3

5

55

5

45

35

3

5

9

No Yes

5

No Yes


19/28


20/28

decision the person watching the recording may be critical of the actions taken• YE S GOT IN A FOOT CHASE AN D FOUND MY SELF THINKING ABOUT TURNING

TH E CAMERA ON INSTEAD OF THINKiNG OF T HE TAS K AT HAND HAD TO TAKETIME TO TELL MYSELF T O K EE P DOING WHAT WAS DOING AN D WORRY ABOUTTH E

CAMERALATER. CAN SEE

TH E SAMETHING HAPPENING IN OTHER MORE

SERIOUS INCIDENTS.• Yes officers are clearly less likely to check by . have not been in a situation where

needed back-up and none was present but the opportunity is there for such an incident.• think that it causes officers who realize that they are being recorded to be much slower to

use the necessary amount of force, because they seem to worry about whether or not theyare justified.

• N O. O NLY PERSON EL PRIVACY ISSUES WITH ACCIDENTAL ACTIVATION OFCAMERA.

• yes, there are times when officers should turn the camera off to discuss how theyconducted their investigation which is information that should be kept between officersonly

• NOT FOR ME BECAUSE WILL ALWAYS PUT MY SAFETY FIRST BEFOREWORRYING ABOUT WHETHER THE CAMERA IS ON OR NO T

• Since my primary duty is traffic enforcement, the BW C is in my opinion a major safetyhazard. understand that it c an be a valuable tool by recording the interaction with thepublic on each stop, but it does require me to place myself in harm’s way intend tosecure a good recording angle of the encounter.

• IT KEPT TRYING TO FALL OFF.

Question 15. Were there any occasions in which the BW C malfunctioned failed torecord?

Important question —30 reported equipment malfunction over 70 days.

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

20

is

No Yes

9


21/28

Question 6 Were there any occasions in which the BW C malfunctioned failed to

record?

26 officers reported anl ‘Verbatim


22/28


23/28

Question 2 Overall how do you ra te y our BWC experience?

5

5 5

5

45

4

3 5

2 5

2

5

No

Y e s


24/28

35

Positive v Unacceptable

71

7

Question 21. What parts of the BWC policy should be changed added or deleted pleaseexplain? Responses are Verbatim.

• TACTICAL UNITS THAT FREQUENTLY USE OU R WRITTEN TACTICS SHOULD NO TBE RECORDED TO KEEP OUR TACTICS FROM TH E CRIMINALS WE PURSUE

• Only for report calls and traffic only• the camera is just another tool officers will have to be accustom to• GIVING OFFICERS TH E OPTION TO DOWNLOAD VIDEO AT TH E START OR

TOWARD TH E EN D OF SHIFT.

3

25

20

15

10

5

0

7

Somewhat Posftive Unacceptableery Postive Positive

80

70

6

50

40

20

10

Postive Unacceptable


25/28


26/28

• two of ficer s ha v e a ca mer a in the sam e c ar bo th shou ldn’ t h ave to au to ma tica ll y tu rn iton

• f e el the BWC w ou l d be u sefu l for o ffice rs w ho are on pe rson nel c onc e rns O r in se lec tsit u atio n s tha t an in d iv idu al of fic e r m ay u se at h is lhe r own d isc re tio n O th er th an tha ts ee th e en tir e p rog ram as a wa s te o f ou r b ud ge t a nd on ly an effort to ap p ear a s if w e aretrying to k eep u p with te chn o log y

• think un d erc o ver un its like tac tical un its shou ld n ot hav e to we a r th e c am e ras h aveonly w orn my c ame ra tw ic e

th in k th at the policy is a deq u ate from w hat have see n so fa r with the ca mer a H ave no t had a s itua tion w he re n eed e d to q u es tio n th e po licyOF FIC ERS S H OU LD NOT BE R EQ U IR E D TO TURN iT ON AT ALL TIMES DUR INGCITIZEN E N CO U N T ER O FF IC E R S ARE HUMANS AND MAKE MISTAK ES S WELLS O M ET I ME S WE F OR GET TO TURN THEM ON WHEN WE RE M E M E R A F TE RTHE FA CT O F FIC ERS F E EL S IF TH EY ARE GOING TO GE T BURNED F O R NOTTURNING IT ON

In stre ssfu l suc h as co de arr ival it can b e e asy to forget to turn it on Ifthis ha p pe n s th e situ tion n e ed s to be con side red be fore pun ish m en t han d ed out As isthe officer se e ms to b e t the m er y of the ir su pe rvis or

• G oo d tact ics sho u ld al w ay s tak e p re ce d enc e o ver t i v t the ca mer a

• T T HI N K T H E POLICY IS S O U N D S O F NOW BELIEVE THE OF FIC ER SH O U L DME GIVEN M O RE D ISC R ET ION ON WHEN TO US E IT

• don t s e e up to da te anyth ing tha t s hou ld be c h ang e d ab out th e po licy• DWI TF shou ld not be req ui re d to w ear it Most our int er act io ns o ccu r in front of ou r

shops w her e w e al re ad y ha v e da sh ca m s a nd mics BWC ou r GR EAT wh en w e hav e tointerview su sp e cts a t the hosp ital

• OFFICER SAFETY SHOULD TAKE PRIORIT Y O VER VIDEO RECORDING THER E

SHOULD NEVER BE ANY KIND OF PUNiSHMENT FOR FA ILURE TO TURN IT ONO R OF F • U pl oa di ng at th e e n d of th e w ee k w oul d b e m or e con ven ient• don’t th ink ev er y enc oun ter we sh ould ha ve to turn the ca mer a on Th ere is no n ee d for

a video of m e on barking dog sce n e things es c ala te can th en turn it on • in o rd er to po siti on th e c a me ra a t an opt imum lev el

f the

Additionally three d iffe ren t group debrief ings were held with officers who p r ti ip ted in the 7day trial pe riod below are comments r e remarks collected during the meetings

Safe ty

Question A ny concerns that the camera caused a safety issue No

Camera on occasions p erceived as a distraction from their pr imar y focus

DNtractlon whe n thinking about turrn n a md on

• only t ur n on du ring arr es ts


27/28

Distraction when it com es off ac c ide n tly u nclipped and efforts r made to retrieve so thatofficer ca n com ply with pol icy on use.

ehav ioral ha nge

Behavior altered their position to capture video of encounter.

R e pr od uc tio n

16


28/28

om p lain ts O n O ffi cer

Officer arrested female suspect who tiled a complaint on the officer Vi deo reflected officer’sversion and complaint was found not sustained

Complain t c ame in on officer complaint alleged officer was abusive and unp rofessionalAudio indicated that officer was no t a busive and unprofessional

vid enc e o f rime

Officer arrested suspect for A ggravated Robbery Mirandized suspect and received confessionCollected on BWC

Video documents consent to search “M ay look in the trunk ’ “Yes” captured by BWC

O the r Is sue s

Fo rgetting to turn of f Capturing personal comments

Officer gets in trouble for im proper conduct not alleged that was discovered in video

Officers not wearing BWC not wanting officers with BWC at their scene

u es te

body cameras report

Documents