law enf psych paper
TRANSCRIPT
2
Abstract
Studies of body worn cameras are shown to decrease undesirable law enforcement behavior;
other studies say they may give rise to concerns of over-deterrence, privacy, and resistance in law
enforcement. Currently, there is a desire for a new policy requiring all law enforcement to wear
body cameras. This paper begins with a review of the brief studies that have been conducted on
body-worn cameras to show the possible benefits of implementing body-worn cameras.
Concerns of over-deterrence, privacy, and resistance are explored. Some recommendations are
discussed.
Keywords: Law enforcement, police officers, body-worn cameras, surveillance,
overdeterrence, privacy, resistance
3
Imagine hearing a story on your local televised news about a police officer shooting at an
unarmed individual. The only witnesses are the officer and the dead citizen. In some situations,
a phone camera recording is taken. In the news, this has been a reality. Police Officers are
supposed to protect us from the evils of society, not become the evil we fear. In the past decade,
there have been numerous, heavily broadcasted U.S. News stories related to police brutality.
Most often, these are hate crimes targeted at race and/or sexuality. Other times, it is a lack of
mental health training. These types of crimes are nothing new, but the mystery of it all is, why is
it still happening.
One of the most publicized events has been the shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson,
Missouri police officer, Darren Wilson. Brown was unarmed, yet shot at twelve times. The
police officer was not convicted. The results of Darren Willson’s trial upset many all over the
nation. This case brought unrest to Ferguson, including protests, riots, and more violence. It
sparked the infamous saying “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” in protests around the United States. It’s
cases like these that have brought on a heavy critique of police behavior and unnecessary use of
police force. Law enforcement is under more scrutiny, than maybe ever before. One way that
citizens, and some political figures, think tension, between law enforcement and the community,
may be resolved is through excessive transparency. That is one policy recommendation would
be body-worn cameras that would allow for police officers’ every move to be documented. That
includes their lunch breaks. That even includes the private residences and cars that police
4
encounter on a normal day. More and more large agencies are adopting this technology, and
many citizens are demanding that their cities do the same (Roy, 2014).
Policing has seen much technological advancement such as GPS monitoring, in-car
cameras, and closed circuit television cameras (Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014). Body-worn
cameras may be next. Body-worn cameras are exactly as they sound. Officers would be
required to wear a camera on their uniform, hat or maybe even eye wear (Witherspoon, 2014).
Although much research has not been done, there is some research that supports the
benefits of body-worn cameras on law enforcement. Amongst these benefits is a decrease in the
use of force, as well as a decrease in citizen’s complaints (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland, 2014).
Furthermore, Harris suggests that body-worn cameras will increase fourth amendment
compliance (2010). Body-worn cameras not only provide such benefits for citizens, but also for
law enforcement officers. Coppola (2010) argues that these cameras will reduce liability and
improve police safety. Police departments in Erlanger, Kentucky and Lafayette, Colorado have
listed financial reasons as the primary reason for switching over to body-worn cameras from in-
car cameras (Coppola, 2010). Body-worn cameras seem to be a more affordable option than in
car cameras. Furthermore, much of social psychology research suggests that individuals will
behave differently when they know they are being watched. The benefits of body-worn cameras
are numerous, but one thing that is not mentioned much, in media or published studies, is the
possible issues that may come from instituting body-worn cameras. The purpose of this paper is
to explore the possible concerns of body-worn cameras. Although studies of body worn cameras
5
are shown to decrease undesirable law enforcement behavior, other studies say it may give rise to
concerns of over-deterrence, privacy, and resistance in law enforcement.
Literature Review
For the past 60 years, video recording has helped both police officers and citizens hold
one another accountable. The use of video surveillance in policing dates back to the 1950s,
when cameras were first used at traffic lights (Roy, 2014). Over time, more advanced
technology has been introduced. We are currently in an era in which body-worn cameras may be
the next step. With camera phones already catching many officers in the wrong, police may need
their own recording device. Body-worn cameras would provide a unique view at law
enforcement interactions with the community. It would show a recording, from beginning to
end, of an interaction between law enforcement and the community. It would give us a view
from an officer’s perspective. In the United States, only three studies have examined the effects
of body-worn cameras. This lack of research could be due to a very recent call for body-worn
cameras in the United States.
However, there is other research that may assist in predicting the effects of body-worn
cameras. Much research has shown that when humans know that they are being watched, they
alter their behavior. Several experiments in Social Psychology have uncovered a likeliness to
avoid negative outcomes or react in ways that are more socially acceptable, when even the
slightest cues of being watched are present. Bateson, Nettle and Roberts conducted one example
of such a study in 2006. This study provides evidence that being watched dramatically increases
6
cooperative behavior to the public good. One explanation, offered by the authors, is that
reputational concerns motivate cooperative behavior.
The explanation offered by Bateson et al. (2006) may also be used to explain behavior of
law enforcement when cameras are nearby. So far, most evidence on how cameras deter socially
undesirable behavior has been focused on closed circuit televisions (CCTV), speed cameras and
in-car cameras. These different forms of video recording have helped to monitor, record and
hold accountable both police officers and citizens’ behavior. In-car cameras are the first to be
adopted by police in the United States (Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014). CCTVs cause a 16%
decrease in crime, but not in serious or violent crimes; Speed cameras cause a 65% reduction in
speeding (Farrar & Ariel, 2015). Although very novel in application, body-worn cameras may
also have similar benefits of reducing crime.
British police officers were the first to show an interest in body-worn cameras (Harris,
2010). They used head cameras tested on 300 officers for a 17-month period. This study
discovered a few major benefits for police officers: quicker detailed records, quicker resolutions,
easier prosecutions, and a reduction in public offenses. These benefits would help community
relations in the United States. Harris (2010) suggests that a further benefit would be compliance
with the fourth amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures). This could
be true as officers that participated in the Britain study did report an increase in their own
professionalism and performance as a result of the cameras.
The few studies conducted in the United States yield similar findings. Within one month
of Michael Brown’s death by a police officer, fifty body-worn cameras were issued to Ferguson’s
7
officers through donation from a private company. This may be the the start of better
community relations. More than a dozen other U.S. cities have announced similar plans. “Law
often results from moral panic” (Wasserman, 2014). Equipping officers with body cameras is
one policy that has emerged due to the panic of the general public. It is important to review the
research before implementing a new policy.
How officers will perceive body-worn cameras is one significant factor to consider.
Jennings et al. (2014) examined officers’ perceptions of body-worn cameras in Orlando, Florida.
Much like the officers in Britain, these officers are also open to and supportive of body-worn
cameras. Most police officers reported that they predict body-worn cameras will bear benefits
including improving citizens’, their own, and fellow officers’ behavior. This reporting is much
like the reporting of the officers in the Britain study.
Further research suggest that police officer perception of body-worn cameras may depend
on whether or not they are required to wear body-worn cameras (Roy, 2014). Although data
from the Mesa Police Department, in Mesa, Arizona, showed many differences between
volunteer body-worn camera officers and mandatory body-worn camera officers, there were
three that were most significant. The mandatory assigned group was more likely to give verbal
warning and arrest suspects than the volunteer group. The volunteer group, on the other hand,
was twice as likely to issue citations.
The first randomized control trial using body-worn cameras was conducted in Rialto,
California across a 12 month observation period (Ariel et al., 2014). In this study, officers were
randomly assigned to experimental shifts, in which they wore body-cameras. The findings of
8
Ariel et al. (2014) suggest that body-worn cameras decrease both the use of police force and the
number of complaints filed against officers.
Wasserman (2014) also used data from Mesa, Arizona to explain the difference between
camera-equipped officers and non-camera equipped officers. Three major findings were made.
Camera equipped officers (1) made fewer stop-and-frisks and fewer arrests, (2) gave more tickets
and citations, (3) were more likely to initiate contact with citizens (Wasserman, 2014).
Wasserman (2014) also presented results from a Rialto, California study that showed camera-
equipped officers were less likely to use weapons or initiate physical contact. A reduction in
citizen’s complaints and use-of-force incidents was also observed.
Evidence from these studies provide a compelling argument as to why body-worn
cameras are very beneficial and could assist in improving community relations with its’ policing
officers. Despite evidence from the studies above, information from these studies are limited to
small cities. Thus the benefits may be limited. Body-worn cameras will require financial and
diligent commitment in order to effectively work. Although, we are in a state of moral panic, as
a result of current police events, it is important to gain an understanding of the negatives that
may happen if we instill this policy of mandatory body-worn cameras. This paper will
contribute to the existing literature by providing one of the first critiques of existing literature, as
well as exposing some of the downsides of requiring all officers to have on body-worn cameras.
Over-Deterrence
One issue of body-worn cameras is the over-deterrence that may occur. The deterrence
theory relies heavily on the early findings of social psychology, mentioned above. The
9
deterrence theory relies on how self-awareness of being watched leads to socially desirable
behaviors (Ariel, 2014; Farrar, 2013). It is not yet determined if being watched produces
cooperative behavior or deters non-compliant behavior. Proponents of body-worn cameras may
not care, just as long as police officers are doing the “right” thing, and are held accountable when
they do not.
Deterrence sounds great, and to some it could be the greatest benefit of body-worn
cameras. However, this transparency can lead to an unintended negative consequence. Over-
deterrence is likely to result from body-worn cameras. Studies from Arizona, California and
Florida pointed out compliance as a benefit, but did not address what happens when a law
enforcement officer is too compliant.
When someone adheres to the rules too closely, it is known as over-deterrence. Ethan
Bernstein, an organization-behavior scholar, says that when employees are being watched, they
will only do what is expected of them (2014). Furthermore, Bernstein (2014) states that
excessive transparency stifles creativity and productivity. In other words, innovative behavior
will decrease as the use of body-worn cameras is increased.
Law enforcement needs this creativity and innovative behavior to handle different
situations. No two instances are the same, and often times it is their judgment from experience
that successfully diffuses a situation. Over-deterrence in policing mean a major decrease in the
educated risk taking and problem solving that can save lives. A decrease in productivity was
seen in the Arizona study. One difference mentioned was that camera-equipped officers were
less likely to even respond to dispatched call than those without cameras (Wasserman, 2014).
10
Mary Erpenbach (2008) asserts that with an abundance of video recordings, officers are second-
guessing themselves. Second-guessing one’s self and hesitating, could get an officer killed.
Citizens want officers to follow the rules, but we also need them to be confident in their work.
Body-worn cameras may hinder this ability and confidence.
Privacy
Another concern of body-worn cameras is the invasion of privacy (White, 2014). Much
resistance to body-worn cameras stem from legal issues regarding privacy rights and the
expectation of privacy, especially inside one’s residence (Draisin, 2011). Proponents of body-
worn cameras suggest that protecting privacy is what instilling this new policy will do. Harris
(2010) says that body-worn cameras will increase fourth amendment compliance. Illegal search
and seizures do happen too often, and body-worn cameras may prevent it from happening.
However, the threats to privacy are a much bigger concern.
Without a framework put in place to ensure that body-worn cameras will not become yet
another form of surveillance for the public, privacy risks will always be a major concern that
may overweigh the benefits of such a system (Stanley, 2013). No one wants to be monitored
constantly. Privacy is at the foundation of our government. Most states have laws put in place
to block warrantless capturing of photo or video images of people when they have an expectation
of privacy (White, 2014). It may be significant to note that body-worn cameras will also capture
those who are not suspects. Privacy is of concern to everyone in not only their homes, but also
their workplaces.
11
Continuous and over excessive surveillance has some psychological effects on police
officers. Surveillance and monitoring are major stress factors for employees that often lead to
anxiety (Botan & Vorvoreanu, 2005). Stanley (2013) suggests that law enforcement is not
exempt from this effect, as they too are stressed and anxious about constant surveillance. Police
officers encounter so much stress on their jobs. Adding an additional stressor may not be
healthy for them. Organizational changes are one factor of stress (Botan & Vorvoreanu, 2005).
An additional stressor could stifle their ability to perform their job effectively. Police unions
have even resisted the use of body-worn cameras because of privacy concerns (Hoss, 2012).
Witherspoon (2014) suggests that other officers in Missouri are resistance to body-worn cameras,
because of their privacy concerns.
Resistance
Resistance from police officers is not something that would benefit society. By
implementing body-worn cameras when officers are resistant, we create more issues in
community relations. Officers who resist body-worn cameras are less likely to be as effective as
those who want to wear they body worn cameras. Earlier in this paper, we examined the
differences between those who are required to be camera-equipped and those who volunteered to
do so (Roy, 2014; Wasserman, 2014). These differences may also be observed between officers
who happily adopt the new policy and those who are resistant to the new policy. Research cited
by proponents of body-worn cameras point out many benefits of officers and citizens, but they
fail to explore the effects of resistance on the new policy. Ignoring officers’ concerns could
12
make all the difference in whether or not body-worn cameras work effectively. More research is
needed to examine the effect of resistance on officers.
Conclusion
Policing is no stranger to technological advances, including speed cameras, GPS tracking
closed circuit televisions, and car cameras. Body-worn cameras may be the next step for law
enforcement. The purpose of this paper was not to argue against body-worn cameras. As
mentioned in the literary review, as well as the introduction, body-worn cameras yield a unique
perspective and many benefits for society and community relations. Body-worn cameras will do
a better job at holding irrational officers accountable, as well as holding irrational citizens
accountable for their actions.
The purpose of this paper was to introduce an unexplored perspective of body-worn
cameras, including its psychological effects on police officers. Body-worn cameras are not all
good. There are some negative effects of body-worn cameras. These concerns should be
considered before moral panic leads us to make sudden policy changes that may yield more
negative than positive.
Studies of body-worn cameras are shown to decrease undesirable law enforcement
behavior, but they also give rise to other concerns. It is inevitable that body-worn cameras will
eventually be implemented everywhere. However, it is recommended that efforts be made to
address concerns of over-deterrence, privacy, and resistance in law enforcement before
implementing body-worn cameras. It is also the recommendation that more attempts be made to
research the effects of the concerns addressed in this paper.
13
References
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2014). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use
of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, , 1-27.
In this article, Ariel et al., conducted a study in Rialto California on the effect of body-
worn cameras. This study provides more benefits of body-worn cameras. This article also
explains the deterrence theory, useful in the over-deterrence section of this paper.
Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a
real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2(3), 412-414. doi:652W0277316J5V42 [pii]
This study explained what Social Psychology has been saying all along about being
watched. This study is a more recent experiment that shows the relevance of this theory.
This study was useful at providing a prediction on the benefits of body-worn cameras.
Botan, C., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2005). What do employees think about electronic surveillance at
work? (pp. 123-144). Melbourne: Idea Group Publishing.
This paper is not directly related to body-worn cameras. However, these organizational
psychologists explain what constant surveillance does to employees. This paper was
useful at providing supporting evidence about the invasion of privacy.
Coppola, M. (2010). Officer-worn cameras expand point of view. TechBeat Dated, , 6.
This article provided a background about body-worn cameras. It explains the benefits of
body-worn cameras and other forms of police surveillance. This article was useful at
providing further evidence on the benefits of body-worn cameras.
Draisin, L. (2011). Police technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and body worn cameras.
14
This article provided an in depth analysis of body-worn cameras. This article was useful
at providing a clear overview of body-worn cameras’ benefits, studies and possible issues
with them.
Erpenbach, M. (2008). The whole world is watching: Camera phones put law enforcement under
surveillance. Law Enforcement Technology, , 40-41.
This article was one of the first to publish concerns with constant surveillance.
Erpenbach’s focus of this article was on camera phones, and how this may be an
impediment to police work. The author explains how surveillance works for and against
law enforcement. This article was beneficial to providing insight on how officers feel
about surveillance.
Farrar, W., & Ariel, B. (2013). Self-awareness to being watched and socially-desirable behavior:
A field experiment on the effect of body-worn cameras and police use-of-force.
Washington, DC: Police Foundation,
This study was conducted in California. It’s results provided even more benefits of body-
worn cameras in another city. This study also provided more information on the
deterrence theory and self-awareness effect.
Harris, D. A. (2010). Is the exclusionary rule a good way of enforcing fourth amendment
values?: Picture this: Body-worn video devices (head cams) as tools for ensuring fourth
amendment compliance by police. Tex.Tech L.Rev., 43, 357-1319.
This article focuses on body-worn cameras in Britain. It mentions the benefits that came
from the study, as well as legal implications for the fourth amendment. This article was
useful at providing a unique perspective of what’s happening overseas.
15
Hoss, C. W. (2012). The future of police body worn technology how cameras, sensors and
uniforms may save lives.
This article discusses more benefits of body-worn cameras. It highlights the importance
of privacy issues and having officers on board with the new policy. This article was
useful at supporting this paper’s argument about privacy concerns.
Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., & Lynch, M. D. (2014). Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions
of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6),
549-556.
This study was on the perception of officers in Florida on body-worn cameras. It shows
that officers are generally supportive. This article was useful in looking at police
perception in a specific city.
Roy, A. (2014). On-‐Officer Video Cameras: Examining the Effects of Police Department Policy
and Assignment on Camera use and Activation,
This article looked at differences between police officers required to wear body worn
cameras and those who volunteered. This article was useful at predicting outcomes
should officers be required to wear new body-worn cameras.
Stanley, J. (2013). Police body-mounted cameras: With right policies in place, a win for all. New
York: ACLU,
Stanley examines the privacy issues of body-worn cameras on police officers. He
explains that although privacy is a concern, everyone wins. This article was beneficial to
supporting the privacy concerns of this paper.
16
Wasserman, H. M. (2014). Moral panics and body cameras. Wash.UL Rev.Commentaries
(Nov.18, 2014), , 14-31.
This paper provided detailed background on police surveillance and body-worn cameras.
It looked at the U.S. Studies and discussed their benefits. This article also brings up it’s own
concerns for implementing body-worn cameras. This article was useful in both background own
body-worn cameras, as well as supporting the over-deterrence section of this paper.
White, M. D., Booz Allen Hamilton, & United States of America. (2014). Police officer body-
worn cameras: Assessing the evidence.
This is an all around assessment of body-worn cameras including studies, benefits and
concerns of body-worn cameras. This article was useful throughout the entire paper. It
gives a different understanding of some studies.
Witherspoon, P. (2014). Police body cameras in Missouri: Good or bad policy? an academic
viewpoint seen through the lens of a former law enforcement official. An Academic
Viewpoint seen through the Lens of a Former Law Enforcement Official (December 2,
2014), (2)
Witherspoon used to work with law enforcement. This article provides a unique
perspective of police officers. This is the only article written by an officer about body-
worn cameras. It supports some of the concerns of this paper.