police technology an analysis of in car cameras and body worn cameras lillian draisin spring 2011

2011

Lilian Draisin

University of Central Florida, Public

Administration Department, PAD 6062

4/1/2011

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and body worn

cameras

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and body worn cameras

2011

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3

Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................... 5

History of Camera Use .................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 9

Review of Literature ...................................................................................................... 11

Why use cameras at all? ............................................................................................ 11

Best Practices ............................................................................................................... 15

What are other agencies doing? ................................................................................ 15

Comparison Analysis & Issues ...................................................................................... 22

What are the implementation issues? ..................................................................... 22

Legal Issues ............................................................................................................... 22

Equipment Type and Cost Analysis ........................................................................... 23

Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................... 28

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 36

References .................................................................................................................... 37


2011

3 | P a g e

Executive Summary

At the request of the Chief of Police for the Orlando Police Department (OPD) a study

was conducted on the use of in-car cameras and body worn cameras for law

enforcement use. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Orlando Police

Department should invest in camera systems for officers, either in-car cameras or body

worn cameras; and if so, which camera system is most suitable for the agency. The

study focused on the history of camera use, what other agencies are doing, current

literature, and analyzed camera equipment and cost. The following research questions

were answered by the study: 1) Why use cameras at all? 2) What are other agencies

doing? 3) What are the implementation issues? 4) Which camera type(s) is most useful

for OPD’s needs?

The study described the challenges that the agency is facing that could be abated by

camera use; driving under the influence (DUI) and violence against officers. It also

looked at literature that described issues of officer safety, professionalism, and training

as they relate to the use of camera technology. A review of other agencies determined

that while many agencies nationwide, statewide, and locally use in-car cameras, very

few have implemented the new body worn cameras. Legal issues such as rights of

privacy are explored and determined to be a non-issue, in accordance with state law.

However, no known case law regarding the body worn cameras was found. Several

different types of body worn cameras were analyzed and compared to the in-car

cameras.


2011

4 | P a g e

The result of the study concluded with the recommendation that the Orlando Police

Department proceed with the implementation of cameras for officers. However, due to

several factors, such as; cost, legality issues with body cameras, lack of evaluation of

new technology, and officer acceptance, the most effective and efficient approach is a

mixed-technology and multi-phase approach; using both types of camera systems for

different purposes. This approach would implement a camera technology project in

multiple phases, allowing for further equipment testing, evaluation, and leveraging of

funding sources. It is also recommended that the agency publish a policy directly related

to in-car and body worn cameras. Proper training on this policy and on the equipment is

also recommended, as well as ensuring that a thorough logistics plan is in place prior to

implementation. All of these recommendations will ensure the agency proceeds with a

project that is effective, efficient, and maintains the agency’s and officer’s integrity.


2011

5 | P a g e

Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Orlando Police Department (OPD) should implement the use

of camera technology through a mixed technology and multi-year (phased) approach.

Recommendation 2: In-Car cameras should be standard equipment for all marked

patrol vehicles and all unmarked vehicles whose primary duties include traffic

enforcement or drug enforcement.

Recommendation 3: Body worn cameras should be standard equipment for all officers

in units that have high instances of citizen contact and self-initiated calls.

Recommendation 4: OPD should purchase the lapel style body worn cameras.

Recommendation 5: OPD should only purchase camera technology that includes

software from the vendor that can be managed by OPD.

Recommendation 6: OPD should develop policies and procedures for camera

technology and ensure these policies and procedures are in place, prior to camera use.

Recommendation 7: OPD should ensure that all personnel are properly trained on the

use of the cameras as well as the policies and procedures addressing camera use.

Recommendation 8: OPD should develop a logistics plan prior to project

implementation.

Recommendation 9: OPD should evaluate each phase of the implementation plan in

order to ensure the projects efficiency and effectiveness.


2011

6 | P a g e

History of Camera Use

The initiative to outfit police vehicles with cameras began in 1980, when Mothers

Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) was formed. MADD brought great awareness to the

problem of driving under the influence (DUI) and police departments began installing

cameras in vehicles to document DUI stops and arrests. The video from DUI stops

provides the necessary evidence for the conviction of drunk drivers. From there, the in-

car cameras were used in the 1990’s not only for DUI’s, but for drug arrests. It was

during this time that America’s “war on drugs” began (International Association of Chiefs

of Police [IACP], 2004, p 5). In-car cameras were able to provide juries with video

evidence of traffic stops, consent to search, and the drug evidence found during the

stop; conviction rates soared (IACP, 2004, p.5).

In the late 1990’s racial bias/ racial profiling was the major issue facing police. Police

officers across the country found themselves being investigated for racial profiling

(IACP, 2004, p.5). Police agencies throughout the United States were inundated with

lawsuits “alleging race-based traffic stops” (IACP, 2004, p.5). In some cases, the courts

determined that racial profiling did occur and this enhanced the public’s perception of

racial profiling by police. Public confidence in law enforcement declined (Westphal,

2004). Also during this same time, incidents of violence against the police rose

dramatically (IACP, 2004, p.5). Due to the issue of racial profiling, the Federal

government began to require that all traffic stops be documented. In-car cameras

became even more common amongst law enforcement agencies as a means to

document stops and dispute claims of racial profiling (IACP, 2004, p.5).


2011

7 | P a g e

Still today, in-car cameras are most prominent in state agencies; state police and

highway patrol. These agencies mostly work traffic related incidents. As of 2004, it was

estimated that 72% of all state police and highway patrol vehicles were equipped with

in-car camera systems. As of 2004, there were over 17,500 cameras in state police

vehicles nationwide. Advances in technology and grant programs continue to increase

the use of in-car camera use in state agencies as well as local law enforcement

agencies (IACP, 2004, p. 6). More recently, new technology has been introduced that

allows officers to wear cameras on their person, enhancing the potential capabilities of

camera use.


2011

8 | P a g e

Introduction The City of Orlando currently has 228,765 residents (Florida League of Cities, 2011).

The Orlando Police Department currently has an authorized strength of 743 sworn

personnel. This includes 622 officers, 78 sergeants, 29 lieutenants, 9 captains, 4 deputy

chiefs and 1 chief of police (Orlando Police Department, 2010). The traffic units and first

responders are most likely to use camera systems; units that respond to calls for

service, conduct self-initiated citizen contacts, and traffic related calls. These units or

sections include the Traffic Enforcement Section, The Uniform Drug Enforcement

Section, the Patrol Services Bureau, the K-9 Unit and the Community Policing Section,

Downtown Bikes and Parramore Heritage Bikes. The Traffic Enforcement Section has a

staffing of 20 officers and 3 supervisors. The Uniform Drug Enforcement Section has 16

officers and 2 supervisors. The Patrol Services Bureau has 399 sworn personnel

assigned. The K-9 Unit has 11 officers and 2 supervisors, and the Community Policing

Section, Downtown Bikes and Parramore Heritage Bikes, has 35 officers and 4

supervisors. This is a total of 492 members that are most likely to benefit from the use

of cameras, either in-car cameras or body worn cameras (Orlando Police Department,

2010).

The purpose of this study is to determine if the Orlando Police Department should invest

in camera systems for officers, either in-car cameras or body worn cameras; and if so,

which camera system is most suitable for the agency. This research study focuses on

the history of camera use, an analysis of what other compatible agencies are doing,


2011

9 | P a g e

current literature, a review of the camera equipment, and provides a recommendation

on camera use for the agency. This study will answer the following research questions:

1) Why use cameras at all? 2) What are other agencies doing? 3) What are the

implementation issues? 4) Which camera type(s) is most useful for OPD’s needs?

Statement of the Problem The City of Orlando has been faced with a rising DUI problem. As compared to other

large cities in Florida, Orlando was ranked number one for DUI related deaths. From

2007 to 2010, there were 55 traffic fatalities and more than 2,300 DUI traffic citations

issued (Orlando Police Department, 2011). The Orlando Police Department realizes the

seriousness of this problem and has implemented countermeasures to combat the

problem. The agency has a small group of officers (6), on patrol, that drive aggressive

driving vehicles. These vehicles were provided to the agency through a grant. In

addition, the agency is currently developing a DUI Enforcement Team. This team of 8

officers and 1 supervisor will focus on DUI’s and other traffic violations. OPD is

considering in-car cameras for these vehicles (Orlando Police Department, 2011 April).

Currently, the Orlando Police Department has in-car cameras installed in 4 unmarked

patrol vehicles, 2 marked patrol vehicles and 11 Drug Enforcement Division (DED)

vehicles. The patrol vehicles equipped with in-car cameras are installed in vehicles that

look for aggressive drivers and drivers that may be under the influence (Officer B.

Cechowski, personal communication, April 5, 2011). The DED in-car cameras are used

to record drug stops (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication, February 3,


2011

10 | P a g e

2011). These cameras were funded through a grant project (Officer B. Cechowski,

personal communication, April 5, 2011). The agency is currently testing 6 body worn

cameras from 2 different vendors. Currently, no other officers, except the test subjects,

are assigned body worn cameras (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication,

February 3, 2011).

The Orlando Police Department is faced with another challenge. Although in the past

few years a majority of violent crime in the City has been on the decline, violence

against officers continues to be a problem. Between 2007 and 2010, OPD officers had

to use force 2,434 times (Sergeant T. Woodhall, personal communication, April 8,

2011); OPD officers used deadly force 21 times (Orlando Police Department, December

2010). The use of force may involve the use of the Taser, take downs, strikes, impact

weapons, chemical agents, K-9’s, and stop sticks. In 2010 alone, 135 officers were

battered, with 60 reporting injury (Sergeant T. Woodhall, personal communication, April

8, 2011).


2011

11 | P a g e

Review of Literature

Why use cameras at all?

In 2002, the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office worked with the

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to complete an 18 month evaluation

on the use of in-car video cameras by state agencies that the COPS Office provided

funding to. This was a two part study focusing on process and impact (IACP, 2004, p.1).

The impact of the “value of cameras on the agencies” is most relevant (IACP, 2004,

p.2). The impact evaluation determined that the use of the in-car cameras had a

dramatic positive impact on the agencies. The researchers conducted surveys, worked

with research groups, and completed interviews of 21 state agencies, including the

Florida Highway Patrol (IACP, 2004, p.1). This process measured the impact of in-car

cameras on issues such as: officer safety, officer professionalism/perception, liability,

training, policy, leadership and the judicial process (IACP, 2004, p.2). Most agencies

provide three of these issues as reasons why they have implemented camera

programs: officer safety, professionalism/perception, and training.

Officer Safety: The COPS Office study discussed a major problem for law enforcement,

officer safety. Officers are frequently being assaulted and involved in traffic accidents

while on duty (IACP, 2004. P.13). Even worse, the instances of officer on-duty deaths

have risen dramatically in recent years. Last year, on-duty deaths rose by 26%

nationwide; 49 officers were shot to death in 2009 and 61 in 2010. Thus far this year,

the death rate statistics are even more devastating. Within one 24-hour time period in

January, 11 officers were shot nationwide. Eleven more officers were killed by gunfire in


2011

12 | P a g e

February 2011, “doubling the national trend of each of the previous years of the last

decade” (Fredricks, 2011). In 2010, Florida saw nine officers killed in the line of duty.

Four of these deaths were from automobile accidents, one officer was struck by a

vehicle, and four were shot to death. Just this year alone, (January –April 2011) 55

officers have died nationwide, 10 officers died in the line of duty in Florida. Six of these

officers were shot to death, while one died from an automobile accident, and three died

from natural work-related causes (heart attack and bacterial infection) (Officer Down

Memorial Page, 2011). After the tragic death of Orange County Deputy, Brandon

Coates, a local news channel said, “cameras may have provided objective insight into

the roadside shooting that killed Deputy Brandon Coates” (WESH, 2011). Another local

tragedy occurred in Tampa in June of 2010 that shows the value of camera use.

Officers Curtis and Kocab were murdered while they were conducting a traffic stop.

Officer Curtis’ video system recorded the tragic event. The system recorded video and

audio of the suspects and provided identification information received during the stop.

This video assisted in the capture of the suspects (Fredricks, 2011).

Professionalism/ Public Perception: Proponents and vendors of the body worn cameras

propose that the use of video would “improve police accountability, reduce complaints of

police misconduct, and save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs”

(Howland, 2011). The vendors argue that the body worn cameras would reduce the

number of complaints against officers for misconduct, and it would save the city money

related to court costs and overtime costs for officers who have to appear in court for

these cases (Howland, 2011). Out of the prosecutors who were surveyed in the COPS


2011

13 | P a g e

study, 91% of them stated that they used the video recording in court. They also stated

having the video dramatically reduced court time and expenses (IACP, 2004. p.22).

The COPS study also found that the cameras improved the officer’s ability to respond to

complaints regarding their professionalism. The cameras also cleared officers of any

wrong doing in internal investigations. Within the agencies studied, only 5% of complaint

cases were sustained, due to the recorded evidence (IACP, 2004. p.22). Video

evidence reduced the number of complaints and reduced the amount of time spent on

internal investigations. The internal affairs sections realized that the majority of the

complaints were handled at the supervisory level, which lead to the reduction (IACP,

2004. p.22).

In 2010, a Duluth, Minnesota officer was cleared of wrongdoing after he shot a 17 year

old. His video showed the suspect hitting and smashing the officer’s driver’s side patrol

car window with a baseball bat while the officer was in the vehicle. The video also

showed the teen failing to respond to the commands of the officer to put down the

weapon (bat). This case is one that again depicts the value of video, protecting officers

from false claims of misconduct (Orlando Sentinel, 2011).

The COPS evaluation concluded that the number one reason for cameras is to “collect

evidence for trial; to protect officer from false accusation” (IACP, 2004, p.16). However,

the second purpose for camera usage, as determined by these officers was to monitor

their performance (IACP, 2004, p.16). Community perspective is also an area looked at


2011

14 | P a g e

through this evaluation. Public forums were held in 12 states, in addition, 900 citizens

from 18 states responded to surveys. The result was that 94% of citizens supported the

use of in-car cameras and 71% said they thought the public should be informed when

they are being videotaped (IACP, 2004, p.16). In addition, 51% said that they would

change their behavior if they were being videotaped (IACP, 2004, p.16). Overall, the

IACP evaluation determined that the in-car camera programs had a “tremendous impact

on advancing technology for the state police and highway patrol agencies” (IACP, 2004,

p.28).

Training: The officer survey results from the COPS evaluation showed that only one-

third of the officers actually felt an increase in safety with the use of the cameras.

However, a large majority of officers said in the interviews that they use the cameras as

a training tool and to self-critique. The officers also said that they believed the use of

cameras deescalated confrontational situations, promoting safety. In addition, the more

training the officers received on the system, the more they believed the cameras

improved safety; 77% of the officers interviewed said they never received training on

how to use the cameras. Less than half of the officers said they received training on

laws or departmental policies regarding camera use (IACP, 2004, p.18).


2011

15 | P a g e

Best Practices

What are other agencies doing?

This study compares four other Florida agencies to the Orlando Police Department.

These four agencies are: Tampa Police Department, St. Petersburg Police Department,

Hialeah Police Department, and Ft. Lauderdale Police Department. These agencies

were chosen because they are all Florida municipal law enforcement agencies, they are

the similar in size in, and the city populations are similar (Florida League of Cities,

2011). Each agency was contacted and asked if they used in-car cameras and/or body

worn cameras; if so, how many officers or vehicles were assigned camera units. The

agencies were also asked to provide copies of any policy they have regarding the use of

cameras. The results are depicted in the chart below. None of the agencies reported

using body worn cameras. Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Ft. Lauderdale reported using

in-car cameras for traffic enforcement purposes.

Comparison Analysis of Florida Municipal L.E. Agencies by Population and Agency Size

City City Population # of sworn personnel

In-car camera, if yes # of units

Body worn cameras, if yes,

# of units Tampa 336,264* 977² Yes unknown St. Petersburg 253,369* 540 Yes, 6³ No³ Orlando 228,765* 743º Yes., 22 No Hialeah 228,528* 347¹ No¹ No¹ Ft. Lauderdale 179,971* 511^ 30^ No^ *Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, 2007 ¹Hialeah Police Department ²Tampa Police Department ^Ft. Lauderdale Police Department °Orlando Police Department Organizational Chart ³St. Petersburg Police Department


2011

16 | P a g e

Additionally, a Florida Police Accreditation Coalition (FLA-PAC) request was sent out to

all Florida agencies requesting information and copies of video camera policies, either

in-car or body worn. The Boca Raton Police Department, Ft. Myers Police Department,

Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, Manalapan Police Department, St. Lucie Sheriff’s

Office, Clearwater Police Department and Highlands County Sheriff’s Office responded

with copies of their agency’s policy on in-car cameras. No agency responded with any

information on the use of body worn cameras. Information was gathered on these

agencies for a general comparison. They were not used for analysis because they were

either county agencies and/or they did not have a similar population to Orlando. The

data is for information use only.

Respondents to Florida Agency PAC Request, Informational Data

City/County City Population # of sworn personnel

In-car cameras, if yes

# of units

Body worn cameras, if yes,

# of units Boca Raton 86,445¹ 191 Yes/150 No Ft. Myers 64,674¹ 173² Yes Unknown Brevard County 536,357¹ 501* Yes/20 Yes/2 Manalapan 343¹ 10 Yes/4 No St. Lucie County 266,502¹ 260² Yes Unknown

Clearwater 106,642¹ 248² Yes Unknown Highlands County 98,704¹ 130² Yes Unknown

¹http://www.city-data.com ²FBI http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_78_fl.html *Brevard County Sheriff’s Office

As stated, no policies were provided regarding body worn cameras. However, a review

of the policies from these informational agencies has revealed that the in-car camera

policies are very similar across agencies and are generally used for DUI investigations

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_78_fl.html�


2011

17 | P a g e

and various other traffic related incidents. The major characteristics of these policies

outline when the in-car cameras can be/or are required to be used, what the video

download requirements are, and describe what the limitations are regarding the

recorded data. Most of these policies were created based on accreditation standards.

Many agencies are accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Law

Enforcement (CALEA) and the in-car policy’s are based on CALEA Standard 41.3.8, “In

–Car Audio/Video Recording”(Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement

Agencies, 2011). This is the case for the Boca Raton, St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Ft.

Myers police departments. Other Florida agencies are accredited through The

Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation (CFA); some are accredited

through both agencies. The CFA Standard 22.04 governs the use of cameras and

requires agencies to have directives (Standard Operating Procedures and/or Policies

and Procedures) addressing camera use. The CFA accredited agencies discussed here

include Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, Boca Raton Police Department, Clearwater

Police Department, Ft. Lauderdale Police Department, Highlands County Sheriff’s

Office, St. Petersburg Police Department and the Orlando Police Department (The

Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation, 2011).

Currently, the Orlando Police Department does not have a policy solely dedicated to in-

car cameras or body worn cameras; DED does have a standard operating procedure

(SOP). Video camera use is a also part of the Orlando Police Department’s Policy

1625.4, Use of Electronic Communications Systems (Orlando Police Department, 2010)

and is mentioned as part of the equipment used in the aggressive driving vehicles in


2011

18 | P a g e

Policy 1801.7, Special Purpose Vehicles or Vessels (Orlando Police Department, 2007).

Both policies are geared towards traffic enforcement and DUI.

The Boca Raton Police Department policy requires officers with in-car cameras (150) to

use the in-car video recording system for all vehicle pursuits, all traffic stops, all DUI

investigations, all felony stops, and “all situations when lights and/or sirens are

activated” (Boca Raton Police Department [BRPD], 2000). The officers also have the

option to use the in-car cameras at their discretion in other police situations (BRPD,

2000). Additionally the officer is required to download the video as soon as possible

after the incident and at minimum, at least once every other shift (BRPD, 2000).

Similarly, the Ft. Myers Police Department policy states that the cameras should be

used during all of the same circumstances as the Boca Raton policy, but also includes

field interviews and citizen consensual contacts; this is based off CALEA accreditation

standards. In addition, the Ft. Myers policy states that the camera will activate

automatically as soon as the officer puts on his or her emergency lights; the officer can

also manually activate the camera (Ft. Myers Police Department, 2009). The St. Lucie

County Sheriff’s Office policy states that the purpose is for use during DUI stops only

(St. Lucie County, 2011). In almost all of the policies reviewed, parameters are set up

that require officers to download video within a reasonable time, and state that officers

cannot delete, edit, or alter video.

Other local agencies that did not meet the selected criteria or did not respond to the FL-

PAC request were looked at to see what they were doing regarding camera use. The

Winter Park Police Department has a total of 87 officers, no in-car cameras, or body


2011

19 | P a g e

worn cameras. However, they do use video cameras that are attached to their Tasers.

Winter Park Police Department currently has 50 of these cameras (Sgt. J. Askins,

personal communication, March 31, 2011). Taser International manufactures this

product called the “Taser Cam” and the company states that as of October 2010, “more

than 2,400 law enforcement agencies use the Taser Cam” (Walker, 2010). Lt. Farrell

from the Winter Park Police Department said in an article by the Palm Beach Post that

“it is a good way to protect ourselves from false allegations and provide evidence in

court” and “another reason we use them is to provide the public sense of transparency”

(Pacheco, 2010). These cameras are attached to the actual Taser; the video is

activated as soon as the Taser leaves the officer’s holster and records the incident even

after the Taser prongs are released from the Taser (Pacheco, 2011). However, when

the Taser is not engaged, no video is recorded.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office has more than 1,300 vehicles. However, there are

only 8 cars with in-car cameras. Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings and Mayor

Teresa Jacobs support in-car cameras and are exploring the issue. However, funding is

not currently available to purchase the equipment. (Pacheco, 2011). It would cost the

Orange County Sheriff’s Office $9 million to put cameras in all of their vehicles (WFTV,

2010). Additionally, the University of Central Florida Police Department is considering

outfitting the agency’s 60 officers with body worn cameras, but has not done so yet

(Pacheco, 2011).

Although no local agency has responded to the request regarding the use of body worn

cameras, this new technology is beginning to appear at agencies in other parts of the


2011

20 | P a g e

country. The most cited agency using body worn cameras is the San Jose, California,

Police Department. The San Jose Police Department tested 18 body worn cameras

during 2010. These cameras were worn by officers over their ears and were made by

Taser, the Taser Axon (Paddock, 2010). The agency has 1,200 officers and 17 of those

officers completed a one-year study on the camera use. The results of the study were

positive; Lt. Sims from the San Jose Police Department stated that “all police

departments are going to be moving toward this technology” (Young, 2011). However,

due to severe budget constraints, the agency will most likely not be able to outfit the

entire department with the body worn cameras (Young, 2011). Other large agencies

have tested the equipment over the past year, to include Cincinnati and San Diego, with

similar results to San Jose (Howland, 2010). Due to cost and budgetary issues, smaller

agencies may be in a better position to outfit personnel with cameras.

Two small agencies in the United States that have implemented body worn cameras are

Erlanger, Kentucky and Lafayette, Colorado. Erlanger has only 41 officers and

purchased 10 body worn cameras for its officers after the agency completed an

evaluation of the equipment (six-month trial). The officers work 10 per shift and pass on

the cameras to the next shift, after assigned personnel download the video. Officers

cannot download the video themselves, delete it, or alter it in any way. The agency

decided on the body worn cameras over the in-car cameras for a few reasons; the body

worn cameras were significantly less expensive, they were more practical, and they

have better quality sound (National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Center, [NLECTC], 2010). The Lafayette, Colorado Police Department also conducted


2011

21 | P a g e

an evaluation of the body worn cameras. The evaluation was for 30 days and as a

result, the agency planned to purchase the cameras for the entire agency (40 officers).

The agency felt that the body worn cameras were useful for all the reasons previously

stated, they “increase officer safety, reduce agency liability, reduce officer complaints

and improve public perception of police” (NLETC, 2010). The agency had in-car

cameras, but stopped purchasing them after this evaluation; the body worn cameras

were much less expensive (NLETC, 2010).


2011

22 | P a g e

Comparison Analysis & Issues

What are the implementation issues? Legal Issues

Many of the concerns with cameras are legal issues regarding privacy rights; the

expectation of privacy of citizens and the expectation of privacy inside a residence,

business, vehicle, etc. To get information on these potential issues, I interviewed the

OPD Legal Advisor, Lee Freeman. Mrs. Freeman advised me that when a citizen has a

conversation with a Law Enforcement Officer, in the course of his/her duty, there is no

expectation of privacy. In addition, when a citizen calls the police to their home or

business, etc. there is also no expectation of privacy. Whatever an officer sees or hears

is “fair game”, audio and video would be allowed (L. Freeman, personal communication,

March 24, 2011).

A citizen has an expectation of privacy while they are in their home or vehicle, however,

this does not apply to an encounter with an officer who is on “lawful duty” (L. Freeman,

personal communication, March 24, 2011). This information is also found in Florida

State Statute (FSS) 943. A 2008 OPD Training Bulletin discussing FSS 943 states, “the

circumstances surrounding most encounters with law enforcement officers normally do

not justify an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy” (Orlando Police

Department, 2008). Case law on in-car video has been established regarding this

concern (Orlando Police Department, 2008).

Mrs. Freeman did also caution that if cameras will be used on a regular basis, policies

and procedures will have to be put in place, or expanded upon, to address several legal


2011

23 | P a g e

issues, besides privacy. For example, policy would have to address when a camera

should be used and when they should be turned on or not turned on to ensure fair

treatment of all citizens. Parameters would need to be set for “voluntary, compulsory,

and prohibited use of the cameras” (L. Freeman, personal communication, March 24,

2011). In addition, camera video is public record and a process would need to be

established to ensure the video could not be deleted or altered and is downloaded on a

regular basis. Officers should also be trained on the use of the cameras and the policy.

This will ensure proper usage as well as safeguard the officer to protect his or her

personal privacy. For example, an officer could accidently leave a camera on while not

on a call and that video would become public record (L. Freeman, personal

communication, March 24, 2011).

Equipment Type and Cost Analysis

There are two types of camera systems that this study focused on, in-car cameras and

body worn cameras. In-car cameras are currently the most popular form of camera used

in law enforcement. The systems have been used for many years and they are proven

to be durable and reliable, particularly reliable in court cases. The in-car cameras are

made of good quality and provide great quality images, to include excellent nighttime

recording capability. The cameras are installed directly into the vehicles, and the video

obtained from the cameras is directly sent to a video server (Officer B. Cechowski,

personal communication, April 7, 2011). Settings can be placed on the cameras that

trigger when the cameras are turned on and the information can be sent wirelessly back

to the server (Bay News 9, 2010). For example, the camera may begin recording when


2011

24 | P a g e

the lights and sirens are turned on, when the car reaches a certain speed, or when it is

turned on manually by the officers (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication,

February 3, 2011). With the few in-car cameras that OPD has, the images produced

are of excellent quality, nighttime recording quality is good, and the video is directly

downloaded to a server within the agency, the officer does not have to worry about

remembering to download video, etc. (Officer B. Cechowski, personal communication,

April 7, 2011).

One downfall of all in-car cameras is that they only record what is occurring in front of

the vehicle. If an officer leaves the front of the vehicle to enter a home or business,

works on a bike or motorcycle, or is working in any circumstance when he or she is not

in a vehicle, the camera is useless (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication,

February 3, 2011). The other downfall of in-car cameras is the cost. According to

previous Capital Improvement Project requests, (not official quotes) each camera

system costs approximately $5900. To outfit the 492 members previously identified

(Traffic Enforcement Section, The Uniform Drug Enforcement Section, the Patrol

Services Bureau, the K-9 Unit and the Community Policing Section, Downtown Bikes

and Parramore Heritage Bikes) with in-car cameras, the cost would be approximately

$2.9 million (Orlando Police Department, 2011 January).

Due to cost, agencies such as the Burnsville Police Department in Minnesota have

stopped purchasing in-car cameras for an alternative product, the body worn camera


2011

25 | P a g e

(StudentNewsDaily, 2011). The body worn camera provides many of the same benefits

as the in-car cameras. In addition, the body worn camera is not stationary inside a

vehicle. The camera goes “wherever the officer goes” and “sees and hears” whatever

the officer sees and hears (Policeone, 2011). When an officer is entering a building, a

home, or is on the street, everything can be recorded on the video (Policeone, 2011).

These cameras are easy to use, they are generally light weight, and they are less

expensive than in-car cameras. All of the body worn cameras generally can record for

about 4 hours, and have additional home and car chargers.

One of the disadvantages of the body worn cameras is that the officers are responsible

for the video. They must download the video themselves, and must ensure that this is

done properly. In addition, some departments have complained about the image quality;

fuzzy pictures, and poor quality at night. There are also quality issues with stability; for

example, when an officer is running or fighting, the video may be shaky and the camera

may not be secure (Huntersystems, 2011).

The body worn cameras vastly range in style and cost. There are cameras that can be

attached to the Taser (Taser-cam), cameras that are placed on the ear, head-mounted

cameras, mic-cameras, and lapel style cameras. The Taser-cam is not practical

because it only records while the Taser is in use. However, Taser developed the Taser

Axon which is a camera that can be worn over the ear or on the head. The cost of this

type of body worn camera is $1700 each, which would cost $836,400 for 492 units. This


2011

26 | P a g e

camera system uses a secure website managed by the company to upload the camera

video. This allows for increase in protection of video legitimacy and accountability.

However, the monthly cost of management of the data is $99 per month, per officer

(Economist, 2010). For 492 officers, this would cost $48,708 a month, $584,496

annually. According to the CEO of one company that sells the mic camera, the mic-

camera style would replace the current mic attached to an officer’s radio. It has a

camera in the top of the mic, which can also be turned over and the officer can watch as

he or she is recording. The video is uploaded to a web based software program that is

managed by the agency and provided at no cost. These cameras cost about $700 each

(not official quotes) and there are no additional charges or fees, total agency cost is

approximately $344,400 (T.Hayes, personal communication, April 7, 2001).

Lapel style video cameras are the latest additions in camera technology. According to

the president of one company that sells this type of camera, these cameras are

generally small in size (2”-3”), lightweight, and can be worn on a pocket or clipped onto

the front of an officer’s shirt (J. Duncan, personal communication, March 22, 2011). This

style camera cost anywhere between $100 each to $800 each. The more expensive

cameras ($800) include the software to download the video, with the agency still

managing it. They also do not allow for manipulation of video. In other words, no video

can be edited or deleted (J. Duncan, personal communication, March 22, 2011). The

agency cost for the 492 identified officers would be up to $393,600 for the cameras that

cost up to $800 per unit. The less expensive style cameras ($100) do not have these

controls, the video can be deleted; however, there is a tracking system on the videos.


2011

27 | P a g e

The cameras that cost $100 per unit would cost the agency $49,200. Eight Orlando

Police Department officers will test 6 body worn cameras (4 mic style and 2 lapel style)

cameras for a period of 30-45 days, results will be reviewed after this test period.

Estimated camera cost comparison based on 492 units purchased Camera Type Cost Each Total Cost Reoccurring Cost

In-car cameras $5900 $2.9Million 0

Body worn camera w/ Video

Management (Ex:Taser)

$1700 $836,000 $584,496

Body worn camera –mic style

$700 $344,400 0

Body worn camera –lapel style w/software

Up to $800 Up to $393,600 0

Body worn camera-lapel style no

software

$100 $49,200 0


2011

28 | P a g e

Findings and Recommendations

The use of in-car cameras has proven to be highly beneficial. Evaluations of in-car

cameras show that in- car cameras are successful at capturing officer involved traffic

accidents, DUI arrests, and officer safety incidents. They have also been a great benefit

in resolving complaints and allegations against officers. In-car cameras are used

throughout the country and state for traffic related incidents and the video has been

proven to hold up in court. The new technology of body worn cameras is in the

experimental or test phase. Numerous agencies are testing the different types of body

worn cameras and are self-evaluating the cameras. No formal studies have been

conducted on the use of body worn cameras as of yet. Additionally, no large agencies

found have fully implemented the use of body worn cameras and the courts have not

yet established case law regarding body worn cameras.

My recommendation is that the Orlando Police Department begin a process of

implementing the use of camera technology within the agency. However, there are

several factors to consider. First, and probably the most prohibiting, is the cost to the

agency. As with most local agencies, funding for technology is not a fiscal priority. Most

agencies, including OPD, are facing a continuation of budget freezes or budget

reductions. Therefore, it may be impractical to implement in-car camera technology that

will cost millions of dollars at this time. The second issue deals with the quality and

proven use of technology. Although the in-car cameras are more costly, they are of

great quality and are proven reliable and admissible in court proceedings. Body worn


2011

29 | P a g e

cameras are still being tested and have no established case law regarding privacy

issues. Although state statute has demonstrated that there is no expectation of privacy

in a residence or business when an officer is conducting an investigation, there are

limited court cases on this subject regarding the use of body worn cameras. Finally, one

of the most challenging issues may be officer acceptance. If OPD officers feel that the

video cameras are being used as a tool to monitor the officer, as several officers felt in

the IACP study, they may be resistant to using the cameras (IACP, 2004, p.16)

To abate these issue, I recommend a mixed-technology and multi-phase approach.

OPD should implement a multi-year plan to phase in a combination of in-car cameras

and body worn cameras. The standard cost for in-car cameras is approximately $5900

each. The only body worn style camera that is recommended is the lapel style camera

that includes software from the vendor that is managed by OPD. The Taser camera is

impractical because it only captures those instances when the Taser is drawn. The

Taser over the ear style camera and head camera require a monthly fee for managing

the video; making it cost-prohibitive. The mic style camera would require our officers to

replace their newly purchased Motorola mic with the camera mic. The new mic’s have

an antenna that assists officers with reception inside of building and areas with poor

reception. There may also be problems with the radio manufacturer and their warranty.

The lapel style cameras are ideal because they are light weight and can be worn on the

officer’s shirt, either on the pocket or simply clipped on the front of the shirt. However, I

would only recommend the more expensive lapel style camera ($800) that includes

software from the vendor which can be managed by OPD. The reason for this is to


2011

30 | P a g e

maintain officer and agency integrity. These cameras do not allow video to be altered or

deleted from the camera, while the less expensive cameras do. This fact alone will

ensure integrity and maintain a positive public perception for officers. In addition, I feel

that this will benefit the officers submitting video evidence in court cases or in

responding to citizen complaints; there will be no doubt that the video evidence was not

tampered with.

Because of their quality and proven success in traffic related incidents, in-car cameras

should be standard equipment for all vehicles that are assigned to officers whose

primary duty is traffic enforcement. Also, it has been demonstrated that the in-car

cameras work well at night, while body worn cameras do not work as well in low-light

situations. All units that are part of the DUI Enforcement Team (8 officers) should be

equipped with in-car cameras. Because the Traffic Enforcement Section (23 officers)

primarily drive motorcycles, in-car cameras are impractical. These units should be

assigned body worn cameras for use during traffic enforcement and DUI’s. The Patrol

Services Bureau has the 6 aggressive driving vehicles that are already equipped with

in-car cameras that were purchased through grant funding. This would complete the first

implementation phase of the project and would cost the agency approximately $65,600.

I would recommend funding this first phase by using funds from the Federal Asset

Sharing Trust (FAST) Fund. During first phase implementation, exploration into other

funding sources, such as grants and capital improvement project submissions should

occur for future phases. In addition, the technology can be reviewed to ensure that the

best solutions have been chosen.


2011

31 | P a g e

Phase I

Camera Type Unit Name Number in Unit Cost Each Total Cost

In-car camera DUI Enforcement Team

8 $5900 $47,200

Body worn camera

Motors 23 $800 $18,400

TOTAL $65,600

If phase I proves successful, phase II of this project will introduce in-car cameras and

body worn cameras to those units that have high instances of citizen contact and self-

initiated calls, the Drug Enforcement Division (DED), and the Community Policing

Section (Downtown Bike Unit and Parramore Heritage Bike Unit), and K-9. Because of

the nature of the work of the DED officers, these officers should have in-car cameras in

their vehicles and wear body worn cameras. These officers are frequently investigating

drug crimes in vehicles and inside homes. The in-car video would help protect the

officers against claims of illegal pursuits, vehicle searches, or traffic stops (Detective L.

Randolph, personal communication, February 3, 2011). The body worn cameras would

protect the officers against claims of unnecessary use of force or illegal searches in

homes. The cost to outfit DED (18 officers) with in-car cameras is $106,200 and

$14,400 for body worn cameras, a total of $120,600. The K-9 Unit serves to respond

with patrol officers to in-progress calls and to assist officers with apprehending

suspects. Similar to the DED officers, K-9 would benefit from in-car cameras and body

worn cameras. K-9 officers respond to traffic stops and vehicle searches; these are

instances where in-car cameras will be of great benefit. The officers would benefit from

the body worn cameras during tracking and apprehension of suspects. The cost of


2011

32 | P a g e

outfitting the K-9 Unit (13) with in-car cameras is $76,700 and the cost of body worn

cameras is $10,400.

The Downtown Bike Officers and Parramore Heritage Bike Officers respond to calls for

service, initiate calls, and are often flagged down by citizens. These units are assigned

vehicles, but their main function is to bike throughout downtown. These officers are

frequently in contact with citizens that are downtown “partying” at the nightclubs and the

citizens may have been drinking or impaired (Lieutenant R. Anzueto, personal

communication, April 11, 2011). For these officers, body worn cameras are most

important to reduce the number of citizen complaints and protect the officers from

claims of unnecessary use of force or unprofessional behavior. To outfit these officers

(39) with body worn cameras, the cost is $31,200. The total phase two cost is $238,900.

Phase II

Camera Type Unit Name Number in

unit Cost Each

Total

Cost

In-car camera DED 18 $5900 $106,200

Body worn camera

DED 18 $800 $14,400

In-car camera K-9 13 $5900 $76,700

Body worn camera

K-9 13 $800 $10,400

Body worn camera Bike Units (39) 39 $800 $31,200

TOTAL $238,900


2011

33 | P a g e

Ideally, the entire fleet of the Patrol Services Bureau vehicles (399) should be outfitted

with in-car -cameras. As discussed, the in-car cameras are reliable and easy to use.

From the officer’s perspective, they do not have to manually turn the cameras on and

they do not have to manually download video as they would with the body cameras.

Officers that are resistant to the use of body worn cameras may feel much more

comfortable with the in-car cameras. It is also much less likely that officers will

accidently turn on the in-car camera or forget to turn it off. However, unless grant

funding is acquired, the cost is prohibitive; more than $2 million dollars. On the other

hand, outfitting 399 Patrol officers with body worn cameras would cost $319, 200, which

is still a budgetary concern, although much more feasible. Before dedicating such

significant funding to this large group of officers, I recommend Phase III of the project

serve as a program review and evaluation.

At this point 45 in-car cameras and 80 body worn cameras would have been deployed.

Implementing cameras in the patrol function is expensive and before doing so an

evaluation should now be conducted to determine efficiency and effectiveness of the

project. Data should be collected from phase I and II on information such as: are the

cameras successful at officer safety efforts, DUI convictions, reviewing officer involved

accidents, and/or rebuking officer complaints. Also, the current technology of the body

worn cameras can be reviewed for effectiveness. Another important factor is how the

officers feel about the cameras. The reason this is so important is because if the officers

adamantly resist the use of cameras, the cameras will not be used at all or they will not

be used properly; therefore wasting agency time and money. I recommend officer


2011

34 | P a g e

surveys be completed. These surveys should be broken up into two groups, those who

have the cameras and those who don’t. The surveys will provide information that the

agency can use to proceed with the project. The overall evaluation may determine that it

is essential that the agency continue to fund in-car cameras and/or body worn cameras

or it may determine that the project should remain where it is; traffic enforcement and

citizen contacts. This internal evaluation can be completed by in-house personnel or

ideally, in collaboration with UCF staff or interns. If this evaluation determines that the

program is successful, phase IV would be to outfit all of patrol with cameras. The

evaluation will determine which camera would be the best solution for the patrol

function.

Another recommendation is that the agency must have appropriate policies and

procedures in place prior to any further camera deployment. This would be a review of

any current policy and an addition to include body-cameras. It is vital to this project that

officers know when they are required to have video on, what they are allowed to video,

when they are required to download the video, and the public record laws protecting the

video. Officers must be trained on the policy and procedures governing the use of the

cameras. Training should also include the proper use of the camera and instructions on

how to download video to the site; supervisors would need to be trained on how to

access the video to view.

The final recommendation is to plan the logistics of the camera use prior to project

implementation. The agency must determine if the current servers are sufficient to hold

additional data from additional in-car cameras. This issue may become an additional


2011

35 | P a g e

expense. With the use of the body worn cameras, logistics must be determined

regarding the download of the video, video storage, and video management. During

meetings with vendors it was determined that it would not be feasible for officers to

download the video to their in-car computers and transfer the data. The officers will

need to download their body worn camera video themselves and will need to have a

location to do so. This is particularly challenging since the agency is decentralized.

Options may include having video download stations at each substation as well as

headquarters; keeping in mind that there is no longer line up and check off. Video

storage servers will be required as well as personnel to manage the video. The

manager would be responsible for complete knowledge of the software, and have the

capability to produce copies of video for evidence, etc. Current staff would have to be

assigned these additional responsibilities.


2011

36 | P a g e

Conclusion The Orlando Police Department has made every effort to reduce crime and increase

livability within the City; while protecting its citizens and officers. The use of technology

in law enforcement is continuously opening gateways to improve these efforts. Currently

the agency uses camera technology throughout its downtown for crime prevention and

investigative purposes. Although, the use of cameras in vehicles is not new technology,

it has widely used for traffic enforcement. However, due to the cost, local agencies have

not fully implemented the use of in-car cameras. Body worn cameras are the latest

technology and appear to be the wave of the future. However, this technology has yet to

be proven effective or efficient. OPD should cautiously explore the vast possibilities of

this latest technology. As the agency moves forward, equipment selection must occur

through careful thought, implementation should occur in phases to determine efficiency

and effectiveness of the products, improvement and additions to policies need to be

made, personnel need proper training, and logistics need to be well thought out and

pre-planned. These efforts will assist the agency to make the best possible choices for

the agency as a whole and for the individual officer.


2011

37 | P a g e

References Bay News 9. (2010, September 26). Zephyrhills PD cruisers receiving new type of in-car

cam. WESH News.com. Retrieved from http://www.baynews9.com/artilce.news/2010/septembet/155069/Zephyrhills-PD-cruisers

Boca Raton Police Department. (2000). Boca Raton police departmental standard directive (Standard Directive No. 41.25, In-car video system). Boca Raton, FL.

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). (2011). http://www.calea.org/

Florida League of Cities. (2011). My City: Facts of Florida cities. Retrieved from http://flcities.com/membership/my_city_facts.asp

Fredricks, Grant. (2011, March). Caught on Camera: The clear capture of officer murders is a grim reality of this powerful technology. Evidence Technology Magazine. Retrieved on March 30, 2011 from: http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=431

Ft. Myers Police Department. (2009).Ft. Myers police departmental general order (General Order No. 25.3, Mobile video/audio recording equipment). Ft. Myers, FL.

Howland, Lance. (2010, May 11). Two Urban Police Departments Test Officer-Mounted Mini-Cams. Publicceo.com. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governments-publicceo-exclusive/1479-two-urban-police-departments-test-officer-mounted-mini-cams

Hunter Systems Group, Inc. (2011, February 8). While body worn video expands to more police departments, some concerns still arise. Huntersystem’s Posterous. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://huntersystems.posterous.com/while-body-worn-video-expands-to-more-police

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the United States Department of Justice, Community Oriented Police Office. (2004). Research and Best Practices

http://www.baynews9.com/artilce.news/2010/septembet/155069/Zephyrhills-PD-cruisers�

http://www.baynews9.com/artilce.news/2010/septembet/155069/Zephyrhills-PD-cruisers�

http://www.calea.org/�

http://flcities.com/membership/my_city_facts.asp�

http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=431�

http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=431�

http://www.publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governments-publicceo-exclusive/1479-two-urban-police-departments-test-officer-mounted-mini-cams�



http://huntersystems.posterous.com/while-body-worn-video-expands-to-more-police�

http://huntersystems.posterous.com/while-body-worn-video-expands-to-more-police�


2011

38 | P a g e

from the IACP Study on In-Car Cameras. Retrieved on February 2, 2011from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/video_evidence.pdf

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (2010, Fall). Officer-worn cameras expand point of view. TechBeat. Retrieved from http://www.justnet.org/TechBeat Files/Officer Worn Cameras Expand Point of View.pdf

Officer Down Memorial Webpage, Inc (ODMP). Retrieved on April 6, 2011 from http://www.odmp.org/

Orlando Sentinel. (2011, February 3). Candid (cop) cameras. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.orlandosentinel.com

Orlando Police Department. (2011, April 1). Highway Safety Concept Paper, Orlando, FL.

Orlando Police Department. (2011, January 18). Capital Improvement Project (CIP) request form, Orlando, FL.

Orlando Police Department (2010, December). A year in review 2010 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://opdweb1/opdonline/YIR_2010/SJ's%20edited%20version%20of%20YIR%20-%202010.ppsx

Orlando Police Department. (2010, October 1). Orlando Police Department Organizational chart. Orlando, FL.

Orlando Police Department. (2010, January 29). Orlando police departmental policy and procedure. (Policy and Procedure No. 1625.4, Use of electronic communications systems). Orlando, FL.

Orlando Police Department. (2008, April 2). Orlando police departmental training bulletin (Training Bulletin No. 1309.1, Audio recording or interception of oral communications by law enforcement officer). Orlando, FL.

Pacheco, Walter. (2011, January 15). In-car board cameras can give key evidence, but cost limits their use. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/video_evidence.pdf�

http://www.odmp.org/�

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/�

http://opdweb1/opdonline/YIR_2010/SJ's%20edited%20version%20of%20YIR%20-%202010.ppsx�

http://opdweb1/opdonline/YIR_2010/SJ's%20edited%20version%20of%20YIR%20-%202010.ppsx�


2011

39 | P a g e

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/os-in-car -cams-20110107,0,7828747,print.story

Pacheco, Walter. (2010, November 11). Tiny cameras on Tasers record Central Florida police takedowns. The Palm Beach Post. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/nes/tiny-cameras-on-tasers-record-central-flroida-police-1039224.htm

Paddock, Richard. (2010, April 1). Cameras for the police. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/us/02sfbriefs.html

PoliceOne.comNews. (2011, January 22). Officer-worn cameras expand point of view. Policeone.com. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.policeone.com/pc_print.asp?vid=3227048

St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office. (2011).St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office general order (General Order No. 31.10, DUI traffic enforcement). St. Lucie County, FL.

StudentNewsDaily.com. (2011, March 14). Body Cameras: The new eyes of the law. StudentNewsDaily.com. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://studentnewsdaily.com/

The Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation (CFA). (2011). http://www.flaccreditation.org/

The Economist. (2010, December 30). Proto-Robocop, the iconic maker of stun guns aims to take policing into cyberspace. The Economist, 394, 46-47. Retrieved on March 29, 2011 from http://www.economist.com/node/15179584?story_id=15179584

Walker, Dionne. (2010, October 23). Police using TASER cameras to protect themselves in court. Policeone.com. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from: http://www.policeone.com/pc_prinst.asp?vid=2833031

WESH News.com. (2011, January 21). Orange Co. mulls cameras for deputies, officers: cameras don’t lie. WESH News.com. Retrieved from http://www.wesh.com/print/26570679/detail.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/os-dash-cams-20110107,0,7828747,print.story�

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/os-dash-cams-20110107,0,7828747,print.story�

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/nes/tiny-cameras-on-tasers-record-central-flroida-police-1039224.htm�

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/nes/tiny-cameras-on-tasers-record-central-flroida-police-1039224.htm�

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/us/02sfbriefs.html�

http://www.policeone.com/pc_print.asp?vid=3227048�

http://studentnewsdaily.com/�

http://www.flaccreditation.org/�

http://www.economist.com/node/15179584?story_id=15179584�

http://www.policeone.com/pc_prinst.asp?vid=2833031�

http://www.wesh.com/print/26570679/detail.html�


2011

40 | P a g e

Westphal, Lonnie J. (2004, August). The in-car camera: value and impact. The Police Chief, vol 71, no 8. Retrieved on February 2, 2011from: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index

WFTV (2010, November 18). Why don’t Orlando Police have in-car-cams? WFTV.com. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.wftv.com/print/25842422/detial.html

Young, Chris. (2011, January 6). Personal cameras for police officers. Pittsburg City Paper. Retrieved from http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A89594

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index�

http://www.wftv.com/print/25842422/detial.html�

http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A89594�

police technology an analysis of in car cameras and body worn cameras lillian draisin spring 2011

Documents

use cameras

car cameras

cameras police technology

history of camera use

camera use driving

camera equipment

camera types

camera systems