|City||Number of Sworn Officers||Number Wearing Body Cameras||Coverage||Fairness||Section of Provision||Policy Language/ Explanation||Transparency||Section of Provision(s)||Policy Language/ Explanation||Privacy||Section of Provision||Policy Language/ Explanation||Accountability||Section of Provision||Policy Language/ Explanation|
|Austin||2300||20||1%||No||303.4.a.b||Body camera footage may be reviewed by an officer "to assist with the writing of a report, supplement, or memorandum."||No||TX SB 158 Sec. 1701.660 and Sec. 1701.661.e||Under TX law, police "may" (but are not required to) release footage upon public request after any internal or criminal investigations are completed.||Yes||303.2.4||All footage not depicting a criminal investigation, critical incident, or Level 1 or 2 response to resistance will be deleted after 45 days.||No||Not specified in policy||No disciplinary guidelines or statement saying that failure to adhere to Body Camera policy is prohibited|
|Baltimore||3080||155||5%||No||Review of Recordings Section 2,3, and 4||Officers can view their own video footage "to assist in complete and accurate report writing for routine matters. A member must document in their written reports whether camera data for the incident was reviewed." In cases where deadly force was used, officers must get approval to review the footage prior to making statements.||Yes||Maryland Public Information Act § 10-618(f) ; see page 14 of http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/POLICE.pdf||Requested footage should be made public once any police investigation has concluded, as per the Maryland Public Information Act.||Unclear||Not specified in policy||While footage is clearly being captured and stored, its unclear how long it is being stored since this is not included in the Body Camera policy.||No||Not specified in policy||No statement that failure to adhere to the policy (other than sharing unauthorized footage) would result in discipline, no guidelines for how an officer should be disciplined|
|Charlotte||1849||1849||100%||No||3.c||"Officers may review BWC video to aid in completing reports, providing|
statements or court testimony."
|No||J.4.a and V.F||As per CMPD policy, any footage showing a deadly force incident won't be shown to the complainant without the Chief's prior approval. The CMPD Chief has also been clear that footage will be released on a case by case basis as per his discretion.||Yes||J.7||All footage not depicting a misdemeanor, felony, activity relevant to an internal investigation or criminal investigation will be retained for 45 days.||No||II.b||Policy states that "any violation of this directive is considered a violation of Rule of Conduct (ROC) #42|
(Use of Body Worn Cameras) and will be investigated." However, there are no guidelines for how officers who violate this rule should be disciplined.
|Chicago||11944||30||0.3%||No||IL Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act Section 10-20.a.6||"The recording officer and his or her supervisor may access and review recordings prior to completing incident reports or other documentation, provided that the officer or his or her supervisor discloses that fact in the report or documentation."||Yes||IL Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act Section 10-20.b: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/99/PDF/099-0352.pdf|
Illinois Freedom of Information Act subsection 7(1)c(i): http://www.medilljusticeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/09/FOIA_guide.pdf
|Redacted footage will be released with permission of the victim or victim's legal representative. Under Illinois Freedom of Information Act subsection 7(1)(c)(i), this footage, as with all investigatory records, would be made available after an investigation concludes.||Yes||IL Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act Section 10-20.a.7.b: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/99/PDF/099-0352.pdf||Footage deleted after 90 days unless it has evidentiary value, depicts a shooting or death, or is the subject of a complaint or internal investigation.||No||VIII.A||Policy states that "unauthorized duplicating, capturing, or disseminating of audio or video from BWC footage is strictly prohibited." However, there are no guidelines for how officers who violate this rule should be disciplined.|
|Dallas||3474||77||2%||No||3XX.06F||"During any administrative or criminal investigation the person conducting the investigation shall allow the involved officer to review video involving the incident captured by BWC equipment worn by the officer or another officer."||No||TX SB 158 Sec. 1701.660 and Sec. 1701.661.e||Under TX law, police "may" (but are not required to) release footage upon public request after any internal or criminal investigations are completed.||No||3XX.06C||Footage deleted after 90 days if it is not categorized as criminal evidence, a Public Information Act request, internal affairs request, approved training section request, or special request from a commander. Because there are no criteria or restrictions provided for what can be included as a "special request from a commander", this policy was categorized as a "No" regarding privacy.||No||3XX.05||While a number of activities are prohibited from being recorded, there are not guidelines for how officers who violate the policy should be disciplined.|
|Denver||1459||200||14%||No||4.e||"Officers are authorized to review their own BWC recording when preparing official written documentation of a specific event. Officers may only review recordings from their assigned BWC." In cases of an officer involved shooting or other serious incident, officers must get approval from their supervisors to view the footage prior to making statements.||No||3.a.2.b.2||"All audio, images and media associated with the BWC are the property of the Denver Police Department and these items are not to be copied, released or disseminated in any form or manner outside the parameters of this policy without the expressed written consent of the Chief of Police." However, this department policy could be in conflict with Colorado state public records law regarding criminal justice records, which give the public a right to access records involving "official actions" such as arrests as per http://dvmen.org/Sealing_records.htm . Denver Police Chief White has stated that he will not release footage to the public under the state's public records laws (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-police-body-camera-experiment-chief-will-report-on-results-wednesday).||Unclear||8||"The retention of all BWC media will comply with all applicable State of Colorado statutory requirements regarding criminal justice record management and evidence retention and will be based upon the current City and County of Denver Retention Guidelines. All BWC media will be purged from the system in accordance with the current retention schedule." This schedule regarding body cameras has not been able to be found.||Yes||9||Clear disciplinary guidelines for first, second, and third violations of department policy are included. However, these guidelines do not include significant disciplinary consequences to the officer and should be strengthened.|
|Fort Worth||1510||600||40%||Unclear||Not specified in Fort Worth PD policy|
TX law Sec. 1701.655.b.5
|Fort Worth PD policy does not contain provisions on this, despite being mandated by TX law as per the following provision:|
"(b) A policy described by Subsection (a) must ensure that a body worn camera is activated only for a law enforcement purpose and must include:
(5) provisions entitling an officer to access any recording of an incident involving the officer before the officer is required to make a statement about the incident;"
|No||TX SB 158 Sec. 1701.660 and Sec. 1701.661.e||Under TX law, police "may" (but are not required to) release footage upon public request after any internal or criminal investigations are completed.||No||IV.E||DME on Evidence.com that was categorized as “Criminal” or “Administrative” will be kept for a minimum of 2 years. Uncategorized DME will be destroyed after 180 days. In addition, a category entitled “Until Manually Deleted” will be utilized in those instances dictated by the City Attorney’s office or the Risk Management office. Because there are no criteria or restrictions provided for what can be included as"Until Manually Deleted", this policy was categorized as a "No" regarding privacy.||No||Legal Aspects and I.F||"Unless specifically authorized by this order or done in accordance with the City Document|
Retention Schedule, tampering with evidence (including, but not limited to, alteration,
overwriting, erasure or other efforts to purposely destroy or modify any recordings) may
constitute a criminal offense and/or an administrative violation. Violation of any portion of this SOP may lead to disciplinary action."
"Officers may be subject to disciplinary action for reporting to duty without their assigned digital recording device and/or for the intentional or negligent loss of or damage to a device."
|Louisville||1250||640||51%||No||Wearable Video System 4.31.13||"Officers shall be permitted to review their WVS footage of any incident in which they were involved prior to|
making a statement or report regarding the incident."
|No||Not specified in policy, but the Police Chief has publicly stated that footage would be released on a case-by-case basis||In a May public address, Police Chief Steve Conrad said LMPD will have case-by-case discretion when releasing video involved in on-going investigations. For incidents that face high public scrutiny, such as an officer-involved shooting, the department "would very likely want" to make it public in the interest of transparency, he said.||Yes||4.31.14||"WVS recordings shall be retained for a minimum of 30 days (non-evidentiary recordings), with the exception of those recordings which need to be retained longer (evidentiary recordings) due to an investigation (including criminal, administrative, Administrative Incident Report (AIR), etc.), litigation or open records request. These recordings shall be maintained until all investigative or legal activity is completed, pursuant to KRS or applicable records retention schedules. Recordings containing DUI video evidence shall be maintained and destroyed pursuant to KRS 189A.100."|
These provisions are also included in KY state regulations as per: https://docjt.ky.gov//legal/documents/BodyWornCameras.pdf
|No||4.31.14||"Officers shall not delete/erase, destroy, copy, reuse, alter/modify or tamper with WVS recordings." No clear disciplinary consequences articulated in policy.|
|Los Angeles||10000||800||8%||No||XVIII and XIX||"Officers are therefore required to review BWV recordings on their assigned device or authorized computer prior to documenting an incident, arrest, search, interview, use of force or other enforcement or investigative activity to ensure that their reports, statements, and documentation are accurate and complete."|
"If an officer is involved in a Categorical Use of Force (CUOF), such as an officer involved shooting, an officer shall not review his or her BWV until authorized by the assigned Force Investigation Division (FID) investigator."
|No||Not specified in policy, but the Police Chief has stated footage would be released as per his discretion.||LA Police Chief has stated that recordings won't be released unless required by a criminal or civil court proceeding, or at the discretion of police officials.||Unclear||Not specified in policy||No policy language||No||VII and VIII||Unauthorized use or release of footage, or tampering with/erasing footage is considered serious misconduct subject to disciplinary action. That discipline, however, is unspecified.|
|Memphis||2142||500||23%||No||F||"Officers are authorized to review their own BWC when preparing official written documentation of a specific event."|
Officers need ISB investigator approval before reviewing footage of themselves after being involved in a critical incident i.e. police shooting.
|Yes||VII.B.5||Footage would be released under Tennesee public records law. There may be issues with releasing footage that is part of an active investigation.||Unclear||Not specified in policy||No policy language||No||VIII||"Employees who violate this policy will be subject to corrective action pursuant to departmental policies and procedures." No specific disciplinary consequences are included.|
|Milwaukee||1868||200||11%||No||I.1.b||Recordings may be reviewed: "By a police member viewing their individually assigned recordings to assist with writing a report, supplement, citation, memorandum or court case preparation."|
"In the event of a critical incident, members assigned a BWC will refrain from viewing the recorded data until the investigative entity responsible for the investigation arrives on scene and any permitted viewing can be done in
conjunction with current critical incident protocols. This section does not prohibit
members in critical incidents with ongoing exigency from viewing BWC recordings that may aid the present investigation (e.g., suspect descriptions, suspect vehicles, direction of travel)."
|Yes||J.4-5||"4. Members will not allow citizens to review video captured by a BWC unless there is an investigative reason to do so and such viewing has been approved by a|
supervisor. Members shall advise citizens that they may request a copy of the recording through the public records process.
5. The release of video requested through a public records request will be handled in accordance with existing policy and public records laws. Reproduction fees for duplication of recordings will be established by the City of Milwaukee. See SOP265 Open Records for additional information." (It appears that redacted body camera footage would be public record as per Wisconsin state law. Madison WI police chief has stated that it would be included as public record: http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/body-cameras-are-coming-to-madison-what-does-it-mean/article_282aff00-5b2d-5a24-bf85-769388b204bb.html)
|No||J.1||"All digital media that is captured with a BWC is the property of and will be retained by the Milwaukee Police Department for a minimum of 120 days following the date it is recorded. Captured video may be retained for longer periods in the event the|
video is the subject of a litigation hold, a criminal case, part of discovery, etc."
"12. Administrative Hold
a. Any recording can be placed on administrative hold by a supervisor."
Because there are no criteria or restrictions provided for what can be included as"Administrative Hold", this policy was categorized as a "No" regarding privacy.
|No||Not specified in policy||No policy language|
|New York City||34500||54||0.2%||No||22||"Allow uniformed members to review any video pertaining to an event captured from their own BWC prior to giving testimony (either sworn or unsworn) or being interviewed or appearing before any investigative body (e.g., Civilian Complaint Review Board, Department of Investigation, Internal Affairs Bureau, Investigations Unit, etc.)."||No||Not specified in policy, but NYPD Chief has said footage will not be public information.||NYPD Chief Bratton has stated that body camera footage should be treated like 911 calls and not be public, even through Freedom of Information Law requests.||No||Operational Considerations||"Video captured by BWCs will be preserved for one year, at which time it will be automatically deleted, unless it is otherwise accepted for archival or directed to be archived by the Legal Bureau (with the exception of BWC recordings of arrests, which are archived as per step “13”)"||No||Not specified in policy||No policy language|
|Phoenix||2979||150||5%||No||B.6||"User officers/supervisors can view captured video utilizing provided software once the data has been downloaded from the camera. This will allow for user officers and supervisors to refresh their memories prior to the completion of departmental reports or|
while preparing for court proceedings."
"In the event of a serious incident, (i.e. officer involved shooting, serious injury or death, serious use of force incident, serious police equipment accident, etc.), user officers/supervisors will refrain from viewing the recorded data until the detail responsible for the investigation arrives on scene and it can be done in conjunction with current serious incident protocols that are in place."
|Yes||Not specified in policy, but footage would be included under Arizona state public records law.||"The release of video/s requested through a public records request will be handled in|
accordance with existing policy and public records laws. See Operations Order 4.6, Release of Records, for additional information."
Footage will be released with standard redactions, including victim's identifying information, as well as "information that by its very nature is so gross, demeaning, biased, or sensitive that it would do irreparable harm to innocent persons or their character if released."
Media reports indicate that body camera footage is considered public record under Arizona Law: http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Body-Camera-Video-of-Arizona-Police-Officers-Killing-stirs-ethical-debate-.html
|No||H||"All media that is captured during the pilot program will be retained by the Phoenix Police Department for a minimum of one year following the date it is recorded. Captured video may be retained for longer periods in the event the video is the subject of a litigation hold, a criminal case, part of discovery, etc."||No||Not specified in policy||No policy language|
|San Diego||1733||871||50%||No||P.3||"Officers should review digital evidence prior to completing reports when necessary to ensure accuracy.|
Officers shall review digital evidence prior to providing testimony at hearings, trial, or depositions."
|No||B.6||"Public release of digital evidence is prohibited unless approved by the Chief of Police or designee."||Unclear||O||While evidentiary footage is required to be stored until relevant investigations are concluded, no policy specifies how non-evidentiary footage should be stored/deleted.||No||Not specified in policy||No policy language|
|San Jose||900||15||2%||Yes||16.C||"Following an Officer-Involved Incident involved officers, herein defined as both involved officers and witness officers to the incident, personnel and their representative(s) shall not view their video, or any video capturing their image or the incident on any device.|
The initial interview of an officer involved in an Officer-Involved Incident should occur before the officer has reviewed any audio/video recordings of the incident. Once an involved officer has provided an initial statement, he will have an opportunity to review any available recordings with his representative. The officer shall then be afforded an opportunity to provide a follow-up statement after having reviewed the recording(s). The Chief or designee shall have discretion to permit officers to review video files prior to the initial interview."
Officers are permitted to view footage prior to making statements concerning incidents and activities except for officer involved shootings, in-custody deaths or serious injuries.
|No||http://www.sjpd.org/InsideSJPD/BodyCameras/||"All recordings are subject to PRA [Public Records Act]. Like 9-1-1 calls, they are considered records of investigation. There are many legal cases pending that may eventually affect how/if files are released to the public, but R&D’s [Research & Development] PRA staff will coordinate with the City Attorney’s Office before release of any video."|
Records of investigation are currently exempt from public records requests in California.
|No||http://www.sjpd.org/InsideSJPD/BodyCameras/||"The City’s Retention policy dictates how long evidence is stored. This policy can be found in the City Policy Manual. We will work to make this retention schedule readily available to Dept. members and the public. Currently, the policy states the footage will be kept no less than one year."||No||Not specified in policy||No policy language|
|Seattle||1300||12||1%||Unclear||Not specified in policy.||Its not clear whether reviewing footage in order to make initial reports/statements about an incident that is included under one of the categories below would be considered an authorized reason to review footage as per:|
"Employees may view bodyworn
video for the following purposes:
* Criminal investigation
* Officerinvolved collision, including Collision Review Board investigations
* Vehicle Pursuit investigation or review
* Force Review Board
* Public Disclosure request
* Use of Force review or investigation
* Performance appraisal
* As part of the Early Intervention System (EIS)
* Training purposes, with the permission of the involved officers.
* Audit and Quality Control/Troubleshooting"
|Yes||Not specified in policy, but redacted video is available online.||Not specified in policy, but Seattle PD is currently releasing redacted video online via their YouTube channel, with option for clearer edit through public request.||Unclear||Not specified in policy||No policy language||No||16.091 POL-1||No discipline for officers who violate the body camera policy during pilot program: |
"The Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild outlines the scope of the program. Pursuant to that agreement, there will be no discipline that follows from not recording a particular incident with BWV. However, the Department may remove volunteer officers from participation in the pilot program for failure to record events as outlined in this policy."
|Washington DC||3100||400||13%||No||D.1 and E.3.a||"Members may view their BWC recordings and BWC recordings that have been shared with them to assist in accurate report writing, testifying in court, for training purposes, and debriefing. Members may also view their recorded data when they are the subject of criminal or administrative investigations in accordance with Part V.E of this order."|
"Members who are involved in a serious use of force, in-custody death, or are the subject of a criminal investigation may view their BWC recording related to the incident prior to completing and submitting any required reports and being interviewed by the appropriate investigative unit provided that:
(1) The member is in receipt of a declination from the prosecuting authority or after a Reverse Garrity is issued; and
(2) The recording is viewed at the IAD or at a location approved by an IAD official.
b. Members who are the subject of an administrative investigation may view their BWC recording prior to completing and submitting any required reports and being interviewed by the appropriate investigative unit."
|Unclear||IV.F.1||"Refer public requests to FOIA Office. Director of the FOIA Office shall ensure they are processed in accordance with GO-SPT-204.05 (FOIA Requests)." |
This policy is currently being debated. Despite existing FOIA policy appearing to require footage to be released unless its part of an active investigation, no footage recorded in the past year by DC Metro police has been released upon request. The Mayor has recently proposed to exempt footage from FOIA that is taken in a private place or that depicts a range of sensitive situations including " assaults" which many have said could be used to withhold footage of police assaults on civilians. Finally, the Mayor has proposed to have discretion to decide to release high-profile footage of a police shooting but its not clear whether this includes the power to withhold footage that should be released. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-would-release-most-police-body-camera-footage-under-mayors-new-plan/2015/08/10/8b712128-3f11-11e5-b989-c4297962b4b8_story.html
|No||G.1||BWC recordings retained|
database for a period of 90 calendar days unless they fall within a set of predefined categories. This policy is classified as a "No" because recordings of First Amendment assemblies are retained for 3 years
|No||Not specified in policy||No policy language|