Body-Worn Cameras and Policing - Criminal Justice

Body-worn cameras and policing examines the deployment, effectiveness, governance, and implications of video recording devices worn by law enforcement officers during their interactions with the public — a technology that has become one of the most widely adopted and intensely studied innovations in American policing over the past decade. Within Cyber Criminology, body-worn cameras (BWCs) occupy a distinctive position at the intersection of digital surveillance, police accountability, evidence generation, and the governance of state power in digital society. The rapid proliferation of BWCs — from experimental deployment in a handful of agencies to adoption by over 80 percent of large American police departments by 2023 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023) — was catalyzed by high-profile incidents of police use of force, particularly the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, which generated intense public demand for transparency in police-citizen encounters. President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) recommended BWC adoption as a mechanism for building public trust, and the Department of Justice’s Body-Worn Camera Pilot Implementation Program provided $23.2 million in federal grants to support deployment across the country (Lum, Stoltz, Koper, & Scherer, 2019). This article examines the technology, the evidence for its effects on officer and citizen behavior, the evidentiary applications, the privacy and governance concerns, and the policy implications of BWC deployment within the broader field of Criminology.

Introduction

The adoption of body-worn cameras by American police departments represents one of the most significant technology-driven changes in policing practice since the introduction of the patrol car and the two-way radio. BWCs are small, officer-mounted video and audio recording devices — typically attached to the chest, shoulder, or eyeglasses — that capture a first-person perspective of police-citizen interactions. The technology is relatively simple; the governance, implementation, and consequences of its deployment are not. The decision to equip police officers with continuous recording capability raises questions about the effects of surveillance on both officer and citizen behavior, the evidentiary value and management of the enormous volume of video footage generated, the privacy implications for both the individuals recorded and the officers wearing the cameras, and the institutional governance frameworks necessary to ensure that BWC programs achieve their intended objectives without producing unintended harms (White, 2014; Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015).

The theoretical logic underlying BWC deployment draws on deterrence theory and self-awareness theory. The deterrence hypothesis proposes that the knowledge of being recorded will deter both officers and citizens from engaging in misconduct — officers will be less likely to use excessive force, and citizens will be less likely to resist, assault officers, or file false complaints, because both parties recognize that their behavior is being documented and may be reviewed (Ariel et al., 2015). The self-awareness hypothesis, derived from Wicklund’s (1975) theory of objective self-awareness, proposes that the presence of a recording device increases individuals’ self-awareness and promotes behavior that conforms to internalized standards — a psychological mechanism that operates independently of the fear of external consequences that deterrence theory emphasizes (Ariel & Farrar, 2013). Both mechanisms predict that BWC deployment will reduce use of force and citizen complaints, though the empirical evidence for these predictions is more nuanced than either theory alone would suggest.

The stakes of the BWC question extend beyond police practice to encompass fundamental issues of democratic governance: the appropriate boundaries of state surveillance, the mechanisms through which public institutions are held accountable to the communities they serve, and the role of technology in mediating the relationship between government power and individual rights. The body-worn camera is simultaneously a surveillance device (recording the behavior of citizens who interact with police), an accountability device (recording the behavior of officers who exercise state power), and an evidentiary device (generating recordings that may be used in criminal prosecution, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings). These multiple functions create tensions that BWC governance frameworks must navigate.

Technology and Deployment

Device Capabilities and Data Infrastructure

Contemporary BWC systems combine hardware (the camera device itself) with software platforms for data management, storage, and retrieval that collectively determine the functionality and cost of BWC programs. Camera devices manufactured by Axon (formerly TASER International, which dominates the American BWC market), Motorola Solutions, and other vendors typically capture high-definition video with audio at resolutions sufficient for evidentiary use, operate for 8 to 12 hours on a single charge, and store footage locally on the device before upload to cloud-based or on-premises digital evidence management systems. Newer devices incorporate features including live-streaming capability (allowing supervisors to view active footage in real time), automated activation triggers (activating the camera when an officer draws a weapon or activates emergency lights), and integration with other data systems including computer-aided dispatch and records management platforms (Lum et al., 2019; White, 2014).

The data management dimension of BWC deployment presents challenges that frequently exceed the hardware costs. A single officer equipped with a BWC generates hours of video footage per shift, and a department with hundreds or thousands of equipped officers produces footage volumes measured in petabytes annually. The storage, indexing, retrieval, and retention of this footage requires substantial investment in digital infrastructure — cloud storage subscriptions, bandwidth for upload, software licenses for evidence management platforms, and personnel to manage the system. Axon’s Evidence.com platform, which provides cloud-based storage and management for BWC footage, has become the dominant commercial solution, creating a market concentration that raises questions about vendor dependence and data governance (Joh, 2016; Stanley, 2015).

The cost of BWC programs extends beyond hardware and storage to encompass the personnel costs of policy development, officer training, footage review, redaction for public disclosure, and response to public records requests. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF, 2018) documented that the total cost of BWC programs frequently exceeded initial projections by substantial margins, with data storage and management representing the largest unanticipated cost category. Small and mid-size departments face particular cost challenges, as the per-officer cost of BWC programs does not scale downward proportionally with agency size — a department with fifty officers faces many of the same infrastructure, training, and governance costs as a department with five hundred.

Deployment Patterns and Policy Variation

The deployment of BWCs across American law enforcement has been rapid but uneven, with significant variation in adoption rates, activation policies, and governance frameworks across agencies of different sizes, types, and geographic locations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey documented that over 80 percent of large agencies (those serving populations of 250,000 or more) had adopted BWCs, while adoption rates among smaller agencies were substantially lower — reflecting both cost barriers and the lower public pressure for accountability that smaller agencies may face (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023).

The policy frameworks governing BWC operation vary significantly across departments, with the most consequential variation involving activation requirements — the circumstances under which officers are required to activate their cameras and the consequences for failure to do so. Some departments mandate continuous recording during all interactions with the public, while others require activation only during specific encounter types (traffic stops, use of force incidents, arrests, searches) and permit officer discretion for other interactions. The activation policy directly affects the evidentiary value and accountability function of BWC programs: mandatory activation ensures thorough documentation but generates enormous data volumes and may capture encounters where recording is inappropriate (interactions with crime victims, conversations with confidential informants); discretionary activation reduces data volume but creates opportunities for selective non-recording that undermines accountability (Lum et al., 2019; White & Malm, 2020).

The consequences of non-activation have become a significant governance issue. High-profile incidents in which officers failed to activate their cameras during use-of-force encounters — whether through technical malfunction, deliberate deactivation, or failure to follow activation policy — have undermined public confidence in BWC programs and prompted calls for automated activation mechanisms, disciplinary consequences for policy violations, and the creation of adverse inference rules under which a jury may infer from non-recording that the missing footage would have been unfavorable to the officer’s account. The governance of non-activation varies across jurisdictions, with some departments treating it as a minor policy violation and others treating it as a serious disciplinary offense (PERF, 2018; Yokum, Ravishankar, & Coppock, 2019).

Evidence on Effectiveness

Use of Force and Citizen Complaints

The effect of BWC deployment on police use of force and citizen complaints — the two outcomes most commonly cited as justifications for BWC adoption — has been studied through a substantial body of research including randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, and observational studies. The earliest and most widely cited study, conducted by Ariel et al. (2015) in Rialto, California, reported dramatic reductions in both use of force (59 percent reduction) and citizen complaints (87 percent reduction) during BWC deployment, generating initial optimism about the technology’s transformative potential.

Subsequent research has produced more mixed findings that have tempered the initial enthusiasm. The largest randomized controlled trial — a multi-site study conducted across seven departments by Yokum et al. (2019) for the Lab @ DC — found no statistically significant effect of BWC assignment on police use of force, and a systematic review by Lum, Stoltz, Koper, and Scherer (2019) concluded that the evidence for BWC effects on use of force was inconsistent across studies, with some trials finding significant reductions and others finding null effects. The inconsistency appears to be related to implementation features — particularly activation compliance and officer awareness that cameras are active — rather than to the technology itself. Studies in which activation compliance was high and officers were reminded of recording tended to find larger effects, consistent with the theoretical prediction that the behavioral effects of cameras depend on self-awareness rather than mere possession of the device (Ariel, Sutherland, Henstock, Young, Drover, Sykes, Megicks, & Henderson, 2016).

The evidence on citizen complaints is more consistently positive. Multiple studies have documented reductions in citizen complaints of 25 to 90 percent following BWC deployment, with the effect appearing across diverse agencies and implementation contexts. However, the mechanism underlying complaint reduction is debated: the reduction may reflect improved officer behavior (deterrence), improved citizen behavior (reduced provocation and false complaints), a substitution effect (citizens who would have filed complaints instead requesting footage review), or a reporting effect (citizens declining to file complaints when they know footage exists that may contradict their account). Disentangling these mechanisms has proven difficult, and the relative contribution of each to the observed complaint reductions remains uncertain (White & Malm, 2020; Ariel et al., 2015).

Officer and Citizen Perceptions

Survey research on officer and citizen attitudes toward BWCs has documented generally positive perceptions alongside specific concerns that vary by stakeholder group. Officers who have been equipped with BWCs generally report positive attitudes toward the technology, citing its value as an evidentiary tool (documenting citizen behavior that supports charges), as protection against false complaints, and as a mechanism for resolving disputes about what occurred during an encounter. However, significant minorities of officers express concerns about surveillance of their own behavior, the potential for footage to be second-guessed by supervisors and the public, the administrative burden of managing footage, and the chilling effect on discretionary decision-making — the concern that officers will avoid productive but potentially controversial encounters (proactive stops, informal warnings, community interactions) to minimize the risk that recorded footage will be scrutinized unfavorably (Gaub, Choate, Todak, Katz, & White, 2016; Headley, Guerette, & Shariati, 2017).

Citizen attitudes toward police BWCs are broadly supportive, with surveys consistently finding that majorities of respondents across racial and demographic groups favor BWC deployment. Support is highest among communities of color, where concerns about police accountability are most acute and where BWCs are perceived as a mechanism for documenting and deterring the racially disparate policing that community members have long described (White & Malm, 2020). However, community support is contingent on governance features — particularly public access to footage. Community members who support BWCs as accountability tools may withdraw support if footage access policies favor law enforcement interests over public transparency, or if BWC footage is used primarily to support prosecution (documenting citizen misconduct) rather than accountability (documenting officer misconduct) (Todak, Gaub, & White, 2018).

The relationship between BWC deployment and public trust in police — the ultimate objective that the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing identified for BWC programs — has proven difficult to measure. Some studies have found modest improvements in citizen perceptions of police legitimacy following BWC deployment, while others have found no significant effect. The finding that BWCs do not automatically improve public trust is consistent with the broader policing literature, which emphasizes that trust is built through procedural justice — fair, respectful, and transparent treatment — rather than through any specific technology (Tyler, 2006; Lum et al., 2019).

Evidentiary Applications

BWC Footage in Criminal Prosecution

BWC footage has become a significant evidentiary resource in criminal prosecution, providing contemporaneous audiovisual documentation of the circumstances surrounding arrests, searches, confessions, and other investigative actions. Prosecutors use BWC footage to corroborate officer testimony, document the behavior of defendants and witnesses, establish the timeline and circumstances of encounters, and demonstrate the reasonableness of police actions. Defense attorneys use BWC footage to challenge officer testimony, document violations of constitutional rights (illegal searches, excessive force, Miranda violations), and provide juries with a visual record that may differ from officers’ narrative accounts (Fan, 2016; White & Malm, 2020).

The evidentiary value of BWC footage is substantial but not unlimited. Cameras capture a single perspective — the viewpoint of the officer wearing the device — which may not encompass the full scene, may miss events occurring outside the camera’s field of view, and may not capture the officer’s subjective observations (peripheral vision, sounds from behind, tactile sensations) that inform use-of-force decision-making. The audio quality of BWC recordings varies with environmental conditions, and the visual quality may be degraded by lighting, weather, rapid movement, and physical obstruction. Courts and juries must interpret BWC footage within these limitations, recognizing that the camera’s perspective is one source of evidence rather than a definitive record of what occurred (Harris, 2010; Fan, 2016).

The integration of BWC footage into the evidence discovery process has created significant workload demands on both prosecution and defense. Prosecutors must review potentially hours of footage to identify relevant segments, redact protected information (faces of bystanders, sensitive locations, juvenile identities), and prepare footage for presentation. Defense attorneys must be provided access to footage through discovery, and the volume of footage in cases involving multiple officers and multiple encounters may require substantial review time. Public defender offices, which handle the majority of criminal defense cases and already operate under severe resource constraints, face particular challenges in reviewing and analyzing BWC footage, raising access-to-justice concerns about the equitable use of BWC evidence (Lum et al., 2019; PERF, 2018).

Internal Affairs and Accountability

BWC footage provides an evidentiary resource for internal affairs investigations of officer misconduct, use-of-force reviews, and training assessments that was previously unavailable in most encounters. Supervisors can review BWC footage to evaluate officer compliance with departmental policies, assess the tactical soundness of officer decisions, identify training needs, and investigate complaints. The availability of an objective audiovisual record reduces the reliance on competing narratives — the officer’s account versus the complainant’s account — that has historically characterized complaint investigations and that frequently resulted in findings of “inconclusive” when no independent evidence was available (White, 2014; Ariel et al., 2015).

The accountability function of BWCs depends critically on institutional commitment to reviewing footage and acting on findings. Departments that invest in systematic footage review, that impose meaningful consequences for policy violations captured on camera, and that use BWC footage constructively for training and performance improvement are more likely to realize the accountability benefits that BWC programs promise. Departments that deploy cameras without committing to review — treating BWCs as a public relations measure rather than an accountability mechanism — may generate footage that goes unwatched and that fails to produce the behavioral effects that the technology’s proponents anticipate (Lum et al., 2019; White & Malm, 2020).

The potential for BWC footage to expose officer misconduct that would otherwise go undetected creates institutional dynamics that may generate resistance within police organizations. Officers’ unions have negotiated contractual provisions governing BWC footage access, retention, and use in disciplinary proceedings — provisions that in some jurisdictions restrict supervisory access to footage, require officer notification before footage review, and limit the circumstances under which footage can be used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings. These contractual provisions reflect the tension between the accountability function of BWCs (which requires unrestricted supervisory access) and the labor rights of officers (who argue that continuous surveillance of their work performance is intrusive and that footage should not be used for routine performance monitoring) (Joh, 2016; Stanley, 2015).

Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns

Privacy of Recorded Individuals

BWC deployment raises significant privacy concerns for the individuals who are recorded during police encounters — including crime victims, witnesses, bystanders, and residents of communities with high police presence who may be recorded repeatedly in the course of routine daily activities. The recording of individuals in their homes during domestic violence calls, in medical emergencies, during mental health crises, and in other sensitive situations captures private moments that the individuals involved may not wish to have documented and that may cause additional harm if disclosed through public records requests, evidentiary proceedings, or unauthorized access (Stanley, 2015; Joh, 2016).

The privacy implications are distributed unevenly across the population. Communities that experience the highest levels of police contact — predominantly low-income communities and communities of color — face the greatest exposure to BWC recording, creating a surveillance burden that falls disproportionately on populations already subject to intensive policing. Scholars including Brucato (2015) and Joh (2016) have argued that BWC programs, while framed as accountability mechanisms that protect marginalized communities, simultaneously function as surveillance tools that document the activities of those communities with a granularity that wealthier, less-policed neighborhoods do not experience. The resulting surveillance asymmetry — in which the communities that most need accountability are also those most burdened by the surveillance that accountability requires — represents a structural tension that BWC governance must address.

The First Amendment implications of BWC recording in contexts where individuals are exercising constitutionally protected rights — attending protests, engaging in political activity, participating in religious observances — add a further dimension to the privacy analysis. Recording of individuals at political demonstrations may chill the exercise of First Amendment assembly rights, particularly among undocumented immigrants, individuals with outstanding warrants, and others who may fear that their presence at a protest will be documented and used against them. BWC policies that address these concerns — requiring camera deactivation at political events, restricting footage retention for non-evidentiary encounters, implementing rigorous redaction protocols — can mitigate the chilling effect but may conflict with the transparency objectives that BWC programs are designed to serve (Stanley, 2015).

Public Access and Transparency

The question of public access to BWC footage — under what circumstances, through what processes, and with what redactions the public may view recordings made by publicly funded law enforcement officers — has generated significant policy variation and legal dispute. Public records laws (freedom of information acts, open records statutes) in most states apply to BWC footage as government records, creating a presumption of public access that must be balanced against privacy interests, ongoing investigation needs, and officer safety concerns. Some states have enacted BWC-specific public records provisions that modify the general presumption of access — exempting certain categories of footage from disclosure, imposing waiting periods before footage is released, and establishing fee structures for footage requests (Lum et al., 2019).

The tension between transparency and privacy is particularly acute in high-profile use-of-force incidents, where public demand for footage is strongest and the privacy interests of involved individuals are most significant. The delayed or withheld release of BWC footage following officer-involved shootings has generated public anger and protests in multiple cities, with community members and advocacy organizations arguing that the public has a right to view footage documenting the exercise of lethal force by government agents. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors counter that premature release may compromise ongoing investigations, taint witness recollections, and violate the privacy interests of individuals depicted in the footage. The governance of footage release in critical incidents requires protocols that balance these competing interests — a challenge that many departments have addressed through the development of critical incident disclosure policies specifying timelines and conditions for public release (PERF, 2018; White & Malm, 2020).

Policy Implications and Future Directions

Integration with Emerging Technologies

The integration of BWC footage with other digital technologies — including facial recognition, automated license plate readers, artificial intelligence-based video analytics, and real-time crime center data systems — creates capabilities that extend substantially beyond the accountability and evidentiary functions that motivated initial BWC adoption. AI-powered video analytics can potentially analyze BWC footage to identify individuals, detect objects (weapons, contraband), transcribe speech, and flag incidents that meet specified criteria for supervisory review. The integration of BWC footage into facial recognition systems — enabling the real-time identification of individuals encountered during police interactions — would transform BWCs from passive recording devices into active surveillance tools with implications that far exceed their original purpose (Joh, 2016; Ferguson, 2017).

The policy question of whether and how BWC footage should be integrated with AI and biometric systems is among the most consequential technology governance decisions facing American policing. Proponents argue that analytical tools that automate footage review, flag policy violations, and identify individuals can enhance both the accountability and the investigative functions of BWCs while reducing the human resources required for footage management. Critics counter that the integration of BWCs with facial recognition and AI analytics transforms a transparency tool into a mass surveillance system, creating capabilities that are incompatible with the civil liberties values that BWC programs were intended to advance (Stanley, 2015; Ferguson, 2017). The resolution of this question — which is being determined through a combination of agency policy, legislative action, and market forces as technology companies develop integrated products — will significantly shape the future character of BWC programs and their impact on both policing and the communities that policing serves.

Evidence-Based Governance

The substantial body of research on BWC deployment provides an evidence base for governance decisions that is unusually strong by the standards of policing technology adoption. The research consistently supports several policy conclusions: that BWC effects on behavior depend on activation compliance and officer awareness of recording, suggesting that mandatory activation policies and automated activation triggers are preferable to discretionary policies; that the effects on citizen complaints are more consistent than the effects on use of force, suggesting that complaint reduction may reflect reporting dynamics as much as behavioral change; that public trust effects are modest and contingent on governance features, suggesting that BWC deployment alone is insufficient to address legitimacy deficits; and that the privacy, cost, and data management challenges of BWC programs are substantial and must be addressed proactively rather than discovered reactively (Lum et al., 2019; White & Malm, 2020; Yokum et al., 2019).

The translation of research findings into policy practice has been uneven. Some departments have used research evidence to inform their activation policies, footage retention protocols, and governance frameworks, while others have adopted BWCs without engaging with the evidence base — driven by political pressure, grant availability, or vendor marketing rather than by systematic assessment of the evidence for different implementation approaches. The gap between available evidence and implementation practice represents an opportunity for the kind of evidence-based policy development that criminological research is designed to support — and a reminder that the mere availability of evidence does not guarantee its incorporation into institutional decision-making (Lum et al., 2019; White, 2014).

Conclusion

Body-worn cameras have become a ubiquitous feature of American policing, deployed by the vast majority of large agencies and adopted by a growing proportion of smaller departments. The evidence for their effects on police behavior, citizen behavior, and public trust is substantial but mixed — supporting modest effects on citizen complaints and suggesting variable effects on use of force that depend on implementation features rather than on the technology itself. The evidentiary applications of BWC footage have proven substantial, providing documentation of police-citizen encounters that enhances both prosecution and defense capabilities. The privacy, governance, and cost challenges of BWC programs are significant and require institutional commitment to policy development, footage management, and transparency that exceeds what many departments have provided.

The future of body-worn cameras will be shaped by the integration of BWC footage with artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and other analytical technologies — integration that promises enhanced investigative capability alongside substantially expanded surveillance power. The governance decisions that departments, legislatures, and courts make about this integration will determine whether BWCs evolve as accountability tools that enhance public trust in policing or as surveillance systems that deepen the monitoring of already-surveilled communities. The research evidence provides guidance for these decisions; the political will to follow that guidance, and the institutional capacity to implement it, will determine the technology’s ultimate contribution to American criminal justice.

References

Ariel, B., & Farrar, W. A. (2013). Self-awareness to being watched and socially desirable behavior: A field experiment on the effect of body-worn cameras on police use-of-force. Police Foundation Working Paper.
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). 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, 31(3), 509–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R. (2016). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment. European Journal of Criminology, 13(6), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816643734
Brucato, B. (2015). Policing made visible: Mobile technologies and the importance of point of view. Surveillance & Society, 13(3/4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v13i3/4.5421
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2023). Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2020. U.S. Department of Justice.
Fan, M. D. (2016). Justice visualized: Courts and the body camera revolution. UC Davis Law Review, 50(3), 897–959.
Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing. NYU Press.
Gaub, J. E., Choate, D. E., Todak, N., Katz, C. M., & White, M. D. (2016). Officer perceptions of body-worn cameras before and after deployment: A study of three departments. Police Quarterly, 19(3), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611116653398
Harris, D. A. (2010). Picture this: Body-worn video devices (“head cams”) as tools for ensuring Fourth Amendment compliance by police. Texas Tech Law Review, 43, 357–372.
Headley, A. M., Guerette, R. T., & Shariati, A. (2017). A field experiment of the impact of body-worn cameras (BWCs) on police officer behavior and perceptions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 53, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.10.003
Joh, E. E. (2016). Beyond surveillance: Data control and body cameras. Surveillance & Society, 14(1), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v14i1.6280
Lum, C., Stoltz, M., Koper, C. S., & Scherer, J. A. (2019). Research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12412
Mateescu, A., Rosenblat, A., & boyd, d. (2016). Police body-worn cameras. Data & Society Research Institute.
Miller, L., Toliver, J., & Police Executive Research Forum. (2014). Implementing a body-worn camera program: Recommendations and lessons learned. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Police Executive Research Forum. (2018). Cost and benefits of body-worn camera deployments. PERF.
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-p311-pub.pdf
Ready, J. T., & Young, J. T. N. (2015). The impact of on-officer video cameras on police–citizen contacts: Findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9237-8
Stanley, J. (2015). Police body-mounted cameras: With right policies in place, a win for all. American Civil Liberties Union.
Todak, N., Gaub, J. E., & White, M. D. (2018). The importance of external stakeholders for police body-worn camera diffusion. Policing: An International Journal, 41(4), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2017-0098
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
White, M. D. (2014). Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-p289-pub.pdf
White, M. D., & Malm, A. (2020). Cops, cameras, and crisis: The potential and the perils of police body-worn cameras. NYU Press.
Wicklund, R. A. (1975). Objective self-awareness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 233–275.
Yokum, D., Ravishankar, A., & Coppock, A. (2019). A randomized control trial evaluating the effects of police body-worn cameras. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(21), 10329–10332. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1814773116

Related Articles