1. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Implementing
Police Body Cameras and a Look at the Surrounding
Current Legislative Activity
March 17, 2015

2. 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2
Background Information on Law Enforcement Audio/Video Recording ........................................ 3
Likely benefits and concerns with body cameras ....................................................................... 3
Table 1: List of benefits and concerns with body cameras ..................................................... 3
The Rialto, California Study ......................................................................................................... 4
Types of Cameras ........................................................................................................................ 4
Advantages of Law Enforcement Body Cameras ............................................................................ 5
Increased Transparency and Accountability ............................................................................... 5
Better Behavior From Law Enforcement and Citizens ................................................................ 5
Protection from false accusations ............................................................................................... 7
Lower litigation costs from expedited resolutions of complaints and lawsuits ......................... 7
Better evidence for arrests and prosecutions............................................................................. 7
Disadvantages and Concerns of Law Enforcement Body Cameras ................................................ 7
Citizen and police officer privacy ................................................................................................ 7
Point of view is limited to what camera can see ........................................................................ 8
Training and policy requirements ............................................................................................... 8
Malfunctions and errors in operation of cameras ...................................................................... 9
Money and resource requirements ............................................................................................ 9
Current Legislative Activity Regarding Law Enforcement Body Cameras .................................... 10
Law Enforcement Body Cameras in Oregon ................................................................................. 10
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Table 2: Current Legislation Regarding Police Body Cameras ...................................................... 13
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 22

3. 2
Executive Summary
Ever since the August 9, 2014 shooting of 18‐year‐old Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson
in Ferguson, Missouri, police body cameras have been the talk of the nation. Many people
believe that if there had been footage of the shooting that day, Officer Wilson would have been
indicted for his actions. Since this incident, 30 out of 54 Ferguson police officers began wearing
body cameras (Ponsi). Other people argue that body cameras won’t help to indict officers or
hold officers accountable for their actions. These people refer to the July 17, 2014 death of 43‐
year‐old Eric Garner as an example of this. New York City Police Department (NYPD) Officer
Daniel Pantaleo placed Mr. Garner in a chokehold. Mr. Garner later died and autopsy showed
that he died as a result of that chokehold. The NYPD prohibits chokeholds. This incident was
caught on cell phone video, which some argue had a better viewpoint than a video from a
body‐mounted camera would have, but a grand jury still chose not to indict Officer Pantaleo.
We would all like to believe that seeing video footage of a high risk incident like an officer‐
involved‐shooting or a chokehold‐death would tell the whole story about what happened and
that it would be really easy to indict an officer who did wrong. Unfortunately, that’s not always
the case. Sometimes the body cameras may not be turned on to record the entire incident, so
we wouldn’t know what went on before it escalated into something bad. An officer might not
think that an incident would require a camera to be recording until it is too late. Also, the
camera only shows an officer’s point of view; therefore it cannot record activity behind the
officer. Depending upon the location that a body camera is placed (whether it be on glasses,
behind the ear, on the lapel, or mounted on the chest) you could get a different view or angle,
and it might be hard to tell what is going on. The body camera could malfunction during a high‐
risk incident, leaving no video evidence of what happened. There’s also a possibility that the
video footage could be tampered with before it can be viewed by the public and by the courts.
Any footage containing confidential information and personal matters should be edited before
being sent out in response to a records request. At that time, it might be very tempting for a
Sergeant or Chief to edit the footage further to keep only the parts of the video that make his
officer look good.
These are only a few examples of concerns that lawmakers, police departments, and citizens
have with the possible implementation of body cameras in police departments nationwide.
Thirty‐one states currently have bills pending in their state’s legislature to address these issues,
as well as cost issues (see table 2 at the end of this document). There are many different
policies that need to be put in place before we require our police departments to outfit their
officers with body cameras. This paper will document the various perceived advantages and
disadvantages of implementing a body camera program, as well as the various issues that need
to be addressed in a department’s policy in order to run a successful body camera program. We
will also take a quick look at the current legislative activity in regards to body cameras
happening across the nation.

4. 3
Background Information on Law Enforcement Audio/Video Recording
Law enforcement officers have used patrol car “dash‐cams” for many decades now. The
footage from these “dash‐cams” has been extremely helpful in convicting DUI drivers and
showing what has happened during an officer‐involved shooting during a traffic stop.
Technology is always evolving, and even with the latest technology made available to them, law
enforcement officer actions and tactics are constantly being criticized by the media and by
members of the public (Ramirez).
In August 2013, Judge Shira Scheindlin declared that the New York City Police Department’s
(NYPD) stop‐and‐frisk program was unconstitutional and as part of the judicial order against the
NYPD, Judge Scheindlin ordered the police officers in certain high stop‐and‐frisk volume areas
to wear body cameras (White). Since then, and especially with the Ferguson, Missouri incident,
citizens and media who are concerned about the increase in police brutality and racial profiling
have pushed body cameras to the forefront of our nation. Tension between police and citizens
has been around for many decades, and something as simple as a body camera is not going to
solve that problem. It is certainly a good start, though. It might help ease the tension a bit
between citizens (especially minorities) and police officers, because if the officers and citizens
know that they are being recorded, their behavior might change for the positive. Who wants to
look bad on camera? But, there is a lot of work to do in our state legislatures to hammer out
each state’s policies on funding, operation of the cameras, video storage, video retention, and
how to handle public records requests. Each state has different needs and wants and they
should handle these issues differently. What may work for one state, may not work for another.
We have a long road ahead of us to implement them, but there is no doubt in my mind that
body cameras are part of the future of policing.
Likely benefits and concerns with body cameras
Whenever new technology comes out, there are always some perceived benefits and concerns
surrounding the implementation of such technology. Body cameras are no exception. There
haven’t been enough studies yet to support or refute claims of benefits and concerns. While
searching through the vast amount of material available online regarding body cameras, I’ve
found many common benefits and concerns surrounding the implementation of police body
cameras. These benefits and concerns are listed in the table below.
Table 1: List of benefits and concerns with body cameras
Benefits Concerns
Increased transparency and accountability Citizen and police officer privacy
Better police officer and citizen behavior Point of view is limited to what camera can
see
Protection from false accusations Training and policy requirements
Lower litigation costs from expedited
resolutions of complaints and lawsuits
Malfunctions and errors in operation of
cameras
Better evidence for arrests and prosecutions Money and resource requirements

5. 4
The Rialto, California Study
If you have been reading all the news articles regarding body cameras lately, you have seen,
over and over again, a reference to a study done in Rialto, California on the effects that the
body cameras have had on their police department. The city of Rialto, California was the first
known police department to conduct a thorough study on the effects of using body cameras
(Ramirez). The results of this study showed behavior was better on both sides of the badge
among incidents involving officers wearing body cameras. Officer complaints fell by 87.5
percent and the use‐of‐force by officers fell by 59 percent (Farrar). This study involved a
random sampling of shifts from the department’s 54 patrol officers. Half of the shifts used body
cameras and the other half did not. The results of this experiment were published in 2013 and
are used by many proponents of body cameras to prove the positive effects of outfitting police
officers with cameras. Opponents of body cameras argue that while the study may show some
positive outcomes, it is only one study of only one police department in the U.S. They also
argue that the results are skewed because it is not an independent study. They say that is a
biased study because Taser, a manufacturer of some of the available body cameras,
collaborated on the study with Rialto. Taser provided Rialto with the cameras used to conduct
the study, and even though Rialto paid for these cameras with their own money, critics feel that
the study should not be used as the only basis of facts surrounding the positive effects of body
cameras because it was made to make body cameras look good. Opponents say that we need
to conduct more studies and use a greater sampling of police departments across the U.S.
before making such strong claims (Kaste).
Types of Cameras
There are thousands of police officers around the country and it would be difficult to try to
please all of them by having only one type of body camera available. Manufacturers recognize
this fact and try to cater to the needs of their clients. Police departments need to test and study
all kinds of different cameras to figure out which ones their officers are comfortable with
wearing and which ones give them the best point of view in their video footage. Among the
options that police departments have to choose from are cameras that can be mounted on
glasses, on the ear, on an officer’s lapel, in the handle of their Taser weapon, or even on their
chest (see figures 1–6).
Figure 1. Chest Mounted
Camera with stick of gum and
lighter for size comparison.
Figure 2. Fort Worth Police
Department Glasses
Mounted Camera.
Figure 3. Small camera that can
be mounted on the lapel of a
uniform, hat, or behind the ear.

6. 5
Figure 4. Glasses Mounted
Camera and Chest Mounted
Camera.
Figure 5. Information from
Wolfcom about the
different uses for the
cameras.
Figure 6. A camera mounted in
the handle of a Taser weapon.
Advantages of Law Enforcement Body Cameras
Some of the perceived advantages of police body cameras are: increased transparency and
accountability, better police officer and citizen behavior, protection from false accusations,
lower litigation costs from expedited resolutions of complaints and lawsuits, and better
evidence for arrests and prosecutions. Body cameras tend provide an accurate documentation
of what really happens in the field. They are good for the police officer because they protect
them from unjustified allegations of misuse of their authority. They are good for the citizen
because they know that if there is something improper that goes on, it has been recorded on
the officer’s camera (Alexandersen). Another benefit to police officers is that officers can replay
the footage of an incident and use that to help them accurately fill out their written police
reports (Gillett).
Increased Transparency and Accountability
One of the biggest reasons for using body cameras is for a police department to appear more
transparent. The Seattle police department is currently trying to live up to that promise of
transparency by posting videos from cameras worn by their officers on a special YouTube
channel (McClam). To deal with the issue of privacy, the videos are blurred and muted. Because
they are blurred, it is often difficult to see what exactly is going on. I have watched several of
their videos on YouTube, and I was able to make out shapes and people, but if there was an
incident that needed closer inspection, I certainly would not be able to see what is happening
from the video. The Seattle police department realizes this, and mentions that if any footage
needs closer inspection, a citizen is welcome to submit a public records request for the footage.
Better Behavior From Law Enforcement and Citizens
Many articles that I have read online mention an advantage to outfitting our law enforcement
officers with body cameras is the fact that people’s behavior changes when we are being
recorded. In fact, use of force incidents and complaints against officers declined with police

7. 6
officers that were wearing body cameras, according to the infamous Rialto, California study
(Farrar). We intuitively know that being watched changes human behavior (Hill).
But, do we really need to use body cameras to change the way a police officer behaves? To me
that feels more like it could be more of a hiring and training issue. Are we hiring the right kind
of people to be police officers? Are we training them appropriately to be able to confront and
deal with difficult people without resorting to violence? We're supposed to be able to trust and
respect our police officers, but if they are doing things that are inappropriate off‐camera, but
on‐camera they are exhibiting model behavior, are they still worthy of our respect? If a police
officer is off‐duty and not in uniform, we still expect them to obey the law. How can they justify
pulling someone over for speeding, when the officer themselves regularly speed down their
own streets?
Another example would be, if you are at a store and you notice that there are no cameras,
would you then try and steal a candy bar? You probably would not steal a candy bar if you saw
an obvious video camera recording you, but if you thought that you could get away with it,
would you do something bad? I saw a horror movie a while back called "The Purge" and it was
based upon this exact same concept. There was a 12‐hour period once a year where ALL
criminal activity, including murder, was legal. There were no police, no ambulances, no fire
fighters, no emergency services at all. Everyone was on their own during this 12‐hour period.
Some people chose to go around committing horrible crimes during this time, other people
chose to commit petty crimes like robbing stores, and yet others chose to hide in their homes
and try to survive the night.
I think everyone, whether good or bad, will usually test and see what they can or can’t get away
with. That’s why we have police officers in the first place. We have laws that tell us what we can
or can’t do, and if we break those laws, we know there will be some kind of punishment. But,
how far does this modification of human behavior need to go? Do we really need to use body
cameras to modify the behavior of our police officers?
I don't feel that our law enforcement officers should think that they could get away with things
just because they aren't being recorded. They shouldn’t think that they can shut off their
camera and do whatever they want to somebody. The cameras should not be used to thwart
“bad cop” behavior. They really should be used more as a tool to get the facts of an incident. If
the officer is accused of using excessive force, and other police officers and witnesses at the
incident have differing views of the officer's actions, then the cameras should be used in this
case to show the actual incident itself, and try to determine if the officer's actions were justified
or not.
Unfortunately, just like we need security cameras to monitor buildings, it seems that we do
need body cameras in order to modify police and citizen behavior, so for most people this is still
considered an advantage to using the body cameras.

8. 7
Protection from false accusations
Body cameras protect officers from false allegations by providing an unbiased visual record
(Ponsi). Members of the public whose views are “anti‐police” may try to bring a frivolous
lawsuit against an officer that they have been involved with. Body camera footage could then
show the actual event, and if the officer did not violate the citizen’s rights, then the case would
most likely be dismissed, saving the police department a lot of money.
Lower litigation costs from expedited resolutions of complaints and lawsuits
The footage from a body camera will provide a judge and/or jury with factual evidence of what
actually happened in an incident. Both justified and frivolous complaints against the police cost
a lot of money in terms of jury verdicts and out‐of‐court settlements (Ramirez). Having the
footage to be able to show a judge and/or jury will likely shorten the amount of time arguing a
case against a police officer. As mentioned above, frivolous complaints could be dismissed
altogether if the footage shows that an officer’s actions were justified. Police departments
often settle complaints out of court for large sums of money. If a police officer was not at fault,
then the department is basically just throwing money away. Despite the high costs that may be
involved with the implementation of a body camera program, those costs might possibly be a
lot less than the settlements and judgments that a police department has had to pay out from
litigation against them. For example, the city of Rialto, California believes that it has saved the
direct costs of 21 complaints (which is the difference between the total number of complaints
before their study and the total number of complaints after their study), equal to about
$400,000. The total cost for the police department to purchase the body cameras was a little
over $90,000 (Ramirez). This is a big difference in savings.
Better evidence for arrests and prosecutions
Body cameras are one of the most important things that can keep police and citizens honest. A
judge has the opportunity to hear and see what actually happened at an incident, which can be
different from what a police officer has written down in their report (Ponsi). To help police
officers more accurately fill out their reports, they can be allowed to play back the video while
out on the field on their smartphone to make their reports more accurate (Channel 2). The city
of Fullerton, California allows their officers to view their videos to assist them in writing their
police reports except in situations like officer‐involved shootings, in‐custody deaths, or
incidents that involve a major injury to a member of the public (Ponsi).
Disadvantages and Concerns of Law Enforcement Body Cameras
Some of the perceived disadvantages of police body cameras are: citizen and police officer
privacy, the video’s point of view is limited to what camera can see, major training and policy
requirements, malfunctions and errors in operation of cameras, and major money and resource
requirements.
Citizen and police officer privacy
One of the major concerns of recording interactions between police and citizens is privacy. On
one hand, the cameras are supposed to make the police more transparent. But on the other

9. 8
hand, should the public just be able to freely view the footage without looking to see if there is
any sensitive or confidential footage as well? A police “watchdog” group might put in a request
for video footage of some incident they witnessed where they didn’t agree with the officer’s
actions. A member of that “watchdog” group may then upload that video to YouTube. If the
victim happens to see the video on YouTube, they might be embarrassed to see that their face
is plastered all over the Internet. They would also have to relive the incident once again as it is
playing in the video right in front of their eyes. This could be very traumatic for a victim of a
horrible incident. Another example is if a neighbor is wondering why the police stopped at Mr.
and Mrs. Smith’s house the other night, they can go down to police records and request the
video footage and see for themselves. On the other hand, if the public isn’t able to freely view
video records of police activity captured by the body cameras, then they will fail to serve their
intended purpose of increasing the transparency of police forces (McKay).
One way that we can protect an officers’ privacy during their private conversations, would be
that the body cameras could always be on, but without audio. When an officer double‐clicks
the recorder, the prior 30 seconds of video is recorded and the audio would begin (Channel 2).
The city of Fullerton, California is trying to address concern for citizen’s privacy by informing its
officers not to record footage any time they’re interviewing victims of sexual assault or child
abuse, when they’re talking police tactics with other officers, or when an informant or another
citizen requests that the camera be shut off (Ponsi).
Point of view is limited to what camera can see
Your own personal camera or video recorder cannot capture what goes on behind it, and
neither can a police body camera. There may be a major piece of the puzzle that is missing in
the investigation of an officer‐involved shooting incident that might have taken place out of the
camera’s view point. We cannot rely solely on body cameras to tell the whole story of a major
incident. We would also need to question people who may have witnessed the incident from
other angles, as well as hear about what the officer has to say about the incident that he was
involved in.
The Wooster police department has tested a few different types of body cameras and they
believe that the glasses offer the best view, but many of their officers don’t like the look or
having to put on glasses when they normally don’t wear them (Bash).
Training and policy requirements
Implementation of new technology requires a lot of training of personnel who will be using the
equipment. We can’t expect everyone to automatically know how to operate a new piece of
technology. We need to provide enough hands‐on training so that there is no question that all
officers would be able to operate their cameras effectively on the job. Departments also need
to put together a solid policy that addresses all concerns and issues that could possibly arise in
the operation of body cameras.

10. 9
A concern that many skeptics of body cameras have is that police may switch off their cameras
when events aren’t going their way. If a police officer may look like an abuser on camera, they
are going to turn it off. Since the issue here is concerning police brutality, it can be difficult to
trust the judgment of a police officer to document everything on video (Cummings). A good
way to solve that concern would be to make the cameras tamper‐proof. Taser’s cameras have
no delete button, so an officer wouldn’t be tempted to erase footage that may be harmful to
their reputation (Channel 2). At the end of an officer’s shift, video evidence of incidents can be
uploaded to secure servers, such as evidence.com, ran by Taser. Only police or prosecutors
could be allowed to access the videos. (Channel 2). Any viewings of the footage are recorded on
a electronic log attached to the video. This log also keeps track of what officers do to the
footage, like applying tags to identify the situation, or make a copy for their own use (Li).
Another way to curb this temptation would be to have the camera livestream its video footage
to the precinct to an officer on duty. The officer on duty could monitor the footage for any
critical incidents and then start recording if needed (Li).
When is the officer required to turn on and off their cameras? Is that decision best left up to
officer discretion? These are difficult questions to answer because of privacy concerns for both
police and citizens that were mentioned earlier. In Fullerton, California, part of their body
camera policy is for the officers to immediately press the record button right when they go into
Code 3 (when they have their lights and sirens on) or when they have any reason to believe that
they are headed into a major event (Ponsi). A well‐written body camera policy will specifically
address the times when an officer is expected to turn on or turn off their camera.
Most states have some sort of “eavesdropping law” that requires them to notify members of
the public when they are being recorded. During a high‐risk incident, it isn’t always practical for
the officer to verbally notify a suspect that they are being recorded, especially during a fight.
The ACLU has recommended a solution to this issue. They recommend that a department have
the officers wear an easily visible pin or a sticker saying “Body‐worn camera in operation” or
something to that effect, so that the notification is given without having to tell them verbally
and then wait for consent (Ramirez).
Malfunctions and errors in operation of cameras
Law enforcement agencies need to have a clearly written policy in place for times when
cameras malfunction or if officers forget to turn them on in a critical incident. Will an officer be
disciplined for not turning on his camera when he is required to? Who is to blame if the
equipment malfunctions? Will there be an investigation into why the camera malfunctioned or
if it malfunctioned in the first place?
Money and resource requirements
Body cameras are expensive to purchase and maintain. The storage expenses of the video
footage can run into the millions of dollars in some larger cities (Bakst). These costs often go
overlooked when police departments are trying to figure out their budget for body cameras. In
Duluth, Minnesota, their 110 officer‐worn cameras generate 8,000 to 10,000 videos per month.
These videos are kept for at least 30 days and in many cases longer. Their three‐year contract

11. 10
and licensing agreement for data storage with Taser International costs them $78,000 (Bakst).
The individual camera units may just cost a few hundred dollars a piece, but on top of that, law
enforcement agencies would have to pay Taser International to store and manage the video
evidence as well (Channel 2).
Storage is another issue when it comes to body camera footage. The cameras could be rolling
every single day, for 8 hours a day, multiplied by the number of officers that there are on each
shift. That adds up to a lot of Gigabytes. A good body camera policy should address the issue of
retention in order to keep storage to a minimum, while also complying with legal requirements
for each state. The ACLU recommends that data should be retained no longer than necessary
for the purpose for which it was collected (Ramirez). Retention periods should be measured in
days or weeks, not years, and video should be deleted after the retention period set by the
department, unless a recording has been “flagged” for use in a court case or an investigation.
This “flagging” should occur automatically on video of any incident that involves the use‐of‐
force, detention or arrest, or if a formal or informal complaint has been registered (Ramirez).
Current Legislative Activity Regarding Law Enforcement Body Cameras
A majority of the articles that I have read are focused on the pending legislative efforts in each
state’s government to try to fix state laws surrounding privacy, eavesdropping, and public
records in order to accommodate body cameras. Of major concern in pending legislation are
protecting the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment
protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures”. If an officer enters a private citizen’s
home wearing a body camera, then that could be considered an “unreasonable search”. The
Fifth Amendment protects us against testifying against ourselves. If the police are recording us
during an incident and we start spitting out some incriminating statements, can those
statements be used against us? Detailed policies need to be hashed out before a police
department starts issuing body cameras in order to protect the constitutional rights of its
citizens that they are sworn to protect. Table 1 located at the end of this document lists the
current pending legislative activity taking place in state governments. It is a very busy time right
now for legislators trying to figuring out how to implement body cameras in their states. This is
only the beginning of a very long and winding road.
Law Enforcement Body Cameras in Oregon
Police officers in Oregon rarely make national headlines. However, our officers are not immune
to scrutiny by regular citizens, civil rights groups, and police “watchdog” groups. Oregon does
see some advantages to using body cameras in law enforcement, and a lot of cities around the
state are in the process of evaluating whether or not body cameras make sense for their
department.
The Sweet Home Police Department started using body cameras back in 2011, and was one of
the first law enforcement agencies to do so in Oregon (Odegard). Sweet Home police officers
love the cameras and have also found that most people behave better once they realize that

12. 11
they are on camera. The cameras have also saved Sweet Home from at least one investigation.
A police officer was accused of beating up a suspect, but body cameras recording the incident
showed the man, who was extremely drunk at the time, just falling over because he was so
drunk (Odegard).
The city of Corvallis has been using helmet‐mounted cameras on their motorcycle officers for
about a decade now. They are also currently testing body cameras on four of their patrol
officers (Odegard).
The Portland Police Bureau, which serves the largest city in the state of Oregon, is considering
adding body cameras to their patrol officers. They have already tested cameras from three
different manufacturers, and have about $800,000 set aside for the project (Thomas). Once the
police bureau is finished with their studies and is ready to implement body cameras, they plan
to outfit approximately all 600 officers with cameras (Kopta). Kopta continues by saying that
much like Sweet Home, the Portland police officers who have been testing the cameras have
reported that people tend to calm down when they know that they’re being filmed.
A majority of the cities around the Portland Metro area either have plans in motion for testing
body cameras, or are thinking about starting a “pilot program” sometime within the next year.
Two of the major hurdles that departments in Oregon are finding that they need to work
through before equipping their officers with body cameras are cost and privacy (Bailey).
There are currently five pending legislative bills in the Oregon House and Senate in regards to
body cameras (see table 2). Under current Oregon law, all of the recording are public
information (Odegard). This is a huge privacy concern, so a few of those bills are looking to
create exceptions to this law for footage from a police officer’s body camera.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is Oregon’s “eavesdropping” law, that requires a
party to disclose to another party that they are being audio and video recorded. Sometimes it
isn’t always practical for an officer to notify a suspect that they are being recorded, especially if
they are in a fight with each other, or if the suspect is not of sound mind at the time. Currently
there is an exception to this law for police patrol car “dash‐cams”, allowing police to only notify
you that you are being recorded if it is reasonable to do so, therefore law enforcement
organizations hope that it will be easy to hash out these same exceptions for body cameras
(Manning).
Oregon State Representative Jennifer Williamson, D‐Portland, is sponsoring a bill that will allow
not only police officers to record citizens, but for citizens to record police officers as well. Both
police officers and citizens who are recording one another will need to notify the other party
that they are being recorded only if it is reasonable to do so (Anderson).

13. 12
Conclusion
It is my view that body cameras are definitely the future of policing, however, there is still a lot
of work to be done in addressing the concerns of privacy, camera costs, video storage, and
video tampering. It is now up to state legislatures to agree on polices and procedures in order
to successfully implement the use of body cameras by their police departments. Body cameras
alone will not solve the issues that have materialized over the history of policing, but they are a
really good way to start showing that police departments want to be transparent and start
holding themselves accountable for their actions. This is a huge step in improving police and
minority relations. Police departments around the U.S. will need to tailor their policies before
implementing body cameras in order to meet their own individual needs. State law may
mandate certain portions of their policies, but other portions will need to be adapted for use by
each police department on its own. What may work for a large metropolitan city may not work
for a small town outside the city limits.

14. 13
Table 2: Current Legislation Regarding Police Body Cameras
State Bill Number Chamber Date Introduced Status (as of March 8,
2015)
Purpose
Arizona HB2511 House 1/20/2015 Introduced Adds text stating every peace officer shall wear a camera while engaged in official duties; gives Attorney General
authority to establish guidelines
SB1300 Senate 2/2/2015 Engrossed (passed by
both Senate and House)
Adds regulation guidelines on the operation of cameras, viewing and erasing, and release of recordings
California SB175 Senate 2/9/2015 Referred to Committees
on Public Safety and
Appropriations
Adds text to penal code stating that all departments that elect their officers to wear body cameras must develop
policies with regard to duration, time and place for operation; length of time video will be stored; and procedures for
public access
SB195 Senate 2/10/2015 Referred to Committee
on Rules and
Regulations
States that the legislature intends to protect the privacy of individuals recorded by officers and the privacy of the
officers themselves
Connecticut SB00673 Senate 1/23/2015 Referred to Joint
Committee on Judiciary
Amends the general statutes to require that police officers be equipped with body cameras and the images recorded
be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act
SB00770 Senate 1/23/2015 Public Hearing; Referred
to Joint Public Safety
and Security Committee
Creates a one‐year pilot program for the use of police body cameras and to study the outcomes to establish future
state‐wide standards
Florida H0057 House 12/4/2014 In Criminal Justice
Subcommittee
Requires law enforcement agency that permits its officers to wear body cameras to establish policies & procedures
addressing proper use, maintenance, & storage of body cameras & data recorded by body cameras; requires such
policies & procedures to include specified information; requires such law enforcement agency to ensure that specified
personnel are trained; requires that data recorded by body cameras be retained in accordance with specified
requirements; requires periodic review of agency body camera practices to ensure conformity with policies &
procedures.
S0248 Senate 1/7/2015 In Governmental
Oversight and
Accountability
Committee ‐ 3/10/2015
hearing
Providing an exemption from public record requirements for an audio or video recording made by a law enforcement
officer in the course of the officer performing his or her official duties and responsibilities, if the recording is taken
within certain locations, shows a minor inside a school or on school property, or shows a child younger than 14 years
of age at any location; authorizing the law enforcement agency with custody over the recording to disclose the
recording to another law enforcement agency in furtherance of that agency's official duties and responsibilities, etc.

15. 14
Georgia HB32 House 1/2/2015 House Secord Readers Amends Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions relative to law enforcement officers and
agencies, so as to require law enforcement officers to be equipped with body cameras; to provide for definitions; to
provide for rules and regulations; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
SR119 Senate 1/29/2015 Senate Read and
Referred
Senate Resolution encouraging law enforcement agencies to equip peace officers who conduct traffic stops or
respond to emergency dispatch calls as their primary duty with body cameras; and for other purposes.
SR381 Senate 2/25/2015 Senate Read and
Referred
Senate Resolution creating the Police Body Camera Study Committee
SR382 Senate 2/25/2015 Senate Read and
Referred
Senate Resolution creating the Joint Police Body Camera Study Committee
Hawaii HB365 House 1/26/2015 Engrossed and
transferred to Senate
Appropriates moneys as a grant‐in‐aid to the city and county of Honolulu to purchase body cameras for their police
officers and to establish a Honolulu Police Department Body Camera Pilot Program, provided that the City and County
of Honolulu provide matching funds on a 1:1 basis.
SB199 Senate 1/23/2015 Passed Second Reading
and referred to Ways
and Means Committee
Appropriates funds as a grant‐in‐aid to each county for the purchase of body video cameras and law enforcement
vehicle cameras to be used by each county police department; provided that no funds appropriated to a county shall
be expended unless matched dollar‐for‐dollar by the county.
Illinois HB1554 House 2/6/2015 Referred to Sentencing,
Penalties and Criminal
Procedure
Subcommittee
Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Exempts from an eavesdropping violation recordings made by a person, not a law
enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement officer, with the use of a body video camera in any place open to
the public.
HB3992 House 2/27/2015 Referred to Rules
Committee
Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Exempts from an eavesdropping violation recordings made simultaneously with
the use of an in‐car video camera or officer‐worn camera (currently, an in‐car video camera) recording of an oral
conversation between a uniformed peace officer, who has identified his or her office, and a person in the presence of
the peace officer whenever (1) an officer (deletes assigned a patrol vehicle) is conducting an enforcement stop; or (2)
patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or would otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the
presence of law enforcement. Effective immediately.

16. 15
Illinois
(cont.)
SB0710 Senate 2/3/2015 Assigned to Criminal
Law
Amends the Law Enforcement Camera Grant Act. Allows grants to be used to purchase and support use of video
cameras for law enforcement (rather than installing) and for training officers (rather than training for operation of
cameras). Replaces all references to "videotape" and "tapes" with "video records" and "video recording". Makes
changes concerning the use of cameras and training for law enforcement officers. Eliminates provisions concerning
applications for grant money and expired transfers of funds by the State Treasurer. Removes authority for the transfer
of $1,000,000 from the Law Enforcement Camera Grant Fund to the Traffic and Criminal Conviction Surcharge Fund on
June 1, 2015, or as soon thereafter as practical. Provides notwithstanding any other provision of law, moneys in the
Law Enforcement Camera Grant Fund may not be appropriated, assigned, or transferred to another State fund.
Provides the change on the June 1, 2015 transfer and the prohibition on appropriation, assignment, or transfer of
funds from the Law Enforcement Camera Grant Fund to another State fund are effective immediately.
SB0880 Senate 2/11/2015 Assigned to Criminal
Law
Creates the Law Enforcement Officer Body Camera System Act. Provides that each law enforcement agency shall, no
later than January 1, 2018, implement and operate a body camera system with the model policy or guideline for that
system established by the Department of State Police before July 1, 2017. Provides that nothing in the Act prohibits a
police force that is not required to implement and operate a body camera system under the Act from implementing
and operating that system, provided that the system is implemented and operated in accordance with the model
policy or guideline for the system established by the Department of State Police. Amends the Department of State
Police Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois to make conforming changes.
Indiana HB1225 House 1/13/2015 Referred to Committee
on Rules and Legislative
Procedures
Urges the legislative council to assign to a study committee during the 2015 legislative interim the topic of public
records requests for police body camera video.
SB0454 Senate 1/12/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Urges the legislative council to assign to a study committee during the 2015 legislative interim the topic of public
records requests for police body camera video.
Iowa HF292 House 2/17/2015 Subcommittee, Fry,
Baudler, and Brown‐
Powers
A bill for an act requiring certain peace officers and school security personnel to wear a body camera.

17. 16
Kansas HB2137 House 1/27/2015 House Hearing on
2/10/2015
Requires officers assigned to patrol duties to be equipped with body cameras while performing their duties; Requires
officer (if practicable) to notify individual that they are being recorded; Allows officers to temporarily stop recording if
dealing with a personal matter (personal conversation or using the bathroom); Requires officers to ask residents
whether they want the officer to record the interaction while in a residence; Requires retention of video for two
weeks unless it involves use of force, arrest, or relevant to complaint against officer, in those cases, footage will be
held for three years; Requires body cameras policies to be posted on its public website
HB2359 House 2/13/2015 Referred to Committee
on Corrections and
Juvenile Justice
Requiring law enforcement vehicle and body camera videos to be confidential; Defines guidelines on release and
requests for video footage
SB18 Senate 1/13/2015 Engrossed; Sent to
House; House Hearing
3/11/2015
Substitute for SB 18 by Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice ‐ Making certain law enforcement audio and
video recordings confidential and exempt from the open records act.
Maryland HB308 House 2/4/2015 Hearing on 3/12/2015 Authorizing a law enforcement officer to wear a video camera affixed to the law enforcement officer's uniform while
on duty; requiring that a recording be preserved by a law enforcement agency for at least 30 calendar days; providing
that it is lawful under a specified provision of law for a specified law enforcement officer to intercept a specified oral
communication; etc.
HB627 House 2/12/2015 Hearing on 3/12/2015 Requiring a law enforcement officer to activate both the audio and visual recording capabilities of a body camera
under specified circumstances; requiring a specified camera to continue recording until a specified event; providing
that the camera may not record an individual engaged in specified activities, with exceptions; providing that a
recording made under specified circumstances may not be used to identify specified persons; providing specified
requirements for recording on private property under specified circumstances; etc.
SB482 Senate 2/6/2015 Hearing on 2/26/2015 Requiring a law enforcement officer to activate both the audio and visual recording capabilities of a body camera
under specified circumstances; requiring a specified camera to continue recording until a specified event; providing
that the camera may not record an individual engaged in specified activities, with exceptions; providing that a
recording made under specified circumstances may not be used to identify specified persons; providing specified
requirements for recording on private property under specified circumstances; etc.
Michigan
HB4229 House 2/24/2015 Committee on Criminal
Justice printed bill, filed
2/25/2015
Provides for the use by law enforcement officers of cameras worn on the body; to require the retention and provide
for the production by law enforcement agencies of recordings made using the cameras; to create certain
presumptions in a court proceeding; to provide for the reimbursement of certain costs to local law enforcement
agencies; and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain public officials and public employees.

18. 17
Michigan
(cont.)
HB4234 House 2/24/2015 Committee on Judiciary
printed bill, filed
2/25/2015
Exempts certain audio and video recordings taken by law enforcement officers with a body camera or similar device
from disclosure; to describe certain places; to describe certain individuals who may request disclosure of those audio
or video recordings; and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain local and state law enforcement agencies.
Minnesota HF430 House 1/29/2015 Introduced Relating to data practices; adding provisions for portable recording systems; classifying audio and video data captured
by a law enforcement officer; amending Minnesota Statutes by adding a subdivision.
HF786 House 2/12/2015 Referred to Civil Law
and Data Practices
Committee
Law enforcement surveillance technology classified.
HF999 House 2/18/2015 Introduced Relating to data practices; classifying law enforcement body camera data; amending Minnesota Statutes by adding a
subdivision.
SF754 Senate 2/12/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Imposes a one‐year moratorium on the use of body cameras by law enforcement.
Mississippi HB1279 House 2/3/2015 **FAILED** in Judiciary
Committee
An Act To Create The Law Enforcement Body Camera Act; To Provide The Procedures For Use Of Body Cameras By Law
Enforcement Officers; To Describe How Video From The Cameras Shall Be Retained By Law Enforcement Agencies; To
Describe The List Of Persons Who May Obtain A Copy Of A Recording; To Provide Remedies For Violations Of This Act;
And For Related Purposes.
HB541 House 2/3/2015 **FAILED** in Judiciary
Committee
An Act To Amend Mississippi Code To Require Governing Authorities Of Municipalities To Provide On‐duty Police
Officers With Cameras That Are To Be Worn On The Uniforms Of The Officers; To Provide Penalties For Police Officers
Who Fail To Wear Such Cameras; And For Related Purposes.
Missouri
HB39 House 1/7/2015 Referred to Public
Safety and Emergency
Preparedness
Committees
Requires video cameras to be worn by uniformed police officers while interacting with the public and in police vehicles
primarily used for traffic stops
HB75 House 1/7/2015 Referred to Public
Safety and Emergency
Preparedness
Committees
Requires uniformed law enforcement officers to wear a video camera while on duty to record any interaction between
a law enforcement officer and a member of the public and to preserve the recordings for 30 days
HB76 House 1/7/2015 Referred to Public
Safety and Emergency
Preparedness
Committees
Requires uniformed law enforcement officers to wear a video camera while on duty to record any interaction between
a law enforcement officer and a member of the public and to preserve the recordings for 30 days
HB762 House 1/29/2015 Referred to Public
Safety and Emergency
Preparedness
Committees
Specifies information acquired by law enforcement via a dashboard camera or a body camera must be inaccessible to
the general public
HB945 House 2/12/2015 Second time read Modifies provisions related to law enforcement officers; Requires cameras to be worn by officers

19. 18
Missouri
(cont.)
HB971 House 2/17/2015 Second time read Requires uniformed law enforcement officers to wear a video camera while on duty to record any interaction between
a law enforcement officer and a member of the public and to preserve the recordings for a minimum of 30 days.
HB987 House 2/18/2015 Referred to Public
Safety and Emergency
Preparedness
Committees
Provides that recordings from peace officers' cameras are not public records and prohibits the state from requiring the
use or purchase of cameras
SB21 Senate 1/7/2015 Bill Combined with SB
331
Modifies and enacts provisions relating to law enforcement officers; Requires cameras to be worn by officers
SB331 Senate 1/18/2015 Bill Combined with SB
21
Provides that recordings from peace officers' cameras are not public records and prohibits the state from requiring the
use or purchase of cameras
SB356 Senate 1/29/2015 Referred to
Transportation,
Infrastructure and
Public Safety
Committees
Requires law enforcement agencies in certain cities to require their officers to wear a camera while on duty and in
uniform and record all contacts with people
SB550 Senate 2/26/2015 First Read Makes data from law enforcement cameras a closed record, prohibits the state from requiring law enforcement
cameras, and requires written policies on the use of cameras
Montana LC0331 House N/A **DRAFT** ‐ Draft Bill
ready for delivery
Requesting an interim study of law enforcement use of body cameras
Nevada AB162 Assembly 2/13/2015 Referred to Committee
on Government Affairs
Revises provisions governing the use of portable event recording devices by law enforcement; requiring officers to
wear body cameras
SB111 Senate 2/2/2015 Referred to Committee
on Government Affairs
Providing for the use of portable event recording devices by local law enforcement agencies in counties with
populations above 100,000.
New
Hampshire
HB583 House 1/8/2015 Retained in Criminal
Justice and Public Safety
Committee
Requiring state law enforcement officers to wear a camera when interacting with the public and making an
appropriation therefore.
HB617 House 1/8/2015 Retained in Criminal
Justice and Public Safety
Committee
Requiring state police to wear a camera when interacting with the public.
New Jersey S2399 Senate 9/18/2014 Referred to Senate Law
and Public Safety
Committee
Requires law enforcement officers to wear body cameras.
S2518 Senate 10/23/2014 Referred to Senate Law
and Public Safety
Committee
Requires certain law enforcement officers to wear cameras.
S2649 Senate 12/18/2014 Referred to Assembly
Law and Public Safety
Committee
Establishes "Police Body Camera Implementation Task Force" to study and make recommendations concerning use of
body cameras by law enforcement agencies in this State.
New Mexico HB363 House 1/28/2015 House Safety and Civil
Affairs Committee
No tort immunity for officers & body cameras
New York A04796 Assembly 2/6/2015 Referred to
Governmental
Operations
Directs the commissioner of criminal justice services to establish a pilot program for the use of body worn video
recording equipment on certain police officers of the city of New York.

20. 19
North
Dakota
1264 House 2/20/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Exempting law enforcement officer body camera images from open records requirements.
Oklahoma HB1869 House 2/2/2015 Referred to Rules
Committee
Requiring law enforcement officers to wear body cameras; effective November 1, 2015.
Oregon HB2571 House 1/12/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Requires law enforcement agency to establish policies and procedures for retaining recordings from cameras worn
upon police officer's person to record officer's interactions with members of public. Provides exemption from required
disclosure under public records law of recordings made of law enforcement officer's interactions with public. Creates
exceptions to exemption. Declares emergency, effective on passage.
HB2703 House 1/12/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Requires law enforcement officers who are on duty and on patrol to operate video cameras mounted upon officer's
person to record officer's interactions with members of public. Provides exceptions. Requires monitoring and
retention of recordings by third party. Becomes operative on effective date of Act. Provides for delayed
implementation based on population of municipal law enforcement agency jurisdiction.
HB2757 House 1/12/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Requires law enforcement agency to establish policy for using cameras worn upon police officer's body to record
officer's interactions with members of public. Specifies requirements of policy. Provides exemption from required
disclosure under public records law of recordings made of law enforcement officer's interactions with public. Creates
exceptions to exemption.
SB118 Senate 1/12/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Requires law enforcement agency to establish policies and procedures for retaining recordings from cameras worn
upon police officer's person to record officer's interactions with members of public. Provides exemption from required
disclosure under public records law of recordings made of law enforcement officer's interactions with public. Creates
exceptions to exemption. Declares emergency, effective on passage.
SB863 Senate 3/3/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Authorizes law enforcement units to adopt additional public records request fees designed to recoup costs of storage,
storage technology, indexing and retrieval of information captured through use by law enforcement of body cameras
to capture daily duties of police officers. Requires fee schedules to be designed to recoup costs over three‐year
period.
Pennsylvania HB420 House 2/9/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Amending the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in wiretapping and electronic surveillance, providing for law
enforcement use of cameras worn on the body.
South
Carolina
H3057 House 1/13/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Provides That All Law Enforcement Agencies Must Equip Their Officers With Wearable Video Cameras.
H3058 House 1/13/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Create The "Committee On The Use Of Wearable Video Cameras By State Troopers", To Provide For The Membership
And Staffing Of The Study Committee, And To Provide For The Study Committee's Termination.

21. 20
South
Carolina
(cont.)
H3441 House 1/28/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
Revise The Circumstances Upon Which A Video Recording Of These Proceedings Is Required To Be Made, The
Procedures That Must Be Followed When A Video Recording Is Made, And The Circumstances That Exempt An Officer
From Making A Video Recording.
S0047 Senate 1/13/2015 Referred to
Subcommittee: Hutto,
Corbin, Hembree,
Young, Kimpson
Provide That All State And Local Law Enforcement Officers Must Be Equipped With Body Cameras.
Tennessee HB0712 House 2/11/2015 Assigned to State
Government
Subcommittee; Hearing
3/11/2015
As introduced, requires law enforcement officers to wear wide angle body cameras that record video footage while on
duty, if funded by grants, private donations, or federal funds
SB0868 Senate 2/11/2015 Referred to Judiciary
Committee
As introduced, requires law enforcement officers to wear wide angle body cameras that record video footage while on
duty, if funded by grants, private donations, or federal funds
Texas HB455 House 12/4/2014 Referred to Emerging
Issues in Texas Law
Enforcement
Relating to a body worn camera program for certain law enforcement agencies in this state; Grants, training, and
policies
HB474 House 12/8/2014 Referred to Emerging
Issues in Texas Law
Enforcement
Requiring certain law enforcement officers to wear body worn cameras.
SB158 Senate 11/10/2014 Referred to Criminal
Justice Committee
Relating to a body worn camera program for certain law enforcement agencies in this state. Grants, trainings, officer's
rights, prohibits tampering.
Utah HB0386 House 2/24/2015 Referred to standing
committee in House
Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice
Committee
Recording made by a body camera by a law enforcement officer constitutes a private record, as specified; a law
enforcement agency that uses body cameras by law enforcement officers shall have a written policy governing the use
of body cameras; guidelines for the technological requirements of any agency retention system that is used to store
recordings made by body cameras; a law enforcement agency may charge a fee for the cost of providing copies of
recordings if the request is not part of a judicial proceeding.
SB0252 Senate 2/24/2015 Placed on second
Reading Calendar
Creates the Law Enforcement Use of Force Task Force
Virginia
HB1521 House 1/6/2015 In Militia, Police and
Public Safety
Committee
Use of body camera system by law enforcement. Provides that any sheriff who is the chief law‐enforcement officer of
his locality and employs 100 or more deputies, any police force that employs 100 or more officers, and the
Superintendent of State Police shall, no later than January 1, 2018, implement and operate a body camera system,
which is defined in the bill as an electronic system for creating, generating, sending, receiving, storing, displaying, and
processing audiovisual recordings, including cameras or other devices capable of creating such recordings, that may be
worn about the person of a law‐enforcement officer. Such a system must comply with the model policy or guideline
that will be established by the Department of Criminal Justice Services.

22. 21
Virginia
(cont.)
HB1534 House 1/6/2015 In Militia, Police and
Public Safety
Committee
Use of body camera system by the Department of State Police. Requires the Superintendent of State Police to
implement and operate a body camera system, which is defined by the bill as an electronic system for creating,
generating, sending, receiving, storing, displaying, and processing audiovisual recordings, including cameras or other
devices capable of creating such recordings that may be worn about the person of a law‐enforcement officer, and
require all officers be equipped with a body camera. The bill provides that the Department of State Police shall, on a
daily basis, transmit all recordings made by the system during the previous 24‐hour period to a database maintained
by the Attorney General. Recordings shall be retained in the database for 30 days but may be retained longer if
relevant for the investigation of a crime. The bill also provides that recordings in the database shall not be disclosed
except pursuant to a court order or when an allegation that a law‐enforcement officer has engaged in unlawful
conduct has been made. The bill provides further that any other law‐enforcement agency in the Commonwealth may
implement and operate a body camera system subject to the same requirements as the system operated by the State
Police. Finally, the bill provides that any person who knowingly disseminates any audiovisual recording created
through the operation of a body camera system in violation of the limitations on such dissemination is guilty of a Class
6 felony.
HB2280 House 1/20/2015 In Militia, Police and
Public Safety
Committee
Use of body camera system by law enforcement and other entities. Requires that any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the Commonwealth or of any locality having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement or
regulatory violations adopt a written policy and procedure prior to purchasing or deploying a body camera system and
that such policy must comply with the model policy or guidelines to be established by the Department of Criminal
Justice Services. Such policy must contain provisions (i) governing the information provided to individuals being
recorded and the rights of such individuals, (ii) specifying where and how long recordings are stored and who has
access to such recordings, (iii) governing the public's access to such recordings, and (iv) providing for the review of
such recordings.
Washington HB1917 House 2/2/2015 Placed on second
reading
Relating to video and/or sound recordings made by law enforcement or corrections officers; amending codes; creating
new sections; and providing an expiration date.
United
States
HB1124 Congress 2/26/2015 Referred to House
Armed Services
To establish a grant program providing for the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of body cameras for law
enforcement officers, and for other purposes.

23. 22
Bibliography
Alexandersen, Christian. “State legislator wants to require all Pennsylvania cops to wear body
cameras.” The Patriot‐News. PA Media Group, February 19, 2015. Web. February 27,
2015.
Anderson, Taylor W. “Body cameras for Oregon police?” The Bulletin. Western Communications
Company, December 28, 2014. Web. February 27, 2015.
Bailey, Jr., Everton. “Body cameras for police: Portland on cusp of outfitting 600 officers, other
metro departments not far behind.” The Oregonian. OregonLive, December 5, 2014.
Web. February 21, 2015.
Bash, Homa. “Testing police body cameras: What makes the biggest difference?” newsnet5.
Scripps TV Station Group, February 26, 2015. Web. February 27, 2015.
“Channel 2 investigate local police departments’ use of body cameras.” WSB‐TV Atlanta. Cox
Media Group, February 23, 2015. Web. February 27, 2015.
Cummings, Bill. “Cameras‐on‐cops bill comes into focus.” ctpost.com. Hearst Media Services
Connecticut, February 17, 2015. Web. February 27, 2015.
Farrar, Tony. “Self‐awareness to being watched and socially‐desirable behavior: A field
experiment on the effect of body cameras on police use‐of‐force”
PoliceFoundation. Scribd, March 16, 2013. Web. February 28, 2015.
Gillett, Bud. “Fort Worth Police Arming Officers With Security Cameras.” CBS DFW. CBS Local
Media, August 14, 2013. Web. February 27, 2015.
Hill, Kyle. “Will Police Body Cameras Work? The Psychology of Being Watched.” The Nerdist.
The Nerdist, December 4, 2014. Web. February 28, 2015.
Kaste, Martin. "Police Departments Issuing Body Cameras Discover Drawbacks." NPR.org. NPR,
January 22, 2015. Web. March 10, 2015.
Kopta, Chelsea. “Portland Police: Body cameras face big hurdles.” KATU.com. Sinclair Interactive
Media, December 3, 2014. Web. March 10, 2015.
Li, Shirley. “The Big Picture: How Do Police Body Cameras Work?” The Wire. The Atlantic
Monthly Group, August 25, 2014. Web. February 28, 2015.

24. 23
Manning, Rob. “Use Of Body Cameras By Oregon Police Likely To Increase.” OPB.org. Oregon
Public Broadcasting, January 4, 2015. Web. March 10, 2015.
McClam, Erin. “Seattle Police Post Body Cam Videos on YouTube Channel.” NBCNews.
NBCNews, February 27, 2015. Web. March 10, 2015.
McKay, Tom. “One State Is About to Turn Police Body Cameras Into Nothing More Than Empty
Gestures.” News.Mic. Mic Network, Inc., February 24, 2015. Web. March 10, 2015.
Odegard, Kyle. "Some police agencies waiting on body cameras." Corvallis Gazette‐Times.
Corvallis Gazette‐Times, March 1, 2015. Web. March 5, 2015.
Ponsi, Lou. “Video: The future of policing is cops with body cameras, and Fullerton is leading the
way.” Orange County Register. Orange County Register, February 13, 2015. Web. March
10, 2015.
Ramirez, Eugene P. “A Report on Body Worn Cameras.” parsac.org. Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP, N.d. Web. March 10, 2015.
Rozier, Alex. "Seattle PD now posting body camera video online." King5.com. Gannett Satellite
Information Network, March 4, 2015. Web. March 5, 2015.
Thomas, Jake. “Coming soon to a uniform near you: body cameras.” StreetRoots.org. Street
Roots, October 3, 2014. Web. March 10, 2015.
Wolfcom. “Wolfcom Vision Police Body Worn Camera System.” Wolfcom. Wolfcom Enterprises,
N.d. Web. February 28, 2015.