BODY CAMERA PROJECT:
REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATION
by
Sergeant Ryan Smith
of
CPD Inspections Unit
December 2, 2014
Presentation Overview
• 1. Project Introduction
• 2. Body Worn Camera (BWC) Systems Overview
• 3. Initial BWC Testing by Inspections Unit
• 4. Simulated BWC Scenarios at the Police Academy
• 5. Field Testing of BWC systems at District Three
• 6. Peer-reviewed academic research
• 7. Technology and Systems opinion on BWC deployment
• 8. Preliminary BWC Price Quotes
• 9. Inspections Unit BWC recommendation
BWC Project Introduction
• Inspections Unit was tasked to test and evaluate body
worn camera (BWC) systems for potential deployment
on May 5, 2014
• Two BWC systems were selected for testing:
• TASER AXON Body Camera
• VieVu LE3 Body Camera
• Inspections Unit requested a legal opinion from the
City of Cincinnati Solicitor’s Office
• Officers would not be required to ask for or have consent to
record suspects or citizens if the recording takes place in
public with no expectation of privacy
BWC Project Introduction (cont.)
• Inspections Unit requested a BWC temporary
procedure from Planning Unit for use in a field trial
• Planning Unit published the Body Worn Camera Pilot Program
Procedure in the Department Staff Notes on August 7, 2014
• Inspections Unit requested a liaison from Technology
& Systems Section to integrate these BWC units into
the Department IT infrastructure
• Inspections Unit requested a BWC field trial in District
Three using second and power / third relief officers
BWC Project Introduction: Summary
• Inspections Unit is satisfied that the competing
vendors selected for this BWC project were the two
most accepted and adopted BWC systems available
to American law enforcement agencies when the
project was authorized in May of 2014
• The most challenging experience during the
introductory phase of the BWC project was
establishing the IT network connections sufficient for
the TASER AXON hardware and Evidence.com
software to interface within existing Department IT
infrastructure
The TASER AXON Body Camera
The TASER AXON Body Camera (cont.)
• A “cloud” based body camera system
• 640 x 480 VGA video resolution at 30 FPS
• 130° field of view camera lens
• Retina Low-Light recording capability at less than 1
lux
• Approximately 4 hours video storage under highest
quality recording settings; up to 9 hours storage
under medium quality recording settings; and up to
13 hours storage available at lowest quality recording
setting
• More than 12 hours of battery life under normal
operation
The TASER AXON Body Camera (cont.)
• The TASER AXON BWC continually buffers thirty
seconds of video before the user activates the camera
• When activated the camera then records to internal storage
the previous thirty seconds of buffered video (no audio) and
both audio and video until the user deactivates the camera
• Users dock the TASER AXON BWC at the end of their
shift at their district or section
• The docking station uploads recorded video to the cloud-
based Evidence.com over the internet
• Users cannot alter or delete recorded files from the camera
• The docking station also recharges the camera
The TASER AXON Body Camera (cont.)
The TASER AXON Body Camera (cont.)
• Evidence.com allows recorded videos to be accessed
anywhere on a personal computer with available and
sufficient internet to stream large video files
• Evidence.com allows recorded files to be shared with
anyone with an email address by emailing the intended
recipient a link to open and view said files
• All files accessed through Evidence.com are logged for
accountability purposes to document any viewing or
copying of files
• All users of Evidence.com are required to have a user
account to access the system in any capacity
The VieVu LE3 Body Camera
The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.)
• A local storage based camera system
• 1280×720 (HD) or 848×480 (Widescreen SD) at
30 FPS
• 68° field of view camera lens
• Enhanced Image Quality and Low Light
Capability
• 5 hours of recording time at SD, 3 hours at HD
quality
• 72 hours of standby battery capacity when not
in use
The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.)
• The VieVu LE3 camera does not buffer video
• The camera records audio and video only when activated
• Two to three seconds delay before the camera records
• The VieVu LE3 BWC unit is connected by a USB cable
at the end of the shift to a Department computer
• Video files are uploaded by installed software on the computer
to local-based storage: Eyewitness Data Vault
• Users cannot alter or delete recorded files from the camera
• Camera can be recharged slowly while connected to the USB
cable or faster using an included wall charger
• There is no docking station required for these cameras
The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.)
The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.)
• “Veripatrol” complementary client software is
included with the purchase of the VieVu LE3 BWC unit
• Eyewitness Data Vault software was previously
installed by Department IT personnel on recently
upgraded Department computers currently used in
the districts to facilitate police car digital video
recordings (DVR)
• The VieVu LE3 BWC was integrated for the purpose of
this BWC project into the Eyewitness Data Vault
software system as a local-storage option using the
Department intranet to store and review recorded files
The VieVu LE3 Body Camera (cont.)
• Recorded files uploaded onto the Eyewitness Data Vault
locally-stored server may be accessed by Department
computers with the proper permissions and software
installed by IT support – not a cloud system
• All files accessed through Eyewitness Data Vault are
logged for accountability purposes to document any
viewing or copying of files
• Users of VieVu LE3 BWC units are not required to have an
Eyewitness Data Vault user account to use this BWC
system in the field
• Supervisors currently have assigned Eyewitness Data Vault
accounts to manage police car DVR videos
Inspections Unit – Initial Testing
• Sound quality was tested between these two BWC
systems:
• Tested at increasing five foot intervals
• VieVu LE3 cameras were largely unaffected by ambient noise
• VieVu LE3 cameras recorded much better audio clarity than the
TASER AXON cameras
• Sample videos were recorded during the day and night
• VieVu LE3 videos had a narrower field of view (68 degrees)
compared to TASER AXON (130 degrees)
• VieVu LE3 videos were much higher quality during the day and
with sufficient ambient light at night
• TASER AXON videos were lower quality and grainier overall
comapred to the VieVu LE 3 BWC but recorded much better
quality videos at night with low to no ambient light available
Initial Testing: Analysis
• TASER AXON BWC units record at a lower video resolution
compared to VieVu LE3 BWC units
• This disparity results in lower quality video and smaller files
compared to VieVu LE3 BWC recordings
• Compromise of cloud-based versus local-based storage
• Local-based storage is currently a more viable option than
uploading to cloud-based storage without an upgrade to
the Department IT infrastructure
• Local storage BWC systems will deliver better video and
sound quality through higher resolution and larger
recorded files than cloud-based BWC systems for the
immediate and foreseeable future
BWC Scenarios at the Police Academy
• Training Unit personnel were armed with simunition-
loaded firearms and TASER X26 training cartridges to
approximate the dynamic of a realistic encounter
• The simulated scenarios were duplicated using the
same role players and competing BWC systems
during both solo and partner encounters
• Police intervention shooting against an armed suspect
• TASER X26 deployment against a suspect armed with a stick
• Hard hands / use of force / baton shade against a suddenly
combative suspect
BWC Scenarios: Analysis
• The higher resolution video and audio quality of the VieVu
LE3 BWC was superior compared to the TASER AXON
BWC
• The TASER AXON BWC unit’s wider field of view recorded
more of the encounter at the expense of distorted
peripheral video quality and depth perception
• Specific and deliberate BWC unit placement of the VieVu
LE3 BWC on the officer’s shirt was critical
• Both BWC units were able to effectively record these
simulated encounters sufficient to evaluate and justify the
respective force options
BWC Field Testing in District Three
• TASER AXON and VieVu LE3 BWC units were deployed on
District Three second and power / third relief sworn
personnel in a field trial to evaluate the BWC systems
during daylight, dusk, and evening hours
• Six BWC units from each competing vendor were secured
for purposes of this product testing
• BWC units were primarily deployed on partner units, with
the intent of equipping partner officers with different BWC
units to compare and contrast the competing products
during the same incidents
• Both reliefs deployed these competing BWC systems for a
minimum of four weeks
BWC Field Testing in District Three (cont.)
• Inspections Unit personnel responded to
second and third reliefs to train sworn
personnel on the operation of the competing
BWC systems and to review the Body Worn
Camera Pilot Program Procedure
• Supervisors and officers were surveyed at the
conclusion of their respective field trials to
quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate these
competing BWC systems
BWC Field Testing in District Three (cont.)
Officers were required to record the following incidents:
A. Any non-consensual encounter with a citizen
B. When on-scene with persons suspected of
being MHRT or MHRT/V
C. While responding to calls for service in
emergency mode
D. During the entirety of traffic or foot pursuits
E. Traffic stops, including the investigation of a
vehicle and occupants already stopped or
parked
BWC Field Testing in District Three (cont.)
Officers were required to record the following incidents:
F. All requests for consent to search without a
warrant, including searches of persons, buildings,
or vehicles, will be recorded
G. Requests for searches and deployments of drugdetection canines involving vehicles, when practical
H. Recordings of all persons physically arrested and
being transported in any Department vehicle to any
location
I.
Officers have the discretion to activate the BWC
when they believe an event may have evidentiary
value
BWC Field Testing: Analysis
• Inspections Unit contacted many American law
enforcement agencies regarding their experiences
with BWC systems during this project
• Every agency contacted stated their officers disliked
BWC systems before the units were deployed
• All agencies stated after deployment their sworn
officers were either largely ambivalent at worse or
supportive of wearing a BWC unit while on patrol
• District Three second and third relief sworn personnel
also experienced a BWC positive perception shift
• Inspections Unit asserts that a full BWC deployment will
ultimately be positively perceived by the majority of
Department sworn officers
BWC Field Testing: Analysis (cont.)
• Officers surveyed after the District Three field trial
preferred the VieVu LE3 BWC compared to the TASER
AXON BWC by a statistically significant margin
• Officers stated the TASER AXON BWC was heavy,
bulky, and difficult to activate
• Officers stated the VieVu LE3 BWC was easier to use
and allowed other officers to instantly recognize that
this BWC unit was recording
BWC Field Testing: Analysis (cont.)
• Supervisors surveyed after the District Three field trial
also preferred the VieVu LE3 BWC compared to the TASER
AXON BWC by a statistically significant margin
• Supervisors stated the TASER AXON BWC required more
time to review and copy video files because of the delay
accessing the cloud-based storage of Evidence.com
• Supervisors stated that VieVu LE3 BWC recorded videos
had better video and sound quality, and were easier to
review and copy using the local-storage based Eyewitness
Data Vault
BWC Field Testing: Analysis (cont.)
• Inspections Unit personnel determined during the District Three
field trial a concern regarding deployment of the TASER AXON
BWC system
• The TASER AXON BWC unit cannot be worn with the uniform
shirt and tie or with any jacket issued to Department officers, as
this BWC system relies upon the center seam of the officer’s
uniform shirt to secure in place
• There is no viable alternative to deploy the TASER AXON Body
with the uniform tie or secured to an exterior jacket at this time
• The only TASER / Evidence.com alternative would be to consider
the TASER AXON Flex camera instead
• Typically head mounted unit on special glasses with an exterior wire that
connects to the control unit
BWC Field Testing: Analysis (cont.)
• The VieVu LE3 BWC may be worn with the Department
uniform shirt and tie if the BWC unit is placed over the tie
and secured in place with the “alligator clip” fastened to
the center seam of the shirt
• There is no way to secure the VieVu LE3 BWC to a
Department issued jacket without making an external
alteration to the jacket
• A nylon loop in black or midnight blue is available with a
retail price of $1.99 that could be sewn onto a Department
issued jacket to provide an anchor point for the VieVu LE3
BWC
The Rialto (CA) Case Study - 2012
Rialto (CA) Case Study (cont.)
• The first "true" academic study on the use of
BWCs was conducted in Southern California
by the City of Rialto Police Department. The
research was conducted by Rialto’s Police
Chief Tony Farrar during his studies at
Cambridge University in the United Kingdom
• Chief Farrar’s findings are documented in his
graduate thesis: The Inescapable
Panopticonic Gaze: The Effect of Body-Worn
Cameras On Police Use-Of-Force
Rialto (CA) Case Study (cont.)
• The Rialto Case Study analyzed the use of body
cameras during patrol officer shifts. Two study groups
were created for this one year research project
• The first group, named “Experimental-Shifts,” required
each officer to wear a high definition body camera
during his/her shift. The body camera recorded all of the
officer’s interactions with the public
• The second group, named “Control-Shifts,” consisted of
officers that were instructed not to use body cameras
during their shifts
Rialto (CA) Case Study (cont.)
For officers that wore BWC systems during the study:
59%
• Citizen complaints were reduced by 87.5%
• Use of force incidents declined by
Rialto PD estimated that it costs $20,000 on average to
investigate and reach settlements for citizen complaints:
• Rialto PD estimates their use of body cameras saved
the direct cost of 21 citizen complaints..
• ..with an estimated savings to their agency of over
$400,000
The Mesa (AZ) Case Study - 2013
Mesa (AZ) Case Study (cont.)
• The first part of the Mesa PD analysis
compared 50 officers who wore body cameras
to 50 officers not wearing body cameras
• The second part of this analysis examined the
complaint trends of BWC equipped officers
before and after they were issued the cameras
• The Mesa Police Department also assessed
the impact of body-worn cameras on officer
attitudes and officer behavior
Mesa (AZ) Case Study (cont.)
The Mesa PD study concluded that:
• Officers wearing body cameras had
65% fewer complaints
compared to the control group of non-camera officers
• Officers wearing cameras „
had
60% fewer complaints
during the study period compared to their previous year
without cameras
• Prior to the start of the project, officers’ attitudes about
body cameras were either ambivalent or negative..
• After the body cameras study, officers generally had
positive views about the potential impact of the body-worn
cameras: 77% of officers believed the cameras would
cause officers to behave more professionally
Perceived Benefits and Concerns of Body Cameras - 2014
Perceived Benefits of Body Cameras
Increased transparency and legitimacy
• „
 This claim has not been sufficiently tested.
There have been virtually no studies on
citizens’ views of the technology
• Improved police officer behavior
 Several of the empirical studies have
documented substantial decreases in citizen
complaints and police uses of force
 The decline in complaints and use of force may
be tied to improved citizen behavior, improved
police officer behavior, or a combination of the
two
Perceived Benefits (cont.)
• Improved citizen behavior
 There is evidence in the research that citizens are
less likely to file frivolous complaints against
officers wearing cameras
• Expedited resolution of complaints and
lawsuits
• Several of the empirical studies indicate that body
worn cameras assist in the resolution of citizen
complaints against police officers
• No research has tested the technology’s specific
impact on lawsuits against police
Academic Research: Analysis
• There is a scarcity of contemporary peer-reviewed
academic research regarding the effects of BWC
deployment given how recently this technology has
become accessible to law enforcement agencies.
• Inspections Unit asserts that the current Cincinnati Police
Body Worn Camera Pilot Program Procedure is consistent
with current law enforcement best practices as evidenced
by a review of the currently available academic literature
• Inspections Unit asserts that a deployment of BWC units
on Department sworn officers will positively affect the
investigation and resolution of citizen complaints and may
decrease rates of complaints and use of force incidents
consistent with the available academic research
Academic Research: Analysis (cont.)
• Inspections Unit asserts that records requests of BWC
video will increase in frequency after a full deployment of
BWC units on Department sworn personnel
• Inspections Unit personnel have contacted other police
agencies to review their experiences with BWC systems:
• The Modesto (CA) PD required two sergeants to manage BWC
units for 120 officers
• The Mesa (AZ) PD required one lieutenant and one sergeant to
manage BWC units for 50 officers
• The Cook County (IL) Sheriff’s Department required one
supervisor and two officers to manage BWC units for 250 officers
• The San Diego (CA) PD required four police officers to manage
BWC units for 600 officers
Technology & Systems Opinion
• Mr. Tony Schlegel, the IT liaison for this project,
advised that any large-scale deployment of BWC units
will strain the Department IT infrastructure
• Mr. Schlegel stated that the recently upgraded District
computers equipped with Eyewitness Data Vault
software currently used to facilitate police car DVR
units were set up to accommodate body cameras
using local-based server storage
• Mr. Schlegel recommended a storage space study for
these systems before a full deployment of VieVu LE3
BWC units to make sure the pre-allocated server
storage space was sufficient
Technology & Systems Opinion (cont.)
• A bandwidth study involving City of Cincinnati ETS
would have to be conducted if the Department chose
to deploy cloud-based BWC systems consistent with
TASER / Evidence.com
• Mr. Schlegel stated there is only a limited sized (IT
infrastructure) pipe that the City’s data travels
through
• Mr. Schlegel advised that if the current IT
infrastructure pipe is not adequate enough for the
(TASER AXON) video, the Department would need to
look at separate DSL connections at each location
which would incur additional financial costs
Technology & Systems: Analysis
• Any large deployment of BWC systems will require
the full cooperation of Technology & Systems
personnel to facilitate this process
• The existing Department IT infrastructure was
recently upgraded with the intent of supporting BWC
systems, which would only facilitate a local-storage
option such as the VieVu LE3 BWC
• A cloud-based option such as the TASER AXON BWC
would most likely require an upgrade to the IT
infrastructure
Preliminary BWC Price Quotes
• Comparing these two quotes may be problematic
given how disparate their pricing models are
• VieVu LE3 BWC systems do not require user
accounts, licenses, storage costs, docking stations,
or any recurring financial costs after the initial
purchase as their pricing model is predicated upon
local-based storage managed by the purchaser
• TASER AXON BWC systems provide everything
needed to deploy their hardware and software except
for the IT internet connection to access their cloudbased system, but the purchaser incurs higher initial
and recurring financial costs for said services
Preliminary BWC Price Quotes (cont.)
• Inspections Unit requested preliminary
pricing estimates from the competing BWC
vendors for a minimum deployment of 500
BWC units
• Inspections Unit submits that 500 BWC
cameras would allow BWC units to be
deployed on all police officers and police
specialists engaged in the patrol function and
wearing the Department uniform
Preliminary BWC Price Quotes (cont.)
• TASER AXON Quotes (500 BWC units):
• OPTION 1 – 500 AXON Flex Systems with 5 Year ULTIMATE
TAP Program: Total - $2,250,204
• OPTION 2 – 500 AXON Body Systems and BASIC TAP
Program: Total - $1,699,400
• OPTION 3 – 500 AXON Body Systems and 5 Years
Evidence.com with Extended Warranty (no TAP): Total $1,308,200
• VieVu LE3 Quote (500 BWC Units)
• 500 VieVu LE3 BWC systems with three years extended
warranty: Total - $450,250
Preliminary BWC Price Quotes: Analysis
• Inspections Unit formulated a five year projection
based upon these BWC vendor quotes to illustrate a
basic comparative analysis
• The provided price quotes were divided by 500 users
by 60 months to determine a rudimentary monthly
cost per officer per month over a five year period from
date of purchase
• TASER AXON (Ultimate Tap):
• TASER AXON (Basic Tap):
• TASER AXON (No TAP):
• VieVu LE3 BWC:
$75.01 per officer per month
$56.65 per officer per month
$43.61 per officer per month
$15.01 per officer per month
BWC Project Recommendation
• Inspections Unit respectfully recommends consideration
of the VieVu LE3 BWC for purchase and deployment by the
Cincinnati Police Department
• Inspections Unit respectfully submits the following to
complement this product recommendation consistent with
what Inspections Unit personnel have learned during BWC
testing and evaluation:
• Inspections Unit submits that this recommendation is contingent
upon purchase of VieVu LE3 BWC units within the next six to
twelve months
• Inspections Unit asserts that BWC technology will continue to
rapidly evolve sufficient to re-evaluate this recommendation after
twelve months have elapsed from the submission of this report
BWC Project Recommendation (cont.)
• Inspections Unit respectfully requests an evaluation
of which officers should be issued BWC units,
specifically:
• Sergeant and lieutenants engaged in the patrol function
• All sworn officers below the rank of captain if BWC systems
are to be worn during Outside Employment Extension of
Police Service Details.
• Inspections Unit respectfully recommends that
Technology & Systems Section explore more efficient
methods to share recorded videos with prosecutors,
defense attorneys, and the public, besides copying
recorded videos to physical DVD media consistent
with current Department policy
BWC Project Recommendation (cont.)
• Inspections Unit respectfully recommends a review of
Department records request policies and procedures to evaluate
the necessity to redact crime victims and juveniles from BWC
videos before said videos are released after a records request
has been filed
• Inspections Unit respectfully recommends a review of
Department records request policies and procedures to address
a potential Department response to records requests of all BWC
video recorded by all Department sworn officers
• Inspections Unit respectfully requests Planning Unit to
continually reevaluate the Department written procedure
regarding BWC usage as best practices in law enforcement
regarding BWC usage will likewise continue to rapidly evolve
over the next several years