Body Cameras and Police Policies
In the United States, significant attention has been placed on law enforcement use of body cameras. Police body cameras are small devices that are attached to the officer’s uniform or worn as a head piece that record police interaction with the public. Both supporters and opponents of the use of these cameras have cited several reasons for their stance and the issue remains controversial. This paper takes a deep look at this issue with particular focus on the importance and the role of police body worn cameras. Some of the major aspects that will be explored in the paper include current laws on body cameras, specific real situations/cases where law enforcement agencies have been exposed to liability relative to body cameras, the public and police sentiments on the issue, legal civil liabilities, criminal liabilities and defenses and finally options available to law enforcement agency. A standard operating procedure will be recommended at the end of the paper as well as an official press release for the law enforcement agency position on the issue.
I: The use of body camera technology has been controversial among citizens and government officials. Many fear police use of body cameras violate citizens’ fourth and fifteen amendment rights and others believe it promotes public safety. Over the past few years, there has been an increase of police killing of citizens with limited to no conviction. This has led to mass protest with expansive calls for the mandating of the use of the technology. The argument is that with the proper implementation and laws, law enforcement use of body cameras will protect the public against police misconduct and prevent citizens’ rights from being violated. In places where the use of body cameras has already been implemented, favorable results have been observed. First of all, the use of these cameras has led to a considerable reduction of citizen complaints against police officers. This is because these cameras prompt officers to be on their best behavior since everything they do will be on record. Additionally, the use of body cameras has resulted in very valuable evidence of crimes. This evidence can be used in court by prosecutors. A perfect example where the evidence from a body camera proved vital for the prosecution was in the case of James Boyd who had been senselessly shot in Albuquerque, New Mexico by officers. This killing was captured on video camera. Another benefit of the body cameras is that they are a great training tool for others to learn. Since the cameras capture the interactions of law enforcement officers with the public, fellow officers can observe some of the captured or recoded interactions and learn how to behave or not to behave when interacting with the public. For example, in a heated situations, one can learn some of the behavior that can intimidate a suspect and therefore try not behaving that way. Even as calls to implement laws pertaining to the use of body cameras intensify, one issue that is often ignored relates to cost. This refers to both the cost of the specific video cameras as well as the storage systems required for the recorded footage. The costs are actually quite high and adequate budgeting is required. For example, the mayor of Baltimore recently vetoed a proposal requiring officers to wear body cameras because of the expected long term costs. The officials in this city estimated that storage costs would amount to about 2.6% annually, something that the city could clearly not afford. The price of a body camera can range between $100 and $1000. Even if funds to buy these cameras might be available, it is the storage that incurs more costs. In fact, much of the opposition to the use of body cameras has revolved around storage costs.
II: Throughout the states, there has been an epidemic of police brutality and use of deadly force. Based on the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform crime reports, there has been a steady increase of homicides committed by police from the years 2011 to 2013; increasing from 404 in 2011 to 461 in year 2013. The country has witnessed an increase in police use of excessive force as well as an increase of video recordings of police interactions. The police fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014 and Eric Garner’s chokehold death by police in Staten Island, New York were both caught on video. These cases are among the increase police killings of unarmed black males in the United States that sparked worldwide attention and protest (Harvard Law Review, 2015).
Prior to the grand jury’s decision, both protestors and politicians were calling for police departments across the country to outfit their officers with body cameras. The hope was that video recordings of police-civilian interactions would deter officer misconduct and eliminate the ambiguity present in cases like Michael Brown’s, making it easier to punish officers’ use of excessive force. p. 1795
The massive protests and requests of police use of body cameras is a hopeful solution to reduce police misconduct and improve policing. The police misconduct and use of deadly force on the unarmed males was clearly caught on tape by local citizens but the officers involved were not indicted. The citizen’s video recordings did not hold up as much as a police body camera recording would have, due to its partial captures; the police body camera would have captured the entire event and left no room for assumption. Recordings capturing an entire interaction between civilians and police protect both parties from false accusations and assist prosecutors. Rialto study of the use of police body cameras result findings supports the use of the technology. “Shifts without cameras experienced twice as many incidents of use of force as shifts with cameras and the rate of use of force incidents per 1,000 contacts was reduced by 2.5 times, over a year period” (Harvard Law Review, 2015, p. 1800). Based on the study, body cameras reduce contribute to the reduction of polices’ use of force. Police may be less likely to violate rules and regulations when they are aware their actions are being recorded compared to citizens secretly capturing the events, cameras deterring misconduct.
Throughout the states, there are laws and programs under construction to promote the use of body cameras. “In December 2014, President Obama proposed the Body-Worn-Camera Partnership Program to help fund body camera equipment, part of a three year 263 million dollar initiative to improve community policing” (Mateescu, A., Rosenblat, A. and Boyd, D., 2015. p.1). The massive protest of the killings of unarmed black men and its request made a significant impact on society, gaining the president attention and support. This has led to the rapid use of body cameras across the police departments. “Based on a survey of 254 police departments, 63 reported the use of body-worn-cameras” (Mateescu and et.al, 2015p.1) The study results express a low percentage of police departments utilizing body cameras. However, the country total use has significantly increased over the past years; with the help of protests and government official responses. The police body cameras have the potential to be manipulated so there must be laws, training and guidelines put in place to prevent the abuse of the technology.
Current law surrounding body cameras
III: The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America which was established to protect citizen’s rights. While the first ten amendments of the Constitution are most commonly known as the Bill of Rights, the amendments provide protections of liberty and justice. Also the amendments place restrictions to limit the power of the government. The issue of police body cameras has a direct impact on the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Also this amendment requires warrants to be judicially authorized and supported by probable cause. Originally the Bill of Rights did not apply to states, but this changed in 1961 when the amendment was held to apply to states in Mapp V. Ohio.
As stated, this amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizures including arrests. The Fifth Amendment protects a person against being compelled to testify against himself or herself in a criminal case, but more importantly the amendment includes the Due Process Clause. This is also included in the Fourteenth Amendment. Due process deals with the administration of justice which acts as a safeguard from unsubstantiated denial of life, liberty or property by the government outside of the law. Interpretations of the due process clause by the Supreme Court of the United States are broad because this clause provides four protections. The four protections are procedural due process, substantive due process, a prevention against vague laws and ensures that all citizens have equal rights.
There are also numerous state laws that may impact the use of body cameras by police such as the Maryland Wiretapping Law and House Bill 533. The Maryland Wiretapping Law requires tow party consent. In 1992 the Maryland Wiretapping Law was modified to allow officers to video and audio record persons via dashboard cameras during traffic stops. Currently video recording without audio is not subject to the “two-party consent” in the state of Maryland. House Bill 533 provides an exception to the wiretapping law similar to the 1992 modification. The house bill provides that the Maryland Police training Commission is to develop and publish a policy establishing the Commission regarding the implementation and the use of body cameras by law enforcement officers which will result in a report submitted to the General Assembly on or before October 1, 2015. Good state specific itemization of individual state laws on the “wire tap issue”
The courts have made numerous decisions in reference to the use of body cameras and recordings in general. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement officers may generally record whatever they can lawfully see and hear, without violating the Fourth Amendment (Lopez v. U.S.). There is however exceptions when police use special technology to invade legitimate expectations of privacy in a suspect’s conversations and activities (Silverman v. Maryland); (Katz v. U.S.); (Kyllo v. U.S.); (U.S. v. Jones).
A 1983 Action provides due process rights against the use of video recording as evidence of criminal behavior and provides privacy rights which persons have when they are in an area where there is an expected level of privacy. For instance, a person expects privacy within their own home of a bathroom. In contrast the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a different position on the use of body cameras by law enforcement officers. The ACLU believes there is a need for strict guidelines for officers to ensure officer discretion on the use of body cameras is limited. It is also recommended by the ACLU that all encounters are to be recorded if an officer is to wear a body camera. This would ensure that officers would not be able to discriminate against any person and there would be consistency in the use of body cameras.
There are legal defenses to state tort laws such as violations of constitutional rights, qualified immunity, good faith, sovereign immunity and negligence. Violations of constitutional rights may occur due to violations of a person’s right to privacy, and due process violations. It may be difficult, but there is a need for balance between the need for transparency of police operations, accurate documentation of events and evidence collection. Qualified immunity allows for a balance between holding public officials accountable while also protecting the same public officials from liability when their duties are conducted responsibly. The good faith defense will allow officers to record all incidents via the body cameras per policy and established case law. Sovereign immunity if applicable may protect state or local government for actions of an employee. Lastly negligence will be found if the officer does not inform a citizen of video recording.
Another legal aspect that arises in relation to this aspect relates to public records preservation. Footage from body cameras is part of public records and consequently, there must be laws that dictate the preservation guidelines for this footage. The issue of preservation is quite ambiguous in some states with some even disqualifying video footage from being part of public records. An example is South Carolina which recently passed a law directing all police departments in the state to initiate the use of body cameras. However, footage from these cameras is exempted from the open records laws of the state. However, one state which has recently passed a statute dictating the preservation guidelines of public records is Florida. According to the Florida statute, public records such as video camera footage must be preserved for a period of at least 30 days after a written request to copy or inspect the record is served to the custodian of such a public record. Another aspect relates to accessibility and once again using the Florida statute, any material deemed as public record must be made available to the public. If the public record is not exempt from public disclosure by the law, then all law enforcement agencies keeping such records, for example in an electronic record keeping system must provide a copy of this record to any person who requests it through the correct legal and official means. In California, a law guiding the viewership of body camera footage by police officers was recently passed by the California assembly. According to this law, officers are outlawed from viewing video footage form their body cameras before they have made an initial statement in scenarios that involve the use of force.
Specific Real situations/cases where law enforcement agencies have been exposed to liability relative to body cameras
IV: As a way of promoting ethics among law enforcement agencies, there have been calls for body cameras to be fitted in the uniforms worn by law enforcement authorities especially the police. Body cameras are small pager cameras that are clipped on the uniform of the officer or worn as a headset (Williams, 2004). These body cameras record both video and audio of the law enforcement officer’s interaction with members of the public. The call for the fitting of body cameras on all law enforcement officers has been prompted by increased incidences of police violence and brutality. For instance, the year 2011 saw 404 people killed by the police with many of them being from the black community.
There are several situations where the need for body cameras has been exhibited and where the lack of them has brought liability on law enforcement agencies. One of these is the shooting of Michael Bell in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In the year 2003, Michael Bell was fatally shot by a Kenosha police officer after being unlawfully stopped for suspicion of drunk driving. The incident took place exactly one day before the deceased was to give testimony at a court hearing that centered on a previous incident involving the same officer. The incident was captured by the police car dashboard camera. The police claimed that Michael had put his hands on the officer’s gun but forensic and video evidence revealed otherwise. For example, no fingerprints were found on the said gun.
Another high-profile incident of almost a similar nature is the one involving Dontre Hamilton in Milwaukee. Hamilton, a mentally sick African American man, was shot fatally by a white police officer, Christopher Manney in a downtown park. He was shot 14 times. Before the incident, a couple of law enforcement officers had found Hamilton in the park and had concluded that he was doing nothing wrong. Manney was not aware of this, and when he attempted to pat down Hamilton, the later turned on him and a confrontation ensued followed by a fight. Manney apparently attempted to subdue Hamilton using his baton, but he was overpowered by Hamilton, who grabbed the baton and swung at the officer striking him in the neck. It was then that the officer shot Hamilton several times. Manney was fired several months later for not following the department rules in the moments before the shooting. Manney was however not charged with the shooting of Hamilton after the District Attorney for the Milwaukee County ruled that use of force by Manney was justified.
Another similar incident is the shooting of Walter Scott. This incident took place in North Charleston, South Carolina and was captured on video. Scott was stopped by an officer because of a brake light that was not functioning. A dashcam video showed the officer approaching Scott’s vehicle before making his way back to his patrol car. Shortly after, Scott exited his car and started running away. The officer gave chase and fired his taser which hit Scot once. However, Scot continued running, and it was at this point that the officer drew his gun and fired a minimum of 8 rounds, five of which hit Scott. The officer claimed that he had shot Scott because he was fearful of his life after the latter had taken his taser. This however was contradicted by the video and eyewitness testimony. After thorough investigations, the officer, Slager was charged with murder and later, a grand jury indicted him on the same charge, and he is currently waiting the court trial.
There are several other incidences where body cameras have captured video of a confrontation between police officers and members of the public. One incidence took place in Salt Lake City where Officer Bron Cruz shot dead Dillon Taylor. Cruz was not charged after body camera video suggested that the shooting was justified. The District Attorney for Salt Lake County determined that Officer Cruz had every reason to believe that the victim was armed and, therefore, dangerous. The body camera showed Crux approaching Taylor and asking him to get his hands out his pockets. Taylor refused to oblige at first and then seemingly started to raise his hands and his shirt as well after which the officer shot him dead. It was only later that the officer realized that Taylor was not armed.
Another police shooting that was captured on body camera and that helped to indict some police officers involved the shooting of James Boyd in Albuquerque, New Mexico on March 16, 2014. A video captured by a helmet cam video showed a homeless man being shot dead by police officers in the foothills of Albuquerque. The officers claimed that the man was illegally camping. In this video, the victim, known as Boyd seemingly turns away from the police before they shoot him dead. A spokeswoman from the Albuquerque police said that the man had threatened the officers with knives. The body camera video, however, helped to indict the officers who were both charged with open murder.
A body camera video also captured the shooting of Jason Harrison on June 14, 2014, in Dallas. Harrison, a mentally ill man, was shot dead by officers who had answered a call from his mother who wanted them to help out with her son. In the video, the officers arrive at the house of the victim where the door is answered by his mother. Harrison can be seen standing at the doorway holding a screwdriver which he is twirling with hands. The officers note the weapon and scream at him to drop it. The man appears to step away, and it is at this moment that shots are fired by two officers. Harrison stumbles forward covered in blood as his mother cries out. Perhaps an interesting aspect of this case is that the body camera video shows that one of the officers has a stun gun in his holster, but it was never at any time used to control the mentally challenged man.
Current Public Sentiment
V: Current public sentiment regarding law enforcement use of body cameras is positive due to recent deaths by officers. In fact riots have occurred in numerous cities including Baltimore, Maryland in response to claims of police brutality. Police involved shootings such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Freddy Gray in Baltimore, Maryland have only increased the desire to body cameras implemented within police departments. State and local government officials want to improve the relationship between law enforcement agencies and the communities as well as to improve police accountability. One point of concern for state and local governments are the Officer’s Bill of Rights, because implementation of the use of body cameras will require modifications.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has two current studies that are funded through the institute. The studies through the CAN Corporation are studying the impact of body-worn cameras in the Las Vegas Metro Police Department and Los Angeles Police Foundation evaluation of body-worn video technology in the Los Angeles Police Department. In addition the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) community oriented policing services office (COPS) and Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) released a report in September 2013 providing recommendations and lessons learned in reference to body cameras. A cost benefit analysis of using body worn technology was included in the report along with evidence of improved behavior on both the officer and civilians when made aware of video recording. The report also included that training opportunities improved with the use of body worn technology because officers had the ability to view real life situations. Finally, the report also emphasized the fact that video from body worn cameras can also capture useful evidence. Very nice credible sources cited in this paragraph.
Based on the research and evidence described above both the public and law enforcement officials agree that using this technology is an acceptable resolution to police brutality. By wearing body worn cameras excessive force complaints and racial profiling are to decrease significantly if not eliminated. Social media and the press have only fueled the argument for dramatic change within law enforcement agencies as a result of deaths at the hands of officers. This was seen in news coverage of riots within the last year and a half. The Black Lives Matter movement is an example of how both social media and the press have exploited the need for body worn cameras. Regardless, all parties agree that body worn cameras will resolve numerous issues facing the community and law enforcement agencies.
Current Police Union’s Sentiment
VI: Police unions and their leaders support the use of body worn cameras by their officers. There are some concerns in regards to citizen privacy rights and cost concerns to the law enforcement departments. Law enforcement agencies depend of funds from their governments as well as grants therefore the expense of acquiring such devices may be outside the financial capability of some law enforcement agencies. Before mandating the use of body worn cameras local and state governments must ensure that police departments can financially afford the devices without limiting other resources. The community also has concerns about privacy, but more importantly the police union and community agree that officer accountability will increase if body cameras are mandated.
Of course the police unions only support the use of body worn cameras if there are effective and efficient policies and procedures established prior to implementation of said devices. Without effective and efficient policies and procedures the officers are at risk for liability and harm. The police unions also support the creation of legislation in regards to body worn cameras by law enforcement officers as Maryland has passed in House Bill 533.
However, there are several law enforcement unions that are against the implementation of body cameras with one of the most notable ones being the NYPD. Another union rejecting the use of this is the Boston Superior Officers Union who president as cited decreased provision of confidential information by various individuals as one of the reasons why the union is not fully supportive of the body cameras project. According to this union, very few people are would be willing to prove useful confidential information if it was treated as a matter of public record.
Are there any unions that are against it? I do believe that there are---mention some of the positions that these unions have taken in this section as well.
Legal civil liabilities, criminal liabilities and defenses
VII: The incidences discussed earlier together with many others taking place across the country have led to intensive calls for body camera to be an ever-present feature on all police uniforms. Although there has been some opposition, a majority of police departments across the nation have embraced the idea wholeheartedly. Some departments have gone ahead to start initiatives for this project.
One example of a police department that has taken steps towards the body cameras project is the one in Wakulla County. The sheriff’s office in this area has laid out plans to equip the majority of its officer or deputies with body cameras in the foreseeable future.
The Tallahassee police department also hopes to follow a similar part. In fact, this department has already requested for about 400 body cameras which it plans to issue to all its offices as. The estimated cost for this is about $360, 000.
In South Carolina, a bill recently signed into law by the state’s governor, Nikki Haley requires all the law enforcement agencies in the state to fit their officers with cameras. However, the recording in these devices will not be available to the public. Other law enforcement agencies and police departments across the nation should follow suit, and the fitting of body cameras should be a major priority.
When a violent or fatal incidence involving law enforcement officer occur, it is not only the officers who are liable for their mistakes and failures, but the agencies to which they belong to also have some liabilities of both civil and criminal nature.
If for example, there is incriminating evidence against an officer accused of using excessive force, the parent agency is supposed to take action and if it fails to do so, then sanctions may be placed on this agency.
However, there are several types of immunity that may, for example, prevent an officer from being indicted for a crime. One of this is absolute immunity. This is a type of immunity that would be accorded to police officers from any lawsuits or criminal prosecutions if their actions are within the scope of their duties (Nakles, 1976).
Another type of immunity that may be accorded to police officers involved in altercations with members of the public is qualified immunity. In qualified immunity, one’s actions are closely examined and if they are not in violation of clearly established law, one is shielded from liability for violation of another person’s constitutional rights (Rudovsky, 1989).
Sovereign immunity which prevents the state or sovereignty from any criminal prosecution or civil suit is not applicable in this situation since the actions of a police officer cannot be pinned on the entire state or sovereignty (Chemerinsky, 2001).
It would be advisable that at all times, separate legal counsel is used for police employees so that they can understand the scope of their duties and realize when they are about to overstep their mandate and commit a prosecutable offence.
If it becomes the norm to use these devices, a standard will be inevitably set and police department could be opening themselves up to liability for lawsuits. The courts might view the police as being responsible for fully providing evidence related to the use of force and failure to provide this evidence in form of body cameras footage may increase police liability in cases where members of the public sue the police for unlawful use of force.
Options available to law enforcement agency
VIII: There is also a lot of initiatives that law enforcement agencies can take to prevent such many cases of police violence and killing as well as the excessive use of force. One of this is to develop adequate training programs for police officers (Vaughan et al., 2001). The police could be acting so violently because of lack of training on how to handle intense situations. This is an aspect where vast improvements are necessary.
In cases where police actions have brought about death or destruction of property, the relevance agencies should cater for all damages as a sign of goodwill. This can go a long way in easing tension and possibly pave the way for a calmer resolution process (Vaughan et al., 2001).
Therefore, best practices such as adequate training of police officers and encouraging officers to be responsible are likely to reduced incidences of police violence.
Law enforcement state licensing agencies should develop clear-cut procedures and rules for police certification. For example, a minimum level of training should be stated, and the content for such a training program should also be clearly articulated.
Although several agencies, as mentioned previously, have taken steps forward and adopted initiatives meant to curb police violence, no agency has been successful in fully addressing the problem. However, the body camera initiative is one that has great promise and if adopted by all agencies, cases of police violence are likely to reduce enormously.
There is little doubt that body camera is the way to go. By deploying or dispatching body cameras on all police uniforms, its shows that law enforcement agencies believe that law enforcement officers are there to serve the public and that their actions are a matter of public record (White, 2014).
In a nutshell, therefore, deploying body cameras and improving police training programs can go a long in reducing police violence on members of the public. Additionally, the use of these cameras will lead to reduction on citizen complaints against police officers. The use of body cameras will also provide valuable evidence of crimes. This evidence can be used in court by prosecutors. Another benefit of the body cameras is that they are a great training tool for others to learn as officers can learn from some of the captured or recoded interactions and about how to behave or not to behave when interacting with the public.
IX: Police involved shootings such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Freddy Gray in Baltimore, Maryland as well as the numerous incidences aforementioned have only increased the desire to body cameras implemented within police departments. The many incidents across the country have led to intensive calls for body camera to be an ever-present feature on all police uniforms. The use of the technology has been controversial among citizens and government officials, fearing police use of body cameras violate citizens’ fourth and fifteen amendment rights, while others believe it promotes public safety.
Over the past few years, there has been an increase of police brutality with limited to no conviction, which led to mass protest mandating the use of the technology. Social media and the press have only fueled the argument for dramatic change within law enforcement agencies as a result of deaths at the hands of officers. Based on research and evidence, both the public and law enforcement officials agree that using this technology is an acceptable resolution to police brutality. State and local government officials want to improve the relationship between law enforcement agencies and communities as well as to improve police accountability. By wearing body worn cameras excessive force complaints and racial profiling are to decrease significantly, and with the proper implementation and passing of laws, the use of body cameras will protect the public against police misconduct as well as prevent citizens’ rights from being violated.
X: Research on the impact of police technologies: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/technology/pages/body-worn-cameras.aspx#
The shootings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri which, encouraged protests focused a lot of attention on police brutality. Body cameras might be part of the solution.
What citizens don’t know is that over the years there have been several threats against law enforcement, which made them victims of political pressure. Various statutes were passed that protected officers from political “payback” and to insure fairness in the internal affairs process. These statues are known as the Officers’ Bill of Rights. There are many versions of these statutes throughout the US. By following the link provided you will be directed to the State of Maryland’s Officer’s Bill of Rights: http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/public-safety/title-3/subtitle-1. Also, the following link will provide a brief overview of the Officer’s Bill of Rights: http://www.mdmunicipal.org/DocumentCenter/View/504
With the use of intelligence and computer statistics many people are concerned with the violations of privacy. Although the use of intelligence can help build cases against offenders and police who use excessive force it could also aid in the interference of potential attacks.
Standard Operating Procedure
The agency will purchase body worn cameras for each of its officers. The officers will be expected to wear these devices whenever they are on duty on when dealing with members of the public. The officers will be required to inform the public or the people that they are interacting with about the presence of a body camera and make it fully aware that the entire interaction will be recorded on video. This will partially remove the liability for the police agency against lawsuits relating to the invasion of privacy. After the video camera storage card is full, the footage will be transferred to the agency server and will remain there for at least 3 months after which it can be disposed if need be. The footage will be available to government entities and their agents as well as the public. For the public however, an official court approved request is required.
It is the official position of this law enforcement that all officers must be civil and responsible in all their interactions with members of the public. All officers must be accountable for their actions. On the other hand, members of the public are expected to show respect to law enforcement officers and comply with any legal request issued by these officers and must not make unwarranted claims about irresponsible or unlawful behavior by the officers. This is why the agency supports the use of body cameras by officers so as to capture interactions with members of the public as a way of ensuring that both parties behave and interact in a proper manner.
Bayley, D. H. (2008). Police reform: Who done it? Policing & Society, 18(1), 7-17.
Chemerinsky, E. (2001). Against Sovereign Immunity. Stanford Law Review, 1201-1224
Considering Police Body Cameras. (2015). Harvard Law Review, 128(6), 1794-1817.
Mateescu, Alexandra Claudia and Rosenblat, Alex and boyd, danah, Police Body-Worn Cameras (February 24, 2015). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2569481 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2569481
Nakles, N. J. (1976). Criminal Defense Lawyer: The Case for Absolute Immunity from Civil Liability. Dick. L. Rev., 81, 229
Rudovsky, D. (1989). The Qualified Immunity Doctrine in the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism and the Restriction of Constitutional Rights. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 23-81
White, M. D. (2014). Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Williams, K. (2004). Our enemies in blue: Police and power in America. Soft Skull Pr.
Vaughn, M. S., Cooper, T. W., & del Carmen, R. V. (2001). Assessing legal liabilities in law enforcement: Police chief’s views. Crime & Delinquency, 47(1), 3-27.