Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and body worn ...

2011
Police Technology: An analysis of
in-car cameras and body worn
cameras
Lilian Draisin
University of Central Florida, Public
Administration Department, PAD 6062
4/1/2011

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3
Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................... 5
History of Camera Use .................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 9
Review of Literature ...................................................................................................... 11
Why use cameras at all? ............................................................................................ 11
Best Practices ............................................................................................................... 15
What are other agencies doing? ................................................................................ 15
Comparison Analysis & Issues ...................................................................................... 22
What are the implementation issues? ..................................................................... 22
Legal Issues ............................................................................................................... 22
Equipment Type and Cost Analysis ........................................................................... 23
Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................... 28
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 36
References .................................................................................................................... 37
2 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Executive Summary
2011
At the request of the Chief of Police for the Orlando Police Department (OPD) a study
was conducted on the use of in-car cameras and body worn cameras for law
enforcement use. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Orlando Police
Department should invest in camera systems for officers, either in-car cameras or body
worn cameras; and if so, which camera system is most suitable for the agency. The
study focused on the history of camera use, what other agencies are doing, current
literature, and analyzed camera equipment and cost. The following research questions
were answered by the study: 1) Why use cameras at all? 2) What are other agencies
doing? 3) What are the implementation issues? 4) Which camera type(s) is most useful
for OPD’s needs?
The study described the challenges that the agency is facing that could be abated by
camera use; driving under the influence (DUI) and violence against officers. It also
looked at literature that described issues of officer safety, professionalism, and training
as they relate to the use of camera technology. A review of other agencies determined
that while many agencies nationwide, statewide, and locally use in-car cameras, very
few have implemented the new body worn cameras. Legal issues such as rights of
privacy are explored and determined to be a non-issue, in accordance with state law.
However, no known case law regarding the body worn cameras was found. Several
different types of body worn cameras were analyzed and compared to the in-car
cameras.
3 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
The result of the study concluded with the recommendation that the Orlando Police
2011
Department proceed with the implementation of cameras for officers. However, due to
several factors, such as; cost, legality issues with body cameras, lack of evaluation of
new technology, and officer acceptance, the most effective and efficient approach is a
mixed-technology and multi-phase approach; using both types of camera systems for
different purposes. This approach would implement a camera technology project in
multiple phases, allowing for further equipment testing, evaluation, and leveraging of
funding sources. It is also recommended that the agency publish a policy directly related
to in-car and body worn cameras. Proper training on this policy and on the equipment is
also recommended, as well as ensuring that a thorough logistics plan is in place prior to
implementation. All of these recommendations will ensure the agency proceeds with a
project that is effective, efficient, and maintains the agency’s and officer’s integrity.
4 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Summary of Recommendations
2011
Recommendation 1: The Orlando Police Department (OPD) should implement the use
of camera technology through a mixed technology and multi-year (phased) approach.
Recommendation 2: In-Car cameras should be standard equipment for all marked
patrol vehicles and all unmarked vehicles whose primary duties include traffic
enforcement or drug enforcement.
Recommendation 3: Body worn cameras should be standard equipment for all officers
in units that have high instances of citizen contact and self-initiated calls.
Recommendation 4: OPD should purchase the lapel style body worn cameras.
Recommendation 5: OPD should only purchase camera technology that includes
software from the vendor that can be managed by OPD.
Recommendation 6: OPD should develop policies and procedures for camera
technology and ensure these policies and procedures are in place, prior to camera use.
Recommendation 7: OPD should ensure that all personnel are properly trained on the
use of the cameras as well as the policies and procedures addressing camera use.
Recommendation 8: OPD should develop a logistics plan prior to project
implementation.
Recommendation 9: OPD should evaluate each phase of the implementation plan in
order to ensure the projects efficiency and effectiveness.
5 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
History of Camera Use
The initiative to outfit police vehicles with cameras began in 1980, when Mothers
Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) was formed. MADD brought great awareness to the
2011
problem of driving under the influence (DUI) and police departments began installing
cameras in vehicles to document DUI stops and arrests. The video from DUI stops
provides the necessary evidence for the conviction of drunk drivers. From there, the in-
car cameras were used in the 1990’s not only for DUI’s, but for drug arrests. It was
during this time that America’s “war on drugs” began (International Association of Chiefs
of Police [IACP], 2004, p 5). In-car cameras were able to provide juries with video
evidence of traffic stops, consent to search, and the drug evidence found during the
stop; conviction rates soared (IACP, 2004, p.5).
In the late 1990’s racial bias/ racial profiling was the major issue facing police. Police
officers across the country found themselves being investigated for racial profiling
(IACP, 2004, p.5). Police agencies throughout the United States were inundated with
lawsuits “alleging race-based traffic stops” (IACP, 2004, p.5). In some cases, the courts
determined that racial profiling did occur and this enhanced the public’s perception of
racial profiling by police. Public confidence in law enforcement declined (Westphal,
2004). Also during this same time, incidents of violence against the police rose
dramatically (IACP, 2004, p.5). Due to the issue of racial profiling, the Federal
government began to require that all traffic stops be documented. In-car cameras
became even more common amongst law enforcement agencies as a means to
document stops and dispute claims of racial profiling (IACP, 2004, p.5).
6 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Still today, in-car cameras are most prominent in state agencies; state police and
2011
highway patrol. These agencies mostly work traffic related incidents. As of 2004, it was
estimated that 72% of all state police and highway patrol vehicles were equipped with
in-car camera systems. As of 2004, there were over 17,500 cameras in state police
vehicles nationwide. Advances in technology and grant programs continue to increase
the use of in-car camera use in state agencies as well as local law enforcement
agencies (IACP, 2004, p. 6). More recently, new technology has been introduced that
allows officers to wear cameras on their person, enhancing the potential capabilities of
camera use.
7 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Introduction
2011
The City of Orlando currently has 228,765 residents (Florida League of Cities, 2011).
The Orlando Police Department currently has an authorized strength of 743 sworn
personnel. This includes 622 officers, 78 sergeants, 29 lieutenants, 9 captains, 4 deputy
chiefs and 1 chief of police (Orlando Police Department, 2010). The traffic units and first
responders are most likely to use camera systems; units that respond to calls for
service, conduct self-initiated citizen contacts, and traffic related calls. These units or
sections include the Traffic Enforcement Section, The Uniform Drug Enforcement
Section, the Patrol Services Bureau, the K-9 Unit and the Community Policing Section,
Downtown Bikes and Parramore Heritage Bikes. The Traffic Enforcement Section has a
staffing of 20 officers and 3 supervisors. The Uniform Drug Enforcement Section has 16
officers and 2 supervisors. The Patrol Services Bureau has 399 sworn personnel
assigned. The K-9 Unit has 11 officers and 2 supervisors, and the Community Policing
Section, Downtown Bikes and Parramore Heritage Bikes, has 35 officers and 4
supervisors. This is a total of 492 members that are most likely to benefit from the use
of cameras, either in-car cameras or body worn cameras (Orlando Police Department,
2010).
The purpose of this study is to determine if the Orlando Police Department should invest
in camera systems for officers, either in-car cameras or body worn cameras; and if so,
which camera system is most suitable for the agency. This research study focuses on
the history of camera use, an analysis of what other compatible agencies are doing,
8 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
current literature, a review of the camera equipment, and provides a recommendation
on camera use for the agency. This study will answer the following research questions:
1) Why use cameras at all? 2) What are other agencies doing? 3) What are the
implementation issues? 4) Which camera type(s) is most useful for OPD’s needs?
Statement of the Problem
The City of Orlando has been faced with a rising DUI problem. As compared to other
large cities in Florida, Orlando was ranked number one for DUI related deaths. From
2007 to 2010, there were 55 traffic fatalities and more than 2,300 DUI traffic citations
issued (Orlando Police Department, 2011). The Orlando Police Department realizes the
seriousness of this problem and has implemented countermeasures to combat the
problem. The agency has a small group of officers (6), on patrol, that drive aggressive
driving vehicles. These vehicles were provided to the agency through a grant. In
addition, the agency is currently developing a DUI Enforcement Team. This team of 8
officers and 1 supervisor will focus on DUI’s and other traffic violations. OPD is
considering in-car cameras for these vehicles (Orlando Police Department, 2011 April).
Currently, the Orlando Police Department has in-car cameras installed in 4 unmarked
patrol vehicles, 2 marked patrol vehicles and 11 Drug Enforcement Division (DED)
vehicles. The patrol vehicles equipped with in-car cameras are installed in vehicles that
look for aggressive drivers and drivers that may be under the influence (Officer B.
Cechowski, personal communication, April 5, 2011). The DED in-car cameras are used
to record drug stops (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication, February 3,
9 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011). These cameras were funded through a grant project (Officer B. Cechowski,
2011
personal communication, April 5, 2011). The agency is currently testing 6 body worn
cameras from 2 different vendors. Currently, no other officers, except the test subjects,
are assigned body worn cameras (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication,
February 3, 2011).
The Orlando Police Department is faced with another challenge. Although in the past
few years a majority of violent crime in the City has been on the decline, violence
against officers continues to be a problem. Between 2007 and 2010, OPD officers had
to use force 2,434 times (Sergeant T. Woodhall, personal communication, April 8,
2011); OPD officers used deadly force 21 times (Orlando Police Department, December
2010). The use of force may involve the use of the Taser, take downs, strikes, impact
weapons, chemical agents, K-9’s, and stop sticks. In 2010 alone, 135 officers were
battered, with 60 reporting injury (Sergeant T. Woodhall, personal communication, April
8, 2011).
10 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Review of Literature
Why use cameras at all?
In 2002, the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office worked with the
2011
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to complete an 18 month evaluation
on the use of in-car video cameras by state agencies that the COPS Office provided
funding to. This was a two part study focusing on process and impact (IACP, 2004, p.1).
The impact of the “value of cameras on the agencies” is most relevant (IACP, 2004,
p.2). The impact evaluation determined that the use of the in-car cameras had a
dramatic positive impact on the agencies. The researchers conducted surveys, worked
with research groups, and completed interviews of 21 state agencies, including the
Florida Highway Patrol (IACP, 2004, p.1). This process measured the impact of in-car
cameras on issues such as: officer safety, officer professionalism/perception, liability,
training, policy, leadership and the judicial process (IACP, 2004, p.2). Most agencies
provide three of these issues as reasons why they have implemented camera
programs: officer safety, professionalism/perception, and training.
Officer Safety: The COPS Office study discussed a major problem for law enforcement,
officer safety. Officers are frequently being assaulted and involved in traffic accidents
while on duty (IACP, 2004. P.13). Even worse, the instances of officer on-duty deaths
have risen dramatically in recent years. Last year, on-duty deaths rose by 26%
nationwide; 49 officers were shot to death in 2009 and 61 in 2010. Thus far this year,
the death rate statistics are even more devastating. Within one 24-hour time period in
January, 11 officers were shot nationwide. Eleven more officers were killed by gunfire in
11 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
February 2011, “doubling the national trend of each of the previous years of the last
decade” (Fredricks, 2011). In 2010, Florida saw nine officers killed in the line of duty.
Four of these deaths were from automobile accidents, one officer was struck by a
vehicle, and four were shot to death. Just this year alone, (January –April 2011) 55
officers have died nationwide, 10 officers died in the line of duty in Florida. Six of these
officers were shot to death, while one died from an automobile accident, and three died
from natural work-related causes (heart attack and bacterial infection) (Officer Down
Memorial Page, 2011). After the tragic death of Orange County Deputy, Brandon
Coates, a local news channel said, “cameras may have provided objective insight into
the roadside shooting that killed Deputy Brandon Coates” (WESH, 2011). Another local
tragedy occurred in Tampa in June of 2010 that shows the value of camera use.
Officers Curtis and Kocab were murdered while they were conducting a traffic stop.
Officer Curtis’ video system recorded the tragic event. The system recorded video and
audio of the suspects and provided identification information received during the stop.
This video assisted in the capture of the suspects (Fredricks, 2011).
Professionalism/ Public Perception: Proponents and vendors of the body worn cameras
propose that the use of video would “improve police accountability, reduce complaints of
police misconduct, and save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs”
(Howland, 2011). The vendors argue that the body worn cameras would reduce the
number of complaints against officers for misconduct, and it would save the city money
related to court costs and overtime costs for officers who have to appear in court for
these cases (Howland, 2011). Out of the prosecutors who were surveyed in the COPS
12 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
study, 91% of them stated that they used the video recording in court. They also stated
having the video dramatically reduced court time and expenses (IACP, 2004. p.22).
The COPS study also found that the cameras improved the officer’s ability to respond to
complaints regarding their professionalism. The cameras also cleared officers of any
wrong doing in internal investigations. Within the agencies studied, only 5% of complaint
cases were sustained, due to the recorded evidence (IACP, 2004. p.22). Video
evidence reduced the number of complaints and reduced the amount of time spent on
internal investigations. The internal affairs sections realized that the majority of the
complaints were handled at the supervisory level, which lead to the reduction (IACP,
2004. p.22).
In 2010, a Duluth, Minnesota officer was cleared of wrongdoing after he shot a 17 year
old. His video showed the suspect hitting and smashing the officer’s driver’s side patrol
car window with a baseball bat while the officer was in the vehicle. The video also
showed the teen failing to respond to the commands of the officer to put down the
weapon (bat). This case is one that again depicts the value of video, protecting officers
from false claims of misconduct (Orlando Sentinel, 2011).
The COPS evaluation concluded that the number one reason for cameras is to “collect
evidence for trial; to protect officer from false accusation” (IACP, 2004, p.16). However,
the second purpose for camera usage, as determined by these officers was to monitor
their performance (IACP, 2004, p.16). Community perspective is also an area looked at
13 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
through this evaluation. Public forums were held in 12 states, in addition, 900 citizens
from 18 states responded to surveys. The result was that 94% of citizens supported the
use of in-car cameras and 71% said they thought the public should be informed when
they are being videotaped (IACP, 2004, p.16). In addition, 51% said that they would
change their behavior if they were being videotaped (IACP, 2004, p.16). Overall, the
IACP evaluation determined that the in-car camera programs had a “tremendous impact
on advancing technology for the state police and highway patrol agencies” (IACP, 2004,
p.28).
Training: The officer survey results from the COPS evaluation showed that only one-
third of the officers actually felt an increase in safety with the use of the cameras.
However, a large majority of officers said in the interviews that they use the cameras as
a training tool and to self-critique. The officers also said that they believed the use of
cameras deescalated confrontational situations, promoting safety. In addition, the more
training the officers received on the system, the more they believed the cameras
improved safety; 77% of the officers interviewed said they never received training on
how to use the cameras. Less than half of the officers said they received training on
laws or departmental policies regarding camera use (IACP, 2004, p.18).
14 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Best Practices
What are other agencies doing?
This study compares four other Florida agencies to the Orlando Police Department.
2011
These four agencies are: Tampa Police Department, St. Petersburg Police Department,
Hialeah Police Department, and Ft. Lauderdale Police Department. These agencies
were chosen because they are all Florida municipal law enforcement agencies, they are
the similar in size in, and the city populations are similar (Florida League of Cities,
2011). Each agency was contacted and asked if they used in-car cameras and/or body
worn cameras; if so, how many officers or vehicles were assigned camera units. The
agencies were also asked to provide copies of any policy they have regarding the use of
cameras. The results are depicted in the chart below. None of the agencies reported
using body worn cameras. Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Ft. Lauderdale reported using
in-car cameras for traffic enforcement purposes.
Comparison Analysis of Florida Municipal L.E. Agencies by Population and Agency Size
City City Population
# of sworn
personnel
In-car camera,
if yes # of units
Body worn
cameras, if yes,
# of units
Tampa 336,264* 977² Yes unknown
St. Petersburg 253,369* 540 Yes, 6³ No³
Orlando 228,765* 743º Yes., 22 No
Hialeah 228,528* 347¹ No¹ No¹
Ft. Lauderdale 179,971* 511^ 30^ No^
*Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, 2007
¹Hialeah Police Department
²Tampa Police Department
^Ft. Lauderdale Police Department
°Orlando Police Department Organizational Chart
³St. Petersburg Police Department
15 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
Additionally, a Florida Police Accreditation Coalition (FLA-PAC) request was sent out to
all Florida agencies requesting information and copies of video camera policies, either
in-car or body worn. The Boca Raton Police Department, Ft. Myers Police Department,
Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, Manalapan Police Department, St. Lucie Sheriff’s
Office, Clearwater Police Department and Highlands County Sheriff’s Office responded
with copies of their agency’s policy on in-car cameras. No agency responded with any
information on the use of body worn cameras. Information was gathered on these
agencies for a general comparison. They were not used for analysis because they were
either county agencies and/or they did not have a similar population to Orlando. The
data is for information use only.
Respondents to Florida Agency PAC Request, Informational Data
City/County City Population
# of sworn
personnel
In-car
cameras, if yes
# of units
Body worn
cameras, if yes,
# of units
Boca Raton 86,445¹ 191 Yes/150 No
Ft. Myers 64,674¹ 173² Yes Unknown
Brevard County 536,357¹ 501* Yes/20 Yes/2
Manalapan 343¹ 10 Yes/4 No
St. Lucie
County
266,502¹ 260² Yes Unknown
Clearwater 106,642¹ 248² Yes Unknown
Highlands
County
98,704¹ 130² Yes Unknown
¹http://www.city-data.com
²FBI http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_78_fl.html
*Brevard County Sheriff’s Office
As stated, no policies were provided regarding body worn cameras. However, a review
of the policies from these informational agencies has revealed that the in-car camera
policies are very similar across agencies and are generally used for DUI investigations
16 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
and various other traffic related incidents. The major characteristics of these policies
outline when the in-car cameras can be/or are required to be used, what the video
download requirements are, and describe what the limitations are regarding the
recorded data. Most of these policies were created based on accreditation standards.
Many agencies are accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement (CALEA) and the in-car policy’s are based on CALEA Standard 41.3.8, “In
–Car Audio/Video Recording”(Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies, 2011). This is the case for the Boca Raton, St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Ft.
Myers police departments. Other Florida agencies are accredited through The
Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation (CFA); some are accredited
through both agencies. The CFA Standard 22.04 governs the use of cameras and
requires agencies to have directives (Standard Operating Procedures and/or Policies
and Procedures) addressing camera use. The CFA accredited agencies discussed here
include Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, Boca Raton Police Department, Clearwater
Police Department, Ft. Lauderdale Police Department, Highlands County Sheriff’s
Office, St. Petersburg Police Department and the Orlando Police Department (The
Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation, 2011).
Currently, the Orlando Police Department does not have a policy solely dedicated to in-
car cameras or body worn cameras; DED does have a standard operating procedure
(SOP). Video camera use is a also part of the Orlando Police Department’s Policy
1625.4, Use of Electronic Communications Systems (Orlando Police Department, 2010)
and is mentioned as part of the equipment used in the aggressive driving vehicles in
17 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
Policy 1801.7, Special Purpose Vehicles or Vessels (Orlando Police Department, 2007).
Both policies are geared towards traffic enforcement and DUI.
The Boca Raton Police Department policy requires officers with in-car cameras (150) to
use the in-car video recording system for all vehicle pursuits, all traffic stops, all DUI
investigations, all felony stops, and “all situations when lights and/or sirens are
activated” (Boca Raton Police Department [BRPD], 2000). The officers also have the
option to use the in-car cameras at their discretion in other police situations (BRPD,
2000). Additionally the officer is required to download the video as soon as possible
after the incident and at minimum, at least once every other shift (BRPD, 2000).
Similarly, the Ft. Myers Police Department policy states that the cameras should be
used during all of the same circumstances as the Boca Raton policy, but also includes
field interviews and citizen consensual contacts; this is based off CALEA accreditation
standards. In addition, the Ft. Myers policy states that the camera will activate
automatically as soon as the officer puts on his or her emergency lights; the officer can
also manually activate the camera (Ft. Myers Police Department, 2009). The St. Lucie
County Sheriff’s Office policy states that the purpose is for use during DUI stops only
(St. Lucie County, 2011). In almost all of the policies reviewed, parameters are set up
that require officers to download video within a reasonable time, and state that officers
cannot delete, edit, or alter video.
Other local agencies that did not meet the selected criteria or did not respond to the FL-
PAC request were looked at to see what they were doing regarding camera use. The
Winter Park Police Department has a total of 87 officers, no in-car cameras, or body
18 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
worn cameras. However, they do use video cameras that are attached to their Tasers.
Winter Park Police Department currently has 50 of these cameras (Sgt. J. Askins,
personal communication, March 31, 2011). Taser International manufactures this
product called the “Taser Cam” and the company states that as of October 2010, “more
than 2,400 law enforcement agencies use the Taser Cam” (Walker, 2010). Lt. Farrell
from the Winter Park Police Department said in an article by the Palm Beach Post that
“it is a good way to protect ourselves from false allegations and provide evidence in
court” and “another reason we use them is to provide the public sense of transparency”
(Pacheco, 2010). These cameras are attached to the actual Taser; the video is
activated as soon as the Taser leaves the officer’s holster and records the incident even
after the Taser prongs are released from the Taser (Pacheco, 2011). However, when
the Taser is not engaged, no video is recorded.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office has more than 1,300 vehicles. However, there are
only 8 cars with in-car cameras. Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings and Mayor
Teresa Jacobs support in-car cameras and are exploring the issue. However, funding is
not currently available to purchase the equipment. (Pacheco, 2011). It would cost the
Orange County Sheriff’s Office $9 million to put cameras in all of their vehicles (WFTV,
2010). Additionally, the University of Central Florida Police Department is considering
outfitting the agency’s 60 officers with body worn cameras, but has not done so yet
(Pacheco, 2011).
Although no local agency has responded to the request regarding the use of body worn
cameras, this new technology is beginning to appear at agencies in other parts of the
19 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
country. The most cited agency using body worn cameras is the San Jose, California,
Police Department. The San Jose Police Department tested 18 body worn cameras
during 2010. These cameras were worn by officers over their ears and were made by
Taser, the Taser Axon (Paddock, 2010). The agency has 1,200 officers and 17 of those
officers completed a one-year study on the camera use. The results of the study were
positive; Lt. Sims from the San Jose Police Department stated that “all police
departments are going to be moving toward this technology” (Young, 2011). However,
due to severe budget constraints, the agency will most likely not be able to outfit the
entire department with the body worn cameras (Young, 2011). Other large agencies
have tested the equipment over the past year, to include Cincinnati and San Diego, with
similar results to San Jose (Howland, 2010). Due to cost and budgetary issues, smaller
agencies may be in a better position to outfit personnel with cameras.
Two small agencies in the United States that have implemented body worn cameras are
Erlanger, Kentucky and Lafayette, Colorado. Erlanger has only 41 officers and
purchased 10 body worn cameras for its officers after the agency completed an
evaluation of the equipment (six-month trial). The officers work 10 per shift and pass on
the cameras to the next shift, after assigned personnel download the video. Officers
cannot download the video themselves, delete it, or alter it in any way. The agency
decided on the body worn cameras over the in-car cameras for a few reasons; the body
worn cameras were significantly less expensive, they were more practical, and they
have better quality sound (National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Center, [NLECTC], 2010). The Lafayette, Colorado Police Department also conducted
20 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
an evaluation of the body worn cameras. The evaluation was for 30 days and as a
2011
result, the agency planned to purchase the cameras for the entire agency (40 officers).
The agency felt that the body worn cameras were useful for all the reasons previously
stated, they “increase officer safety, reduce agency liability, reduce officer complaints
and improve public perception of police” (NLETC, 2010). The agency had in-car
cameras, but stopped purchasing them after this evaluation; the body worn cameras
were much less expensive (NLETC, 2010).
21 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Comparison Analysis & Issues
What are the implementation issues?
Legal Issues
Many of the concerns with cameras are legal issues regarding privacy rights; the
expectation of privacy of citizens and the expectation of privacy inside a residence,
2011
business, vehicle, etc. To get information on these potential issues, I interviewed the
OPD Legal Advisor, Lee Freeman. Mrs. Freeman advised me that when a citizen has a
conversation with a Law Enforcement Officer, in the course of his/her duty, there is no
expectation of privacy. In addition, when a citizen calls the police to their home or
business, etc. there is also no expectation of privacy. Whatever an officer sees or hears
is “fair game”, audio and video would be allowed (L. Freeman, personal communication,
March 24, 2011).
A citizen has an expectation of privacy while they are in their home or vehicle, however,
this does not apply to an encounter with an officer who is on “lawful duty” (L. Freeman,
personal communication, March 24, 2011). This information is also found in Florida
State Statute (FSS) 943. A 2008 OPD Training Bulletin discussing FSS 943 states, “the
circumstances surrounding most encounters with law enforcement officers normally do
not justify an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy” (Orlando Police
Department, 2008). Case law on in-car video has been established regarding this
concern (Orlando Police Department, 2008).
Mrs. Freeman did also caution that if cameras will be used on a regular basis, policies
and procedures will have to be put in place, or expanded upon, to address several legal
22 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
issues, besides privacy. For example, policy would have to address when a camera
should be used and when they should be turned on or not turned on to ensure fair
treatment of all citizens. Parameters would need to be set for “voluntary, compulsory,
and prohibited use of the cameras” (L. Freeman, personal communication, March 24,
2011). In addition, camera video is public record and a process would need to be
established to ensure the video could not be deleted or altered and is downloaded on a
regular basis. Officers should also be trained on the use of the cameras and the policy.
This will ensure proper usage as well as safeguard the officer to protect his or her
personal privacy. For example, an officer could accidently leave a camera on while not
on a call and that video would become public record (L. Freeman, personal
communication, March 24, 2011).
Equipment Type and Cost Analysis
There are two types of camera systems that this study focused on, in-car cameras and
body worn cameras. In-car cameras are currently the most popular form of camera used
in law enforcement. The systems have been used for many years and they are proven
to be durable and reliable, particularly reliable in court cases. The in-car cameras are
made of good quality and provide great quality images, to include excellent nighttime
recording capability. The cameras are installed directly into the vehicles, and the video
obtained from the cameras is directly sent to a video server (Officer B. Cechowski,
personal communication, April 7, 2011). Settings can be placed on the cameras that
trigger when the cameras are turned on and the information can be sent wirelessly back
to the server (Bay News 9, 2010). For example, the camera may begin recording when
23 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
the lights and sirens are turned on, when the car reaches a certain speed, or when it is
turned on manually by the officers (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication,
February 3, 2011). With the few in-car cameras that OPD has, the images produced
are of excellent quality, nighttime recording quality is good, and the video is directly
downloaded to a server within the agency, the officer does not have to worry about
remembering to download video, etc. (Officer B. Cechowski, personal communication,
April 7, 2011).
One downfall of all in-car cameras is that they only record what is occurring in front of
the vehicle. If an officer leaves the front of the vehicle to enter a home or business,
works on a bike or motorcycle, or is working in any circumstance when he or she is not
in a vehicle, the camera is useless (Detective L. Randolph, personal communication,
February 3, 2011). The other downfall of in-car cameras is the cost. According to
previous Capital Improvement Project requests, (not official quotes) each camera
system costs approximately $5900. To outfit the 492 members previously identified
(Traffic Enforcement Section, The Uniform Drug Enforcement Section, the Patrol
Services Bureau, the K-9 Unit and the Community Policing Section, Downtown Bikes
and Parramore Heritage Bikes) with in-car cameras, the cost would be approximately
$2.9 million (Orlando Police Department, 2011 January).
Due to cost, agencies such as the Burnsville Police Department in Minnesota have
stopped purchasing in-car cameras for an alternative product, the body worn camera
24 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
(StudentNewsDaily, 2011). The body worn camera provides many of the same benefits
as the in-car cameras. In addition, the body worn camera is not stationary inside a
vehicle. The camera goes “wherever the officer goes” and “sees and hears” whatever
the officer sees and hears (Policeone, 2011). When an officer is entering a building, a
home, or is on the street, everything can be recorded on the video (Policeone, 2011).
These cameras are easy to use, they are generally light weight, and they are less
expensive than in-car cameras. All of the body worn cameras generally can record for
about 4 hours, and have additional home and car chargers.
One of the disadvantages of the body worn cameras is that the officers are responsible
for the video. They must download the video themselves, and must ensure that this is
done properly. In addition, some departments have complained about the image quality;
fuzzy pictures, and poor quality at night. There are also quality issues with stability; for
example, when an officer is running or fighting, the video may be shaky and the camera
may not be secure (Huntersystems, 2011).
The body worn cameras vastly range in style and cost. There are cameras that can be
attached to the Taser (Taser-cam), cameras that are placed on the ear, head-mounted
cameras, mic-cameras, and lapel style cameras. The Taser-cam is not practical
because it only records while the Taser is in use. However, Taser developed the Taser
Axon which is a camera that can be worn over the ear or on the head. The cost of this
type of body worn camera is $1700 each, which would cost $836,400 for 492 units. This
25 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
camera system uses a secure website managed by the company to upload the camera
video. This allows for increase in protection of video legitimacy and accountability.
However, the monthly cost of management of the data is $99 per month, per officer
(Economist, 2010). For 492 officers, this would cost $48,708 a month, $584,496
annually. According to the CEO of one company that sells the mic camera, the mic-
camera style would replace the current mic attached to an officer’s radio. It has a
camera in the top of the mic, which can also be turned over and the officer can watch as
he or she is recording. The video is uploaded to a web based software program that is
managed by the agency and provided at no cost. These cameras cost about $700 each
(not official quotes) and there are no additional charges or fees, total agency cost is
approximately $344,400 (T.Hayes, personal communication, April 7, 2001).
Lapel style video cameras are the latest additions in camera technology. According to
the president of one company that sells this type of camera, these cameras are
generally small in size (2”-3”), lightweight, and can be worn on a pocket or clipped onto
the front of an officer’s shirt (J. Duncan, personal communication, March 22, 2011). This
style camera cost anywhere between $100 each to $800 each. The more expensive
cameras ($800) include the software to download the video, with the agency still
managing it. They also do not allow for manipulation of video. In other words, no video
can be edited or deleted (J. Duncan, personal communication, March 22, 2011). The
agency cost for the 492 identified officers would be up to $393,600 for the cameras that
cost up to $800 per unit. The less expensive style cameras ($100) do not have these
controls, the video can be deleted; however, there is a tracking system on the videos.
26 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
The cameras that cost $100 per unit would cost the agency $49,200. Eight Orlando
2011
Police Department officers will test 6 body worn cameras (4 mic style and 2 lapel style)
cameras for a period of 30-45 days, results will be reviewed after this test period.
Estimated camera cost comparison based on 492 units purchased
Camera Type Cost Each Total Cost Reoccurring Cost
In-car cameras $5900 $2.9Million 0
Body worn camera
w/ Video
Management
(Ex:Taser)
Body worn camera
–mic style
Body worn camera
–lapel style
w/software
Body worn cameralapel
style no
software
$1700 $836,000 $584,496
$700 $344,400 0
Up to $800 Up to $393,600 0
$100 $49,200 0
27 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Findings and Recommendations
The use of in-car cameras has proven to be highly beneficial. Evaluations of in-car
2011
cameras show that in- car cameras are successful at capturing officer involved traffic
accidents, DUI arrests, and officer safety incidents. They have also been a great benefit
in resolving complaints and allegations against officers. In-car cameras are used
throughout the country and state for traffic related incidents and the video has been
proven to hold up in court. The new technology of body worn cameras is in the
experimental or test phase. Numerous agencies are testing the different types of body
worn cameras and are self-evaluating the cameras. No formal studies have been
conducted on the use of body worn cameras as of yet. Additionally, no large agencies
found have fully implemented the use of body worn cameras and the courts have not
yet established case law regarding body worn cameras.
My recommendation is that the Orlando Police Department begin a process of
implementing the use of camera technology within the agency. However, there are
several factors to consider. First, and probably the most prohibiting, is the cost to the
agency. As with most local agencies, funding for technology is not a fiscal priority. Most
agencies, including OPD, are facing a continuation of budget freezes or budget
reductions. Therefore, it may be impractical to implement in-car camera technology that
will cost millions of dollars at this time. The second issue deals with the quality and
proven use of technology. Although the in-car cameras are more costly, they are of
great quality and are proven reliable and admissible in court proceedings. Body worn
28 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
cameras are still being tested and have no established case law regarding privacy
2011
issues. Although state statute has demonstrated that there is no expectation of privacy
in a residence or business when an officer is conducting an investigation, there are
limited court cases on this subject regarding the use of body worn cameras. Finally, one
of the most challenging issues may be officer acceptance. If OPD officers feel that the
video cameras are being used as a tool to monitor the officer, as several officers felt in
the IACP study, they may be resistant to using the cameras (IACP, 2004, p.16)
To abate these issue, I recommend a mixed-technology and multi-phase approach.
OPD should implement a multi-year plan to phase in a combination of in-car cameras
and body worn cameras. The standard cost for in-car cameras is approximately $5900
each. The only body worn style camera that is recommended is the lapel style camera
that includes software from the vendor that is managed by OPD. The Taser camera is
impractical because it only captures those instances when the Taser is drawn. The
Taser over the ear style camera and head camera require a monthly fee for managing
the video; making it cost-prohibitive. The mic style camera would require our officers to
replace their newly purchased Motorola mic with the camera mic. The new mic’s have
an antenna that assists officers with reception inside of building and areas with poor
reception. There may also be problems with the radio manufacturer and their warranty.
The lapel style cameras are ideal because they are light weight and can be worn on the
officer’s shirt, either on the pocket or simply clipped on the front of the shirt. However, I
would only recommend the more expensive lapel style camera ($800) that includes
software from the vendor which can be managed by OPD. The reason for this is to
29 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
maintain officer and agency integrity. These cameras do not allow video to be altered or
deleted from the camera, while the less expensive cameras do. This fact alone will
ensure integrity and maintain a positive public perception for officers. In addition, I feel
that this will benefit the officers submitting video evidence in court cases or in
responding to citizen complaints; there will be no doubt that the video evidence was not
tampered with.
Because of their quality and proven success in traffic related incidents, in-car cameras
should be standard equipment for all vehicles that are assigned to officers whose
primary duty is traffic enforcement. Also, it has been demonstrated that the in-car
cameras work well at night, while body worn cameras do not work as well in low-light
situations. All units that are part of the DUI Enforcement Team (8 officers) should be
equipped with in-car cameras. Because the Traffic Enforcement Section (23 officers)
primarily drive motorcycles, in-car cameras are impractical. These units should be
assigned body worn cameras for use during traffic enforcement and DUI’s. The Patrol
Services Bureau has the 6 aggressive driving vehicles that are already equipped with
in-car cameras that were purchased through grant funding. This would complete the first
implementation phase of the project and would cost the agency approximately $65,600.
I would recommend funding this first phase by using funds from the Federal Asset
Sharing Trust (FAST) Fund. During first phase implementation, exploration into other
funding sources, such as grants and capital improvement project submissions should
occur for future phases. In addition, the technology can be reviewed to ensure that the
best solutions have been chosen.
30 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Phase I
Camera Type Unit Name Number in Unit Cost Each Total Cost
In-car camera DUI Enforcement
Team
8 $5900 $47,200
Body worn
camera
Motors 23 $800 $18,400
TOTAL $65,600
2011
If phase I proves successful, phase II of this project will introduce in-car cameras and
body worn cameras to those units that have high instances of citizen contact and self-
initiated calls, the Drug Enforcement Division (DED), and the Community Policing
Section (Downtown Bike Unit and Parramore Heritage Bike Unit), and K-9. Because of
the nature of the work of the DED officers, these officers should have in-car cameras in
their vehicles and wear body worn cameras. These officers are frequently investigating
drug crimes in vehicles and inside homes. The in-car video would help protect the
officers against claims of illegal pursuits, vehicle searches, or traffic stops (Detective L.
Randolph, personal communication, February 3, 2011). The body worn cameras would
protect the officers against claims of unnecessary use of force or illegal searches in
homes. The cost to outfit DED (18 officers) with in-car cameras is $106,200 and
$14,400 for body worn cameras, a total of $120,600. The K-9 Unit serves to respond
with patrol officers to in-progress calls and to assist officers with apprehending
suspects. Similar to the DED officers, K-9 would benefit from in-car cameras and body
worn cameras. K-9 officers respond to traffic stops and vehicle searches; these are
instances where in-car cameras will be of great benefit. The officers would benefit from
the body worn cameras during tracking and apprehension of suspects. The cost of
31 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
outfitting the K-9 Unit (13) with in-car cameras is $76,700 and the cost of body worn
cameras is $10,400.
The Downtown Bike Officers and Parramore Heritage Bike Officers respond to calls for
service, initiate calls, and are often flagged down by citizens. These units are assigned
vehicles, but their main function is to bike throughout downtown. These officers are
frequently in contact with citizens that are downtown “partying” at the nightclubs and the
citizens may have been drinking or impaired (Lieutenant R. Anzueto, personal
communication, April 11, 2011). For these officers, body worn cameras are most
important to reduce the number of citizen complaints and protect the officers from
claims of unnecessary use of force or unprofessional behavior. To outfit these officers
(39) with body worn cameras, the cost is $31,200. The total phase two cost is $238,900.
Phase II
Camera Type Unit Name
Number in
unit
Cost Each
Total
Cost
In-car camera DED 18 $5900 $106,200
Body worn
camera
DED 18 $800 $14,400
In-car camera K-9 13 $5900 $76,700
Body worn
camera
Body worn
camera
K-9 13 $800 $10,400
Bike Units (39)
39 $800 $31,200
TOTAL $238,900
32 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
Ideally, the entire fleet of the Patrol Services Bureau vehicles (399) should be outfitted
with in-car -cameras. As discussed, the in-car cameras are reliable and easy to use.
From the officer’s perspective, they do not have to manually turn the cameras on and
they do not have to manually download video as they would with the body cameras.
Officers that are resistant to the use of body worn cameras may feel much more
comfortable with the in-car cameras. It is also much less likely that officers will
accidently turn on the in-car camera or forget to turn it off. However, unless grant
funding is acquired, the cost is prohibitive; more than $2 million dollars. On the other
hand, outfitting 399 Patrol officers with body worn cameras would cost $319, 200, which
is still a budgetary concern, although much more feasible. Before dedicating such
significant funding to this large group of officers, I recommend Phase III of the project
serve as a program review and evaluation.
At this point 45 in-car cameras and 80 body worn cameras would have been deployed.
Implementing cameras in the patrol function is expensive and before doing so an
evaluation should now be conducted to determine efficiency and effectiveness of the
project. Data should be collected from phase I and II on information such as: are the
cameras successful at officer safety efforts, DUI convictions, reviewing officer involved
accidents, and/or rebuking officer complaints. Also, the current technology of the body
worn cameras can be reviewed for effectiveness. Another important factor is how the
officers feel about the cameras. The reason this is so important is because if the officers
adamantly resist the use of cameras, the cameras will not be used at all or they will not
be used properly; therefore wasting agency time and money. I recommend officer
33 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
surveys be completed. These surveys should be broken up into two groups, those who
have the cameras and those who don’t. The surveys will provide information that the
agency can use to proceed with the project. The overall evaluation may determine that it
is essential that the agency continue to fund in-car cameras and/or body worn cameras
or it may determine that the project should remain where it is; traffic enforcement and
citizen contacts. This internal evaluation can be completed by in-house personnel or
ideally, in collaboration with UCF staff or interns. If this evaluation determines that the
program is successful, phase IV would be to outfit all of patrol with cameras. The
evaluation will determine which camera would be the best solution for the patrol
function.
Another recommendation is that the agency must have appropriate policies and
procedures in place prior to any further camera deployment. This would be a review of
any current policy and an addition to include body-cameras. It is vital to this project that
officers know when they are required to have video on, what they are allowed to video,
when they are required to download the video, and the public record laws protecting the
video. Officers must be trained on the policy and procedures governing the use of the
cameras. Training should also include the proper use of the camera and instructions on
how to download video to the site; supervisors would need to be trained on how to
access the video to view.
The final recommendation is to plan the logistics of the camera use prior to project
implementation. The agency must determine if the current servers are sufficient to hold
additional data from additional in-car cameras. This issue may become an additional
34 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
expense. With the use of the body worn cameras, logistics must be determined
2011
regarding the download of the video, video storage, and video management. During
meetings with vendors it was determined that it would not be feasible for officers to
download the video to their in-car computers and transfer the data. The officers will
need to download their body worn camera video themselves and will need to have a
location to do so. This is particularly challenging since the agency is decentralized.
Options may include having video download stations at each substation as well as
headquarters; keeping in mind that there is no longer line up and check off. Video
storage servers will be required as well as personnel to manage the video. The
manager would be responsible for complete knowledge of the software, and have the
capability to produce copies of video for evidence, etc. Current staff would have to be
assigned these additional responsibilities.
35 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
Conclusion
2011
The Orlando Police Department has made every effort to reduce crime and increase
livability within the City; while protecting its citizens and officers. The use of technology
in law enforcement is continuously opening gateways to improve these efforts. Currently
the agency uses camera technology throughout its downtown for crime prevention and
investigative purposes. Although, the use of cameras in vehicles is not new technology,
it has widely used for traffic enforcement. However, due to the cost, local agencies have
not fully implemented the use of in-car cameras. Body worn cameras are the latest
technology and appear to be the wave of the future. However, this technology has yet to
be proven effective or efficient. OPD should cautiously explore the vast possibilities of
this latest technology. As the agency moves forward, equipment selection must occur
through careful thought, implementation should occur in phases to determine efficiency
and effectiveness of the products, improvement and additions to policies need to be
made, personnel need proper training, and logistics need to be well thought out and
pre-planned. These efforts will assist the agency to make the best possible choices for
the agency as a whole and for the individual officer.
36 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
References
2011
Bay News 9. (2010, September 26). Zephyrhills PD cruisers receiving new type of in-car
cam. WESH News.com. Retrieved from
http://www.baynews9.com/artilce.news/2010/septembet/155069/Zephyrhills-PDcruisers
Boca Raton Police Department. (2000). Boca Raton police departmental standard
directive (Standard Directive No. 41.25, In-car video system). Boca Raton, FL.
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). (2011).
http://www.calea.org/
Florida League of Cities. (2011). My City: Facts of Florida cities. Retrieved from
http://flcities.com/membership/my_city_facts.asp
Fredricks, Grant. (2011, March). Caught on Camera: The clear capture of officer
murders is a grim reality of this powerful technology. Evidence Technology
Magazine. Retrieved on March 30, 2011 from:
http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id
=431
Ft. Myers Police Department. (2009).Ft. Myers police departmental general order
(General Order No. 25.3, Mobile video/audio recording equipment). Ft. Myers, FL.
Howland, Lance. (2010, May 11). Two Urban Police Departments Test Officer-Mounted
Mini-Cams. Publicceo.com. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from
http://www.publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governmentspublicceo-exclusive/1479-two-urban-police-departments-test-officer-mounted-minicams
Hunter Systems Group, Inc. (2011, February 8). While body worn video expands to
more police departments, some concerns still arise. Huntersystem’s Posterous.
Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://huntersystems.posterous.com/while-bodyworn-video-expands-to-more-police
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the United States Department
of Justice, Community Oriented Police Office. (2004). Research and Best Practices
37 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
from the IACP Study on In-Car Cameras. Retrieved on February 2, 2011from
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/video_evidence.pdf
2011
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (2010, Fall). Officerworn
cameras expand point of view. TechBeat. Retrieved from
http://www.justnet.org/TechBeat Files/Officer Worn Cameras Expand Point of
View.pdf
Officer Down Memorial Webpage, Inc (ODMP). Retrieved on April 6, 2011 from
http://www.odmp.org/
Orlando Sentinel. (2011, February 3). Candid (cop) cameras. Orlando Sentinel.
Retrieved from http://www.orlandosentinel.com
Orlando Police Department. (2011, April 1). Highway Safety Concept Paper, Orlando,
FL.
Orlando Police Department. (2011, January 18). Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
request form, Orlando, FL.
Orlando Police Department (2010, December). A year in review 2010 [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from
http://opdweb1/opdonline/YIR_2010/SJ's%20edited%20version%20of%20YIR%20
-%202010.ppsx
Orlando Police Department. (2010, October 1). Orlando Police Department
Organizational chart. Orlando, FL.
Orlando Police Department. (2010, January 29). Orlando police departmental policy and
procedure. (Policy and Procedure No. 1625.4, Use of electronic communications
systems). Orlando, FL.
Orlando Police Department. (2008, April 2). Orlando police departmental training
bulletin (Training Bulletin No. 1309.1, Audio recording or interception of oral
communications by law enforcement officer). Orlando, FL.
Pacheco, Walter. (2011, January 15). In-car board cameras can give key evidence, but
cost limits their use. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from
38 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/os-in-car -cams-
20110107,0,7828747,print.story
2011
Pacheco, Walter. (2010, November 11). Tiny cameras on Tasers record Central Florida
police takedowns. The Palm Beach Post. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/nes/tiny-cameras-on-tasers-record-central-flroidapolice-1039224.htm
Paddock, Richard. (2010, April 1). Cameras for the police. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/us/02sfbriefs.html
PoliceOne.comNews. (2011, January 22). Officer-worn cameras expand point of view.
Policeone.com. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from
http://www.policeone.com/pc_print.asp?vid=3227048
St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office. (2011).St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office general order
(General Order No. 31.10, DUI traffic enforcement). St. Lucie County, FL.
StudentNewsDaily.com. (2011, March 14). Body Cameras: The new eyes of the law.
StudentNewsDaily.com. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from
http://studentnewsdaily.com/
The Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation (CFA). (2011).
http://www.flaccreditation.org/
The Economist. (2010, December 30). Proto-Robocop, the iconic maker of stun guns
aims to take policing into cyberspace. The Economist, 394, 46-47. Retrieved on
March 29, 2011 from
http://www.economist.com/node/15179584?story_id=15179584
Walker, Dionne. (2010, October 23). Police using TASER cameras to protect
themselves in court. Policeone.com. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from:
http://www.policeone.com/pc_prinst.asp?vid=2833031
WESH News.com. (2011, January 21). Orange Co. mulls cameras for deputies, officers:
cameras don’t lie. WESH News.com. Retrieved from
http://www.wesh.com/print/26570679/detail.html
39 | P age

Police Technology: An analysis of in-car cameras and
body worn cameras
2011
Westphal, Lonnie J. (2004, August). The in-car camera: value and impact. The Police
Chief, vol 71, no 8. Retrieved on February 2, 2011from:
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index
WFTV (2010, November 18). Why don’t Orlando Police have in-car-cams? WFTV.com.
Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from
http://www.wftv.com/print/25842422/detial.html
Young, Chris. (2011, January 6). Personal cameras for police officers. Pittsburg City
Paper. Retrieved from
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A89594
40 | P age