1 the crime picture
Watch the following clip from ABC News: Dunwoody Trial: The Insanity Defense
Do you feel that in the Sneiderman case the Insanity Defense was appropriate? Explain you reasoning and provide an alternative defense if you feel the Insanity Defense wasn’t appropriate.
2 criminal law
Please answer the following question:
If you could use only one source of crime data on which to develop policies, would you chose the UCR, NCVS, or self-report surveys? Explain your choice.
3 issues and challenges
Read the attached report from the National Institute of Justice. Based on the report do you think Body Worn Cameras could be used to address many of the criticisms of police? Why or why not?
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
Sensor, Surveillance, and
Biometric Technologies (SSBT)
Center of Excellence (CoE)
Prepared by
ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc.
1000 Technology Dr., Ste. 3310
Fairmont, WV 26554
Phone: (304) 368-4120
Fax: (304) 366-8096
Jonathan Hayes
Lead Engineer
Dr. Lars Ericson
Director of Advanced Technologies
UNCLASSIFIED
This project was supported by Award No. 2010-IJ-CX-K024, awarded by the National
Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.
DISCLAIMER
Commercial products included herein do not constitute an endorsement by NIJ, DOJ, or
ManTech and assumes no liability for any use of publication content. This publication is a
reference for educational purposes only. Please carefully consider the particular needs/
requirements of your agency and any applicable laws before developing policies or procedures governing the use of any technology.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.1 About NIJ SSBT CoE………………………………………………………………………… 2
2.0 Why Use Body-Worn Cameras?………………………………………………………. 3
3.0 What are the Types of Body-Worn Cameras? …………………………………… 5
4.0 What are the Implementation Issues?……………………………………………… 7
4.1 When Can I Record?………………………………………………………………………… 7
4.2 When to Consider Use……………………………………………………………………… 8
4.3 Policies and Procedures……………………………………………………………………. 8
4.4 Training………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
4.5 Data Storage and Management………………………………………………………… 9
5.0 Closing……………………………………………………………………………………….11
6.0 References………………………………………………………………………………….13
Appendix A: Body-Worn Camera Market Survey………………………………… A-1
Appendix B: Acronyms and Abbreviations…………………………………………..B-1
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement iii
1.0 Introduction
T
he field deployment of body-worn camera systems (BWCs) by law enforcement
practitioners (e.g., patrol, corrections, SWAT and other tactical responders) offers
significant advantages in keeping officers safe, enabling situational awareness and
providing evidence for trial. A major issue with the use of BWCs is a lack of technical standards and operational standards for protocols and procedures. Without such standards in
place, law enforcement practitioners lack adequate information to select the proper system
that meets their requirements. The interoperability between systems and associated software also requires a set of standards. Further, such standards are instrumental in ensuring
that evidence gathered from BWCs meets courtroom standards.
To mitigate the lack of procedural or technical standards, the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) Sensor, Surveillance, and Biometric Technologies (SSBT) Center of Excellence (CoE)
has prepared a primer to aid in the use of BWCs in law enforcement. This report provides an
introduction to BWCs and highlights issues and factors that law enforcement organizations
should consider prior to and during implementation. Specific questions addressed include:
Why use BWCs?
What are the types of BWCs?
What are the implementation issues that can be expected with BWCs?
Please reference the Market Survey for an overview of various BWCs currently available,
including technical specifics and capabilities (see Appendix A).
For information on agencies currently using BWCs, including example policy and procedure
documents, please contact the SSBT CoE at [email protected].
In addition, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) program has recently concluded an assessment
project on Wearable Camera Systems (i.e., BWCs). A detailed Market Survey Report and
an Assessment Report involving comparative evaluation of different systems in operational
scenarios can be obtained by visiting the Responder Knowledge Base at https://www.rkb.
us/ (SAVER, August 2012).
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement 1
1.1 About NIJ SSBT CoE
The NIJ SSBT CoE is a center within the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) System. The CoE provides scientific and
technical support to NIJs research and development (R&D) efforts. The Center
also provides technology assistance, information and support to criminal justice
agencies. The Center supports the NIJ Sensor and Surveillance portfolio and the
Biometrics portfolio. The Centers of Excellence are the authoritative resource
within the NLECTC System for both practitioners and developers in their technology area(s) of focus. The primary role of the Centers of Excellence is to assist in
the transition of law enforcement technology from the laboratory into practice by
first adopters.
2 A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement
2.0 Why Use Body-Worn Cameras?
A
gencies considering the implementation of BWCs can benefit from their use in many
areas, but only if implemented correctly. Within this section, we highlight some
aspects of why an agency would choose to use BWCs, including judicial process,
officer safety, professionalism and use cases.
Judicial Process: The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has performed
studies on camera usage with respect to in-car camera systems. Much of this information
can be extrapolated to BWCs. The study measured the impact cameras have had on the
judicial process. Done as a collaborative effort with the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) and the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), the study found that of
the prosecutors surveyed, an overwhelming number (91 percent) have used video evidence
in court that was captured from an in-car camera. They reported that the presence of video
evidence enhances their ability to obtain convictions and increases the number of guilty
pleas prior to going to trial. The majority of the prosecutors (58 percent) reported a reduction in the time they actually spent in court, although when video evidence was used, 41
percent of prosecutors reported an increase in their case preparation time (IACP, 2004).
Safety: Officers are frequently assaulted and involved in traffic accidents while on duty.
Representative assaults can be seen in a multitude of police shows where video cameras are
used. The use of a camera system, whether in-car or body-worn, can deter violence or other
negative behavior and help to convict a person who would choose to attack an officer. It
may also reveal other information that might not normally be recorded by officers.
Professionalism: The use of cameras has been said to help improve the accountability of
police officers as well as reduce the number of complaints of police misconduct. There are
numbers of reports where cameras have cleared officers of wrongdoing once the video
evidence was reviewed, as opposed to only 5 percent of complaint cases being sustained
(as studied using in-car camera as the representative system) (IACP, 2004).
Use Cases: There are various types of interactions that officers perform on a daily basis.
Generally a persons first thought is that of a traffic stop. Many of these patrol cars have
in-car systems that have been in use for years. These in-car systems are hailed by most of
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement 3
the officers who use them, but what about the other types of officer interactions
performed daily?
The following is a sample list of officer interactions. Obviously, there are many
more executed on a daily basis where BWCs could support officers:
Service calls.
Primary response (patrol in vehicle).
Self-initiated public contacts/foot patrol.
Bicycle/motorcycle patrol.
Emergency response/first responders.
Searches (vehicle or site).
SWAT.
Corrections.
4 A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement
3.0 What Are the Types of Body-Worn Cameras?
B
WCs can be a police officers small but important technological partner. BWCs are
mobile audio and video capture devices that allow officers to record what they see
and hear. Devices can be attached to various body areas, including the head, by
helmet, glasses or other means, or to the body by pocket, badge or other means of attachment (such as in-car on the dash). They have the capability to record officer interactions that
previously could only be captured by in-car or interrogation room camera systems.
There are many specification issues to consider before purchasing a camera system. The system requirements and trade-offs will be dependent on the intended use, budget, unit cost,
interoperability, operating environment, etc. A single set of BWC technical requirements
does not exist, but is of interest to a wide range of law enforcement agencies. Specifications
to consider include:
Battery life.
Video quality.
Recording limits.
Night recording.
Camera focal width (need wide point-of-view, or POV).
Audio recording.
Camera placement.
Radio integration capability.
Each of the previously mentioned capabilities can vary greatly depending of the cost and
use of the device; however, even expensive BWCs are still a fraction of the cost of in-car
systems.
A reasonable set of recommendations for product selection was reported in the DHS SAVER
Wearable Camera Systems Focus Group Report (SAVER, 2011). It is reproduced here with
permission for reference.
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement 5
DHS SAVER Focus Group BWC Recommendations
Product Selection Criteria
Description
VGA Resolution
The resolution should be at least 640 x 480
pixels.
Frame Rate
The frame rate should be at least 25 frames
per second.
Battery Runtime
The camera should be able to record
continuously for at least 3 hours on a fully
charged battery.
Data Storage
The cameras onboard storage, at the lowest video quality settings, should
permit at least 3 hours of recording.
Low-light Recording
The camera should have a low lux rating
and/or an IR illuminator for recording targets in low-light.
Warranty
System purchase should include, at a minimum, a 1-year warranty.
Units can be mounted in several areas to include around the ear or head, on a
helmet or hat, on the lapel, pocket, badge or in many other places. Mounting
is a serious item to consider as lapel/chest mounted cameras are always bodyfacing units, whereas head-mounted units have a view of exactly what the officer
is seeing. Considerations on replacing in-car units with BWC units would have
to include the mounting of the BWC as a chest-placed unit that would not likely
capture the needed data.
Standard cameras are likely to have image quality issues (e.g., fuzzy pictures and
poor quality at night) as compared to more high-end cameras due to technical
compromises to manage costs. There can also be 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; this again links back to placement of the camera on
the officer being extremely important. Some feel that head camera placement
allows the head to act as a natural gyroscope to reduce some motion issues seen
with cameras. Many vendor websites host sample capture video from systems for
potential users to sample.
6 A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement
4.0 What are the Implementation Issues?
T
here are various issues that need to be considered before investing in a BWC to include federal, state and local privacy issues; policy and procedures; the actual camera
system; and proper training.
4.1 When Can I Record?
Federal law blocks the warrantless capturing of photo or video images of people where they
have an expectation of privacy, and most states have similar laws. When using BWCs, considerations on whether or not audio recording is allowed during video recording will require
specific research prior to purchases or even piloting devices.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has published reference information on
state consent categories with respect to recordings (RCFP, 2008). For reference, that material is included below.
States that allow single party consent recording of audio (oral) communications
Arkansas
Louisiana
New York
Tennessee
Colorado
Maine
North Carolina
Texas
Georgia
Minnesota
North Dakota
Utah
Hawaii
Mississippi
Ohio
Vermont
Idaho
Missouri
Oklahoma
Virginia
Indiana
Nebraska
Oregon
West Virginia
Iowa
Nevada
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
Kansas
New Jersey
South Carolina
Wyoming
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement 7
States that require all parties to consent to recording of audio (oral)
communications
California
Florida
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Connecticut
Illinois
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Montana
Washington
NOTE: All legal aspects regarding privacy rights should be researched prior to
investing in a camera system. SSBT CoE has not verified the accuracy of the state
consent information prepared by RCFP. They are provided here as a starting point
and an example to illustrate potential differences between states.
4.2 When to Consider Use
There are various times when the addition of BWCs would make more sense
than others. One such example is when an agency is considering augmenting an
existing in-car video system. Although current in-car systems record audio of all
events, they are extremely limited in their recording of front forward video from
the dash of a car. BWCs in this instance can give a full picture of the stop from
beginning to end with audio and video. Another opportunity is when existing
in-car systems are in need of replacement. Agencies in these cases would have
officers already accustomed to using the systems and thus it would be easier to
modify their current operations. Depending on the type of unit procured, there
would be different considerations. Head-mounted units would not require any
in-car additions; however, other chest-mounted BWC systems allow for the device
to be removed and mounted on the dash temporarily while driving. Lastly, BWC
systems should be considered when funding is limited. In-car systems are several
times more expensive than BWCs. That factor could, in itself, lead an agency to
deploy BWCs.
4.3 Policies and Procedures
If cameras are to be used, policies and procedures will have to be put in place,
or expanded on, to address several legal issues. These issues extend beyond the
more obvious privacy and civil liberties protections toward which agencies must
be sensitive. For example, a policy would have to address when a camera should
be used and when it 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 camera. Camera video may also be considered a public
8 A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement
record item and a procedure would need to be created for public assessment and information requests. This policy should be in place before any testing or deployment.
The bridge between policy and training lies in the cameras capabilities. Cheaper
cameras will require more officer interaction for off-loading data. Cheaper units
will also offer more areas for error in use during data capture or during the data
extraction. The amount of time required to extract and maintain data versus the
cost of a unit should be strongly considered prior to purchase.
4.4 Training
Proper training on policies and equipment is a must. Agencies should ensure that
a thorough logistics plan is in place prior to implementation. Training should not
only be for use of the BWCs but also for the officers perceptions of the camera.
Officers should understand the primary purpose of cameras is for evidence collection and officer safety. Officers will need to understand that monitoring officer
performance and improving public relations also come with the camera use.
One of the most challenging issues an agency may face is officer acceptance. If
officers feel that the video cameras are being used as a tool to monitor officer
behavior, as several officers felt in the IACP study, they may be resistant to using
the cameras (IACP, 2004).
4.5 Data Storage and Management
This leads to one of the more important items for an agency to consider before
purchasing BWC units: data storage and retention. Storage issues, such as how
long and who has access to the recordings, must also be considered. Furthermore, states have different laws on how long recordings must be stored based
on the type of content and how or whether it is used in court. This is one of the
most important things for an agency to consider as this can have a significant cost
to a department. Not only must the data be protected and backed up regularly,
but it must be accessible to all parties involved. Some data needs to be retained
forever; other data can be deleted quickly. Crime recordings must be managed
by law and through policies. Even video of standard officer interaction may be
retained for a default period of time to cover potential performance complaints.
Policies should control the period of time this data is maintained. As recordings
become more or less important to your agency, adjustments need to be made.
The length of storage time can cost numerous man-hours in addition to the actual
cost of the storage device. There are services available that provide end-to-end
data management of the exact items mentioned above.
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement 9
Once recordings are made, agencies will have to consider all aspects of storage
and handling, including chain-of-custody issues. As mentioned, many BWC units
can allow for manipulation of video data by anyone in contact with the device.
One of the disadvantages of these BWCs is that the officers may be responsible
for uploading video to the agency systems themselves, as opposed to an automated or third-party process. As a result, ensuring that this is done properly
becomes an important training issue. More expensive BWCs often have various
safeguards to control data handling and thus assist in chain-of-custody control.
They can require a party other than the officer to upload the data. These measures can often support chain-of-custody issues.
Once an audio/video recording is admitted as evidence in a court of law, the
question of admissibility can be linked to whether an officer can authenticate
the audio/video recording as a true and accurate depiction of the events. The
defense, in order to prevent incriminating evidence from being presented at
trial, may challenge the recordings admissibility based on the chain of custody.
The best policy, as with any physical evidence, is to always guard the integrity of
the evidence, and ensure policies and procedures maintaining a strict chain-ofcustody are followed (IACP, 2004). This would include being sure that recordings
include information necessary to be admissible in court. Specifically, time and
date stamp/identifiers must be imprinted on the media, either in the video images
directly or in the underlying metadata information of the data files. This can be
done by using a GPS, if available, or other functions of a camera unit.
10 A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement
5.0 Closing
T
he use of in-car cameras has proven to be highly beneficial; any agency with high instances of citizen contact and self-initiated calls should strongly consider BWCs to be
standard equipment for officers in these units. BWCs have also been a great benefit
in resolving complaints and allegations against officers. As in-car cameras are used throughout the country for traffic-related incidents and the video has been proven to hold up in
court, BWC video is sure to follow suit.
Agencies should look to neighboring departments for information and prior usage before
venturing and deploying on their own. Utilizing a department that has already proceeded
and has lessons learned can save a multitude of time and money.
Having policies, procedures, training and feedback mechanisms in place and used prior
to even a pilot deployment is exceedingly important. If an agency considers all aspects of
deployment, the project will be effective, efficient, and maintain the agencys and officers
integrity.
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement 11
6.0 References
International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2004. The Impact of Video Evidence on
Modern Policing: Research and Best Practices from the IACP Study on In-Car Cameras.
Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
DHS SAVER. June 2011. Wearable Camera Systems Focus Group Report . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved September 2012: https://
www.rkb.us/saver/SaverDocs.cfm?sort=sortequipment&action=content&content_
id=2148#DOCS (restricted access).
DHS SAVER. August 2012. Camera Systems, Wearable. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved September 2012: https://www.rkb.us/SAVER/
SaverDocs.cfm?sort=sortequipment&action=content&content_id=2148
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 2008. Can We Tape? Arlington,
VA: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Retrieved September 2012:
http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape.
In addition to the above published documents, the SSBT CoE gathered information on law
enforcement use of BWCs at various events through exhibit booth interactions and outreach. Events included:
NIJ Sensors Technology Working Group Meeting (April 19-20, 2011; Arlington, Va.)
The Critical Incident Preparedness Conference (Aug. 30-Sept. 1, 2011; National Harbor,
Md.)
NIJ Technology Institute for Law Enforcement (Fall 2011 and Summer 2012; Annapolis,
Md.)
Biometric Consortium Conference (Sept. 27-29, 2011; Tampa, Fla.)
NIJ Technology Institute for Rural Law Enforcement (Dec. 5-8, 2011; Annapolis, Md.)
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement 13
Additional supplemental references related to the use of BWCs in law enforcement include:
DHS SAVER. December 2011. Wearable Camera Systems Assessment Report.
Retrieved September 2012: https://www.rkb.us/SAVER/SaverDocs.cfm?sort=so
rtequipment&action=content&content_id=2148 (restricted access.)
DHS SAVER. March 2012. Wearable Camera Systems Market Survey Report.
Retrieved September 2012: https://www.rkb.us/SAVER/SaverDocs.cfm?sort=
sortequipment&action=content&content_id=2148 (restricted access.)
DHS SAVER. March 2012. Wearable Camera Systems Summary. Retrieved September 2012: https://www.rkb.us/SAVER/SaverDocs.cfm?sort=sortequipment&
action=content&content_id=2148 (restricted access.)
PoliceOne.com. P1Survey: Police Video, Retrieved Aug. 24, 2012:
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/tactical/tactical-video/
articles/5908468-P1-Survey-Police-Video/
PoliceOne.com. Body-worn video cameras are going mainstream. Retrieved
Aug. 24, 2012: http://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/
articles/5908781-Body-worn-video-cameras-are-going-mainstream/
University of Central Florida. 2011. Police Technology: An analysis of in-car
cameras and body-worn cameras.
Office of the Police Ombudsman, City of Spokane (Wash.). Body-Worn Video
& Law Enforcement: An Overview of the Common Concerns Associated With
Its Use. Retrieved September 2012: http://www.spdombudsman.com/
wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Attachment-G-Body-Camera-Report.pdf
14 A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement
Appendix- Body-Worn Camera Market Survey
Market Survey of Body Worn Cameras
NIJ SSBTCoE
Potential reasons an agency would consider implementation or expansion to Body Worn Cameras include:
Training as related to the camera use
Audio/video of consent to search
Use in all agency units (Traffic, Bike, Patrol, etc)
Wolfcom 3rd Eye
www.wolfcomusa.com
Scorpion Micro DV
VIEVU PVR-LE2*
www.vievu.com
Model
MuviView HD Series
www.mphindustries.com
Professionalism/Perception
False accusation protection
FirstVu
www.digitalallyinc.com/
body-camera.html
Video collection of evidence for trial/juries
Officers safety/violence against officers
StalkerVUE
www.stalkerradar.com/
law_vue.html
Less cost compared with in-car units
TASER AXON Flex®
www.taser.com
A
Placement/Format
Various
Chest
Chest
Various
Chest
Chest
Various
Max Video Resolution
640×480
640×480
1280×720
640×480
640×480
1920×1080
1080p
Recording Speed
30 fps
30 fps
**
30 fps
30 fps
30 fps
**
Recording Format
MPEG-4
MPEG-4
MPEG-4
MPEG-4
MPEG-4
MPEG-4
MOV
Still Photo Mode
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Time/Date Stamp
**
Embedded
**
No
Metadata
Yes
**
Field of View
75°
71°
**
72°
Wide
120°
160°
Night Mode
Low light
Low light
IR Lens
No
IR Lens
IR Lens
Yes
Playback Screen
Via phone
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Audio/Format
Various
MP2
Yes
Yes
Yes
AAC
Yes
Video Safeguards
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
30 sec Pre-Event Record
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Event Marking
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Recording Life
4 hrs
4 hrs
8 hrs
4 hrs
4 hrs
5 hrs
0.5/3 hrs
Standby
12 hrs
72 hrs
400 hrs
250 hrs
12 hrs
**
**
Charge Time
6 hrs
3 hrs
2 hrs
2 hrs
**
**
3 hrs
Battery Type
**
Li-Ion
Lithium
**
**
**
Li-Ion
Storage
**
4GB
8 or 32GB
8GB
Variable
32GB
4/8 GB
GPS
Via phone
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Dimensions***
Multiple
3×2.2x.75
3.8×2.5x.8
2.8x.85x.8
2.7×4.3×1
**
3.3x2x.75
Weight
3.8 oz
3.5 oz
10 oz
1.7 oz
**
**
**
Environment Testing
MIL-STD 810F
IPX5
**
**
IP55
IP67, IPX3
**
Warranty
1 yr, 90 days
90 days
1 year
**
**
**
**
Optional Video Software
Yes
Yes
**
**
Yes
**
**
Police Radio Interface
No
**
**
**
**
Yes
No
Vehicle Mountable
**
Yes
**
**
**
Yes
Yes
Approximate Price
$1,000.00
$900.00
$800.00
$120.00
$800.00
**
$119/$249
* Also sold as CopVU or Coban VIEVU
** Unspecified
*** Dimension in inches
At the time of publication, the Panasonic WVTW310 was not available for comparison.
This market survey may not be fully comprehensive and all-inclusive. Many company websites host sample capture video.
What should an agency consider before implementation?
Policy/Training An agency should develop policies and procedures for cameras, ensure the policies and procedures are in place, and officers
are properly trained on the use prior purchase and use. These would outline when the camera can be/are required to be used, what the download requirements are and describe the limitations regarding recorded data.
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement 15
B
Appendix- Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym
Description
APRI
American Prosecutors Research Institute
BCC
Biometrics Consortium Conference
BWC
Body-Worn Camera
CoE
Center of Excellence
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
DOJ
Department of Justice
e-IC
Enterprise Integration Center
IACP
International Association of Chiefs of Police
LETI
Technology Institute for Law Enforcement
ManTech
ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc.
NDAA
National District Attorneys Association
NIJ
National Institute of Justice
NLECTC
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
POV
Point of View
R&D
Research and Development
RCFP
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
SAVER
System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders
SSBT
Sensor, Surveillance, and Biometric Technologies
SWAT
Special Weapons and Tactics
TCIP
Technologies for Critical Incidence Preparedness
A P rimer
on
B ody – worn C ameras
for
L aw E nforcement 17
Recent Comments