Body worn cameras

[jonsp]

Uniformed officers carry body worn video, obviously you can see the little camera. However I assume it doesn't record the whole shift as that would lead to a silly amount of irrelevant video clogging up the servers. Hence the officer must manually turn the recording functionality on or off, via a switch etc.

Are their some rules as to when an officer should/must/must not turn recording on when attending a call or is that officer's discretion? I'm assuming the recording would protect the officer in case of complaints etc so he'd likely turn it on to protect himself?.

[Tom1312]

Discretion usually.

However certain situations are a must, firearms operations, pursuits etc.

Most will use it for most interactions, I certainly do.

[rscott]

Some have prebuffering, where they're continually recording (usually about 30 seconds) but only save it when the device is activated.

[Greendubber]

Mines on standby all the time, it's turned on automatically when my taser is drawn, someone else draws within 10 meters and when the blue lights are activated in some of our newer vehicles.

We have to have them on when in pursuits, driving on blues as well as when dealing with incidents.

This is what we're issued with...

https://www.axon.com/uk/products/axon-body-3

[LosingGrip]

On standby with a 30 second pre record.

Have to be used when interacting with a member of the public. If it gets saved depends on a number of things. Mainly if its evidential at all.

Some people dislike like them, especially with the 30 second pre record.

I love them. Even more after it dealt with an IOPC/PSD investigation after someone died within a week. All my actions captured on BWV.

[jonsp]

LosingGrip said:

Have to be used when interacting with a member of the public.

Interesting. I was just curious about this because a mate told me about an interaction he had with police where he felt the officer was rude. He filled in the complaint form on their website describing what happened and said the officers video will confirm my account.

A sergeant responded saying the officers video wasn't switched on and the officer denied his account so they didn't believe him - I can see in a case like this the default would be believe the officer and assume the member of the public is lying/making it up. Complaint rejected.

I suppose for an officer the video is a double-edged sword. It could vindicate the officer, or it could get him in trouble.

[LosingGrip]

jonsp said:

nteresting. I was just curious about this because a mate told me about an interaction he had with police where he felt the officer was rude. He filled in the complaint form on their website describing what happened and said the officers video will confirm my account.

A sergeant responded saying the officers video wasn't switched on and the officer denied his account so they didn't believe him - I can see in a case like this the default would be believe the officer and assume the member of the public is lying/making it up. Complaint rejected.

I suppose for an officer the video is a double-edged sword. It could vindicate the officer, or it could get him in trouble.

It will be different in each force. And i dont always do it.

Stop someone for an offence? On and saved.
Pull up next to someone to tell them a light is out? Not on.
Speaking to Mrs Miggins who wants a chat about XYZ. Off unless a crime is disclosed.
Showing kids around the car/bike - not on.

[Kaelic]

In GMP for response policy is:

All domestics
All stop searches
All arrest searches
All prisoner transport if you are observing the prisoner
All vulnerable people being transported, i.e. on Saturday night I transported a 14-year-old girl home, and I was single crewed.

In practical terms I use my BWV for as many interactions with jobs as I can, it keeps me safe, it if there was an accusation of misconduct etc I would be happy in the fact that my BWV is available to prove if I was right/wrong etc....

I love the BWV saved me from a serious complaint from a throbber and has actually de-escalated a situation for me which was becoming rather dangerous.

[Ronzx6r]

jonsp said:

nteresting. I was just curious about this because a mate told me about an interaction he had with police where he felt the officer was rude. He filled in the complaint form on their website describing what happened and said the officers video will confirm my account.

A sergeant responded saying the officers video wasn't switched on and the officer denied his account so they didn't believe him - I can see in a case like this the default would be believe the officer and assume the member of the public is lying/making it up. Complaint rejected.

I suppose for an officer the video is a double-edged sword. It could vindicate the officer, or it could get him in trouble.

you expected anything different from the police

[jonsp]

Ronzx6r said:

you expected anything different from the police

I'd assume if an officer was behaving correctly he'd want his video recording to cover himself, as the officers above have said. If he wasn't behaving correctly he'd be a fool to record himself.

No dog in this fight, just curious. Appreciate the responses.

[Speed Badger]

I deal with BWV all the time, nothing more annoying than a last minute Charlie turning his camera on so you miss the first 30 seconds/minute of dialogue! Sometimes can't be helped though, depending on the emerging situation.

They are trialing live steaming to an officer's camera at the moment for real time observation/guidance from back at base.

[Greendubber]

Speed Badger said:

I deal with BWV all the time, nothing more annoying than a last minute Charlie turning his camera on so you miss the first 30 seconds/minute of dialogue! Sometimes can't be helped though, depending on the emerging situation.

They are trialing live steaming to an officer's camera at the moment for real time observation/guidance from back at base.

I'm what cameras are you using?

We've had the 30 second audio and live stream for ages, I presumed that was the norm?

[Tom1312]

Speed Badger said:

I deal with BWV all the time, nothing more annoying than a last minute Charlie turning his camera on so you miss the first 30 seconds/minute of dialogue! Sometimes can't be helped though, depending on the emerging situation.

They are trialing live steaming to an officer's camera at the moment for real time observation/guidance from back at base.

That's a terrible idea and I'm a massive advocate of BWV.

I can't think of anything worse than a back seat driver at a job or deployment.

[Greendubber]

Tom1312 said:

Speed Badger said:

I deal with BWV all the time, nothing more annoying than a last minute Charlie turning his camera on so you miss the first 30 seconds/minute of dialogue! Sometimes can't be helped though, depending on the emerging situation.

They are trialing live steaming to an officer's camera at the moment for real time observation/guidance from back at base.

That's a terrible idea and I'm a massive advocate of BWV.

I can't think of anything worse than a back seat driver at a job or deployment.

I've only seen it used for back up shouts. Officer presses emergency button, won't/can't answer so the officers camera is live screened to someone who can direct officers/work out what's going on.

Also quite handy with some public order operations but the majority of that is done via drone instead.

[Cyberprog]

Greendubber said:

I've only seen it used for back up shouts. Officer presses emergency button, won't/can't answer so the officers camera is live screened to someone who can direct officers/work out what's going on.

Also quite handy with some public order operations but the majority of that is done via drone instead.

I can see how it would be useful in those situations. But shouldn't be used to micromanage officers on the ground!