Being held to account: Detainees’ perceptions of police body-worn cameras
| Author | Murray Lee,Matthew Willis,Emmeline Taylor |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865818781913 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Being held to account:
Detainees’ perceptions of
police body-worn cameras
Murray Lee
University of Sydney, Australia
Emmeline Taylor
City, University of London, UK
Matthew Willis
Australian Institute of Criminology, Australia
Abstract
Police organisations across the world are embracing body-worn video camera technolog y.
The justification for this is to enhance public trust in police, provide transparency in policing
activity, increase police accountability, reduce conflict between police and public, and to
provide a police perspective of incidents and events. However, while the corpus of research
into the efficacy and operational practicalities of police use of body-worn video cameras is
developing, questions on some elements of their impact remain. The majority of scholarship
has hitherto been evaluations focused on the impact of the cameras on police use of force
and on the numbers of complaints against the police. Alternatively, this article explores body-
worn video cameras from the perspective of police detainees, and specifically, detainees’
perceptions of the capacities of body-worn video cameras to deliver promised increased
levels of accountability in policing. The article draws on a survey and research interviews with
907 police detainees across four Australian jurisdictions. While respondents largely support
the use of body-worn video cameras they also identify a number of caveats. We conclude by
suggesting that there are still impediments in body-worn video cameras to achieving the level
of accountability promised by advocates and expected by the respondents.
Keywords
Arrest, body-worn video, police accountability, surveillance, transparency in policing
Date received: 21 January 2018; accepted: 14 May 2018
Corresponding author:
Murray Lee, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Email: Murray.lee@sydney.edu.au
Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology
2019, Vol. 52(2) 174–192
!The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0004865818781913
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Introduction
Technological developments in digital image capture have, in recent years, seen the
development of increasingly low cost, compact, lightweight digital video cameras offer-
ing high-resolution image quality and audio recording. These devices are supported by
high capacity storage capabilities that have enabled the retention of massive amounts of
data. Expansion in the field is reflected in the adoption of these technologies in con-
sumer items such as mobile phones and other wearable technologies. Aside from their
prevalence in, for example, sports and leisure, mobile digital video devices also have a
range of professional applications, including in law enforcement and security. This
growth has also seen the adoption of body-worn video cameras (BWCs) by many
police organisations internationally. BWCs allow police to record video images while
undertaking their policing activities. Applications include filming at the time of arrest,
during general police–public interactions, and during public order policing amongst
other functions. However, the use of these cameras has raised concerns relating to
privacy, the impact on the behaviour of police and accused persons, and the use of
video images in evidence and resolution of complaints against police.
While the aims of rolling out the cameras are multiple, increased levels of account-
ability and transparency on the part of police have been a key claim repeated by
advocates of the devices. For example New South Wales (NSW) Police Commissioner
Andrew Scipione declared that ‘the cameras would keep both police, and the people they
deal with, accountable’ (Kidd 2005 para 3). Similarly, in the UK context, the then
London Mayor Boris Johnson also buoyantly asserted:
This is exciting technology that will build trust, help the police do their jobs, and allow the
public to hold officers more accountable. Our plans for the roll-out of body-worn video will
make the technology available to more officers in a single city than anywhere else in the
world and is a giant step towards a truly 21st-century police force for London. (Cited in
Siddique (2015, para. 4))
Indeed, there has been vocal support amongst senior police officials and politicians
for the investment in, and use of, police BWCs, premised on the presumed ability
for the cameras to improve police accountability, and subsequently improve police–
public relations.
While initial evaluations of BWC use by police have generally been positive (e.g.
Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015; Ellis, Jenkins, & Smith, 2015; Hedberg, Katz, &
Choate, 2016; Katz, Choate, Ready, & Nu~
no, 2014), there are significant gaps in the
knowledge base. In particular, there is a dearth of research into the perceptions of the
public about BWCs (cf. Ellis et al., 2015) and, as far as the authors are aware, no
research into the perceptions and attitudes of those most likely to be, or have been,
subject to filming by police –police arrestees. This article draws on data generated for an
Australian Criminology Research Grant project into perceptions of BWCs and CCTV
in arrestees or more specifically, police detainees. Data collection took place in 2015 in
conjunction with the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) in Australia pro-
gramme,
1
which researches drug use patterns among police detainees.
Lee et al. 175
To continue reading
Request your trial