Documenting use of force and reviewing body camera video

[Lon]

The last few days I've been in a use of force documentation course taught by the Public Agency Training Council (PATC). We had a good conversation this morning about reviewing body cam video prior to completing any reports and what might be the appropriate time to allow the officer to watch the video. And how that may affect the written report.

I'm a firm believer in allowing the video to be watched before any statement is completed and turned in or being formally interviewed. I'm just not sure watching the video before doing anything else is the right way to do it.

I'm interested in your opinions. If you have body cams, what's your policy allow or require? Our guys can review their body cam video at their discretion prior to completing any reports.

[octagon]

I'm a little confused on your question after reading your statement. You say you don't have a problem with viewing the video before formal interview or statement but then say your not sure watching before doing anything else is the right way. Can you clarify? Do you mean remain silent for all questions and comments until you watch the video? Even at scene?

I just retired last year and we didn't have body cams before I left but my agency is getting them now. I was tasked with doing regular reviews of in car video and for specific incident investigation so I would be happy to offer my opinion/experience but could use the clarification for better response accuracy.

[Beat Trash]

If it's a Police Intervention Shooting, then we interview the officer prior to having the officer view the video.

A lesser use of force, we permit the officer to view the video.

I'm south of you. We are implementing our BWC's to Patrol first due to cost, with about 700 or so units currently in the field.

Feel free to PM for further if you want.

[voodoo_man]

We got over this issue recently...

Always let the officers watch the video before interview. It has been a well proven fact that especially during deadly force confrontations that a person may simply not remember everything that happened and in those types of interviews omissions can be damning. There is also no legal reason to not allow the officer to view the video.

Our IA wanted to never allow officers to see the video and that's just completely ignorant of how reality works. It was changed quickly.

[Lon]

I'm a little confused on your question after reading your statement. You say you don't have a problem with viewing the video before formal interview or statement but then say your not sure watching before doing anything else is the right way. Can you clarify? Do you mean remain silent for all questions and comments until you watch the video? Even at scene?

Let me try to clarify. I'm talking about after the Officer clears the scene and goes back to the station to do his formal report. As we all should know, what we remember may not be what actually happened when reviewed on the body cam video (think The Monkey Business video). Or there might be things that did happen that might not be or could not be caught on video due to a variety of reasons. So what should the report reflect? What the video shows or what the officer saw/perceived/heard/whateveryouwanttoadd? And if you allow the Officer to review the video before writing a narrative, are we tainting the report in some way?

One of the agencies represented (one of the largest in OH) has their Officers write out a narrative before they watch the video. Then they watch the video and note any discrepancies/additions between what the Officer remembered and what the video shows. Then the report is submitted with all the information.

We've had bodycams for over a year now. Most of the guys really, really like them. And like I said, our policy allows them to review the video at their discretion. Our Prosecutor had concerns about that but I fought to get that in the policy. I'm just curious to see if there's a better way out there.

Beat Trash,

What's the idea behind the different standards?

[KeeFus]

We got over this issue recently...

Always let the officers watch the video before interview. It has been a well proven fact that especially during deadly force confrontations that a person may simply not remember everything that happened and in those types of interviews omissions can be damning. There is also no legal reason to not allow the officer to view the video.

Our IA wanted to never allow officers to see the video and that's just completely ignorant of how reality works. It was changed quickly.

^^^this

[KPD]

We don't have a policy concerning this, however, when I was a supervisor I allowed my people to watch their video before any statement. This included citizen complaints. We only had a few guys in my office with body worn or car cameras then.
Now everyone in my office has a body worn camera. We wear them on knock and talks, search warrants, processing clandestine labs and pretty much anything in between.
We have found them especially useful for evaluating our tactics on search warrants. As a suspect told us once "Kodak don't lie."

[Hambo]

Let me try to clarify. I'm talking about after the Officer clears the scene and goes back to the station to do his formal report. As we all should know, what we remember may not be what actually happened when reviewed on the body cam video (think The Monkey Business video). Or there might be things that did happen that might not be or could not be caught on video due to a variety of reasons. So what should the report reflect? What the video shows or what the officer saw/perceived/heard/whateveryouwanttoadd? And if you allow the Officer to review the video before writing a narrative, are we tainting the report in some way?

One of the agencies represented (one of the largest in OH) has their Officers write out a narrative before they watch the video. Then they watch the video and note any discrepancies/additions between what the Officer remembered and what the video shows. Then the report is submitted with all the information.

FWIW (body cams not available in my era) that policy seems very reasonable. The camera might catch an entire incident, but offers nothing about what the officer was thinking. The officer's narrative explains his/her thoughts and actions, but might not catch every detail because the officer was focused on something specific.

[Rex G]

Traumatic incidents are NOT necessarily remembered in proper order, and there may be holes in the memory's continuity that will remain unfilled for a time, perhaps permanently. The training division, here, knows and teaches this, as part of the criminal investigations training, though I am not sure IA is yet on the same page. We are able to review our body-worn camera video, before making any official statements, and the day that is not allowed, is the day I will write/say "See video," and lawyer-up. I do know that some activisits are pushing for a policy change that does not allow us to view the video before making a statement. (The cameras and upload stations are tamper-resistant; we cannot edit or erase the recorded video footage.)

In our report system, is a mandatory blank that is to be filled with a four-letter code, indicating whether we viewed the video before entering the report. My usual entry is "BVNR," indicating body-worn video footage exists, but not was reviewed before entering the report. This makes sense, as we usually enter our reports in the field, on the mobile computer, whereas the video can only be viewed at the station. We are, however, allowed to go to the station, and view the video before entering the report.

[octagon]

Thanks for clarifying Lon. We allowed our officers to view video prior to making statements for all incidents except for basic information statements that may be needed for immediate securing of a scene,witnesses,evidence or apprehension of a suspect. Officer were given access to their video and officers could view each others video if the officer who's camera was present and signed in to the system to play the video. This was for any kind of normal incident,citizen complaints and incidents where forced was used or not. However in incidents where officers fired their weapon or in cases where death or serious injury occurred we assign an officer to stay with the involved officer and not to discuss the matter. The officer responds back to the station where their weapon is exchanged for another weapon and the issue weapon signed into evidence. The officer then is given the opportunity to go to the hospital( Before if there is any indication of injury) and then released from duty to go home. They are provided 1 sleep cycle before the report is to be completed. The officer is allowed to view their video and has a union lawyer present if they wish to assist with any legal questions and Garrity issues. The officer completes and submits the report and then is usually placed on administrative leave with pay pending qualification with the new weapon and evaluation by a psychiatrist. They then are assigned administrative position until the department and county prosecutors evaluation is completed and they are cleared.

Supervisors can tag video as evidence so that it cannot be accidentally erased from the system if there is a memory or capacity issue as regular video is not accessible after 90 days. All video is date/time stamped with who viewed what video and when so if a supervisor is involved or not it can be determined who watched the video and when.