Documenting use of force and reviewing body camera video

[Beat Trash]

What's the idea behind the different standards?

Unedited memory. As in the concept that perception vs. reality, and that perception is reality to the involved officer at the time. Plus the limited span of view on the camera. Conducting the interview with the officer first, gives a better understanding on what the officer perceived and what their thought process was that led them to act accordingly. After that, the officer is shown the video with the investigators.

With or without BWC's, the odds of an OIS incident being caught on video is large and growing. In the last 3 years, our Homicide has investigated 16 OIS incidents involving our officers (in addition to a few involving smaller regional agency's officers). Roughly 80% of those incidents were captured on video of some form, be it cell phones or security cameras. It's the world we live in now.

[Lon]

Unedited memory. As in the concept that perception vs. reality, and that perception is reality to the involved officer at the time. Plus the limited span of view on the camera. Conducting the interview with the officer first, gives a better understanding on what the officer perceived and what their thought process was that led them to act accordingly. After that, the officer is shown the video with the investigators.

That still doesn't explain the double standard. Perception vs. reality is an issue in EVERY use of force. So if one of your guys got into a physical altercation with a suspect that left the suspect in ICU, he could review his video. But an officer who shoots a guy and literally grazes them to the point a cleaning of the wound and band aid were the only treatment required could not review his video?

[AMC]

We just acquired body cams (Taser Axon Body 2) mid 2016. Our policy encourages officers to review their body cams footage prior to writing their reports, including most use of force. The exceptions are OIS's and In-Custody Deaths. In those cases, the officer must give an initial "state-of-mind" statement to investigators prior to viewing the video, then afterwards can give a full, more complete statement, clarifying discrepancies. In such cases the body cams is immediately seized by the first supervisor on scene, and returned to the dock to download. Officers are also still obligated to provide a "public safety statement" at the scene, as well. Worth noting is the fact that our guys involved in an OIS write nothing.....No report, memo.....Nothing. That task is given to others.

[AMC]

As for use-of-force reporting.....Officers notify a supervisor immediately of "reportable" force (strikes, OC, Supersocks, pointing a firearm, shooting, any injury to suspect). The supervisor has to respond and conduct the investigation, then fill out a 2-6 page Use-of-force report, and log the officer in the Station Use of Force Log. Each officer is tracked by this and other factors in our EIS (Early Intervention System).

[Erick Gelhaus]

For us, absent a shooting, the copper can & is encouraged to view, review the footage when writing their report on any event they had the camera running for. Some are transcribing the video into the written narrative; others are paraphrasing; some are doing a mix as needed.

Some odd canned statements about videos and recordings have developed and been shared. Policy says the copper is supposed to turn on the camera and must explain why the camera was turned off, if that happened. There is canned language about them being turned in the event of "discussing case strategy and tactical planning." Its sort of funny to see that in a call involving a single copper and a no suspect report. Anyway ...

In the aftermath of an OIS (and well after the public safety statement), currently, the copper gives his statement in a cognitive interview. Then the copper can view the video. If there is any thing in the video that needs to be re-addressed, a second interview can be conducted.

We have had a handful of OIS interviews since everyone was issued cameras. I'm not aware of there having been issues after viewing videos.

[txdpd]

As for use-of-force reporting.....Officers notify a supervisor immediately of "reportable" force (strikes, OC, Supersocks, pointing a firearm, shooting, any injury to suspect). The supervisor has to respond and conduct the investigation, then fill out a 2-6 page Use-of-force report, and log the officer in the Station Use of Force Log. Each officer is tracked by this and other factors in our EIS (Early Intervention System).

And then you have the problem with officers rolling the dice and not reporting UOF incidents so they don't hit the unspecified magic number of incidents and get flagged as "problem". Or just not doing their jobs to avoid being in those situations.

We're are encouraged to watch videos prior to writing any report. In most cases I think it's a waste of time. Given our command staffs willingness to hem up officers over minor issues, I will continue to review all videos prior to writing a report and only document what can be verified by video.

For internal and criminal investigations we are allowed to review videos prior to making any statement.

If you have a command staff that looks for reasons to screw officers over, they will take a really long time to write really crappy reports. If you have a command staff that understands that not everything is going to line up picture perfect from memory and video, then there is no need to waste time reviewing video after every call.