Testing the Evidentiary Value of Police Body-Worn Cameras in Misdemeanor Court

Abstract

We test whether the presence of police body-worn camera (BWC) evidence impacts case filing, processing, and outcomes, using data from over 50,000 misdemeanor cases charged in the Tempe, Arizona municipal city court (2014–2017). BWCs did not affect case flow but did affect processing and outcomes for most cases. Traffic and drug/alcohol cases involving a BWC were processed more quickly, while traffic and person offense cases with a BWC were less likely to be adjudicated guilty. Defendant and officer demographics were correlated with case processing time and outcomes, but BWCs did not reduce racial/ethnic disparities for any outcomes. BWCs appear to affect case processing and outcomes for some case types, but effects are not straightforward and warrant further research.

Keywords

police policing body worn cameras courts misdemeanor ARIMA

Police body-worn camera (BWC) adoption increased rapidly after the August 2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson (MO) and subsequent protests. By 2016, half of local U.S. agencies had BWCs, including 60% to 80% of large agencies (Hyland, 2018). The enthusiasm for BWCs has centered on their potential for holding officers accountable for misconduct, including excessive force (White, 2014). These arguments were emphasized by the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015), and they resurfaced in 2020 following the deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville. By April 2021, seven states had mandated statewide use of BWCs (Wagner, 2021), and new federal legislation requires all federal law enforcement officers to wear them (Kahn, 2020).

Given this backdrop, BWC research has primarily focused on relationships between cameras and either police use of force or citizen complaints (White & Malm, 2020). The evidence is mixed, and several large, well-designed experiments found no impact on use of force (e.g., Yokum et al., 2017). In response, some believe the excitement over BWCs was unfounded (Lum et al., 2019) while others view the evidence more positively, noting that half of studies show reductions in use of force (14 of 28 studies) and most show reductions in complaints (24 of 32 studies; White & Malm, 2020). Nevertheless, this focus has resulted in less attention paid to other BWC outcomes. For one, they may offer evidentiary value for detecting crimes and adjudicating court cases, resulting in more timely and successful prosecutions. Video could also protect individuals against improper police practices and wrongful charges and convictions. According to the 2016 LEMAS survey, responding agencies identified the evidentiary value of BWCs as the third most common reason for adoption, with 79% identifying this as a primary factor (Hyland, 2018).

Unfortunately, fewer than 10 studies have examined the downstream evidentiary value of BWCs, with most using weak methodological designs and few focused on the misdemeanor context (Lum et al., 2019). Moreover, most have focused on specific case types, such as domestic violence. As a result, the impact of BWCs on broader case types remains an open question, especially in a misdemeanor context. The lack of clarity is problematic given that the introduction of BWC evidence may conflict with the “assembly line” justice model of these courts (President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, 1967). Moreover, it remains to be seen whether BWCs can reduce the role of extra-legal factors, such as defendant race/ethnicity, that can perpetuate bias in misdemeanor case processing (e.g., Spohn & Cederblom, 1991). In plain terms, it is not clear whether the perceived evidentiary benefits of BWCs extend downstream to the misdemeanor criminal court where millions of cases are processed every year, and if so, whether these benefits could mitigate the potential for racial/ethnic bias in those cases. We explore these questions by testing whether BWCs affect case flow and resolution in misdemeanor court, using official data from over 50,000 cases charged in the Tempe (AZ) City Court between 2014 and 2017.

Police BWCs

The evidence base on BWCs has grown rapidly. Lum et al. (2019) identified 70 studies on BWCs examining a range of outcomes (see also Lum et al., 2020). Findings are consistent with a few outcomes. For example, police officers (e.g., Fallik et al., 2020; Gaub et al., 2016; Huff et al., 2018; Jennings et al., 2014) and citizens (e.g., Sousa et al., 2018; Todak et al., 2018) mostly support BWCs, and their use is related to fewer citizen complaints (see Lum et al., 2019; White, Gaub, & Padilla, 2019 for reviews). Braga et al. (2017) also estimated the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department saved $4 million per year with their BWC program, mostly from less time spent investigating complaints (see also Williams et al., 2021).

Studies testing the impact of BWCs on police use of force show more inconsistent results. About half of the studies examining the BWC/use of force relationship have reported significant declines (e.g., Ariel et al., 2015; Braga et al., 2018; Jennings et al., 2015), and a follow up study with the Rialto (CA) Police Department found the effects persisted over time (Sutherland et al., 2017). Miller and Chillar (2022) also found evidence that BWC adoption leads to fewer in-custody citizen fatalities. However, others have observed no relationship (e.g., Braga et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2018; White, Gaub, & Todak, 2018; Yokum et al., 2017) and Lum et al. (2019) noted the direction of the effects are inconsistent across studies.

To explain the mixed findings, some suggest the state of a police department pre-BWC implementation and local context shape the impact of BWCs:

The Rialto Police Department (RPD) had a rocky history leading up to their BWC study, with several years of scandals and an attempt by the Rialto City Council to disband the police department. Chief Tony Farrar was hired in 2011 and implemented a number of reforms, including the deployment of BWCs using an RCT design, which led to substantial declines in both use of force and complaints. . . Others have taken steps to reform their agency prior to implementing BWCs. Both the Las Vegas Metropolitan (LVMPD) and Spokane Police Departments (SPD) implemented their BWC programs following involvement in Collaborative Reform and witnessed more marginal declines in use of force and citizen complaints. Even more pronounced are the experiences of the Washington (DC) Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), both of which were under federal oversight through consent decree. After nearly a decade of federally-imposed reform efforts, neither agency experienced reductions in use of force or citizen complaints after BWCs were deployed (Gaub & White, 2020, p. 905).

In sum, agencies suffering from more problems may see more benefits when they equip officers with cameras because they have more room for improvement. The level of discretion afforded to officers via their agency policy could also influence the effects of deployment (Ariel et al., 2016a; Huff et al., 2022; Katz & Huff, 2022), while Gaub and White (2020) also argued that differences could be due to discrepancies in how these variables are measured.

The Evidentiary Value of BWCs

Researchers have paid less attention to the evidentiary value of BWCs, which could manifest in many ways. First, the knowledge of being recorded may encourage officers to use proper procedures, ensuring citizens’ rights are protected (Fan, 2017; Harris, 2010; Stoughton, 2018). A recent study of the NYPD found that BWCs increased the rate at which officers completed a required stop-and-frisk form (Braga et al., 2022). The BWC could also encourage prosecutors to file charges when there is otherwise insufficient evidence or decline charges when there is a lack of (or conflicting) evidence. Video and audio footage could help determine whether officers should be charged with crimes, including murder (but see Merola et al., 2016) and, although rare, BWCs may also record crimes in progress, like traffic infractions and assaults on officers (Gaub et al., 2020; Ariel et al., 2016b). BWC video may also help officers with report writing, refreshing memories and ensuring reports are detailed, and helping prosecutors compile stronger cases (Fan, 2017). Moreover, footage can supplement a written report by elucidating behaviors that are subjective or difficult to describe, and by documenting evidence from the scene (Gaub et al., 2020; Todak et al., 2018). On the other hand, discrepancies between written reports and video could result in a case being thrown out (Merola et al., 2016).

Finally, BWCs can be used to record victim, witness, and suspect statements, sometimes in the moments after a crime is reported when memory is most accurate and emotions are high. Testimony captured on video can be vital to a case, especially if it is later recanted (Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001). In the absence of videotaped statements, a victim’s decision to withdraw cooperation can cause a prosecutor to reject a case (Spohn et al., 2001).

Several studies have directly investigated the evidentiary value of BWCs. Many officers (Gaub et al., 2016; Jennings et al., 2014; Pelfrey & Keener, 2016) and courtroom actors (Gaub et al., 2019; McCluskey et al., 2019; Merola et al., 2016; Todak et al., 2018) believe they will improve case outcomes, though courtroom actors also believe case preparation time increases as they must now review extensive amounts of video (McCluskey et al., 2019; Merola et al., 2016). Gaub et al. (2019) found public defenders’ offices in Virginia were dedicating between 160 and 2,810 employee hours per month on BWC-related tasks. For some offices, the time used to process video equaled the work of 16 full-time employees. Courtroom professionals have also expressed concern that BWCs will cause a “new CSI effect,” with prosecutors, judges, and juries demanding to see video before accepting an officer’s account (Todak et al., 2018). Delays, pauses, failures to record, and discrepancies between officer testimony and video could also foster suspicion of police (Merola et al., 2016).

Lum et al. (2019) identified seven studies testing the relationship between BWCs and court outcomes, and two have been published since (Petersen et al., 2021; White et al., 2021). Early international studies offered support for the evidentiary benefits of BWCs, although most were small in scale, carried out internally by the agencies, and did not use comparison/control groups (Goodall, 2007; White, 2014). Among those using more rigorous designs, most looked at case outcomes for specific case types. In Essex, UK, domestic violence (DV) calls attended to by officers with BWCs were more likely to result in criminal charges (Owens et al., 2014). In Phoenix, (AZ) intimate partner violence (IPV) cases involving a BWC were more likely to result in an arrest, to have charges filed, have the case furthered, and result in a guilty verdict or plea (Morrow et al., 2016). The authors also found the chances of having charges filed in non-BWC cases declined. In a random experiment with the Metropolitan (Washington D.C.) Police Department, Yokum et al. (2017) did not detect differences between treatment (BWC) and control (non-BWC) group cases with respect to court case outcomes.

White et al. (2021) examined drug and alcohol-related offenses charged in the Tempe, Arizona misdemeanor city court and found the presence of video was not related to case outcome, but was associated with reduced case processing time. They argued, “evidence from BWCs may cut both ways” (p. 8)—that is, the footage can implicate or exonerate depending on what is seen on camera. Most recently, Petersen et al. (2021) tested the impact of BWCs on cases initiated by the Miami Beach Police Department and prosecuted through the Florida State Attorney’s Office during the first half of 2017. They analyzed models with all case types together, and looked at domestic violence, crimes against officers, and drug/alcohol charges individually. They found that BWC evidence increased the likelihood of conviction in domestic violence cases. Also, BWC footage led to increased convictions and adjudication withheld among cases involving crimes against officers. They echoed findings from White et al. (2021) that BWCs have evidentiary value for some specific case types (e.g., domestic violence), though the potential for impact on a broader set of cases remains unclear.

The effects of BWCs may be especially important in misdemeanor courts, given the high volume of cases that filter through these systems daily. The caseload pressure means expediency and trial avoidance may be prioritized over diligent case preparation and justice (Feeley, 1992). Fifty years ago, this problem was labeled by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice (1967) as “assembly line justice” and the same problems with underfunding and understaffing persist today (Broccolina & Zorza, 2008). Moreover, the liberation hypothesis suggests cases with insubstantial evidence are dealt with using discretionary decision making, allowing room for prejudice to influence the case (e.g., Spohn & Cederblom, 1991). While penalties are clearly defined for serious offenses, there is less consensus on appropriate levels of punishment for minor crimes, such as those processed in misdemeanor courts (Chen, 2008). Thus, the impact of BWC video on misdemeanor court case flow, processing, outcomes, and disparities therein are of critical importance.

Data and Methods

We build on research by White et al. (2021) and Huff et al. (2021), which tested the impact of BWCs on drug, alcohol, and traffic cases. Specifically, we expand their data set to include all misdemeanor cases filed in Tempe’s City Court during the same timeframe. We ask the following research questions:

RQ1: Did the number of cases filed each month in misdemeanor court change after BWC implementation?

RQ2: Does BWC presence on scene impact the likelihood of a case resulting in a guilty outcome (overall and by specific case type)?

RQ3: Does BWC presence on scene impact the length of time that transpires between arrest and case disposition (overall and by specific case type)?

RQ4: Does BWC presence impact racial/ethnic disparities in the processing and outcomes of misdemeanor cases (overall and by specific case type)?

Our data were collected as part of a larger study of BWC implementation in Tempe, Arizona. We partnered with the Tempe Police Department (TPD) to design a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to deploy cameras among the patrol division in two phases. Officers in Phase 1 received cameras in November 2015 (N = 101; treatment) and officers in Phase 2 received them 6 months later in May 2016 (N = 99; control). In this study, we use data from the Tempe City Court, which handles all misdemeanor offenses (felony cases are filed in county court). All cases filed between November 1, 2014 (1 year prior to Phase 1 officers receiving cameras) through June 30, 2017 (1 year after Phase 2 officers received cameras) are included (N = 50,818). The data were requested in 2018 to permit time for cases to reach adjudication.

To develop our independent variable, BWC Present, we compared the incident date for each case with the date the arresting officer received their camera. If the incident date came first, we coded the BWC present variable as “0,” while those on or after the date the officer received a BWC were coded as “1.” This variable is limited in that we are unable to verify whether a video of the incident was recorded or used, only that the responding officer was equipped with a camera. However, TPD’s activation policy is restrictive and mandatory. It states officers will activate their BWC as soon as they are dispatched to a priority one call, prior to their arrival at lower priority calls, and for self-initiated activity they “shall activate their BWC prior to the contact.” Recent studies of activation compliance among Tempe police officers have found compliance to be 95% (Patterson & White, 2021). Thus, we have reason to believe officers assigned a BWC recorded and produced a video in most cases.

Cases were also classified by charge type: Person, property, traffic, drug/alcohol, other, and mixed. We made the decision to look at broad case categories to test whether the effects of BWCs may extend beyond individual case types to these more general classifications. This remains an open question, especially in a misdemeanor context.

We constructed two dependent variables for each of the 50,818 misdemeanor cases. First, guilty outcome reflects the case outcome, with “1” indicating either guilty plea or guilty verdict and “0” indicating all other outcomes. Second, time to adjudication is continuous and reflects the number of days between the incident date and the final disposition date. Time to adjudication was capped at 270—the number of days between the last incident in the data set and when the authors requested the data.

Officer-level control variables include whether the arresting officer received the BWC during Phase 1 (1 = yes, 0 = no), which serves as a measure of the officer’s experience using a BWC. We also coded the arresting officer’s rank (1 = supervisor, 0 = patrol officer), sex (1 = male, 0 = female), race/ethnicity (1 = White [reference], 2 = Hispanic, and 3 = other),¹ and tenure (number of years of service). Defendant characteristics include age (logged), race (1 = White [reference], 2 = Black, 3 = Hispanic, 4 = Native American, and 5 = other), and number of allegations filed against them.

Analytical Strategy

We include three sets of analyses. First, we carried out difference-in-differences (DID) and interrupted time series analysis with AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) to test whether the monthly number of misdemeanor cases changed after the deployment of BWCs. Testing for a change in case flow is a critical first step as the relationship between BWCs and our outcome variables could be influenced by the number of cases forwarded to prosecutors. These analyses also offer a precursory test of our hypothesis that BWCs could streamline the caseload handled in misdemeanor courts.

ARIMA is a quasi-experimental time series design that allows for comparison of pre-intervention and post-intervention values of an outcome, and overcomes several threats to internal validity and violations of the independence assumption (e.g., serial correlation; McCleary et al., 2017). We tested interventions of varying onsets (abrupt, gradual) and durations (temporary, permanent), with both November 2015 and May 2016 as starting points (i.e., both phases of BWC rollout). The time series reflects the total number of cases filed per month, from November 2014 to June 2017. Given the limitations associated with a single-group ARIMA model (Linden, 2017), we supplement this analysis with difference-in-difference (DID) estimation, which is “a quasi-experimental design that makes use of longitudinal data from treatment and control groups to obtain an appropriate counterfactual to estimate a causal effect” (Columbia Public Health, 2019). The DID extends the ARIMA analysis by comparing the monthly case flow among the two officer groups.

Second, we conducted a series of difference-in-differences analyses on the full case sample and all individual case categories for the two onset times (November 2015 and May 2016). We do this for both dependent variables: case disposition and time to disposition. These analyses take advantage of our experimental design to test whether differences in case outcomes were due BWCs alone. The third and final set of analyses explores case-level outcomes. These include two sets of regressions to measure the effect of BWC presence on (1) the likelihood of a guilty outcome (using logistic regression) and (2) time from arrest to case disposition (using Poisson and negative binomial regression²). For both, we ran a regression with all cases in the data set, followed by separate regression analyses for each charge type (person, property, traffic, drug/alcohol, and other). Note that some cases are present in more than one model, as cases may include multiple charge categories.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 reports descriptive statistics for all 50,818 cases. A BWC was present in over half of cases (54%). In 89% of cases, only one charge type was filed—this includes cases where one charge was filed and cases where multiple charges of the same type were filed. As is often the case in misdemeanor courts (e.g., Tait, 1988), the majority (70%) of cases were traffic-related. Just over half (56%) resulted in a guilty plea or verdict. A majority (79%) were adjudicated within 100 days, and fewer than 10% took longer than 200 days. Most officers were male (85%) and White (80%), with under 5 years of police service (4.86). Just over 60% of suspects were White, and 14% were each Black and Hispanic.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	Frequency	Percentage (%)
BWC present	27,614	54.3
Case characteristics
Charge type^a
Person	4,738	9.3
Property	5,117	10.1
Drug and alcohol	7,201	14.2
Traffic	35,565	70.0
Other	4,304	8.5
Guilty outcome
Guilty	28,399	55.9
Not guilty	22,419	44.1
Time to adjudication
0–50 days	28,761	56.6
51–100 days	11,385	22.4
101–150 days	3,795	7.5
151–200 days	1,951	3.8
201+ days	4,926	9.7
Officer characteristics
Phase 1 officer	33,223	65.4
Supervisor	1,757	3.5
Male	43,211	85.0
Tenure (years; M/SD)	7.2	4.86
Race/ethnicity
White	40,611	79.9
Hispanic	8,673	17.1
Other	1,534	3.0
Defendant characteristics
Age (logged; M/SD)	3.4	0.37
Race/ethnicity
White	31,545	62.1
Black	7,148	14.0
Hispanic	7,271	14.3
Other	4,854	9.6

Because individual cases can include more than one charge type, total frequency of charge type exceeds the total number of cases in the dataset.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of cases over time by case type and Figure 2 shows the same but with total and traffic cases removed for ease of interpreting the other cases. In Figure 1, we see again that traffic offenses comprise most cases. Further, spikes in traffic (Figure 1) and drug/alcohol cases (Figure 2) occur during the fall, when approximately 70,000 students return to Arizona State University at the Tempe campus and TPD engages in targeted enforcement of these offenses.

Figure 1.

Monthly cases filed in Tempe City Court.

Figure 2.

Monthly cases filed in Tempe City Court, total and traffic offenses removed.

Testing for Change in Number of Cases Filed

We first sought to determine whether the number of cases filed changed after the implementation of BWCs during phases 1 and 2. We find the monthly flow of cases into city court varied considerably over the study period, from a low of about 1,100 cases to more than 2,300 cases (see Figure 1). The overall trend, however, appears to be flat with variation fluctuating around the mean of 1,588 cases monthly.

We used ARIMA to determine if there was a significant change in the total number of cases filed following BWC deployment. The data support a model with a first-order autoregressive process (differenced, natural log; [1,1,0]).³ We tested interventions of varying onsets and durations, and none of the models indicate a significant change in the monthly number of cases at or after November 2015 or May 2016. Table 2 shows the non-significant results of the model with an abrupt, permanent impact starting in November 2015 and continuing through the end of the study period. Thus, we find the monthly number of misdemeanor cases did not change significantly after the deployment of BWCs. This was confirmed with the DID estimations. Two estimations were calculated, one with the intervention beginning in November 2015 (coeff. = 71.40, p = .443) and the second in May 2016 (coeff. = 53.17, p = .558). Combined, these findings show the introduction of BWCs did not significantly affect the number of misdemeanor cases filed in Tempe City Court.

Table 2.

ARIMA Model of Number of Cases Filed in Tempe City Court.

ARIMA	R ²	B	SE	T (p-value)
Monthly number of cases (1,1,0)^a	.271	−0.033	0.056	−0.592 (.559)

The model shown here was run with an abrupt, permanent impact beginning in November 2015 (the first month of the BWC randomized controlled trial).

Difference-in-Differences Analysis of Case Outcomes

Next, we use difference-in-differences to assess whether changes to case disposition and time to disposition occurred due to the presence of BWCs alone. We use both November 2015 (Phase 1) and May 2016 (Phase 2) as cut-off points for the full sample as well as individual case categories. Table 3 (guilty outcome) and Table 4 (time to disposition) show that no difference-in-differences results are statistically significant. Additionally, we find significant differences between treatment and control groups before or after the cut-off points (in many cases both). Taken together, these results tell us that on their own, BWCs do not affect either case outcome over time.

Table 3.

Difference-in-Differences, Guilty Outcome.

	Full sample	Violent crime	Property crime	Drug and alcohol	Traffic	Other
Phase 1
Before	249.167***	5.167	9.917**	33.583***	255.417***	7.417**
After	284.950***	2.550	8.600**	30.450***	261.200***	10.400***
DID	35.783	−2.617	−1.317	−3.133	35.783	2.983
Phase 2
Before	255.111***	3.389	8.056**	29.000***	234.111***	7.889***
After	292.643***	3.714	10.429***	35.000***	265.357***	11.071***
DID	37.532	0.325	2.373	6.000	31.246	3.183

p < 0.10. **p < 0.05. ***p < 0.01.

Table 4.

Difference-in-Differences, Time to Disposition.

	Full sample	Violent crime	Property crime	Drug and alcohol	Traffic	Other
Phase 1
Before	−2.231	4.292	5.170	2.748	−1.481	−4.321
After	−5.681***	4.018	−4.217	8.940**	−2.919	0.920
DID	−3.450	−0.274	−9.387	6.191	−1.438*	5.241
Phase 2
Before	−4.003**	2.556	−0.354	2.489	−2.226	−3.541
After	−4.882**	6.133	−1.137	11.927***	−2.578	2.163
DID	−0.879	3.577	−0.783	9.438	−0.353	5.705

p < 0.10. **p < 0.05. ***p < 0.01.

However, a substantial body of research has demonstrated that legal and extra-legal characteristics affect case processing and decision-making. Since the introduction of BWCs, when considered alone, do not affect case outcomes, we conduct a series of regressions to consider the relevant case characteristics that do play a role in case outcomes.

Testing the Impact of BWCs on Guilty Outcome

Next, we assess the impact of BWC presence on the likelihood of obtaining a guilty outcome, either through plea or verdict (Table 5). The BWC present variable is significant in the full logistic regression—BWC present cases were 10.3% less likely to result in a guilty outcome compared to those with no BWC. This finding is replicated in the person and traffic offense models only, where cases with BWCs are 14% and 12% less likely to result in a guilty outcome, respectively. Additionally, in the full model, several officer and defendant characteristics are significant. Cases handled by male officers or Hispanic officers were almost 7% and just over 5% (respectively) more likely to result in guilty outcome. Cases involving non-White defendants were more likely to result in a guilty outcome, ranging from 13% for Black defendants to 35% for Hispanic defendants.

Table 5.

Logistic Regressions Testing Impact of BWCs on Guilty Outcome.

	Full model		Person		Property		Drug and alcohol		Traffic		Other
Variables	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE
BWC present	0.897**	(0.017)	0.861*	(0.052)	0.899	(0.056)	0.934	(0.049)	0.881**	(0.020)	0.945	(0.062)
Officer characteristics
Phase 1 Officer	0.998	(0.020)	0.924	(0.058)	1.025	(0.065)	1.025	(0.057)	1.028	(0.026)	0.834**	(0.058)
Supervisor	1.041	(0.056)	1.205	(0.269)	0.757	(0.210)	0.839	(0.147)	1.137*	(0.071)	1.179	(0.237)
Male	1.066*	(0.028)	1.000	(0.081)	0.965	(0.074)	0.895	(0.068)	1.071*	(0.037)	0.965	(0.089)
Race/ethnicity (reference: White)
Hispanic	1.053*	(0.027)	0.985	(0.082)	1.215*	(0.107)	1.165	(0.096)	1.064*	(0.034)	1.191	(0.110)
Other	1.069	(0.057)	0.767	(0.116)	1.185	(0.153)	1.193	(0.213)	1.047	(0.076)	1.131	(0.233)
Tenure	0.994**	(0.002)	0.999	(0.007)	1.021**	(0.006)	1.001	(0.006)	0.991**	(0.003)	1.000	(0.008)
Defendant characteristics
Age (logged)	1.034	(0.025)	1.206	(0.122)	1.931**	(0.187)	5.169**	(0.472)	0.839**	(0.024)	2.801**	(0.277)
Race/ethnicity (reference: White)
Black	1.128**	(0.030)	1.255**	(0.097)	0.920	(0.072)	0.954	(0.071)	1.035	(0.035)	1.256**	(0.107)
Hispanic	1.350**	(0.036)	1.101	(0.100)	0.899	(0.085)	0.947	(0.072)	1.349**	(0.044)	1.113	(0.106)
Other	1.252**	(0.039)	1.170	(0.107)	1.215	(0.125)	1.242*	(0.112)	1.124**	(0.045)	1.437**	(0.159)
Number of allegations			1.214**	(0.035)	0.982	(0.028)	1.330**	(0.022)	1.517**	(0.017)	1.263**	(0.032)
Constant	1.081	(0.095)	0.405*	(0.146)	0.195**	(0.067)	0.004**	(0.001)	1.104	(0.120)	0.026**	(0.009)
Observations	50,772		4,738		5,115		7,201		35,521		4,303

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.

p < 0.05.**p < 0.01.

In the charge-specific models, we find a range of significant relationships across models. For example, cases involving Phase 1 officers were less likely to result in a guilty outcome for other types of offenses, and traffic cases involving supervisor-level officers were more likely to result in a guilty outcome. Cases with non-White defendants were more likely to result in a guilty outcome for person offenses (Black: 25%), drug and alcohol offenses (Other: 24%), traffic offenses (Hispanic: 35%; Other: 12%), and other types of offenses (Black: 26%; Other: 44%).

Testing the Impact of BWCs on Time to Disposition

Finally, we assess the impact of BWCs on time to disposition using negative binomial models (Table 6). In the full model, we found the presence of a BWC was related to a 4% decline in days to disposition (p < .05), suggesting BWC present cases were processed more quickly. A similar significant effect is found for traffic and drug and alcohol offenses (both a 6% decline). In the full model, cases involving defendants of other race/ethnicities (i.e., those who were not White, Black, Native American, or Hispanic) were resolved more quickly (10% decline). Conversely, cases involving Black or Hispanic defendants (23% and 5%, respectively), were resolved more slowly.

Table 6.

Negative Binomial Regressions Testing Impact of BWCs on Time to Disposition.

	Full model		Person		Property		Drug and alcohol		Traffic		Other
Variables	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE
BWC present	0.960**	(0.009)	1.060	(0.044)	0.962	(0.041)	0.939*	(0.027)	0.941**	(0.009)	1.029	(0.045)
Officer characteristics
Phase 1 officer	0.948**	(0.010)	1.023	(0.044)	1.003	(0.044)	1.071*	(0.032)	0.976*	(0.010)	0.968	(0.044)
Supervisor	1.029	(0.028)	0.997	(0.151)	1.013	(0.198)	0.965	(0.094)	1.073**	(0.026)	0.926	(0.119)
Male	0.994	(0.014)	1.039	(0.057)	1.069	(0.056)	0.986	(0.041)	0.940**	(0.013)	1.016	(0.061)
Race/ethnicity (reference: White)
Hispanic	0.982	(0.013)	1.024	(0.058)	0.955	(0.056)	0.909*	(0.041)	1.001	(0.013)	1.068	(0.064)
Other	1.073*	(0.029)	0.947	(0.097)	0.914	(0.078)	0.892	(0.084)	1.067*	(0.031)	1.154	(0.154)
Tenure	0.992**	(0.001)	1.003	(0.005)	0.995	(0.004)	1.001	(0.003)	0.997**	(0.001)	1.009	(0.005)
Defendant characteristics
Age (logged)	0.758**	(0.010)	0.735**	(0.049)	0.588**	(0.036)	0.802**	(0.035)	0.847**	(0.010)	0.682**	(0.041)
Race/ethnicity (reference: White)
Black	1.238**	(0.017)	0.919	(0.048)	1.007	(0.055)	0.987	(0.040)	1.346**	(0.018)	1.047	(0.059)
Hispanic	1.048**	(0.014)	0.938	(0.058)	1.024	(0.067)	0.902*	(0.037)	1.061**	(0.013)	0.866*	(0.054)
Other	0.901**	(0.014)	0.888	(0.055)	0.817**	(0.056)	0.855**	(0.040)	0.860**	(0.013)	0.882	(0.063)
Number of allegations			1.017	(0.019)	1.060**	(0.022)	1.136**	(0.009)	1.168**	(0.004)	1.105**	(0.016)
Constant	1.061**	(0.006)	1.876**	(0.035)	2.128**	(0.037)	1.356**	(0.021)	0.662**	(0.005)	1.823**	(0.036)
Observations	50,772		4,738		5,115		7,201		35,521		4,303

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

In the charge-specific models, we again see a range of effects. For example, officer characteristics only have significant effects on cases involving traffic or drug and alcohol offenses. Across the board, cases involving older defendants were resolved more quickly. The race/ethnicity of the defendant had varying effects across case types. Traffic cases involving Black and Hispanic defendants were processed more slowly. There were no effects for person or property cases involving Black and Hispanic defendants, though drug/alcohol and other cases involving Hispanic defendants were processed more quickly.

Discussion

We examined the evidentiary value of BWCs in misdemeanor court across a range of case types. We observed several findings that require discussion. First, our ARIMA and DID analyses showed no significant change in the number of cases filed in Tempe City Court monthly following the two-phase implementation of BWCs. Thus, BWC video evidence did not affect the flow of cases into the court—either by lessening it through the disposal of cases or increasing it with the availability of evidence. This finding may be tied to police officer decision-making, as officers proactively initiate a large percentage of the cases in misdemeanor court, especially traffic cases. In effect, it could be that the rollout of BWCs did not influence officer decisions to initiate misdemeanor cases. This may be tied to the comprehensive and inclusive approach used by TPD to implement a BWC program, which included all impacted stakeholders (internal and external to the TPD) in the planning process and adhered to the BWC program implementation guidelines designed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (White, Todak, & Gaub, 2018). Regardless, TPD’s BWC rollout had no impact on the number of misdemeanor cases filed.

The next question is whether BWCs influenced the processing of those misdemeanor cases. The results are mixed in this regard. DID analyses indicates that BWCs alone did not affect either outcome, but the regression analyses did find the presence of BWCs significantly affect processing time and outcome of misdemeanor cases. To some extent, this is unsurprising given a substantial body of research documents that court decision-making is based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the presence of any one type of evidence (e.g., BWC footage). This is borne out in the full sample and case-type subsample regressions. Specifically, BWC presence is statistically significant in both full models: BWCs were associated with significantly shorter case processing time and lower likelihood of conviction. These effects were not consistent across case types however: person and traffic cases were less likely to result in a guilty outcome, while drug/alcohol and traffic cases were processed more quickly, when a BWC was present. Notably, these cases represent over 80% of the caseload.

While our data are unable to explain these findings with certainty, we can offer some possibilities. BWCs appear to be most influential in traffic cases. Traffic cases involving a BWC were processed more quickly (6%) and were less likely to result in a guilty outcome (12%). These findings may be related: as more traffic cases are dismissed, the average case processing time drops. Traffic cases involving a BWC may be dismissed for something not captured on video –that is, they may be suffering from the “new CSI effect,” which could take on two forms. First, as Morrow et al. (2016) observed, the lack of video could affect a case when courtroom actors come to expect it. Based on the nature of traffic enforcement (rapid succession, high volume), traffic officers equipped with a camera may often fail to activate their cameras, resulting in cases being thrown out. Katz et al. (2015) examined activation rates by case type in nearby Phoenix and found the lowest rate occurred among traffic cases (just 6.5%). Perhaps a similar pattern exists in Tempe where traffic cases often do not have BWC footage when they should.

The second version of the CSI effect may involve cases where there is a BWC recording but it does not capture the actual offense. Most agencies (including Tempe) mandate activation only during formal interactions with citizens; thus, BWCs will likely not be activated when an officer witnesses a traffic violation (e.g., officer witnesses a car run a red light; then the officer pursues and stops the vehicle, and activates the camera; White, Flippin, & Malm, 2019). The lack of evidence may lead to more traffic cases being dismissed.

Another possibility is traffic cases involving a BWC are dismissed because of something captured on video—either questionable or unclear aspects of the video that lead to the case being thrown out. This may involve a failure by the officer to perform a legally required action, or the footage may lead to a prosecutor viewing the alleged offense as insignificant. Given the high volume of cases, courtroom actors in misdemeanor court may triage minor cases through dismissal to focus on more serious ones.

The second set of significant findings involves drug and alcohol related offenses, which were processed more quickly (6%) when a BWC was present. However, there is no effect on disposition, replicating findings from White et al. (2021). They suggested the BWC evidence could “cut both ways” as “BWC footage may serve to implicate some defendants (e.g. showing an inebriated defendant), leading to guilty outcomes, but it may also exonerate other defendants (e.g. the available evidence is not sufﬁcient to achieve a more rigorous burden of proof [beyond a reasonable doubt], leading to dismissals)” (pp. 8, 9). If the “implicate and exonerate” thesis has merit, the result is more efficient disposition of cases with more just outcomes.

The last significant finding involves person crimes. Person crime cases with BWC were less likely to end in a guilty outcome and there is no effect on case disposition time. These cases tend to be the most serious handled in misdemeanor court and may be given additional attention. Closer review of footage, or the absence of footage, may explain the reduced likelihood of a guilty outcome. Given many of these cases involve domestic disputes, our findings suggest there are differences in how BWCs affect the processing of IPV based on seriousness. Research consistently shows BWC footage can enhance prosecution of IPV cases (e.g., Morrow et al., 2016; Owens et al., 2014; Petersen et al., 2021). In Tempe’s misdemeanor caseload, we find the opposite. This finding warrants further attention.

We sought to test whether BWCs would influence larger case categories, and the results here suggest they can—depending on the category. Our differential findings by case type suggest the impact of BWCs on downstream misdemeanor court cases is not straightforward, a finding that is consistent with other studies of specific case types such as domestic assault (Grossmith et al., 2015; Morrow et al., 2016; Owens et al., 2014). For some cases, BWCs may not produce the expected evidentiary effects because, in misdemeanor court, the process prioritizes quick case resolution. Possibly, BWC video fails to play a significant role here because courtroom actors are triaging their work and dedicating more time to bigger cases. Or perhaps prosecutors are not even reviewing available BWC evidence when making filing decisions (Catallo, 2020). Future research should undertake qualitative investigations, potentially involving field observations focused on understanding the use of BWC video in these courts.

Finally, we found extralegal factors, including defendant demographics, were related to case processing times and outcomes. Namely, nonwhite defendants were more likely to have their cases result in a guilty outcome in the full model, and for cases involving person, traffic, and “other” types of offenses. Black and Hispanic defendants’ cases were also processed more slowly compared to others. To further test this effect, we re-ran all of the models in Tables 5 and 6 without the BWC present variable. The comparison of the models with and without the independent variable shows BWCs had no impact on the significance of defendant race/ethnicity. Thus, BWCs did not affect racial/ethnic disparities in misdemeanor case processing. Those disparities persist despite the rollout of police BWCs.

Overall, our findings also demonstrate that BWCs are not the panacea many expected them to be in equalizing court outcomes. It is important that prosecutors diligently review BWC footage, even in misdemeanor cases where they may be less likely to do so because the stakes are lower when compared to felonies. This is consistent with previous research that finds defense attorneys perceive prosecutors to spend very little time with BWC footage, particularly in “low stakes” cases, such as misdemeanors (Gaub et al., 2021). Additionally, it is important to recognize that BWCs are not the panacea many expected them to be in equalizing case outcomes. Much more research is needed to better understand the use of BWC footage in courtroom contexts, especially in lower-level cases, and the circumstances in which they have the most impact.

Study Limitations

The study suffers from several limitations. Our measurement of the BWC present variable only reflects whether or not the arresting officer had been trained and equipped with a BWC, not whether a video was recorded, entered into evidence, or reviewed by a prosecutor. Although TPD policy requires officers to record all of these encounters, we cannot confirm videos were recorded and used in the cases coded as BWC present. Second, we only accessed data from municipal city court, leaving open the question of how BWCs affect felony cases. These data also came from one jurisdiction at one point of time and cannot speak to the generalizability of the findings. Further, the TPD undertook a lengthy approach to BWC program implementation, involved a number of key stakeholders in the planning process including local courtroom professionals, and adhered closely to recommendations set forth in the BWC implementation toolkit issued by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (White, Todak, & Gaub, 2018). Their experience may not be reflective of other jurisdictions.

Conclusion

In Tempe, BWCs may affect downstream misdemeanor court cases in terms of outcomes and processing time, but those effects vary by case type. Moreover, BWC evidence recorded from an incident did not reduce racial/ethnic disparities in misdemeanor case processing. This study offers a high-level test of the potential impact of BWCs but an “on the ground” investigation of the issue is required to fully understand the role and influence of BWCs in the decisions that are made among downstream court actors in misdemeanor cases. Qualitative and mixed methods studies can add deeper examination of the questions at hand. A BWC program is a considerable and expensive investment, carrying implications into the downstream court system and beyond. Researchers must continue to study the impact of this technology beyond policing.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Tempe, Arizona Police Department and the Tempe City Court for their assistance and cooperation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF, now Arnold Ventures). The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of LJAF.

ORCID iD

Natalie Todak

Janne E. Gaub

Michael D. White

Notes

Author Biographies

Dr. Natalie Todak is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Her research uses qualitative and mixed methods to study critical issues in policing. Her work is currently focused on women in law enforcement, police culture, misconduct, and whistleblowing. Dr. Todak is published in leading journals such as Criminology, Criminology and Public Policy, Journal of Experimental Criminology, and Police Quarterly. She is also a National Institute of Justice LEADS Academic, in recognition of her collaborative work with departments to further evidence-based policing.

Dr. Janne E. Gaub is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She earned her Ph.D. in criminology and criminal justice from Arizona State University in 2015. Her research interests center on policing, focusing primarily on body-worn cameras (BWCs), specialty units, misconduct, and gender.

Michael D. White is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University, and is Associate Director of ASU’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. Prior to entering academia, he worked as a deputy sheriff in Pennsylvania. Dr. White’s primary research interests involve the police, including use of force, technology and misconduct. His recent work has been published in Criminology, Criminology and Public Policy, and Journal of Experimental Criminology, and Injury Prevention.

References

Ariel

Farrar

W. A.

Sutherland

(2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 1–27.

Ariel

Sutherland

Henstock

Young

Drover

Sykes

Megicks

Henderson

(2016a). Report: Increases in police use of force in the presence of body-worn cameras are driven by officer discretion: A protocol-based subgroup analysis of ten randomized experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 453–463.

Ariel

Sutherland

Henstock

Young

Drover

Sykes

Megicks

Henderson

(2016b). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment. European Journal of Criminology, 13(6), 744–755.

Braga

A. A.

Barao

McDevitt

Zimmerman

(2018). The impact of body-worn cameras on complaints against officers and officer use of force incident reports: Preliminary evaluation findings (Report to the Boston Police Department). School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University.

Braga

A. A.

Coldren

J. R.

Sousa

Rodriguez

Alper

(2017). The benefits of body-worn cameras: New findings from a randomized controlled trial at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, 2013-IJ-CX-0016). CNA Analysis & Solutions.

Braga

A. A.

MacDonald

J. M.

McCabe

(2022). Body-worn cameras, lawful police stops, and NYPD officer compliance: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 60(1), 124–158.

Braga

A. A.

Sousa

Coldren

J. R.

Rodriguez

(2018). The effects of body worn cameras on police activity and police-citizen encounters: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 108(3), 511–538.

Broccolina

Zorza

(2008). Ensuring access to justice in tough economic times. Judicature, 92, 124.

Catallo

(2020, October 29). Prosecutors sometimes don’t look at body-cam footage before issuing charges, 7 Investigation finds. ABC 7 WXYZ Detroit.

10.

Chen

E. Y.

(2008). The liberation hypothesis and racial and ethnic disparities in the application of California’s Three Strikes law. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 6(2), 83–102.

11.

Columbia Public Health. (2019). Difference-in-difference estimation. Population Health Methods. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/difference-difference-estimation

12.

Dawson

Dinovitzer

(2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18(3), 593–622.

13.

Fallik

S. W.

Deuchar

Crichlow

V. J.

(2020). Body-worn cameras in the post-Ferguson era: An exploration of law enforcement perspectives. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 35, 263–273.

14.

Fan

M. D.

(2017). Justice visualized: Courts and the body camera revolution. U.C. Davis Law Review, 50, 897.

15.

Feeley

M. M.

(1992). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. Russell Sage Foundation Publications.

16.

Gaub

J. E.

Choate

D. E.

Todak

Katz

C. M.

White

M. D.

(2016). Officer perceptions of body-worn cameras before and after deployment: A study of three departments. Police Quarterly, 19(3), 275–302.

17.

Gaub

J. E.

Naoroz

Malm

(2019). Understanding the impact of police body-worn cameras on Virginia public defenders. UNC Charlotte.

18.

Gaub

J. E.

Naoroz

Malm

(2021). Police BWCs as ‘neutral observers’: Perceptions of public defenders. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 1417–1428.

19.

Gaub

J. E.

Todak

White

M. D.

(2020). One size doesn’t fit all: The deployment of police body-worn cameras to specialty units. International Criminal Justice Review, 30(2), 136–155.

20.

Gaub

J. E.

White

M. D.

(2020). Open to interpretation: Confronting the challenges of understanding the current state of body-worn camera research. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(5), 899–913.

21.

Goodall

(2007). Guidance for the police use of body-worn video devices. Home Office. http://revealmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-body-worn-devices.pdf

22.

Grossmith

Owens

Finn

Mann

Davies

Baika

(2015). Police, camera, evidence: London’s cluster randomised controlled trial of body worn video. College of Policing and Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.

23.

Harris

D. A.

(2010). Picture this: Body worn video devices ('head cams’) as tools for ensuring fourth amendment compliance by police (Legal Studies Research Paper). University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

24.

Huff

Katz

C. M.

Hedberg

E. C.

(2022). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of body-worn camera activation on the outcomes of individual incidents. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 18, 247–272.

25.

Huff

Katz

C. M.

Webb

V. J.

(2018). Understanding police officer resistance to body-worn cameras. Policing: An International Journal, 41(4), 482–495.

26.

Huff

White

M. D.

Padilla

K. E.

(2021). The influence of defendant race/ethnicity and police body-worn cameras on traffic case processing. Race and Justice. Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687211004696

27.

Hyland

S. S.

(2018). Body-worn cameras in law enforcement agencies, 2016 (NCJ 251775). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

28.

Jennings

W. G.

Fridell

Lynch

M. D.

(2014). Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 549–556.

29.

Jennings

W. G.

Lynch

M. D.

Fridell

(2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando Police Department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6), 480–486.

30.

Kahn

(2020). Exclusive: Most Americans, including Republicans, support sweeping Democratic police reform proposals—Reuters/Ipsos poll. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-poll-exclusive/exclusive-most-americans-including-republicans-support-sweeping-democratic-police-reform-proposals-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN23I380

31.

Katz

C. M.

Huff

(2022). The achilles heel of police body-worn cameras: Understanding the factors that influence variation in body-worn camera activation. Justice Quarterly, 1–22.

32.

Katz

C. M.

Kurtenbach

Choate

D. E.

White

M. D.

(2015). Phoenix, Arizona, Smart policing initiative: Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras [Smart Policing Initiative Spotlight Report]. CNA.

33.

Linden

(2017). A comprehensive set of postestimation measures to enrich interrupted time-series analysis. The Stata Journal, 17(1), 73–88.

34.

Lum

Koper

C. S.

Wilson

D. B.

Stoltz

Goodier

Eggins

Higginson

Mazerolle

(2020). Body-worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3), 1–40.

35.

Lum

Stoltz

Koper

C. S.

Scherer

J. A.

(2019). The research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 93–118.

36.

McCleary

McDowall

Bartos

B. J.

(2017). Design and analysis of time series experiments. Oxford University Press.

37.

McCluskey

Smith

Robertson

Uchida

C. D.

Mosler

(2019). The evidentiary value of body-worn camera footage: A survey of prosecutors and public defenders. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Body-Worn Camera Training & Technical Assistance.

38.

Merola

Lum

Koper

Scherer

(2016). Body-worn cameras and the courts: A national survey of state prosecutors [Report for the Laura and John Arnold Foundation]. George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy.

39.

Miller

Chillar

V. F.

(2022). Do police body-worn cameras reduce citizen fatalities? Results of a country-wide natural experiment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 38, 723–754.

40.

Morrow

W. J.

Katz

C. M.

Choate

D. E.

(2016). Assessing the impact of police body-worn cameras on arresting, prosecuting, and convicting suspects of intimate partner violence. Police Quarterly, 19(3), 303–325.

41.

Owens

Mann

Mckenna

(2014). The Essex body worn video trial: The impact of body worn video on criminal justice outcomes of domestic abuse incidents. College of Policing.

42.

Patterson

White

M. D.

(2021). Is there a civilizing effect on citizens? Testing the pre-conditions for body worn camera-induced behavior change. Police Quarterly, 24, 411–437.

43.

Pelfrey

Keener

(2016). Police body worn cameras: A mixed method approach assessing perceptions of efficacy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(3), 491–506.

44.

Petersen

Mouro

Papy

Castillo

Ariel

(2021). Seeing is believing: The impact of body-worn cameras on court outcomes, a cluster-randomized controlled trial in Miami Beach. Journal of Experimental Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09479-6

45.

Peterson

B. E.

La Vigne

Lawrence

D. S.

(2018). The Milwaukee Police Department’s body-worn camera program. Urban Institute.

46.

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society. US Government Printing Office.

47.

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the president’s task force on 21st century policing. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

48.

Sousa

W. H.

Miethe

T. D.

Sakiyama

(2018). Inconsistencies in public opinion of body-worn cameras on police: Transparency, trust, and improved police–citizen relationships. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(1), 100–108.

49.

Spohn

Beichner

Davis-Frenzel

(2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.” Social Problems, 48(2), 206–235.

50.

Spohn

Cederblom

(1991). Race and disparities in sentencing: A test of the liberation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 8(3), 305–327.

51.

Stoughton

S. W.

(2018). Police body-worn cameras. North Carolina Law Review, 96, 1363–1424.

52.

Sutherland

Ariel

Farrar

De Anda

(2017). Post-experimental follow-ups—Fade-out versus persistence effects: The Rialto police body-worn camera experiment four years on. Journal of Criminal Justice, 53, 110–116.

53.

Tait

(1988). A court-based notification system for traffic defendants. Justice System Journal, 13(1), 73–79.

54.

Todak

Gaub

J. E.

White

M. D.

(2018). The importance of external stakeholders for police body-worn camera diffusion. Policing: An International Journal, 41(4), 448–464.

55.

Wagner

(2021, April 30). Legislatures require police body camera use statewide. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/legislatures-require-police-body-camera-use-statewide-magazine2021.aspx

56.

White

M. D.

(2014). Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

57.

White

M. D.

Flippin

Malm

(2019). Key trends in body-worn camera policy and practice: A four-year policy analysis of U.S. Department of Justice-funded law enforcement agencies. Arizona State University Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety.

58.

White

M. D.

Gaub

J. E.

Malm

Padilla

K. E.

(2021). Implicate or exonerate? The impact of police body-worn cameras on the adjudication of drug and alcohol cases. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 759–769.

59.

White

M. D.

Gaub

J. E.

Padilla

K. E.

(2019). Impacts of BWCs on citizen complaints: Directory of outcomes. Body-Worn Camera Training and Technical Assistance. http://www.bwctta.com/resources/bwc-resources/impact-bwcs-citizen-complaints-directory-outcomes

60.

White

M. D.

Gaub

J. E.

Todak

(2018). Exploring the potential for body-worn cameras to reduce violence in police-citizen encounters. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(1), 66–76.

61.

White

M. D.

Malm

(2020). Cops, cameras, and crisis: The emergence of body-worn cameras in 21st century policing. New York University Press.

62.

White

M. D.

Todak

Gaub

J. E.

(2018). Examining body-worn camera integration and acceptance among police officers, citizens, and external stakeholders. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(3), 649–677.

63.

Williams

M. C.

Jr. Weil

Rasich

E. A.

Ludwig

Chang

Egrari

(2021). Body-worn cameras in policing: Benefits and costs (No. w28622; NBER Working Paper). National Bureau of Economic Research.

64.

Yokum

Ravishankar

Coppock

(2017). Evaluating the effects of police body-worn cameras: A randomized controlled trial. The Lab @ DC, Office of the City Administrator, Executive Office of the Mayor.