Body Cameras: A Matter of Perspective

"A picture is worth a thousand words.”—Napoleon Bonaparte. Few would argue the statement. But let’s take it to the next step:If a single image is worth a thousand words and a video is captured at 28-plus frames per second, then what is five minutes of video worth? In terms of potential liability protection, the cost can’t really be quantified. That’s why so many agencies have built dollars into their budgets to not only purchase cameras for all their officers, but additional cameras for various locations and all of the necessary hardware, software and services to manage the video. For all that, does the camera actually show what the officer sees? After all, that’s the most basic premise of the value of the camera: to show the officer’s perspective when a use of force decision is made. Does the camera really do that? Or is a filter needed?

First, let’s recognize that the camera doesn’t always “look” where the officer does. Most body worn cameras are mounted somewhere on the chest or centered on the front of the officer’s body. The officer doesn’t always look straight ahead but the camera only looks where the officer’s body is pointed. So we have identified the first disparity in perspective: the camera and the officer’s eyes aren’t always pointed in the same direction. Therefore, the officer could see something that impacts on his use of force decision making process but the camera doesn’t record whatever that is. When that video footage is later used to support the officer’s use of force, there’s a gap in the evidentiary value due to simple physics.

Second, the camera can record sound, sometimes better than we humans can hear it, but we interpret sound as paired with sight. A loud bang off to one side, without any kind of visual queue or verification of cause, is just a loud bang; nothing more. A loud bang off to one side while you’re searching for an armed suspect in a dark building, accompanied by a muzzle flash and followed by the sound of a pistol’s slide cycling and the tinkling of brass hitting the floor… that offers a lot more perspective and information. So if the sound is coming from a direction the camera isn’t facing, the perspective is lost.

Finally, most cameras are capable of “seeing” better in low-light situations than officers are. That said, when an officer is using a flashlight, the flashlight is usually pointed where the officer is looking; not necessarily where the camera is pointing. A review of the captured video after the fact may reveal that the camera recorded something the officer didn’t see, but unless that’s properly articulated, the officer may still be held responsible for having had the information captured by the camera.

The bottom line is that agencies need to insure their camera and video usage policies take into consideration all of the above. Further, any use of force review that incorporates analysis of the evidentiary video needs to be considered within the confines of the above observations. Any attorney tasked with representing an officer in any use of force case should be briefed on the above and understand the implications. That attorney should always contract a vetted and recognized expert witness on the use of body worn camera video evidence in the use of force case.

Now, as this article was being prepared, three other considerations, or options for video capture, were discussed. They were:

Dashboard mounted cameras/passenger compartment mounted cameras.
Weapon mounted cameras.
Helmet/glasses/head mounted cameras.

The use of dashboard mounted cameras predates body worn cameras and most agencies using them have years (if not decades) of experience of how they should be analyzed for evidentiary use. It’s important to understand that the video from a dashboard mounted camera (or dashcam) can be used to support or dispute the officer’s body worn camera footage. The video is also captured from a different angle so it can be used to link different video perspectives, creating a more holistic view of the incident scene.

Some have argued that a weapon mounted camera is of greatest value because the officer “has to be looking directly where he’s shooting” when the trigger is pulled. Therefore, the camera would see what the officer saw when he decided to pull the trigger. This is another incorrect assumption. First, there’s a time difference between the moment a decision is made and the moment the trigger is pulled. Amazing things can happen in the time frame which could amount to something between a quarter and a half a second. A potentially lethal threat can be created or removed in that time frame. The human brain, unfortunately, doesn’t work fast enough (most of the time) to stop an action that’s already started. If you don’t understand the lag of what you see versus how your brain interprets it, try this exercise: After dark, or in a dark area, have a fellow officer assume some pose. Stand about 20 feet away and flash them with a flashlight as fast as you can push and release the button. Then stand there and let your brain interpret what your eyes saw. It will take a few seconds for you to fully “see” what pose your partner was in. It takes time for our brains to interpret the data input and if you’ve already made the decision to pull the trigger, and that signal has already been sent from your brain to your trigger finger, stopping it takes milliseconds of response time; not a quarter second or more.

Many argue that a camera mounted on the officer’s head, facing forward, has to see everything the officer does. After all, the camera is facing the same direction as the officer’s face so it has to see everything the officer does, right? Wrong. If you don’t believe that, without turning your head, look to your left. Then look to your right. Recognize that your field of view without moving your head at all is about 190° (according to vision-and-eye-health.com). The best cameras available in body worn cameras have a maximum field of view of 180°. There is simply no way any head mounted camera can see everything the human eye can unless there are TWO cameras and software to mesh the video.

As a final observation on the use and value of body worn cameras, that “picture that’s worth a thousand words” has to be interpreted. Seeing a picture is perceiving the image. Each of us perceives through our own filter of knowledge, training and experience. As an example: The average non-scuba diver might see an underwater picture and think, “How pretty that is!” A scuba diver though, will look at that same picture and see not only the beauty but also potential information about depth, temperature, visibility and more. Based on that individual’s knowledge, training and experience, the image can have more information. That same principle has to be applied to any video captured of a law enforcement incident. Officers will always see more and perceive differently than a person who has never been to the academy and never worked the street.

So when the statement is made that “it really is a matter of perspective,” it’s not just a saying. It’s an accurate statement that needs to be kept in mind anytime video evidence is being measured for value and accuracy. The officer’s perceptions have to be received via interview, thoroughly articulated and then paired to the video for any true value to be discerned.