Agencies should be mindful of their policies on body-worn camera (BWC) activation during "administrative" periods. I do not know the facts about this incident and the purpose for commenting on it has nothing to do with the incident or officers involved. The question should be asked as to why a BWC was on during ,what appears to be, an "administrative" activity? It is a good policy practice to specifically state that officers shall not have their BWC activated (or even worn in some cases) while participating in internal agency administrative activities such as roll-call briefings, formal or informal meetings, tactical planning sessions, promotion boards, etc., unless mandated by law. Exceptions to this policy should be very clearly defined. The main purposes of BWC have nothing to do with documenting internal administrative police activities. A policy that is silent on this practice can lead to a number of problems that could easily be avoided such as distrust between officers, recording for a personal agenda, creation of public records that might not be exempt, and ethical or moral violations.
Comments