The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Policing

Research and Best Practices
from the IACP Study on 
In-Car Cameras 

International Association of Chiefs of Police
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services


Field Research and Final Development Team: 

IACP Staff Editors: 

William Albright 
 Project Assistant  
Research Center Directorate  

Cassie Cullen 
Research Intern  

Jack Grant 
Manager  
State and Provincial Directorate  

Laura J. Nichols 
Project Manager  
Programs & Research Activities Directorate  

Angelique Savvakis 
Acting Project Assistant  
Research Center Directorate

Laura Strick 
Research Intern  

Alison Vaughn  
Project Manager  
Research Center Directorate 

Technical Contributors: 

Grant Fredericks
Vancouver Police Department (Ret.)
Forensic Video Analyst, Avid Technology

Jonathan W. Hak 
Crown Prosecutor
The Department of Justice, Alberta, BC 

Christopher A. Kadoch
Physicist, Video Evidence Management Expert

Charles Mazzone 
Lt. Colonel (Retired)
Maryland State Police

John Oliphant
Grant Program Specialist
Community Oriented Policing Services

Krista Threefoot
Grant Program Specialist
Community Oriented Policing Services

Lonnie J. Westphal
Chief (Retired) 
Colorado State Patrol 

Acknowledgements: 

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, In-Car Camera Project staff would like to extend our 
sincerest appreciation to the following: 

 
The Evaluation Team Members for their experience, diligence, and commitment throughout the 
evaluation process 

 
The Advisory Board for their expertise and guidance to the In-Car Camera Project 

 
The Chiefs, Commissioners, Directors and Superintendents of the 47 state and 2 beta sites for 
their support and cooperation throughout the evaluation process 

 
The police Executives, Managers and Line Officers that participated in the survey process and 
interviews 

 
To our Points of Contact from each state agency and beta test site for their assistance and guid 
ance while conducting the field evaluations 

 
To Carl Peed, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U. S. Department of 

 
Justice, for his leadership in recognizing emerging technological issues facing law enforcement 
and COPS Office support and funding of the In-Car Camera Project 

 
To Dave Tollett, Director, State and Provincial Directorate, International Association of Chiefs of 
Police, without whose assistance and direction the In-Car Camera Project could not have been 
accomplished 

(See Appendices for complete information on the participants) 


The Impact of Video Evidence 
on Modern Policing 

Daniel N. Rosenblatt 
Executive Director 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 

Eugene R. Cromartie 
Deputy Executive Director 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 

John Firman 
Director 
Research Center Directorate 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 

Prepared for: 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

IACP Research Center Directorate 
In-Car Camera Project Staff Members: 

William Grady Baker 
Program Manager 

Michael Fergus 
Technical Assistance Coordinator 

Hairong Wang 
Research Analytical Coordinator 

Kristy Fowler 
Training/Project Assistant 

This project is supported by Grant No. 2001-CK-WX-0157, awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Department 
of Justice. The points of view in this document do not necessarily represent the official positions of the Department of Justice. 


Table of Contents 
Executive Summary ................................................................. 1 

I. Introduction ................................................................... 4 
II. History of In-Car Cameras ..................................................... 5 
III. Project Methodology .......................................................... 7 
IV. Background of Agencies Studied ................................................ 9 
V. Phase l: Process Evaluation .................................................... 10 

VI. Phase II: Measuring the Impact 
Officer Safety .................................................................... 13 
Agency Liability and Internal Control ............................................. 15 
Training .......................................................................... 18 
Community Perception .............................................................. 20 
Judicial Process (see appendices for results from IACP/APRI Prosecutors Survey) .. 21 
Officer Performance and Professionalism ........................................... 22 
Agency Policies, Procedures and Protocols ......................................... 24 
Agency Leadership ................................................................. 26 
Homeland Security ................................................................. 27 

VII. Lessons Learned .............................................................. 28 

Vlll. Best Practices 
Assessing an Agencys Needs ....................................................... 30 
The Acquisition Process ........................................................... 33 
Managing Video Evidence ........................................................... 36 

IX. IACP In-Car Camera Model Policy ............................................... 39 
Issues and Concepts ............................................................... 45 

X. Appendices 
i. CALEA Standards 
ii. Prosecutors Findings 
iii. Video Log 
iv. Guidelines for Bid Specifications 
v. Forensic Video Analysis and the Law 
vi. Agency Video, Audio and Imaging Inventory 
vii. Charts and Tables 
viii. Acknowledgements 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Policing 

The In-Car Camera Project 

A National Study on the Use and Impact of In-Car Cameras 

Executive Summary 

In-Car Camera Use by Law Enforcement 

Over the past decade, in-car camera technology for police vehicles has proliferated. 
Supporting this wave of video technology, the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services (COPS) has provided over $21,000,000 in grants to help state police and 
highway patrol agencies purchase over 5,000 cameras. There are now over 17,500 
cameras in state police vehicles in the United States. See Chapter II for details. 

A major impetus of the COPS grant program was the enhancement of officer safety. Not 
only were officers being assaulted at an alarming rate; they were increasingly becoming 
accident victims while performing their duties on the highways. COPS believed that the 
use of the in-car camera would possibly deter assaults while providing a safer working 
environment. See Chapter VI for details. 

Another emerging issue was racial profiling in policing. COPS leadership felt that 
providing agencies with technology capable of producing both video and audio records 
of traffic stops would be extremely useful to agencies investigating any public challenge 
regarding racial profiling. Based on these two critical police issues, forty-seven state 
police and highway patrol agencies quickly took advantage of these camera grants. 

Inauguration of the IACP Evaluation 

In 2002, the COPS Office sought the help of the IACP to conduct a nationwide study of 
in-car cameras, focusing on those in use by state police and highway patrol COPS grant 
recipients. This 18-month study looked at all 471 state agency grant recipients, and 
included intensive 3-day site visits to 21 agencies. The study consisted of two phases: 
1) a process evaluation on camera acquisition and installation, and 2) an impact 
evaluation on the value of cameras to police agencies. For a list of participating 
agencies see appendix viii. 

Using a variety of research methods, including survey research, on-site interviews, focus 
group discussions, continuing data collection and analysis, the IACP succeeded in 
capturing a broad array of information on the use and value cameras have had on 
modern policing. From the outset of the study, it became clear that while the focus of 
the research was on state police and highway patrol, the findings would be of substantial 
importance to all law enforcement agencies (state, county, local, Tribal) in the U.S. Thus 
this final report is intended for this broad audience. See Section III for details. 

Process Evaluation Findings 

The process evaluation of the study yielded extremely positive results regarding the 
success of the COPS grants program and its impact on supporting technology 
acquisition and use by police agencies. Results of the process evaluation included: 

 91 grants awarded to 50 agencies, totaling $21,000,000 

1 When the study was initiated in 2002, only 47 state police and highway patrol agencies were participating in the COPS In-Car 
Camera Initiative Grant. By 2004, in-car camera grants were awarded to 49 state agencies and the District of Columbia totaling 50 
agencies. 



 5,043 cameras selected and purchased by 50 agencies 
 5,000 plus, purchased cameras installed and in full use 

The last bullet is of note, indicating that the agencies receiving COPS grants were highly 
effective in translating those funds into fast track acquisition and use of in-car camera 
technology. See Section V for details. 

Impact Evaluation Findings: 

The impact evaluation findings are dramatic. In the second phase of the project, 
researchers documented that in-car cameras provided a substantial value to agencies 
using them, including: 

 Enhancing officer safety 
 Improving agency accountability 
 Reducing agency liability 
 Simplifying incident review 
 Enhancing new recruit and in-service training (post-incident use of videos) 
 Improving Community/Media perceptions 
 Strengthening police leadership 
 Advancing prosecution/case resolution 
 Enhancing officer performance and professionalism 
 Increasing homeland security 
 Upgrading technology policies and procedures 

From all information sources; surveys, focus groups, and on-site interviews, it became 
clear to researchers that agencies were discovering a broad array of use and value to 
the cameras in use. See Section VI for details. 

Lessons Learned 

During the course of the study, a number of lessons were learned. Foremost was the 
need for agencies to conduct a thorough planning effort to ensure that they create a 
successful in-car camera program for their agency. Very often staff found agencies had 
failed to view the entire camera system continuum, falling short on key back end 
components such as storing, filing and retrieving video evidence. Many agencies also 
reported that they had not gathered sufficient information on officer attitudes, long term 
equipment maintenance costs, analog versus digital formats and other policy areas as 
they began their programs. 

Technology changes, and the pace of the changes are among the greatest challenges to 
police agencies. At the same time agencies are contemplating their camera purchases, 
vendors are introducing new equipment with enhanced features, causing agencies to 
reconsider purchase decisions. Further, the impending transition from analog to digital 
format is a daunting issue for law enforcement. Many fear that purchasing outmoded 
analog will limit their programs while others fear that purchasing untested digital may be 
just as problematic. In each case, agencies need expert guidance to make rational policy 
decisions. See Section VII for details. 


Best Practices, Guidelines and Specifications 

To maximize the value of the lessons learned, IACP staff began to move quickly into the 
development of best practice information that would be of use to any agency 
contemplating the development of an in-car system. The best practices documents 
created over the course of this study include: 

 Assessing your agencys video evidence needs 
 Developing an in-car camera strategy 
 Navigating the acquisition process 
 Managing your video evidence 

Beyond these best practice guidelines, project staff also discovered that agencies often 
lacked the necessary policies, standards and/or guidelines that are requisite to 
successful program development. To assist in this area, staff helped craft two essential 
policy documents, each based on findings from the study: 

 Working with the IACPs National Law Enforcement Policy Center, an updated 
Mobile Video Recording Equipment Model Policy, and accompanying Discussion 
and Issues paper. See Section IX for details. 

 Working with project advisors, the development of Suggested Guidelines: Mobile 
Video System, Part I: Vendor Bid Specifications, and Part II: Sample Bid 
Specifications. See Sections X for details. 
Next Steps for the COPS/IACP Partnership 

The in-car camera is one of several technologies in an officers toolkit and, given the 
results of this study, it is proving to be an extremely flexible and useful tool, benefiting 
officers, agencies, and the communities they serve. Now that the evaluation is 
completed, the IACP in collaboration with the COPS Office will seek to achieve several 
new goals: 1) broad dissemination of evaluation results to the field, 2) provision of 
technical assistance to state, county, local, Tribal and other departments who are 
inaugurating or improving in-car camera systems, and 3) provide technical assistance 
training for police executives and prosecutors enabling them to make informed 
decisions. 

In the coming year, IACP will also team with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Office 
of Science and Technology (OST) to create a set of nationally recognized standards, 
specifications and guidelines for in-car cameras. These guidelines will be of significant 
use to police agencies as they work with vendors to identify and acquire the best system 
for their agencies. Overall, the combined expertise of the IACP, COPS and NIJ will 
provide clear direction to law enforcement on all aspects of in-car video programs. 

One of the many lessons learned through this study is that police agencies require 
assistance when making technology acquisition and deployment decisions. An agency 
may acquire technology today that becomes obsolete by the time it is implemented or 
that cannot be shared with neighboring agencies. Recognizing these technology needs, 
the IACP, in collaboration with the COPS Office has been tasked with creating a 
nationwide technical assistance program that will assist agencies to make 
comprehensive assessments of their technological needs. The IACPs Technology 
Technical Assistance Projects (TTAP) over-arching goal is to help agencies make 
rational, informed and cost-effective technology acquisition decisions to improve the 
overall quality of policing, public protection, and community engagement. 


I. INTRODUCTION 


Introduction 

Advancements in policing over the past 20 years have been supported substantially by 
technology. For example, Report Management Systems (RMS) have streamlined report 
taking, information retrieval, and crime mapping. Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) have 
given officers the ability to access the National Crime Information Center, state, and 
local data from their vehicles. Officers in the field are capable of retrieving motor 
vehicle, license, and warrant information in a much shorter time period. Calls for 
service are dispatched more effectively through computer aided dispatch (CAD) 
systems. Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) can identify criminals 
within hours and minutes instead of weeks and months. 

The in-car cameras is another valuable policing and management tool. In the IACP 
national survey, Closed Circuit TV/Video Cameras in Law Enforcement (May 2001), 
departments reported that in-car video cameras were: 1) the most frequently used video 
technology within their agencies; and 2) the video technology of highest value. 

Although in-car cameras have been in use in some agencies for over a decade, no 
comprehensive studies had been conducted to evaluate the impact of the technology on 
officer conduct, management of the agencies, and the publics perceptions of police. 

In 2002, the IACP was commissioned by the United States Department of Justice, Office 
of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to evaluate the impact of police in-car 
camera systems on state police and highway patrol agencies. The purpose of the study 
was to develop a Best Practices Guide for selection and acquisition of in-car camera 
equipment and to provide an updated Model Policy for the use of in-car cameras. 

The study was divided into two phases. Phase I studied the process by which the 
cameras were selected and acquired and Phase II focused on impact evaluations. 

Phase I: Process Evaluation - focused on: 

1. Selection 
2. Acquisition 
3. Installation 
4. Deployment 

Phase II: Field Evaluation - measured the specific impact of in-car cameras on: 

1. Officer safety 
2. Officer performance and police professionalism 
3. Agency liability and internal control 
4. Training and education 
5. Community perception 
6. Agency policies, procedures and protocols 
7. Agency leadership 
8. Judicial process 

The results of these evaluations are contained within this report. 


II. HISTORY OF IN-CAR 
CAMERAS 

The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Policing 

History of In-Car Cameras 

The first videotape recording systems became available in the early 1960s. However, 
video technology of the 60s was not conducive to the mounting of cameras in police 
vehicles. In the late 1960s, a Popular Science magazine article featured an attempt by 
the Connecticut State Police to install a video camera and recorder in a patrol car. The 
camera was on a small tripod that required the full passenger side of the front seat with 
the back seat fully loaded with a recorder and cables that connected the two devices. 
While the equipment was far too cumbersome to make it practical for routine use in 
patrol vehicles, this experiment illustrated that video recording could play an important 
role in patrol operations. 

Almost a decade passed with little noticeable advancement in the field of the 
audio/visual recordings, but by the early 1980s the self-contained Beta audio/visual 
recording system was introduced and revolutionized the recording industry. The next 
step in the evolution of the mobile video recorder was the introduction of the VHS 
recorder and tape, followed by the introduction of 8mm camcorders. Along with 
miniaturization came affordability, which catapulted audio/visual recordings into the 
mainstream of policing. In addition to the closed circuit televisions installed for 
monitoring lockup and holding facilities, agencies began using these devices to 
document crime scenes, giving a far more complete and comprehensive view of these 
situations than still photography could provide. The portability and ease of use allowed 
officers to operate these systems for surveillance, interrogations, and training. 

In 1980, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) was formed and brought a heightened 
awareness to the national problem of drinking and driving. Much greater emphasis was 
placed on convictions and punishment, particularly among prosecutors. The police 
began installing cameras in police vehicles to document the infractions leading up to the 
initial stop and the eventual field sobriety test. These recordings came to be viewed as 
the most effective method of providing the necessary evidence to support a conviction. 
MADD recognized the value of the in-car camera and began purchasing systems for 
police agencies involved in detecting and apprehending driving while impaired or under 
the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DWI/DUI) violators. 

In the 1990s, Americas war on drugs further advanced the use of the in-car cameras by 
documenting interdiction stops. It was difficult for jurors to believe that an individual 
transporting large quantities of narcotics and hundreds-of-thousands of dollars of 
unexplainable cash would actually give the police permission to search his/her vehicle. 
However, time and time again the camera documented the consented search, which 
was later used to gain a conviction. 

By 1999, allegations of racial bias or racial profiling were being lodged against police 
agencies across the United States. State police agencies, by virtue of their primary 
traffic responsibilities, found themselves in the center of controversy with complaints of 
racial profiling. At the same time, assaults on officers were on the increase. 
Responding to these concerns, state and federal legislative bodies began enacting laws 
requiring all police agencies within their jurisdiction to document details of every traffic 
stop. The Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
recognized the value of the in-car camera in addressing officer safety issues and 
allegations of racial profiling while enhancing the public trust. Recognizing that the 
purchase of cameras for police vehicles was expensive and beyond the budgets of most 
police agencies, the COPS Office initiated the In-Car Camera Initiative Program to state 
police and highway patrol agencies throughout the U.S., delivering the first funds to state 
agencies in 2000. 



A 2000 National Institute of Justice study on the police use of technology reported that 
only 3,400 (11%) of state police and highway patrol vehicles used for patrol were 
equipped with in-car cameras. Over the following three years the COPS office awarded 
over $21 million to state agencies for the purchase and support of in-car cameras. The 
number of state police vehicles equipped with in-car cameras grew to 17,500, now 
representing 72% of total state patrol vehicles. 

Today, many police agencies in the United States and worldwide are applying this 
technology to patrol operations by equipping their vehicles with mobile video recording 
equipment. Although the early attempts to place cameras in patrol vehicles were 
plagued with technical and safety problems, miniaturization and advances in technology 
have made the use of the mobile video recorder practical and affordable. As technology 
in the field of audio/visual recordings evolves, equipping police vehicles with in-car 
cameras will be the norm and no longer the exception. 



III. PROJECT METHODOLOGY 



Project Methodology 

To chart the initial course for the project, an In-Car Camera Advisory Board was 
established in 2002, consisting of noted experts in the field of Mobile Video Technology, 
members of the academic community, police executives from across the country, legal 
scholars, and researchers from within the IACP and Department of Justice. The Board 
members provided insight and suggestions for the development of the Phase I process 
evaluations, as well as for the Phase II impact evaluations. 

Phase I: Process Evaluation 

Written process surveys were distributed to 47 state law enforcement agencies that 
received a COPS In-Car Camera Initiative grant. The survey inquired about their 
progress in the selection, acquisition, installation and maintenance of in-car cameras 
systems, the development of relevant policies and procedures, and in-car camera 
operation and training. Agencies were also asked to highlight the obstacles encountered 
as well as the benefits derived from the use of in-car cameras. The process survey was 
the platform from which the Phase II study was launched. 

The Advisory Board recommended that the written process survey be supplemented by 
a focus group study comprised of in-car camera users. This took the form of the Line 
Officers Roundtable, held in Wilmington, Delaware, and hosted by the Delaware State 
Police in January 2003. Camera users from 17 state law enforcement agencies across 
the country came together to discuss the problems and successes experienced in the 
use of the in-car camera systems. 

Phase II: Impact Evaluation 

Based on findings from the Phase I: Process Survey, 21 state police departments and 
highway patrols were identified as sites for Phase II: Impact Evaluation. The site 
selection process was guided by the following criteria to produce a representative 
sample: 1) the ratio of in-car cameras to patrol vehicles, 2) the size of the agencies and 
3) their geographic locations. Formalized site visit protocols were developed to ensure 
consistent collection of data at each site. Site evaluation teams consisted of IACP staff 
and law enforcement consultants with in-car video camera expertise. At each site, 
independent meetings were held with a specified number of line officers and supervisors 
to obtain their collective input on their in-car camera program. The discussions focused 
on both the problems and successes that have arisen since the implementation of their 
program, and concluded with suggestions for possible solutions to the problems. 

A series of surveys on the impact of in-car camera use was developed to gain insight 
into the perceptions of prosecutors, police line officers, police mid-level managers and 
executive staff, as well as private citizens. These surveys contained multiple-choice 
questions, scaled-rating questions, as well as comment areas for the respondents to add 
any supplemental information they deemed relevant. 

Prosecutors Survey - With assistance from the American Prosecutors Research 
Institute (APRI), a survey was developed and distributed to a nationally representative 
sample of prosecutors. Questions regarding their familiarity with video evidence and the 
problems and successes they encountered before, during and after trial were included in 
the survey instrument. 



Line Officers Survey - This survey sought information in the area of officer safety, 
officers acceptance, performance, citizen reaction, and training and policy issues related 
to in-car cameras. Prior to the site visit, the agency received a pre-determined number 
of line-officer surveys that were to be distributed at random to the officers, completed 
with the guarantee of anonymity, and returned in a sealed envelope. The number of 
surveys distributed to agencies was determined by the size of their patrol fleet and the 
number of in-car camera systems currently in use. This was done to ensure that a 
statistically valid sample size was chosen from each agency. 

Mid-level Managers and Executive Surveys - These surveys were used to assess the 
management process. In addition, surveys that focused on how videotapes were used 
in complaint investigations were given to members of the Internal Affairs Division. 

Public Opinion Survey - To capture the publics response to the use of police in-car 
cameras, public opinion surveys were given to the agencies to distribute to community 
members. Questionnaires were handed out at community and volunteer sessions at the 
agency or at university campuses. 



IV. BACKGROUND OF AGENCIES STUDIED 



Background of Agencies Studied 

According to the most recent Law Enforcement Management and Administrative 
Statistics (LEMAS)2 survey, state police departments employ a total of 56,348 full time 
sworn officers. Of these, 39,273 are patrol officers, accounting for over 69% of total full 
time sworn officers. Obtaining the actual number of patrol officers is essential to 
identifying the target group of cameras users for this study. 

Of the 47 state police and highway patrol agencies participating in the Phase I  Process 
Evaluation, only 21 agencies were selected to participate in Phase II  Impact 
Evaluation. The participants were selected based on the responses to the Process 
Surveys by the advisory board. 

The 21 state police departments participating in the Impact Evaluation included: 

1. Arizona Department of Public Safety 
2. California Highway Patrol 
3. Connecticut State Police 
4. Florida Highway Patrol 
5. Illinois State Police 
6. Kansas Highway Patrol 
7. Maine State Police 
8. Maryland State Police 
9. Mississippi Highway Patrol 
10. New Hampshire State Police 
11. New Jersey State Police3 
12. New York State Police 
13. North Dakota Highway Patrol 
14. Oregon State Police 
15. Oklahoma Highway Patrol 
16. Pennsylvania State Police 
17. South Carolina Highway Patrol 
18. Tennessee Highway Patrol 
19. Texas Department of Public Safety 
20. Washington State Patrol 
21. Wyoming Highway Patrol 

The above agencies are a representative sample in terms of the size of jurisdictions they 
serve, geographic locations, size of the patrol fleet, and the number of cameras owned. 
According to the 2000 LEMAS survey, these agencies employ a total of 53,883 
employees, 34,511 of which are full time sworn officers. There are 24,5914 patrol 
officers, whose duties consist of patrolling the numerous state-maintained roads and 
highways and providing police and patrol services throughout the state. 

2 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS): 2000 Sample Survey of Law 
Enforcement Agencies, Bureau of Justice Statistics 

3 New Jersey participated in the on-site evaluation but did not participate in the survey portion of the 
study. 

4 LEMAS Survey does not report the number of patrol officers in New Hampshire State Police. 
According to data in the Executive Questionnaire of the IACP In-Car Camera Evaluation, the number of 
patrol officers in New Hampshire is 225. 



V. PHASE I: PROCESS EVALUATION 



Project Findings 

Phase l: Process Evaluation 

Focus Group - The Delaware State Police hosted a line officers roundtable in January 
2003. Representatives from 17 agencies across the country gathered to discuss both 
the problems and successes that they have experienced since acquiring camera 
systems. 

Many of the concerns discussed were universal. The primary concern of the line officers 
was the overall quality of audio transmitters. In their opinion, transmitters were found to 
have limited range and were not durable. In addition, battery operated devices with 
extremely low amperage also caused concerns about reliability. 

One of the most prolific benefits reported by the officers in the focus group was the 
number of citizen complaints that were either dismissed on the spot or handled at the 
first line supervisory level because the in-car recording enabled involved parties to 
review the evidence of the contact. Unfortunately, these instances are rarely 
documented, making them difficult to measure. 

One of the most significant contributions of the roundtable was the opportunity for 
participants to design an ideal in-car camera system. This system would be 
ergonomically sound and officer safety conscious. The design features can be used by 
all police agencies in the negotiation phase of acquiring in-car camera systems from the 
various vendors. See Appendix E for full report. 

Following the advisory board meeting and the roundtable discussion, written process 
surveys were formulated and distributed to all 47 state agencies that received grants 
from the COPS office. The following information was obtained from the process survey: 

Total In-car Cameras Owned - In April 2003, the 47 state agencies surveyed owned a 
total of 31,498 patrol vehicles and a total of 17,500 camera systems. Of the in-car 
camera systems owned, 14,748 (90%) were in operation. Among the 1,752 in-car 
camera systems reported to be out of operation, approximately one third were to be 
repaired, about one third were to be installed, and a little under one third were surplus 
cameras. In addition, a small number of cameras were being used for training. 

Grant Funded Cameras - The state police and highway patrol agencies surveyed 
reported receiving a total of $10,036,377 in grant money from the COPS Office in 2000 
(data from COPS office indicates that, in total, over $21 million has been distributed to 
state police and highway patrol agencies to finance the purchase of in-car cameras). 
The Phase I survey results revealed that the In-Car Camera Initiative Grants awarded by 
the COPS Office had a significant impact on state police and highway patrol agencies. 
The grants funded 5,043 in-car cameras, accounting for 29% of all the in-car cameras 
owned by the state police and highway patrol agencies that were surveyed. 

Timeline for the Acquisition Process - The average time from model selection to 
purchase was 2.5 months, from purchase to delivery was 2.4 months, and from delivery 
to installation was 4.2 months. On average, the process took just over 9 months from 
selection to installation. 



Camera Systems Purchase - The majority of the reporting agencies selected their 
vendor using the competitive biding process. Vendors were selected either because 
their products were considered of higher quality, they had certain desirable features 
such as the interface capability with existing radar instruments, or because they were the 
lowest bidder. 

Camera Systems Installation - Thirty-one agencies have their own technicians perform 
the installation and maintenance on the in-car camera systems. The remaining agencies 
outsourced this service to vendors or third-party contractors. Most of the agencies did 
not report making modifications to the in-car camera systems during the installation 
process, while seven agencies made minor modifications such as adapting mounting 
brackets for specialty vehicles, installing mounting hardware and wiring power 
connections, or disabling the power switches to allow cameras to start recording upon 
emergency equipment activation. 

Camera Deployment - The overwhelming majority of in-car cameras have been 
mounted in patrol cars. Only 10 of the 47 agencies have in-car camera systems installed 
in non-patrol cars, i.e., specialty vehicles, DUI Vans, or undercover surveillance 
vehicles. 

The principal criterion for camera deployment was the personnel involved, geography or 
a combination of both. In some states, the camera systems were deployed equally or 
proportionately to all districts across the state; in other states, cameras were provided to 
officers working assignments that would most benefit from the new technology. Some of 
the agencies that chose personnel as their primary deployment criterion reported that 
they issued camera systems to many of their high activity personnel and personnel that 
perform higher risk duties, such as drug interdiction and DUI task force members. Other 
state agencies equipped all new patrol vehicles with camera systems. 

In-car Camera Use Policy - At the time of the survey, 39 agencies (83%) reported 
having policies and procedures addressing the use of in-car camera systems in place; 
five agencies (11%) were in the process of creating policies; and the remaining three 
agencies (6%) planned to develop policies in the near future. 

Training - Twenty-five agencies had either developed, or participated in, a training curricutlhuemr Benefits of Training 
on policies, procedures and protocols to .. Reduced equipment down time 
accompany the use of cameras. Training was 
usually delivered by state training academies, .. Better images for investigation & court 
approved training providers, or manufacturers. .. Reduced liability concerns 
Additional training agencies include the Law .. Increased officer safety 
Enforcement Mobile Video Institute, South Carolina .. Increased public support 
Criminal Justice Academy and the Institute of 
Police Traffic Management. The remaining 22 
.. Cost-effective management 
agencies did not have a training curriculum. 

Benefits Derived from In-car Camera Use - Respondents cited numerous benefits, 
including, but not limited to: increased officer safety; documentation of traffic violations, 
citizen behavior, and other events; reduced court time and prosecutor burden; video 
evidence for use in internal investigations; reduced frivolous lawsuits; and increased 
likelihood of successful prosecution. 



Problems Encountered - Improper installation of systems was identified as a problem 
that might endanger officers. Audio transmitters were consistently cited as unreliable, 
due to durability issues and frequency limitations. The majority of the state agencies 
believed the acquisition process was time consuming. Several agencies felt that 
accepting the low bid often created quality assurance problems and excessive down 
time for their systems. Other problems mentioned included: the absence of an 
organized infrastructure for the management, storage and handling of audiovisual 
recordings; officers concern over cameras being used as a tool to monitor their 
performance; lack of training, funding, and written policies and procedures prior to the 
use of in-car camera systems. 


VI. PHASE II: MEASURING THE IMPACT 

Officer Safety 
Agency Liability and Internal Control 
Training 
Community Perception 
Judicial Process 
Officer Performance and Police Professionalism 
Citizen Demeanor 
Agency Policies, Procedures and Protocols 
Agency Leadership 
Homeland Security 



Phase I: Measuring the Impact 

To measure the impact that in-car cameras have had on policing, the In-Car Camera 
Advisory Board selected eight critical areas on which the study would focus. The 
following are excerpts extracted from the study: 

Officer Safety - One of the greatest values of the in-car camera is the positive impact 
that it has had on officers perception of safety. To measure the perception of officer 
safety, two different approaches were used: a written survey and face-to-face interviews. 
In the survey, officers were asked to gauge the impact the cameras have had on their 
safety. The results indicated that about one third of officers perceived a feeling of 
increased safety when the camera was in use. However, in interviews, when officers 
were asked how they utilized the recordings, an overwhelming majority stated that they 
review the footage for self-critique. Officers said they review how they approach each 
situation and take mental notes of any officer safety issues they discover, such as 
turning their backs on a potentially dangerous individual, or allowing themselves to be 
distracted by other persons or events. Many officers also reported having used the 
presence of the camera to deescalate situations that they felt were becoming 
confrontational by informing citizens that they were being recorded. 

In terms of their personal safety, 33% of the officers reported in the survey that the use 
of the cameras caused them to feel safer on the job, while 64% reported that the use of 
the camera has had no impact on their level of personal safety. The remaining 
3% reported that the camera has diverted their attention from the violator 
when they were operating the system, or they find themselves adapting their 
actions for the camera. Some officers believe that attempting to orchestrate 
situations to obtain the best possible camera angle may cause them to place 
themselves in an unsafe or less than favorable position. In general, the more 
experience officers had with cameras, the more likely they were to report an 
increased perception of safety resulting from the presence of the camera. 

The same effect holds true with the issue of training. On average, the more in-car 
camera training an officer has received, the more likely he is to have reported that the incar 
camera promotes safety. It should be noted that the majority of officers using in-car 
cameras (77%) reported that they had never received any, or had received less than 
four hours, formal training in the operation of their systems. Of those surveyed, fewer 
than half received training that covered departmental policies and/or related laws that 
apply to the use of audio/visual recording. 

Survey Response: Level of Personal 
Pie Chart - Survey Response: Level of Personal Safety results



Training Hours vs. Officer Safety Bar Graph

Training Hours   Percentage Reporting Camera Promotes Safety
0                29%

1-4              32%

4-8              34%

9-16             47%

17-24            37%

25-40            48%

40+              46% 
 

The study also shows that the more experience an officer has, the more likely they are to 
use the camera as a tool to deescalate a confrontational situation. Of the participating 
officers, nearly half (48%) reported that citizens have become less aggressive after 
learning the event was being recorded. 

Officers reporting that in-car cameras promote safety are more likely to report an 
increase in job satisfaction. Overall, 15% reported greater job satisfaction after using incar 
cameras, whereas 8% reported a decrease. The change in officers level of safety 
correlates with the change in job satisfaction. For instance, 36% of officers reporting 
that cameras promoted safety also reported that they were more satisfied with their jobs. 

Officers holding the belief that cameras promoted safety are more likely to report an 
increase in traffic stops. Of officers stating that cameras promoted safety, 20% reported 
an increase in the number of traffic stops, as opposed to 3% among officers thinking that 
cameras hampered safety. Overall, 7% of officers reported making more traffic stops, 
and 5% officers reported making fewer traffic stops after using in-car cameras. 

Officer Safety vs. Change In Traffic Stops 

Officers' Response to Question on Safety     
Hampers safety (119 officers)

Change in Traffic Stops
Traffic Stop Decrease 40%
Traffic Stop Constant 57%
Traffic Stop Increase 3%

Officers' Response to Question on Safety     
Neutral (2297 officers)

Change in Traffic Stops
Traffic Stop Decrease 4%
Traffic Stop Constant 95%
Traffic Stop Increase 1%

Officers' Response to Question on Safety     
Promotes safety  (1169 officers)

Change in Traffic Stops
Traffic Stop Decrease 4%
Traffic Stop Constant 76%
Traffic Stop Increase 20%



Agency Liability and Internal Control - The study showed the significant impact that 
the in-car cameras have had on improving the officers ability to respond to complaints 
regarding professionalism and courtesy. The survey specifically asked line officers 
about complaints filed against them and the use of the recording to adjudicate the 
complaints. The majority of officers reported that the camera ultimately cleared them of 
accusations of wrongdoing; very few reported that the camera sustained a complaint 
filed against them. According to the responses of the over 3,000 officers who completed 
the surveys, in only 5% of the cases were complaints sustained based on video 
evidence captured by the in-car cameras. 

A first line supervisor, or a supervisor of a similar command level, will generally handle a 
complaint against a police officer. Discussions with the supervisors mirrored the findings 
from the line officers survey, but added two new dimensions: 

1. In at least half of the instances, once the complainant is made aware that the stop 
or contact was recorded, the complaint was withdrawn. 

2. A significant amount of time was saved in conducting investigations, with the 
availability of the video evidence. Usually, this was conducted as an informal 
inquiry into the events. The supervisor reviewed the officers recording of the 
event, and then contacted the complainant to discuss the incident. These cases 
were rarely documented when the findings are in favor of the officer. If video 
evidence was not available, the complainant would usually be asked to file a 
written complaint. The supervisor would then interview all witnesses and the 
officer or officers involved, would then prepare a written document of the findings. 
In both the survey and interviews, officers were asked about their personal experiences 
with the use of in-car video evidence in the investigation of allegations of misconduct. Of
the 3,680 surveys returned, a total of 2,244 officers responded to this question. The data 
revealed that in cases where video evidence was available, the officer was exonerated 
93% of the time; in 5% of the cases the complaint was sustained. In the cases in which 
the complaint was sustained, the violation may not be the initial allegation, but rather a
finding of other unreported misconduct observed upon review of the tape. These could
range anywhere from not wearing the proper attire to major infractions. In the remaining 
2% of the cases, the responding officers reported the outcome of investigation as
other. Overall, a majority of agencies using cameras reported a higher number of
exonerations when there was video evidence of the incident.

Internal affairs sections also recognized the value of the in-car cameras. They found 
that following installation, an increasing number of cases were resolved or dealt with at
the first line supervisor levelrather than being forwarded to their office for formal 
investigations. 

Outcomes Of Investigations Based On Videotape Evidence Bar Graph
Exonerated 93%
Sustained 5% 
Other 2%



The in-car camera is not only a reactive tool that will expedite the internal investigative 
process and provide conclusive evidence of guilt or innocence, it is also proactive in 
preventing misconducts, officers are expected to conduct themselves more 
professionally when being recorded. The internal affairs investigation and external 
review of complaints are reactive measures to misconducts. Proactive measures such 
as the screening of applicants, training, and policy adjustments are necessary to prevent 
misconducts from occurring in the first place. 

The amount of distrust generated by workplace surveillance depends on how officers 
perceive the purpose of the cameras. To determine the officers perception, officers were 
asked what they believed was the reason their agency decided to install 
in-car cameras. Overall, officers believed that the most important reason was to collect evidence for 
trial and to protect the officers against false accusations. However, 28% of officers reported that monitoring 
officers performance was the primary reason for installing cameras. 

Rank of Importance  Officers Perception of the Purpose of Camera Installation 
1st To collect evidence for trial; 
To protect officer from false 
accusation 
2nd To monitor officer performance 
3rd To be used for internal affair 
investigation; 
To guard against racial profiling 
4th To improve public relations 

The use of in-car cameras does not hinder the officer from performing his or her duties. 
When asked if the camera affects how the officers deal with situations, 70% maintained 
that they affect them very little or not at all. In terms of the cameras effects on officers 
discretion in handling situations, 86% reported that cameras had no effect. An 
overwhelming majority of the responding officers (89%) said that the cameras had no 
effect on their decision to use force in a situation. 

The line officers survey reveals that only 11% of officers reported that camera usage 
was moderately stressful or very stressful and 30% believed that the use of the camera 
was slightly stressful. Officers who perceived that an internal affairs investigation was 
the primary reason for instituting in-car cameras were also more likely to report that 
camera usage was Moderately Stressful or Very Stressful. The majority of officers 
(59%) did not believe the presence of the camera increased stress levels. Only 8% of 
officers indicated that they were less satisfied with their jobs, and 5% said they made 
fewer traffic stops. On the other hand, in-car cameras have resulted in 15% of the 
responding officers to be more satisfied with their jobs, and 7% reported making more 
traffic stops. 

Realizing officers concerns with regard to the perceived use of the camera for internal 
investigations caught the attention of many police agencies. A small number of 
agencies (7%) in an effort to alleviate undue fear, suspicion and reduce stress, sought 
input from line officers and mid-level managers prior to initiating in-car cameras. These 
agencies experienced a greater level of acceptance to new technology with little or no 
reduction in productivity5. 

5 Job satisfaction is regressed on the following list of independent variables: agency, assignment, gender, race, law 
enforcement experience, camera usage experience, whether cameras are in use before starting the job, initial attitude, 
current attitude, stress, whether videotapes are reviewed periodically, whether cameras have been used to prove or 
disprove allegations against you, whether internal review makes you reluctant to use camera, whether your agency takes 
steps to relieve your concern over internal affairs investigation, rank of internal affairs investigation as purpose of camera 
installation, whether camera reduces discretion, whether the department seeks input prior to adoption of new technology. 



Measuring the impact of the in-car camera on agency liability was a difficult task. In 
general, agencies did not keep records on the number of lawsuits filed or settled. As 
part of the impact evaluation, the team interviewed the commanders of their loss 
prevention or Attorney Generals Office representing the various police agencies. 
Attorneys representing the agencies categorically support the use of the in-car camera. 
They pointed out that video evidence allows them to save time in case disposition. On 
rare occasions, after reviewing the video evidence, they decided to settle the case in lieu 
of proceeding to trial. Although the determination may be made to settle or pay 
damages, the presence of the video evidence often saved time in investigation and/or 
lengthy litigation cost and served to mitigate the circumstances surrounding the incident. 

The majority of the cases that the solicitor or agency attorney receives stem from vehicle 
pursuits or accidents occurring while the officer is responding to priority calls. In most 
instances the video evidence indicated that the officers actions were lawful and within 
departmental guidelines. The presence of video evidence allowed the agency to defend 
the officer with great success. 

The following is a case that stands out depicting the value of the camera: 

An officer was responding to a major incident requiring immediate police 
assistance. As he approached a busy intersection with lights and siren 
activated, he slowed to move around stopped traffic and then proceeded through 
the intersection. While in the intersection, he was struck by another vehicle. 
The officer reported that he had the green light and the right of way. No less 
than five independent witnesses to the accident stated that the officer ran a red 
light. The officers vehicle was not equipped with a camera; however, the 
secondary officer who was behind the involved officer did have his camera 
activated. The video evidence recovered from the secondary officers vehicle 
served as the unbiased witness and clearly proved that the involved officers 
vehicle entered the intersection on a green light and in fact proved that the 
citizens vehicle striking the officers vehicle had run the red light. The video 
evidence disputed the testimony of five eyewitnesses. A multi-million dollar 
lawsuit had been filled against the police agency, which was dismissed based on 
the video evidence. The agency recovered all the costs and financial restitution 
for the damages to the police vehicle, as well as medical costs for the officer. 

Regression result indicates that an officer is more likely to be satisfied with his job after using cameras if he believes that 
in-car camera makes him safer, if he welcomes camera usage, if he thinks that his department has sought input prior to 
the adoption of new technology, and has taken steps to relieve his concern over internal affairs investigation. Conversely, 
increase in work stress or decrease in officer discretion will reduce job satisfaction. 



Training and Education - Phase I: Process 
Survey determined only 25 of the 47 grant 
recipients reported having some form of 
formalized training for their in-car camera 
users. Of the remaining 22 agencies, eight 
reported currently developing a program, 
and the remaining 14 agencies had no training 
in place. A year later, Phase II: 
Impact Evaluation found that all 21 agencies 
evaluated had implemented a form of 
training, or were in the process of 
developing a curriculum. 

Training Curriculums Reported During Phase I Pie Chart

In the Phase II study, line officers were questioned regarding their level of training in the 
use of the in-car camera equipment. The majority of respondents (72%) reported they 
had received some form of training, while the remaining 28% reported they had not. Of 
those individuals who did receive training, 69% reported they had received between one 
and eight hours of formal training; however, 37% asserted that the training they received 
was inadequate and did not identify relevant laws and departmental regulations. In 
most instances, the training they received on operation of the system was either from the 
vendor or the technician who installed the system. Most respondents reported they were 
not provided with an operators manual. The training that was provided often followed 
installation of the equipment. The officer initially assigned to the unit received some 
instruction on how to operate the system, but when the vehicle is passed on to the next 
officer, the second officer often receives no instruction on the operation of the additional 
equipment. 

The value of the in-car camera for the purposes of training cannot be overlooked.   
Not only are officers using the cameras as an effective tool for self-critique, they 
have found them to be an invaluable resource for training new officers.  New officers 
can review their actions with their training officers, through the objective eye of the 
camera immediately after an event occurs.  It is important to remember that recordings 
from the field that depict either positive or negative police behavior are an asset to 
the training division of any agency; however, care must be taken to present the material 
in a way that will not embarrass an officer or undermine morale.    A successful in-car 
camera program requires that the users, managers, and judicial recipients have a clear 
understanding of how the equipment operates, its limitations, as well as potential 
drawbacks of the equipment.   

During one of the line officers meetings, the officers were questioned regarding the 
operational status of their systems.  Of the 15 officers present, seven reported their 
systems were not functioning.   Further investigation revealed that these same officers 
had not received training in the operation of their equipment.  During a break the 
evaluators accompanied the officers to their vehicles and discovered that five of the 
systems only required being reset.   Unfortunately, these officers, having received 
no training on their systems, were unable to troubleshoot problems with their equipment; 
nor had they received manuals that included information on how the fix minor problems. 
(This problem was only magnified by the fact that there were only two shops in the state 
that could provide repairs.)  The lesson learned from this story is that the number of 
functional in-car camera systems can be proportionally linked to the level of training 
the users are provided. 



The following course of action is recommended: 

1. Implement a course of instruction, that incorporates pertinent laws, Federal Rules 
of Evidence, departmental policies and procedures, and use and operation of the 
audio/video equipment. 

2. Implement an introductory in-car camera course designed specifically for new 
recruits. 

3. Implement a refresher course for advanced officer training. 

As with any new technology, failure to properly train officers in the use, operation, and 
legal implications of improper use can result in disaster. Funding under the COPS In- 
Car Camera Initiative Program was dedicated specifically for the purchase and 
installation of the in-car cameras. However, early on the COPS Office recognized the 
need for training in this technology. 

In 2001, the COPS Office awarded a grant to the Law Enforcement Mobile Video 
Institute (LEMVI) to provide a 40-hour instructors course to state law enforcement 
agencies that received a COPS In-Car Camera Initiative award. LEMVI Director Jim 
Kuboviak was one of the early pioneers of in-car camera technology. He constructed 
and installed several of the prototypes for todays modern in-car camera systems. 

One of his earliest systems was placed in the police vehicle of Constable Darrell 
Lunsford, of Nacogdoches County, Texas. This same device would later capture on 
video the homicide of Constable Lunsford. The video evidence captured by Constable 
Lunsfords camera provided suspect information that led to the capture and the 
subsequent conviction of the three perpetrators. 

The tragic death of Constable Lunsford, coupled with the evidentiary value of the video 
media, inspired Kuboviak to develop and implement an instructors training course in 
1990. Today, LEMVI continues to be nationally recognized as the standard of 
excellence for in-car camera training. LEMVI was awarded additional funding from the 
COPS Office in 2003 to provide in-car camera training to local, municipal, county, sheriff, 
and tribal agencies through the national network of COPS Regional Community Policing 
Institutes (RCPI). 

One of the most significant findings of the Impact Evaluation was the overwhelming need 
to extend the training beyond just the users, to include managers, executives and 
prosecutors. An effective program requires an understanding of the technology and 
unique issues involved in in-car video recording throughout the chain of command. 

Funded by the COPS Office and coordinated through RCPIs throughout the United 
States, the IACP is presenting a series of training events focusing on agency executives, 
managers, and prosecutors. The program titled Video in the Digital Age introduces 
police executives and prosecutors to the technology, policies, and benefits of in-car 
video recording, and demonstrates how agencies can maximize the value of video 
technology throughout their agencies. The executive program provides executives and 
prosecutors with valuable information that will allow them to: 

 Institute or enhance an in-car camera program 
 Prepare their agency for the transition into the digital age 
 Provide executives with model policies and best practices guidelines 
 Develop current and realist bid specifications 



 Assist the agency by increasing accountability and public support 
 Reduction of potential liabilities 
 Establishing and managing a successful in-car camera program 
 Enable agencies and prosecutors to obtain the best possible evidence for court 

These sessions for executives and prosecutors will be followed a few weeks later by a 
comprehensive training opportunity for instructors and practitioners presented by LEMVI 
and hosted by the local RCPI. The dates and locations for these training events can be 
found at www.copscameras.org. 

Community Perception  In addition to the surveys given to police and 
prosecutors, surveys were given to community members to gauge their 
support of the use of in-car cameras. In 12 of the 47 states, public forums 
were held to discuss the use of in-car cameras. Nine hundred citizens from 
18 states completed and returned the surveys. When community members were asked if they support the polices 
use of in-car cameras, 94% stated that they do support it and approve the use of the 
camera. However, 71% suggested that they should be informed when they are being 
videotaped. 

Profile of Public Opinion Survey Respondents 

Age 

50 or older 24% 

40-49 18% 

35-39 8% 

30-34 10% 

25-29 11% 

20-24 25% 

16-19 5% 

Race 

Other 3% 

White 70% 

Hispanic 10% 

Asian 1% 

African American 16% 

Gender 

Female 48% 

Male 52%

Employment Status 

Unemployed 25% 

Employed 75% 



Similar to the officers surveys, the citizens were provided questions regarding behavior 
modification. When asked if they would modify their behavior if they were aware that 
they were being recorded, 51% of the respondents said that their behavior would 
change. The citizens added that the presence of a camera would make them less likely 
to drive aggressively. 

The participants were asked if the presence of an in-car camera would impact their 
decision to initiate a complaint against an officer. A significant percentage (48%) 
responded that the presence of the camera would make them less likely to file a 
complaint. At the opposite end of the spectrum, 34% reported that the knowledge of 
police use of cameras made them more likely to lodge a complaint. A small 
representation, 2%, replied that their likelihood to complain was contingent on the 
particular circumstances; 15% did not think cameras would affect their decision to 
complain. 

In addition to the surveys, community perception was measured through citizen forums 
held to gauge the public opinion in the participating states. It was discovered that the 
public held several common misconceptions. The general belief is that all police 
vehicles are equipped with in-car cameras. There was also a perception that the camera 
was mobile and shadowed the officer, as on television and in the movies. Current 
technology limitations generally restrict camera use to a stationary wide view of the 
event. This misconception needs to be recognized not only by the police, who deal with 
the complaints regarding police practices, but also by the prosecutors who select jurors 
from the community at large. It also must be addressed in trial proceedings to ensure 
the jury does not have unreasonable expectations of what the video evidence can 
provide. 

The single greatest value derived from the results of the public opinion survey and 
citizen forums is the fact that citizens support and even expect all police officers to be 
equipped with in-car cameras. The public recognizes that the camera systems not only 
help prevent the abuse of authority, but they also serve as a valuable tool to ensure the 
integrity of an agency. 

Judicial Process  To measure the impact cameras have had on the judicial process, 
the IACP entered into a collaborative effort with the National District Attorneys 
Association (NDAA) and the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI). Of the 
prosecutors surveyed, an overwhelming number (91%) have used video evidence 
captured from the in-car camera in court. They reported that the presence of video 
evidence enhances their ability to obtain convictions and increases the number of guilty 
pleas prior to going to trial. The majority of the prosecutors (58%) reported a reduction 
in the time they actually spent in court. Although, when video evidence was used in the 
cases, 41% of the prosecutors reported an increase in their case preparation time. 

Problems associated with the use of video evidence in trial as reported by the 
prosecutors are as follows: 

 The cameras limitations or field of vision 
 Poor quality audio and video 
 Obtaining copies from law enforcement prior to trial 
 Lack of equipment or skills necessary to redact inadmissible portions of the video 
evidence 
 Obtaining copies for defense attorneys through disclosure requests, contradiction 
between video evidence and officers testimony, the absence of equipment 



 Issues surrounding the chain of custody of the video evidence 

In spite of the aforementioned issues, a great majority of prosecutors (93%) rated the 
overall use of video evidence as successful or highly successful. The types of cases in 
which video evidence is most successful are: driving under the influence, traffic 
violations, vehicular pursuits, assaults on officers, narcotics enforcement, domestic 
violence, and civil litigation against law enforcement agencies. 

Police officers have also been questioned about whether video evidence has reduced 
their court time. Line officers reported that in the majority of cases where video evidence 
is present, the defendant pleads guilty. As for actual reduction in time spent in court, it is 
dependent on the officers court schedule. If they are summoned to appear for trial on a 
particular case and the case is pled, then numerous hours waiting to testify and actually 
testifying were saved. 

It is important to recognize that many of the problems facing prosecutors and officers 
alike result from the lack of training in the field of video evidence. Through training and 
specific departmental policies and procedures, most of the aforementioned obstacles will 
be overcome. The complete IACP/APRI survey is included as Appendix F of this report. 

Officer Performance and Professionalism - The majority of police work is 
accomplished out of the supervisors view and control, and this is more prominent in 
state police and highway patrol agencies due to the vast geographic area to be patrolled. 
In many instances, the officer/trooper may only return to the barracks once every 30 
days, so an additional level of agency trust is afforded to them. Video evidence captured 
by in-car cameras provides the supervisors with an additional tool to monitor personnel 
performance, especially the performance of those officers working in remote areas. 

While officers are aware that the in-car camera provides additional scrutiny of their 
performance, the question of whether or not it impacts their performance remains. The 
line officer surveys revealed that a majority of officers reported that the camera has not 
altered their performance. One-fifth of the officers reported that the presence of the 
camera improved their professionalism and courtesy. 

During the line officer interviews, participants were asked to describe the impact that the 
camera has had on their professionalism and courtesy. Initially they responded in the 
same manner as they did in the survey. However, during the discussion a majority of 
officers confessed that when they are aware that they are on camera, they strive to 
present the best possible professional image. 

Regarding citizen complaints, 8% of the responding officers reported a reduction in the 
number of complaints lodged against them. Statistical correlations indicate that officers 
who reported improvements in their courtesy or professionalism were more likely to 
report a reduction in the number of sustained complaints filed against them. 

Further analysis reveals that an improvement in courtesy is positively correlated with a 
number of factors, including: the length of camera experience; whether an officer has 
undergone an internal investigation with video evidence used to either exonerate or 
sustain the complaint; amount of camera training; and the officers perception of the 
periodic departmental review of the video evidence. That is, as the aforementioned 
factors increase, courtesy increases as well. Officers having undergone internal 
investigations in which video evidence was present also reported an improvement in 
their courtesy. 



Officers who believe that their department reviews their tapes periodically are more likely 
to improve their level of courtesy. These officers tend to have a higher level of perceived 
monitoring than officers who do not believe their department reviews tapes periodically. 
This indicates that an enhanced level of monitoring can yield an improvement in an 
officers demeanor. 

Police encounters with the public involve an exchange of words and gestures, and 
previous research has demonstrated that the demeanor of the police and public are 
interdependent. Citizen mannerisms and responses have been used to interpret police 
actions and tactics6. If citizens are aggressive towards officers, the officers are more 
likely to react with aggressiveness and vice versa7. A systematic observational study8 
conducted for the Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of 
Justice found that nearly half of the observed use of excessive force cases occurred 
when the victims verbally defied police authority. 

In-car cameras not only impact the officers performance, they also modify the behavior 
of the citizens being stopped. A bivariate correlation test demonstrates that officers 
reporting contact with citizens were less aggressive when cameras are present also 
reported an improvement in their courtesy. Of the officers who reported citizens 
becoming less aggressive, 26% reported being more courteous versus the 14% who 
reported that they have not observed a reduction in aggressive behavior during their 
contact with citizens. 

Complaint information was collected through internal affairs divisions and the line 
officers survey. Due to the scarcity of available data, it is premature to reach a 
generalized conclusion. Agency level data provided by a few police agencies show 
mixed responses. The number of complaints concerning police conduct in some 
agencies dropped after implementing the use of in-car cameras; however, in at least one 
of the agencies, the total number of complaints increased after the introduction of 
cameras. The total ratio of sustained complaints decreased after the introduction of incar 
cameras. 

Researchers are aware that allegations of misconduct are not the only variable dictating 
the number of complaints concerning police practices. Previous research9 on this topic 
confirms that complaints can, and do, result from good police work as well. More 
strenuous law enforcement efforts are sometimes accompanied by an increase in the 
number of citizen complaints. The publics willingness to file complaints is another factor 
that might affect the number of complaints. The more confidence the public has in 
complaint investigation, the more likely they are to report abnormal police behaviors. 
Changes in the procedures for complaint intake and demographics also cause 
fluctuations in the number of complaints an agency receives. However, the majority of 
the agencies studied have not initiated significant changes in procedures dealing with 
complaints since the introduction of in-car cameras. 

The effects of in-car cameras on the number of complaints vary among departments. In 
some departments, the number of in-car cameras is too few to influence the number of 
complaints. Complaints might drop as a result of improved officer demeanor, and 
frivolous complaints may decrease if the public understands that in-car cameras will 

6 Klinger, 1994; Worden and Shepard, 1995; and Worden, Shepard and Mastrofski, 1996 

7 Mastrofski et al. 1996 and 1999; Paternoster et al. 1997 

8 Albert Reiss, 1968 

9 Reiss 1970 and Brereton 1999 


support the truth. In-car cameras may also drive up the number complaints, because 
after using cameras, some officers have become more stringent in their traffic 
enforcement. A number of officers remarked that before using in-car cameras, they 
were more likely to give a warning for some minor offenses; when using in-car cameras, 
they tend to give citations in similar circumstances out of concern that their supervisors 
might review the videotape and question their decisions. This sentiment is often 
stronger in agencies that have only been using in-car cameras for a short period of time. 

The study has examined whether in-car cameras have different impacts on the number 
of complaints received by law enforcement agencies in states that do not require the 
officer to disclose the presence of audio and video recording (one-party consent), as 
opposed to states requiring that recording is disclosed (two-party consent). Only a small 
number of the police departments studied require officers to notify subjects that they are 
being videotaped: New Hampshire Highway Patrol, Pennsylvania State Police, Maryland 
State Police, and the Illinois State Police. No sufficient evidence was found to establish 
a correlation between required notification of recording and a change in the number of 
complaints concerning police conduct. 

Agency Policies, Procedures, and Protocols - A valuable lesson learned from the 
Impact Evaluation was the need for any agency implementing an in-car camera program 
to have a strong and clearly defined policy in place prior to implementation. In 2001, 
the Commission on Accreditation for Law  Enforcement Association (CALEA) issued standard 41.3.8, regarding agencies that use 
in-car audio/video recording systems. The standard requires that any policy and/or 
procedure must address situations for use, tape security and access, and tape storage 
and retention schedule. 

In 2003, during the process evaluation, 39 (83%) agencies reported having policies in 
place addressing the use of in-car camera systems; five (11%) agencies were in the 
process of creating policies; and the remaining three (6%) agencies planned to create a 
camera usage policy in the future. During the impact evaluation in 2004, only one of the 
21 selected agencies did not have a policy in place. 

The in-car camera documents the actions and demeanor of both the violator and the 
officer. A police chief may regard the in-car camera as a method of ensuring honesty, 
integrity and accountability. However, the officer may regard the same equipment as a 
disciplinary tool. This difference in philosophy must be taken into account when 
implementing or measuring the effectiveness of an in-car camera program. 

The value of in-car cameras hinges, to a great extent, upon the willingness of officers to 
record their daily actions and subject themselves to periodic scrutiny. The agencies 
studied have made excellent inroads with this difficult task. Almost all of in-car camera 
policies reviewed for this study mandate that all traffic stops, police pursuits and citizen 
contacts be recorded in their entirety. The policies of many agencies have also 
highlighted the value of in-car cameras by demonstrating that officers are performing 
professionally. 



Supervisory Review - Most of the agencies have developed a policy for reviewing 
videotapes to ensure integrity and accountability. This process is a valuable supervisory 
and management tool, yet a degree of caution should be exercised. If officers feel they 
are singled out and disciplined for minor infractions (i.e.; not wearing a hat or tie) 
following a review of their tapes, this could have a detrimental impact on the program 
and effect the morale of the officers and the program itself. Instead, these minor policy 
violations should be addressed through training or informal counseling. 

Therefore, to ensure understanding and to promote trust with the in-car camera user, the 
agency may consider using the following or similar statements in their general order 
and/or policies and procedures: 

Minor infractions (not criminal in nature) discovered during routine review of the recorded 
material should be viewed as training opportunities and not as routine disciplinary 
actions. Should the behavior or action be repetitive after being informally addressed, the 
appropriate disciplinary or corrective action shall be pursued. 

Another important observation made by the evaluation team is the importance of 
communication between management and the rank and file. The majority of the 
agencies evaluated displayed exceptional communication at all levels throughout the 
chain of command. However, in a few rare cases, the evaluators found that a lack of 
communication was hampering the program. In some cases, officers using in-car 
cameras had different interpretations of when policy required the use of the cameras. 
Some officers and supervisors were unsure of policies regarding the retention of tapes, 
therefore problems with the storage of the media and subsequent chain of custody 
issues also occurred. 

Line officers need a clear understanding of what is expected of them. Mid-level 
managers and executives need to be cognizant of all problems the officers are facing 
and become actively involved in problem solving, while also engaging line officers in the 
decision making and problem solving process. 

To assist police agencies in creating a successful in-car camera program, the IACP has 
developed a Model Policy, which is included in the Best Practices Chapter of this report. 
The IACP In-Car Camera Policy is intended as a guideline, which can be adapted or 
modified to the unique needs of an agency. 

Agency Leadership - The in-car camera is an unbiased witness to events to ensure the 
accountability and the integrity of their officers. Although the virtual ride-along can 
never, nor should it ever, take the place of the personal contact between supervisor and 
subordinate, periodic review of the officers recordings by the supervisor cannot be 
overvalued. Issues of officer safety, demeanor and professionalism can be diagnosed 
and addressed accordingly. The recordings, along with other supervisor observations, 
may serve as an early warning of an officer experiencing problems that should be 
addressed. The normally professional officer, who suddenly becomes easily agitated or 
short with the public, may alert the supervisor that the officer in question is under 
additional stress. The camera, in effect, can provide another level of supervision while 
providing additional protection for the agency against liability. 

In addition, by streamlining the investigative process the agency can save hundreds of 
supervisory hours required to conduct a thorough investigation. The video evidence 
provides tangible, unbiased proof of officers actions. The study proved that in the 



majority of cases, complaints are either withdrawn or brought to a speedy conclusion 
when there is video evidence available to the investigating supervisor or commander. 

Proper management of an in-car camera program is essential to its success. Executives 
must have a thorough understanding of the entire scope of needs before the instituting 
an in-car camera program. By utilizing the video assessment profile provided in the Best 
Practices section of this document, and ensuring that all parties with a vested interest 
are provided input into structuring of the program, police executives will be able to 
maximize the effectiveness of their program and ensure all needs are met. Building an 
infrastructure first may avoid many of the managerial pitfalls experienced by the 
agencies participating in this evaluation. 

On a cautionary note, once the agency commits to the use of the in-car cameras, the 
use of the systems will become the norm and not the exception. Community leaders, 
the courts, and investigators will expect video evidence in all cases. This became 
apparent during one site visit where it was reported by officers that many prosecutors 
would not try a driving while intoxicated case without video evidence. 

Many officers that use in-car cameras do not wish to patrol without them. Building a 
successful in-car camera program requires much more than the simple purchase and 
installation of the systems. There must be appropriate policies and guidelines in place 
to ensure that while citizens are being protected, their personal privacy is not being 
violated. Agency executives and community leaders must ensure adequate resources 
for the proper management, storage, and retrieval mechanisms in hardware, software, 
and personnel are provided. When dealing with the many forms of analog and digital 
media, for instance, automation may be the most cost effective method to pursue. 

The value of this technology is self-evident. Public safety and citizen support for law 
enforcement will benefit from having in-car video cameras available for all police officers. 
All of these objectives can be accomplished through the efforts of law enforcement and 
our partners - the public. 



Homeland Security - There are times when information collected by in-car video 
cameras can be used to address other fundamental concerns in this country, such as 
assisting agencies in identifying potential threats to homeland security. It has been 
nearly three years since the attacks of September 11th on the United States. It is 
important that we learn from the past and gain a better understanding of how to improve 
our ability to prevent future attacks. 

Prior to September 11th, terrorists freely traveled around our country gathering 
intelligence on potential targets and acquiring materials to carry out their plans. Police 
officers routinely come in contact with these people, as evidenced by the findings of the 
9/11 Commission. The state, local, city, and county police departments, as well as, 
sheriffs departments and tribal police agencies will continue to be on the front line of the 
war against terrorism. 

The in-car camera is a vital tool for gathering intelligence and documenting events.   
Audio tracks and visual images captured can be compared to existing voice samples 
and images of known individuals.   The video images captured also provide a time and date stamp, 
which can place a person or a vehicle on or near strategic targets or subsequent major 
incidents.  One example of this is found in the tragic bombing of the Murrah federal 
building in Oklahoma.  A video camera operating at an apartment complex near the Murrah 
building captured the image of a Ryder truck shortly before the massive explosion.  It 
was later determined the explosion was caused by a homemade bomb in the Ryder truck and 
this piece of video evidence was later used in trial to convict Timothy McVeigh.  

State police in two states stopped terrorists linked to the September 11th attacks, hundreds 
of miles apart, within weeks and even days before the event.  Research has also uncovered 
that on the day of the attacks, county polices officers stopped two individuals outside a 
major military facility.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation identified the two individuals 
as persons of interest. On September 14, 2001, a local police officer stopped an individual 
that presented only a passport for identification.  The name given to the officer by the 
suspect revealed an open warrant for driving while suspended.  Due to the officers heightened 
awareness following recent events, the officer also contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  
After taking the individual into custody, fingerprint analysis revealed that the suspect was 
in fact a known terrorist whom the FBI was seeking. 



VII. LESSONS LEARNED
 


Lessons Learned: 

Based on the process and impact studies, the IACP concludes that the COPS In-Car 
Camera Initiative Grant had a tremendous impact in advancing technology for the state 
police and highway patrol agencies. In 2000, the National Institute of Justice reported 
that 3,400 state police vehicles were equipped with cameras. Boosted by COPS 
funding of 5,034 systems by the end of 2003 the total number of in-car cameras in use 
by state agencies grew to 17,500. This represents a fivefold (515%) increase in the 
number of cameras. While the number of in-car camera systems grew significantly, with 
14,100 new camera systems, COPS funding represents 26% of the cameras of the 
overall cameras being used. Seed money provided through the COPS Initiative Grant 
sparked the proliferation of in-car cameras systems throughout state police and highway 
patrol agencies. 

Prior to installing the first in-car camera, departmental policies and procedures regarding 
use, storage and handling of the video evidence must be in place. This approach 
ensures the future admissibility of video evidence in court. Users should be properly 
trained in the operation of the equipment as well as federal and local laws relating to the 
use of electronic capturing of audio and visual images. The IACP study revealed that 
training needs to go beyond the users to the executive levels. Executives must have a 
basic understanding of the technology to ensure its compatibility with the agencys video 
evidence needs. 

Finally, user perception is an additional factor that must be addressed when implementing an 
in-car camera program. If officers believe that the system is only being installed for 
disciplinary purposes, the program will falter and may fail. An agency can use the lessons 
learned through pioneer participants in this study to increase the chances for a successful 
in-car camera program.  

Implementing an effective program requires more than simply purchasing and installing camera 
systems.  A comprehensive video management plan must be in place.  As we enter the digital age, 
planning for a system should be developed from the back-end (storage, filing and retrieving images) 
to ensure that technology will support the system selected.  In addition, the plan begins with a 
broad assessment of an agencys video evidence needs and should bring together all parties with an 
interest in the success of the program.  Prosecutors are integral to this process. Ultimately, 
they will have to defend the video medium selected in court.  The video management plan must provide 
a means for proper installation and maintenance for the systems.  Key considerations when selecting 
a system include the durability and reliability of the system; assurances of officer safety through 
the placement of the various components; and ease of operation. 

How does an agency effectively negotiate with union representatives who may be concerned with negative 
aspects of the cameras use?  The following facts may be useful:  

 In 93% of the time a complaint is filed 
regarding police conduct and there is video 
evidence available, the officer is exonerated. 

 The officer is provided with a tool that can 
enhance their individual performance through 
self-critique. 

 The overwhelming majority of officers having 
used in-car camera systems do not wish to patrol 
without them. 

 In the worst-case scenario, the camera must 
speak for the officer who cannot speak for him/herself.     

When all the facts are taken into consideration, the rumors and fears begin to fade.     



Todays in-car camera enjoys overwhelming public support and can enhance an 
agencys image while ensuring integrity and accountability. Camera technology, if 
applied properly, will enhance officer safety and provide valuable insight on the 
effectiveness and application of departmental policies. When it comes to purchasing 
technology, police executives must avoid the temptation to settle for an off-the-shelf 
technology solution when that solution may not meet an agencys needs. Technology 
designed for a city police department may not be suitable for a state agency. Police 
must be educated consumers of technology. This was illustrated by the industrys 
reaction to the Line Officers Roundtable in January 2003, where the in-car camera users 
identified problems with their in-car camera technology and made specific 
recommendations for change. By the IACP Conference in October 2003, every major 
manufacturer of in-car camera systems encompassed the user requested changes. 

The in-car camera is a multifaceted tool that assists police executives by ensuring 
integrity and accountability while enhancing public trust. In-car cameras allow officers 
to critique and enhance their performance and provide training material for new recruits 
and advanced officer training. With the proper education, video evidence can be of 
great value to prosecutors as well as police. Video evidence can be used to refresh an 
officers recollection of events while validating the officers testimony. In many cases 
when video evidence is present, both time and monies can be saved if the defendant 
elects to plead guilty to the charges. In civil, criminal, and administrative cases, the 
presence of video evidence streamlines the investigative process and allows an agency 
to come to a timely conclusion. Even when revealing departmental violations, video 
evidence allows investigators, supervisors and executives to make sound assessments 
of the facts. With videos, mitigating circumstances that may impact the severity of 
discipline can be addressed. 

The information provided in Chapter VIII, Best Practices, will help agencies create an 
organized plan of action that will serve as a blueprint for the successful acquisition and 
implementation of an in-car camera program. This comprehensive plan takes into 
account all of an agencys video evidence needs and will assist in the assessment, 
design, selection, acquisition and implementation processes. Additional information is 
provided on managing video evidence along with making the transition to digital 
systems. 


VIII. BEST PRACTICES 

Assessing Your Agencys Needs 
The In-Car Camera Acquisition Process 
Managing Your Media 



Image of Detective Joseph Giufrida, forensic video analyst with 
the Prince Georges County Division of the Maryland 
Park Police, analyzing video evidence collected from 
a crime scene. 

Assessing Video Evidence Needs: 

When instituting an in-car video initiative, an agency must take into consideration how to 
collect, track, review, analyze, and store their recorded video. Police officers and supervisors 
must have equipment available to them in order to review and copy a video for training or 
evidentiary purposes. 

In recent years, the proliferation of affordable video technology has resulted in a rapid increase 
in the use of surveillance systems in businesses, schools, government offices, even churches and 
private homes. Law enforcement has been challenged to manage vast amounts of video evidence from various sources. 
Many agencies have elected to maximize the value of their investments in in-car video by 
integrating video management and support functions into an, enterprise-wide strategy for 
handling video evidence. This strategy supports investigative review and analysis of 
video from many sources, including in-car camera footage, recorded interviews, 
surveillance footage, video recovered from a crime scene, or incidental video that may 
provide evidence of a crime or investigative leads. 

The following are four levels of video support systems that an agency may choose to 
consider: 

 Level 1  Basic In-Car Video Support 
 Level 2  Expanded Video Support 
 Level 3  Agency Wide Video Support, Forensic Video Analysis 
 Level 4  Forensic Video Analysis, Intra-Agency Support 

The Basic level of support is considered by IACP to be the minimum requirement for 
agencies using in-car video systems. 

Level 1: Basic In-car Video Support - Basic In-Car Video Support is the minimum 
level of support for agencies with an in-car camera program. The agency is equipped 
with playback and recording equipment compatible with the in-car systems in use. This 
level of support will allow the review and duplication of tapes or tape segments. The 
agency maintains a log of videotapes for archives and monitoring of tape use. 
Depending on the size of the agency, there may be just one log or, more likely one at 
each patrol district. If advanced levels of video support are instituted, it is a good idea to 
maintain access to this equipment so that officers have the opportunity to review tapes 
for the purpose of report writing and case preparation. 

Level 2: Expanded Video Support - While primarily designed to support the in-car 
program, an agency may elect to offer expanded video services by adding additional 
playback formats for conversion, duplication, or capturing and printing still images. The 
services or access to the equipment (with proper training) would be made available to 
investigative divisions. Digitization of analog video could be supported to create CD, 
DVD, or streaming video conversions for distribution or archiving. A log would be 
maintained for tracking tapes and documenting caseload. 



Level 3: Agency-wide Video Support, Forensic Video Analysis - Level 3 includes 
the establishment of centrally located audio/video support for all investigations involving 
video processing within an agency. Additional specialized equipment can include de 
multiplexers, time-lapse VCRs, time base correctors, or photo printers. A digital forensic 
audio/video analysis system should be considered and or included at this stage. 
Computerized case tracking and evidence management is recommended at this level, 
as cases may include digitally processed video as well as the original tape or video file. 

The video examinations at this level and above may be significantly more complex than 
simple contrast and brightness adjustments. Therefore, personnel should be required to 
receive comprehensive training in the specialized techniques and procedures, including 
courtroom testimony. Because of the time and effort required for this level of video 
support, basic support systems for quick review and copying of tapes should still be 
available to line officers, preferably located in patrol stations. Any video considered to 
be evidentiary should be forwarded to the central video support unit for examination, 
ensuring chain of custody procedures are followed. 

Level 4: Forensic Video Analysis, Inter-agency Support - The most advanced and 
extensive level of support, the forensic video analysis unit will provide full-service 
audio/video examination and support. It includes a digital forensic video analysis 
system, network connectivity, and secure wide area network access to stream video 
clips to investigators throughout the agency. A secure communication system with the 
District Attorneys office and other agencies may be in place to foster information 
sharing. Digital asset management software should be utilized to maintain video files in 
a virtual property room. If possible, the agency should consider adding support for 
professional broadcast video formats, to facilitate analysis of news tapes and distribution 
of material to media outlets. 

Note: Video examinations performed at Levels 3 and 4 may be subject to crime 
laboratory accreditation guidelines as set forth by the American Society of Crime 
Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). Agency managers 
should be familiar with ASCLD/LAB accreditation guidelines and local regulatory 
requirements when considering the establishment of a forensic video analysis unit. 
Specific training and/or certification of personnel may be required for accreditation. 

Many agencies use audio, video, and imaging technology for a wide variety of tasks, 
from undercover surveillance to monitoring local newscasts. By identifying all these 
technical and human resources, an agency may be able to negotiate more cost-effective 
supply and maintenance contracts, build internal support and training infrastructure, and 
expand operational capabilities. 

To best assess an agencys needs for audio/visual support, the IACP has developed the 
Agency Video, Audio, and Imaging Inventory, which is included as Appendix F of this 
report. This inventory will help identify all the resources currently in use within the 
agency. 



Developing a Strategy - Once you have completed a video evidence needs 
assessment and identified the personnel that require input into a possible solution, the 
next step is to develop a plan or a blueprint that addresses the needs of all involved. 
The flowchart below is an example that may address the needs of a larger police 
agency. The example can be scaled down to accommodate smaller agencies. 

Flowchart example of large police department strategy


The Acquisition Process: 

When acquiring fixed assets of significant value (capital outlay expenditures), three basic 
methods are used. The piggyback contract, allows an agency to acquire the desired 
product based on another agencys contract with the vendor. This method requires the 
host agency to provide a me too clause in the original contract that allows for other 
federal, state, and local agencies to be provided the same service or product at the 
same rate of exchange. The second method is the sole source contract. This allows an 
agency that has delineated specific needs to identify the single vendor that can 
accommodate their needs. This practice is rarely utilized and is often discouraged by 
procurement offices due to the civil implications that only one vendor can provide. The 
third and most commonly practiced method is the competitive bid process. Of the 47 
state police and highway patrol agencies receiving COPS funded in-car camera 
systems, the competitive bid process was the most commonly used (please refer to the 
Appendix D for Vendor Bid Requirements and Sample Bid Specification). 

The following steps are an example of a generic template that should be addressed in 
the acquisition process: 

1. Needs Assessment. This essential first step is a written document or study that 
justifies the application or request for a particular product or item of equipment. 
The needs assessment should take into account the agencys entire video 
evidence needs and the interoperability with existing or future equipment 
acquisitions. 

2. Bid Specifications. Bid specifications are a crucial part of the process for any 
agency. Failure to be detailed when setting your minimum standards may result 
in an inferior product based solely on the lowest bid. At this juncture in the 
process, it is essential that all persons or sections having interest in the end 
result be included in the design of the bid specifications. By bringing the 
components together you ensure interoperability with existing equipment and 
ensure the equipment purchased will meet the needs of the end user. 

3. Legal and Budget Review. The office of procurement will review the bid 
specifications to ensure compliance with local, state and federal regulations 
regarding the bid process. 

4. Request for Bid (RFB) will be publicized. The RFB will contain the minimum 
standards acceptable for the fulfillment of this contract. This process generally 
takes between 30  90 days. 

5. Review of Bids submitted to ensure they meet the minimum standards and 
specifications set forth in the original RFB. A committee will provide written 
recommendations to the governing body or departmental executive as to which 
bid is acceptable and why. A contract will then be awarded according to the 
rules of the governing body. 

6. Project Manager. The project manager will work with the vendor throughout the 
terms of the contract to ensure delivery and installation of the product in a timely 
fashion and will maintain quality control. The project manager shall also ensure 
that all facets of the contract are fulfilled to include service, maintenance and 
training. 



Timeline - Our study discovered that the average time from model selection to purchase 
is 2.5 months, from purchase to delivery is 2.4 months, and from delivery to installation 
is 4.2 months. The maximum time from model selection to purchase is 11 months, from 
purchase to delivery is 10 months, and from delivery to installation is 18 months. 

Source - Eighty-three percent of state police and highway patrol agencies reported 
purchasing their in-car camera systems directly from the vendor. Eleven percent 
reported purchasing their systems from a subcontractor. The majority of the reporting 
agencies selected their vendor via the competitive biding process. The reason provided 
for the vendor selection was that the product met with their specific product specification 
i.e.; their systems have interface capability with existing RADAR instruments, they were 
reliable and of high quality or simply because they were the lowest bidder. 

Installation - Seventy-six percent of agencies surveyed reported having in-car camera 
systems installed by their agency technicians, and 24% agencies surveyed had cameras 
installed by vendors or subcontracts. Forty of 47 agencies reported not having any 
modifications to either the vehicles or the mobile video cameras when completing 
installation. However, seven agencies made minor modifications such as modifying 
mounting brackets for specialty traffic cars, installing mounting hardware and wiring 
power connections, and disabling power switch allowing cameras to come on with red 
light activation. 

When purchasing, installing, or repairing in-car cameras, officer safety should always 
remain the number one priority: 

 Overhead consoles with protruding corners should be avoided. In the event of a 
rollover accident, these sharp corners may cause serious head trauma to vehicle 
occupants. 
 The camera casing should be mounted forward on the windshield and rest in 
front of the rearview mirror. This will minimize the peripheral obstruction of view 
and remove the camera from the passenger side airbag deployment zone. 

Many times when vendors provide installation, they have the tendency to place 
equipment where it is easiest to install and usually do not take into account potential 
hazards that may affect the officer. 

The reputable vendors, as part of the purchase agreement, will provide installation of the 
in-car camera systems or train personnel to properly install and reinstall equipment at no 
cost. As the number of in-car camera units increase, the installation of camera 
equipment will need to be transferred to either the fleet maintenance or radio repair 
shops. This will require factory training for those parties involved. 

The Process Study also finds that a little under half of the 47 COPS grant recipients 
(46%) have their own technicians perform all maintenance, and 54% of the agencies 
contract maintenance out to vendors or manufacturers. In the event that emergency 
repairs are required, most of the agencies report that they replace the broken camera 
with a reserve camera or use camera parts to repair the camera, and then order new 
parts for the reserve. Rarely do any of the agencies have to send the entire system 
back to the manufacturer for repairs. Others contract with a local company or radio shop 
for minor repairs. 


As equipment ages, more repairs will be required; therefore, having a trained technical 
staff at a central location for repairs and installation is essential to the development of 
the program. 

Camera Deployment - The study found that in-car cameras have been primarily 
distributed to departments based on personnel and geographical regions. In some 
cases the camera systems were deployed equally or proportionately to all districts 
across the state; in other states, camera systems were provided to areas and 
assignments that would benefit the most from the new technology. For instance, 
counties with the highest average alcohol related crashes, largest number of D.U.I. 
arrests, areas that had the highest volume of traffic stops, or to specific areas where 
officer safety was of the greatest concern. Those agencies that selected personnel as 
their deployment criteria reported that they issued camera systems to many of their high 
activity personnel and personnel who would perform higher risk activities such as drug 
interdiction or D.U.I. task force members. Other state agencies equipped every new 
patrol vehicle with camera systems. 

Although equity in the disbursement of equipment and new technology is 
understandable, this policy creates problems managing, controlling, training and when 
implementing new programs. Therefore, it is recommended that agencies implement incar 
cameras incrementally (by district or barrack) to make the most of limited resources 
and allow for future program development. Incremental implementation allows for a 
smoother transition and new challenges to be met and addressed. Subsequent 
installation and implementation of in-car cameras in the remaining districts should then 
be seamless. 



Photograph of Ms. Eliza Windsor

Managing Video Evidence: 

As CALEA standards stipulate, The products of this technology could become 
an important piece of evidence in any type of case and should be maintained in a 
way to insure the integrity of contents. When tapes become evidence, they 
should be treated as any other evidentiary items Therefore, all recordings should 
be treated as potential evidence until it can be established that the contents are 
not required as evidence in either a criminal, civil, or administrative matter. 

After conducting site assessments throughout multiple jurisdictions, one 
common problem emerged. The issue of storage and management of audio/video 
recordings has become one of the largest obstacles agencies have had to overcome. 
The purchase, acquisition, duplication, and storage of recorded media requires 
personnel time commitment, space, and resources that the majority of agencies are not 
prepared to deal with. Maintaining and guarding the integrity of the recorded media was 
an overarching theme in our assessment. 

Once an audio/visual recording is admitted as evidence in a court of law, the test for 
admissibility becomes whether an officer can authenticate the audio/video recording as a 
true and accurate depiction of what transpired during the incident. However, to prevent 
incriminating evidence from being presented at trial, the defense may challenge the 
recordings admissibility based on the chain of custody. Although prosecutors across 
the country are split on whether video recordings fall into this category, the best policy, 
as with any physical evidence, is to always guard the integrity of the evidence and 
ensure policies and procedures maintain a strict chain of custody and are followed. 

During the impact evaluation, discussions with the mid-level managers developed a 
common concern of the increased amount of time supervisors dedicate to reviewing and 
copying tapes along with the limited amount of space they have available for secure 
storage. As the program expands this demand on their valuable time will only increase. 
A mathematical example: Agency AAAA has 100 video enabled patrol vehicles and the 
average analog recording media is changed out or turned every 5 days. This means the 
agency goes through approximately 5,000 analog media (VHS or Hi8) per year. 
Supervisor B is assigned as the recorded media custodian at a district. Supervisor Bs 
salary is approximately $30.00 per hour. It takes supervisor B on the average 15 
minutes to recover the recorded media from the patrol vehicle, log it in and place the 
media in a secured environment. Supervisor receives 30 requests per month to 
reproduce segments of the media for prosecuting attorneys or the defense attorneys. 
This process takes anywhere from 45 minutes to two hours depending on the length of 
the incident and the fact that the copies are made in real-time. Based on the 
aforementioned facts, the agency will spend approximately $59,100 in administrative 
labor costs per year. Underestimating workload and costs were common problems 
experienced by the majority of the agencies participating in the study. 



With any new program there is always an opportunity for enhancement, either through 
technology, systematic review or self-critique and this program is no exception. These 
suggestions come from study of both the problems and solutions experienced by a 
number of agencies with in-car camera programs. 

The majority of the agencies studied purchased videotapes (standard consumer T-120 
VHS six-hour tapes) in bulk. The same black plastic housed tape can be purchased at 
any local convenience store, allowing easy replacement of a tape containing 
questionable actions. This occurrence is hypothetical and would be an obvious integrity 
violation, as well as criminal, but the possibility can be avoided by the following 
recommendations: 

 Purchase eight-hour videotapes as opposed to
six hour tapes in bulk from a reputable vendor 
 Order videotapes in a distinct color housing,
such as red
 Adding a permanently affixed barcode or label to
the videotape before it is issued. 

By implementing a bar-coding or labeling system, the agency is able to better track and monitor both used 
and unused videotapes, serving to protect the integrity 
of the program. Using widely available commercial off-the-shelf database software, the 
agency can make future projections of supply needs and provide a chain of custody 
report by logging the videotape number, vehicle assigned, officer issued to, date and 
time issued, officer or vehicle recovered from, date and time recovered, and date and 
time placed in storage. Utilizing a relatively inexpensive bar-code reader, inventory can 
be taken in minutes. Additional fields can be added to the database to capture the date 
it is copied, by whom, and for what reason. This program is available from the IACP 
upon request at no cost to the agency. (See Appendix iii for sample document) 

Our study revealed that on occasions when the system failsafe did not work and 
videotapes were accidentally overwritten because the equipment failed to recognize the 
imprinted images already on the tape. This generally occurs when the videotape is 
removed from the recorder to be copied or viewed and then placed back into the original 
system. Although this may be a factory defect, not removing the videotape until it is 
ready for storage would prevent this occurrence. If the videotape is removed for viewing, 
new or refreshed videotape should then be installed and the viewed tape placed in 
storage. 

Acquisition and Storage of Recorded Media - The majority of police and highway patrol 
agencies studied are currently using analog video as their recording media. Issuing, 
ordering, filing, retrieving, or copying videotapes, are all labor-intensive tasks. The most 
efficient way to deal with the majority of these tasks is through automation. Automated 
storage systems designed to manage recorded media are currently available. As in-car 
camera projects expand, automation will prove to provide long term cost savings. On a 
cautionary note, before investing in a media storage system, ensure that the system has 
an open architecture that will handle all your recorded media needs. A media storage 
system should be capable of handling analog and digital formats, as well as multiplex 
recordings. The open architecture should also allow for expansion and must be 
upgradeable as new technology becomes available. Purchasing an open system allows 
the agency to select or change recording equipment as needed without limiting the 
agency to a specific brand or model. Purchase of a proprietary system may handicap 



the agencys ability to advance their technological needs. 

Lessons Learned from the Acquisition, Installation and Management of the Process - 
The best way to avoid problems is to recognize and learn from those agencies that have 
experienced the same problems. 

The most commonly reported problems include: 

1. Acquisition: 
a. Experiencing delays in the delivery of the in-car camera systems. 
b. Awaiting legislative approval for spending authority delayed bid process. 
c. Changes in new computer technology delayed bid opening. 
d. Vendors questioning the bid process delayed closing the bid. 

2. 
Equipment: 
a. The number one complaint was with the poor quality of the audio portion of the 
recording. More specifically, the transmitters were providing poor reception, the 
microphones were too fragile and the life cycle of the batteries were insufficient. 
b. Excessive vibration on dash mounted cameras caused excessive system failure. 
c. Poor quality recording media is causing poor quality recordings. 
3. Installation: 
a. Improper installation has caused multiple problems with the monitors and 
cameras. For instance, improper mounting can cause video recorder failure. 
One agency reported that 15% to 20% of units broke due to human errors. 
4. Management/Administration: 
a. The collection, storage and cataloguing of videotape evidence is becoming a 
tremendous burden, especially for agencies that do not employ full time 
technicians assigned to the task. In most police agencies available storage space 
is at a premium. 
b. The absence of policies and procedures that dictate the use and explain the 
operations of the in-car camera equipment. 
c. Officers are not provided with adequate training for the use and operation of the 
in-car camera. 
d. Lack of funding for service contracts after the warranties on the existing 
equipment expire. 
e. Not having factory trained representatives on site. 
5. Human Element: 
a. Negative attitude directed towards the forced use of the in-car camera. Agencies 
had to overcome the hurdle of officers being reluctant to use the in-car video 
systems, believing that the system purpose was to allow big brother to be 
watching. Now patrols that do not have systems are asking for them, after 
seeing all the positive effects they can have towards making their jobs easier, 
especially in the elimination of citizen/officer complaints. 
b. Destruction or disabling of camera systems by officers that do not wish to 
participate. 


IX. MODEL POLICY 

IACP In-car Camera Model Policy 
Concepts and Issues Paper 


MOBILE VIDEO 
RECORDING EQUIPMENT 
DRAFT 
Model Policy 

Effective Date _______________________
Number _______________________________ 
Subject ______________________________ 
Reference ____________________________ 
Special Instructions _________________
Distribution _________________________
Reevaluation Date ____________________
No. Pages ____________________________

I. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this policy is to provide law enforcement 
agencies with guidelines for the use, management, storage, 
and retrieval of audio-visual media recorded by in-car video 
systems. 

Definitions: 
Recorded media - refers to any media that captures and 
records audio-visual signals. This includes: analog (VHS, 
SVHS, HI 8mm) or digital (wavelet, JPEG, MPEG) media. 

In-Car Camera System and Mobile Video Recording (MVR) - 
are synonymous and defined as any recorded media that 
captures audio and visual signals. 

Supervisor  Personnel holding the rank of sergeant and 
above, or senior officers/troopers formally appointed in 
writings as in charge of a departmental component. 

MVS Technician  Personnel trained in the operational use 
and repair of MVRs, duplicating methods, storage and 
retrieval methods, procedures, and possess a working 
knowledge of video forensics and evidentiary procedures. 

Degaussing - refers to the cleansing of analog 
recording media, which returns the media to its original 
state and ready for the imprinting of new images. 

II. POLICY 
The use of an in-car video system can provide 
powerful evidence of criminal activity. The In-Car 
Camera has also proven to be a valuable tool for law 
enforcement practitioners by documenting their 
honesty, integrity, and professionalism. By virtue of 
their authority, law enforcement personnel are held to 
a higher degree of accountability by the community 
and must continuously strive to ensure that this 
contract is not violated. Therefore, by keeping this 
trust and maximizing the effectiveness of this valuable 
tool, the following procedures for In-Car Camera 
equipment use are set forth. 

III. PROCEDURES 
A. Program Objectives 
The agency has adopted the use of In-Car Cameras 
to accomplish the following: 

1. To provide an accurate depiction of events for 
courtroom presentation. 
2. To accurately capture statements and events 
during the course of an incident. 
3. To enhance the officers ability to document 
and review statements and actions for report 
purposes and for courtroom preparation. 


4. To provide an impartial measurement for selfcritique 
and field evaluation during recruitment 
and new officer training. 
5. To be used as an investigative tool to capture 
visual and audio information and to further 
existing and future investigations 

B. General Procedures 
It shall be the responsibility of the agency to 
ensure that the audio-video recording 
equipment is properly installed according to the 
manufacturers recommendations. 

The MVR equipment shall be installed in a 
manner which ensures that the system will 
automatically activate when the emergency 
equipment (lights) are operating, activated via 
wireless transmitter, or when the system is 
manually activated using the record REC 
button on the control panel affixed to the 
interior of the vehicle. 

Officer safety shall be the primary 
consideration for placement of the system 
components within the vehicle and the use of 
the equipment. 

It shall be the responsibility of the issuing 
agency to ensure that the officers are provided 
with adequate training in the use and operation 
of the in-car camera equipment and in 
departmental policies prior to holding the 
practitioner responsible for its proper 
operation. 

C. Officers Responsibilities: 
Inspection, maintenance and repair  MVR 
equipment installed in the departmental 
vehicles shall be the responsibility of the officer 
assigned to that vehicle and shall be operated 
in accordance with the manufacturers 
recommended guidelines and departmental 
policies. 

Prior to the beginning of each shift, the 
assigned officer shall perform a preoperational 
inspection to ensure the MVR is performing in 
accordance with the manufacturers 
recommendations: 

1. Remote Audio Transmitter functional: 
o Adequate power source 
o Connected to the recording equipment 
o Remote activation of system via transmitter 

2. Camera Lens: 
o Windshield and camera lens free of debris 
o Camera facing intended direction 

3. Recording mechanism is capturing both 
audio and visual information: 
o System plays back both audio and visual tracks 

Any malfunctions of the in-car camera 
equipment shall be reported to the immediate 
supervisor prior to the unit being placed in 
service. The supervisor shall make the 
determination in regards to the status of the 
unit being placed in service. If the vehicle is 
placed in service without an operating MVS, a 
notation shall be made to the communications 
department via audio radio transmission. 

Damage or theft of an MVR shall be 
documented and reported to the immediate 
supervisor. 

D. The following incidents shall be both 
audibly and visually recorded: 
1. All traffic stops (to include but not limited 
to traffic violations, stranded motorist 
assistance, and all crime interdiction 
stops.) 
2. All priority responses 
3. All vehicle pursuits 
4. All prisoner transports 
5. All crimes in progress 
6. Any situation or event that the officer 
through his/her training and experience 
believes should be audibly and visually 
recorded. 

(The following applies to two party consent 
states in which the citizen must be advised of 
the audio recording) 

In addition to the aforementioned events, 
officers may record events with the audio 


portion disabled for law enforcement purposes 
any time the officer believes such recording 
may have merit. 

Officers may audibly and visually record any 
event in which all parties consent. 

At the beginning of any public contact or traffic 
stop, the officer shall notify the citizen that the 
events are being audibly and visually recorded. 
This notification does not apply for crimes in 
progress where notification is impractical. 

When the MVR is activated, officers shall 
ensure that the audio portion is also activated 
to ensure that all events are properly 
documented. Officers are encouraged to use 
the audio portion of the recording to narrate 
events as they occur to provide the best 
evidence for courtroom presentation. 

To prevent bleed over and/or noise from other 
MVRs, only the primary officer initiating the 
contact shall activate their audio recording. 
Officers responding in support capacity shall 
leave their audio transmitters in the off 
position. This does not preclude supporting 
officers from activating their visual recording 
equipment to obtain another perspective of the 
scene. 

Officers are encouraged to review the 
recordings when preparing written 
documentation of events. Using the recording 
as a tool when completing written reports will 
ensure the accuracy and consistency of 
events. 

Officers shall ensure the volume from other 
electronics devices within the police vehicle 
such as; radios, scanners, CD players, etc. are 
disabled or turned off when the MVS is 
activated (this does not apply to police radios). 

Officers shall not erase, alter, reuse, modify or 
tamper with MVS recordings. Only a 
supervisor or MVS technician may erase and 
reissue a previously recorded media. 

To prevent damage to the original recorded 
media, at no time will the original media be 
viewed in any equipment other than the 
equipment issued or authorized by the MVS 
technician. 

MVS recordings containing arrests, assaults, 
physical or verbal confrontations, vehicle 
pursuits, vehicle searches in which contraband 
is recovered, driving while intoxicated or under 
the influence arrests, or any prisoner transport 
shall be treated as evidence and held for 
criminal prosecution. 

When the MVR is activated to document an 
event, it shall not be deactivated until the event 
has been concluded. Exceptions: In the event 
of an extended incident or detail i.e., traffic 
control or accident scene; the officer may 
deactivate the system to conserve recording 
time. The officer should document the reason 
for stopping the tape, either by orally noting the 
intention to stop the tape or by written notation 
in the officers notes. 

When the officer detects that the recording 
time remaining on the media is less than 
1 hour (for long playing media lasting 6-8 
hours) or 30 minutes (Hi8 analog or digital 
media with recording time 5 hours, or digital 
lasting less) he/she shall replace the media 
with a new one. 

In the event the media being surrendered 
contains evidence needed for prosecution, the 
officer shall notify the supervisor receiving the 
media to place a hold on the media and mark it 
as evidence. 

E. Supervisors Responsibilities 
Supervisors are responsible for the issuance of 
unrecorded media. All media prior to issuance 
shall be assigned an identification number, 
which is to be affixed to the exterior of the 
media. This numbered media is then 
recorded in the Chain of Custody Log. (In the 
event the media is a computer hard drive, a 
computer generated file number should be 
generated internally.) 

The Chain of Custody Log shall include, but is 
not limited to: 
o Tracking number of media 
o Date issued 
o Officer or vehicle issued to 
o Date submitted 



o Officer submitting the media 
o Hold for evidence indicated 

(In the event an officer works at a remote 
location and reports in only periodically, 
multiple recording media may be issued.) 

The supervisor shall be responsible for 
collecting all completed media. Once the 
media is surrendered, the supervisor shall: 
o ensure it is placed in a secured location 
with limited authorized access, and 
o make appropriate entries in the Chain of 
Custody Log 

When an incident arises that requires the 
immediate retrieval of the recorded media 
(serious crime scenes, departmental 
shootings, departmental accidents, etc.) a 
supervisor shall respond to the scene and 
remove the recorded media and either place 
the media into evidence or surrender the 
media to the authorized investigative 
personnel. Once this task has been 
accomplished, the appropriate notation shall 
be made in the Chain of Custody Log. 

The supervisor will periodically review the 
Chain of Custody Log to ensure that the 
issued media is being surrendered in a timely 
manner. Failure to use and surrender the 
media in a timely manner may be indicative of 
unreported problems with the MVR equipment 
or equipment not being used in accordance 
with departmental policy. 

The supervisor informed of malfunctioning 
equipment shall ensure that or cause the 
necessary repairs to be made in a timely 
manner by the appropriate personnel. 

1. Supervisory Review: 
It shall be the responsibility of every supervisor 
having personnel assigned MVR equipment to 
conduct periodic review of the media. The 
purpose of: 
o periodic assessment of officer performance, 
o to ensure the MVR equipment is functioning properly, 
o to determine if MVR equipment is being operated properly, and 
o to identify material that may be appropriate for training 

Supervisors having personnel newly assigned 
MVR equipment shall conduct a review of the 
recorded media bi-weekly to ensure the 
equipment is being operated consistent with 
departmental policy. Once the supervisor has 
determined that officer is in compliance with 
departmental use of the MVR equipment, the 
supervisor may then conduct quarterly reviews. 

(In order to ensure understanding and promote 
trust with the officer assigned to use MVR 
equipment, the following statement is 
recommended for inclusion in departmental 
policy) 

Minor infractions (not criminal in nature) 
discovered during the routine review of 
recorded material should be viewed as training 
opportunities and not as routine disciplinary 
actions. Should the behavior or action become 
habitual after being informally addressed, the 
appropriate disciplinary or corrective action 
shall be taken. 

Supervisor shall ensure that adequate 
recording media is on hand and available for 
issuance.
 
F. Technicians Responsibilities: 

(The IACP recognizes that in many instances, 
the media technician and the supervisor are 
synonymous) 

The media technician is responsible for the 
ordering, issuance, retrieval, storage, 
cleansing (degaussing) and duplication of all 
recorded media. 

For the purpose of accountability, all media will 
be assigned a tracking number prior to 
issuance to the field. The media technician 
will maintain a record (database) of issued 
media to the individual districts/barracks. 

Working in conjunction with the field 
supervisors, the media technician will ensure 
that an adequate supply of recorded media is 
available and issued to the districts/barracks. 



The media technician shall be responsible for 
all long-term storage of media deemed to be of 
evidentiary value in conjunction with 
departmental regulations for the storage of 
evidence and the departmental retention 
schedule
 
The media technician shall be responsible for 
the cleansing (degaussing) and re-issuance of 
all media deemed to be of no evidentiary value 
and in compliance with the departmental 
retention schedule. 

G. Media Duplication 
The tapes and/or other recording media and all 
recorded images are the property of the 
agency, and dissemination outside the agency 
is strictly prohibited without specific 
authorization of the agency Commander or his 
designee. 

To prevent damage to or alteration of the 
original recorded media, it shall not be copied, 
viewed or otherwise inserted into any device 
not approved by the departmental media 
technician or forensic media staff. 

When possible, and practical, a copy of the 
original media shall be used for viewing by 
investigators, staff, training personnel, and the 
courts (unless otherwise directed by the 
courts) to preserve the original media in 
pristine condition. Excessive starting, stopping 
and rewinding of analog media may cause 
damage, distortion and degrading of the 
recorded media. 

At the conclusion of the court cases for which 
the media was required, all copies shall be 
submitted to the media technician for further 
storage and or disposal. 


IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center 

MOBILE VIDEO RECORDING EQUIPMENT 
Concept and Issues Brief 
July 2004

I. INTRODUCTION 
A. Purpose of Document 

This paper was designed to accompany the Model Policy on Mobile Video Recording 
established by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. This paper provides 
essential background material and supporting documentation to give the reader a greater 
understanding of the developmental philosophy and implementation requirements for the 
model policy. This material will be valuable to law enforcement executives who are 
developing an in-car camera program or currently using mobile video recording equipment. 
The ultimate goal is to ensure that all audio/visual recordings provide a true and accurate 
depiction of events that will provide the best evidence available for criminal prosecutions 
while insulating agencies from false accusations and unnecessary litigation. 

The IACP was commissioned by the Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services, to conduct a study of the utilization of in-car cameras by state police and 
highway patrol agencies in 21 states. The model policy is based on the findings of that 
study, which focused primarily on the use of the in-car video equipment to document policepublic 
interaction within the context of traffic enforcement. These recommendations reflect 
what the IACP has identified as the best practices observed during the site visits to the 21 
agencies identified in the study, which included written surveys and face-to-face discussions 
with line officers, supervisors, commanders, and citizens; however, law enforcement is a 
very complex practice and must reflect the standards and unique challenges of the 
communities served. Law enforcement agencies should view the IACP Model Policy as a 
reference only, and it must not be considered a standard for performance. 

B. Background 

The first videotape cameras became available to the consumer in the early 1960s. 
However, the technology of the 60s was not conducive to the mounting of cameras in police 
vehicles. In the late 1960s, a Popular Science magazine article featured an attempt by the 
Connecticut State Police to put a video camera and recorder in a patrol car. The camera 
was on a small tripod that required the full passenger side of the front seat with the back 
seat fully loaded with a recorder and cables that connected the two devices. While the 
equipment was far too cumbersome to make it practical for routine use in patrol vehicles, 
this experiment illustrated that video recording could play an important role in patrol 
operations. 

Almost a decade passed with little noticeable advancement in the field of the audio/visual 
recordings, but in the early 1980s the self-contained beta audio/visual recording system 
was introduced and revolutionized the recording industry. The next step in the evolution of 
the mobile video recorder was the introduction of the VHS recorder and tape, and then 
came the 8mm camcorders. Along with miniaturization came affordability, which catapulted 
audio/visual recordings into the mainstream of policing. In addition to the closed circuit 


televisions installed for monitoring lockup and holding facilities, agencies began using these 
devices to document crime scenes, giving a far more complete and integrated view of these 
situations than still photography could provide. The portability and ease of use allowed 
officers to operate these systems for surveillance, interrogations, and training. 

In 1980, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) was formed and brought a heightened 
awareness to the national problem of drunk drivers and began changing public opinion. A 
pervasive attitude of there before the grace of God go I began to change, particularly in 
the prosecutors offices where the emphasis was placed on convictions and punishment. 
The police began installing cameras in police vehicles to document the infractions leading 
up to the initial stop and the eventual field sobriety test. These recordings were viewed as 
the method of providing the necessary evidence to support a conviction. MADD recognized 
the value of the in-car camera and began purchasing systems for police agencies involved 
in DWI detection and apprehension. 

In the 1990s Americas War on Drugs further advanced the use of the in-car cameras by 
way of documenting interdiction stops. It was difficult for jurors to believe that an individual 
transporting pounds or kilos of narcotics and hundreds-of-thousands of dollars of 
unexplainable cash monies would actually give the police permission to search their vehicle. 
However, time and time again the camera documented the consented search, later used to 
convict the individual. 

By 1999, numerous allegations of racial bias or racial profiling were being lodged against 
police agencies across the United States. State police agencies, by virtue of the primary 
traffic responsibilities, found themselves in the center of controversy with complaints of 
racial profiling. Responding to these concerns, state and federal legislative bodies began 
enacting laws requiring all police agencies to document all details of every traffic stop. 

The Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 
recognized the value of the in-car camera in combating and defusing these allegations of 
racial profiling while enhancing the public trust. Purchasing cameras for police vehicle was 
an expensive proposition that was beyond the budgets of most police agencies. To 
overcome the financial obstacles, the COPS office initiated the first In-Car Camera Incentive 
Program to state police and highway patrol agencies throughout the U.S.. A study on the 
police use of technology by the National Institute of Justice in 2000, reported that only 3,400 
(11%) of the state police and highway patrol vehicles used for patrol were equipped with incar 
cameras. Over the following three years the COPS office awarded over 21 million 
dollars to state agencies for the sole purpose of purchasing and installing in-car cameras. 
The number of state police vehicles equipped with in-car cameras grew to 17,500, 
representing 72% of the total state police vehicles. 

Today, many police agencies in the United States and Canada are applying this technology 
to patrol operations by supplying their patrol vehicles with mobile video recording 
equipment. Although the early attempts to place cameras in patrol vehicles were plagued 
with technical and safety problems, miniaturization and advances in technology have made 
the use of the mobile video recorder practical and affordable. As technology in the field of 
audio/visual recordings progresses, equipping police vehicles with in-car cameras will be the 
norm and no longer the exception. 


C. Utility of Mobile Video Recording Systems 

An African American motorist, Rodney King, attempted to elude police in a high-speed 
pursuit in Los Angeles, California in 1992. At the conclusion of the pursuit, a citizen using a 
simple hand held home video recorder captured the subsequent events on tape. This now 
infamous recording became the most important item of evidence at the officers subsequent 
criminal prosecution. While the incident came as a shock to the law enforcement 
community, it clearly demonstrated the value of video evidence in court. The video camera 
has become the silent witness. It is not subject to many of the questions of recall, 
interpretation, and human misperception, bias or prejudice that are often used at trial to 
refute eyewitness testimony. As a result, experience has shown that those agencies that 
use mobile audio/video recording in patrol operations have much higher conviction rates and 
substantial reductions in officer court time. 

In contrast to the aforementioned incident, the use of mobile video cameras in police 
vehicles gives patrol officers added protection against false accusations of police 
misconduct. Contact with citizens during routine traffic stops or in other circumstances can 
result in confrontational situations even if the officer is being totally professional and 
courteous. However, when the citizen becomes aware that the officer is wearing a wireless 
microphone and the conversation and actions of each are being recorded, a tense situation 
will generally de-escalate. The use of a mobile video camera also gives a patrol officer the 
ability to record a variety of dangerous situations such as felony stops and vehicular 
pursuits. In instances where the officer is injured or even killed, investigating officers have 
the ability to review the audio/visual recording and through video forensics clarify and 
identify artifacts that would lead investigators to specific persons and or vehicles. The 
chances of apprehending offenders in these instances are dramatically improved and can 
save hundreds of hours of investigative time. 

It is extremely important that the video camera system be securely mounted in the patrol 
vehicle with the media recorder secured and not accessible for possible tampering, 
destruction or vandalism. Although the trunk of the patrol vehicle is still the preferred 
location for the recorder installation, many of the new digital products are more compact and 
easier to conceal allowing a multitude of installation locations. However, miniaturization and 
concealment does not relieve the manufacturers or agencies from ensuring the media is 
secure and protected from persons that wish to tamper with or destroy evidence. Recording 
systems that allow general access to the media can expose officers to charges that the tape 
was altered or that the videotape evidence was not properly protected. 

The effectiveness of recorded audio/video evidence for prosecution of offenders has many 
ancillary benefits for law enforcement agencies and for the administration of justice in 
general. Court systems throughout the country are overcrowded and backlogged with cases 
waiting to be heard. In this process, police officers spend substantial amounts of time and 
money awaiting court appearances, even when manpower and financial resources are 
desperately needed in street enforcement activities. The availability of audio/visual 
evidence greatly increases the ability of prosecutors to obtain guilty verdicts more quickly if 
they go to trial, and to more effectively plea bargain cases and avoid lengthy trial 
proceedings. This greatly reduces the amount of time that officers and others spend in court 
appearances. In many jurisdictions that employ mobile audio/video recordings, the officer 
routinely submits videotape evidence with the written report. This material is reviewed by the 
prosecuting attorney and is then presented to the defense attorney. In many cases, a guilty 
plea is accepted or a lesser charge negotiated by the defendant without the need for trial. 


The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Highway Patrol Division has been using mobile video 
cameras in some of their patrol cars since the early 1990s. Over a two-year period, none of 
the officers using patrol vehicles with video cameras was required to testify in court where 
video evidence was obtained and all of the defendants involved plead guilty. Other officers 
assigned to the same detachment, but not provided with video-equipped cars, had repeated 
court appearances, frequently with the same defendant. Law enforcement agencies in the 
United States report similar experiences. In Michigan, one Sheriffs department experienced 
about a 50% reduction in overtime court costs for those officers assigned to video equipped 
patrol cars. The cost savings in reduced court appearances alone more than paid for the 
cost of the video systems. 

During a national study to measure the impact of in-car cameras on state police and 
highway patrol agencies, conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police 
(IACP) in 2002, one of the impact areas evaluated was on the judicial process. The study 
revealed that the vast majority of prosecutors welcome the use of the in-car camera, but 
added that the case preparation time does increase when there is video evidence submitted. 
In many jurisdictions, officers reported that their prosecutors would not try a DUI or DWI 
case without the video evidence. They also caution that with the proliferation of the in-car 
cameras, additional training will be necessary for prosecutors in understanding the use, 
application and limitations of the camera systems. In cases of impaired driving as opposed 
to intoxicated driving, defense attorneys are beginning to use the audio/visual recordings to 
show their clients were not all that affected by the alcohol they were consuming. The 
recordings do not provided the viewer with the ability to smell the alcohol on the violators 
breath nor is the recordings resolution (detailed) enough to show the bloodshot eyes or the 
results of the nystagmus test. Therefore the prosecutors must be prepared to accurately 
set-the-stage for the judges and the juries so that the evidence will remain admissible and 
relevant. 

Mobile video recording systems provide law enforcement agencies the ability to more 
effectively defend themselves against civil litigation filed against officers and the agency. 
Frequently, there are no independent witnesses to a citizen-officer encounter that results in 
civil litigation. Many jurisdictions are inclined to resolve these situations by paying minor 
damages rather than spend the time and money to litigate the matter. With a video camera 
and wireless microphone for the patrol officer, however, all comments and actions of both 
parties are on record. As a result, an impartial witness to the event is available and many 
would-be civil suits are resolved almost before they are initiated. 

For example, a township police officer in Ohio was accused of unnecessary use-of-force 
after a verbal encounter developed with a woman at a traffic stop. The woman 
subsequently gave notice that she intended to file a civil suit against the officer and the 
jurisdiction and, with her attorney, confronted the chief of police with this threat. Anticipating 
this action, the woman was shown an audio/video recording of the incident. The recording 
clearly showed that the officer did nothing wrong. A backup officer who responded to the 
incident was also able to record the event on his video system, which provided another 
angle of view and clear corroboration of the officers statements. Immediately following this 
video presentation, all charges were dropped against the officer and the agency. During the 
national in-car camera study, every agency visited related similar incidents in which the 
camera had exonerated the officer and the agency. 


If the community served by an agency demonstrates a deeply held suspicion of police, the 
agency might consider additional policies to help build public trust. For instance, minimizing 
the officers access to the recordings can help protect the officer from charges of tampering 
with evidence. Some agencies require supervisors to install and remove recording media. 
Though this practice adds additional responsibility to the supervisors duties, it can be an 
effective way to ensure a secure chain of custody of the recordings. 

Mobile video recordings also provide the agency with a wealth of material that may be used 
for training purposes. Unusual or even routine events recorded on videotape can be used in 
academy basic training as well as in advanced officer training to reinforce appropriate 
behavior and procedures, to demonstrate inappropriate practices and procedures, to 
enhance interpersonal skills and officer safety habits and to augment the instructional 
routines of field training officers and supervisory personnel. 

Finally, during any activity, an officer can use the remote microphone to record his thoughts 
or observations and create an audible record of events as they happen. This is valuable in 
many instances where an officer needs to establish probable cause for enforcement actions. 
In any situation, it allows an officer to create a record during an incident and avoid lapses of 
memory that may create deficiencies in written reports prepared following the incident. 

D. Legal Concerns 

Patrol car videotape recordings give officers another tool for use in court to corroborate their 
testimony. As a result, a few court challenges have arisen by defense lawyers to invalidate 
the use of this evidence, some procedural and some technical. 

First, the courts have clearly recognized that there is a reduced expectation of privacy in an 
automobile as opposed to a private residence. This principle was made clear by the U.S. 
Supreme Court nearly 60 years ago in 1Carroll v. United States and has been reaffirmed in 
courts throughout the United States since that time. Persons traveling public thoroughfares 
with occupants and contents in plain view are subject to routine government examination 
and regulation. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that video recording of vehicular 
activity and vehicle operators in the same environment is also a legally acceptable practice. 

In 1984, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed this issue in 2People v. Davis. In this 
case a motor vehicle was placed under surveillance for five days, during which time the 
suspects committed a breaking and entering for which they were later convicted. The 
defendants argued at trial that it was unreasonable under the meaning of the Fourth 
Amendment for the police to follow them over this period of time and to record their actions. 
The Court of Appeals ruled that the officers actions did not constitute a search and that the 
actions of people on a public roadway are public and not private. Further, since it was not a 
search to see these items in public view, neither was it a search to videotape them on the 
roadway. While the Michigan Court of Appeals decision does not bind other state courts to 
like findings in similar cases, it does establish a compelling precedent for arguing the legality 
of video recording in other jurisdictions particularly since the ruling is founded on longestablished 
case law in this area. 

1 Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132; 45 S. Ct. 280; 69 L. Ed. 543 
2 People v. Davis, 52 Mich. App.59; 216 N.W. 2d 440; 1974 


The issue of audio recording has also caused law enforcement administrators to ask 
whether it might violate the Fifth Amendment prohibitions against self-incrimination. 
Generally speaking, comments made to an officer during the course of a traffic stop are 
admissible. However, once the stop of the offender has become custodial, Miranda 
warnings must be issued whether or not an audio recording is being made. Concerning the 
issue of Miranda rights being required prior to questioning, the US Supreme Court ruled in 
1984 in 3Berkemer v. McCarty, that the scene of a traffic investigation and sobriety tests on 
a public roadway prior to arrest do not violate a subjects Fifth Amendment rights. 
Spontaneous and voluntary statements made to a police officer during a traffic stop are 
admissible in court as evidence. 

Similarly in a Michigan case, 4People v. Hill, the court also ruled that interrogation at the 
roadside prior to arrest is not an infringement of a suspects Fifth Amendment rights. The 
U.S Supreme Court in 5Pennsylvania v. Muniz ruled that videotaping after arrest (in this 
case at booking) did not violate the defendants rights. Muniz, who had been arrested for 
driving while intoxicated, was transported to the county detention center. There he was 
informed that he was being recorded but was not, nor had he been given, a Miranda 
warning. The officers followed standard procedures in asking the defendant to respond to 
questions concerning his name, age, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and in 
conducting a sobriety test. At trial, the defendant contended that the videotape and his 
testimony related to the field sobriety test should be suppressed because they were 
incriminating and completed prior to his receiving Miranda warnings. The appellant court 
ruled that the routine booking questions and the field sobriety testing did not constitute 
custodial interrogation and, therefore, any responses made by the defendant were voluntary 
and did not fall within the protections of Miranda. 

While the findings of the above case do not give explicit sanction to the use or admissibility 
of evidence recorded by videotape, it does provide some insight into judicial interpretation of 
the use of videotape. Whether or not a suspect is being videotaped appears to be less 
significant than the basic manner in which statements are elicited from the suspect. 
Statements that are secured under duress, for example, or without appropriate Miranda 
warnings will be suppressed irrespective of whether they are videotaped or audio taped. 
However, officers cannot always be sure that their questions will not be interpreted as 
interrogation or its functional equivalent under the law of their state or and the particular 
situation at hand. Therefore, it is always recommended that whenever an officer takes an 
individual into custody that the suspect be given Miranda warnings whether or not 
video/audio recording is taking place. However, there does not appear to be any legal 
requirement for officers to inform individuals that they are being recorded, although some 
agencies, as a safeguard, make this warning a routine requirement of their officers. 

Because of other potential legal challenges to the use of in-car video systems, police 
departments must also take steps to ensure that the system used has physical integrity so 
that evidence presented in court has not been compromised and can be demonstrated to be 
an authentic and factual depiction of the incident. Specifically, the system must be secure 
so that one cannot intentionally or inadvertently record over already recorded evidence. In 
order for the audio/visual recording to be admitted, the recording must display a date and 
time stamp. Officers and supervisors must periodically check the equipment to ensure the 

3 Berkemer v. McCarty, 104 S. Ct., 3138; 1984 

4 People v. Hill, Mich. App.12, 623 N.E. 2d 244: 1993 

5 Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 377 Pa. Super. 382; 547 A. 2d 419; 1988 


date and time stamps are correct. In order to prove that the recording has not been 
tampered with or altered, the officer must be able to establish a strict chain of custody for 
the item of evidence being submitted. Unless the officer has been trained and is recognized 
as a video forensic examiner, the officer should avoid testifying to the mechanics or 
nomenclature of the equipment. This is a trap often presented by defense attorneys to 
disprove statements by the arresting officer. The officer should only testify that the 
recording is a true and accurate depiction of events. If a suspect can reasonably contend 
that the videotape equipment used by the officer allows him to record over or otherwise alter 
the evidence, the evidence may be suppressed. 

In a case in Tennessee, for example, a jury was so concerned about the integrity of the 
video system used by the police that they ordered the patrol car brought to court as 
evidence and had the officer demonstrate the safeguards built into the mobile video system. 
The jury was satisfied and returned a guilty verdict in the case. 

Much like the communications industry, mobile video recorders have also entered into the 
digital age. The speed and versatility of digital recording are too beneficial for law 
enforcement to ignore. The ability of pre-event recording (having the ability to press a 
record button and immediately download to the computer the images of events that occurred 
the previous 30 seconds) allows the officer to witness an event and then go back in time and 
record their probable cause as captured in the recorders buffer. 

However, because these are newer technologies, the courts can expect technology based 
challenges. Currently on the market are systems that offer a variety of recording formats, 
such as, MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG4, JPEG, and WAVELET. Unlike the analog technology 
where you can pop the tape into the recorder to view the images, each of these formats 
require special software and equipment for viewing that are not interchangeable. In the 
absence of standards for the industry, each product has proprietary software configurations, 
which requires the users to purchase only that particular product. Each of these formats 
use watermarking to authenticate their images in order to prevent tampering, but potential 
jurors, coming from the modern technology-based society, use their home computers to 
alter, enhance and improve their digital pictures on a regular basis. Thus, the juror may be 
susceptible to suggestions of tampering. 

Admitting new scientific evidence into court is an arduous task for prosecutors for not all 
lawyers and judges are conscious to the ways of new technology. The two biggest 
challenges to digital video evidence are the Frye and Daubert cases. In 6Frye v. United 
States 1923, a second degree murder case in which early polygraph (systolic blood 
pressure test) was used, sets out a test that scientific evidence must have gained general 
acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Only after the scientific community 
has agreed that the technique is valid will evidence of its use be admissible in court. 
Although the Frye case is over eighty years old, the courts still follow this standard when 
deciding new scientific evidence. 

7Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 1993 deals with the admissibility of expert 
evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, requiring that the expert evidence is 
scientific knowledge supported by validation, and the evidence must assist the court in 
understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. The case evolved from a 

6 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.1923) 
7 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)  


petitioner, Daubert, who sued the respondent, Dow Pharmaceuticals, claiming Dow was 
responsible for Dauberts children being born with serious birth defects. The allegation 
stemmed from the petitioners ingestion of the drug Bendectin, a prescription drug marketed 
by the respondent. The lower court ruled in favor of the respondent based on the experts 
affidavit concluding that the maternal use of Bendectin had not been shown to produce birth 
defects in humans in spite of the petitioners experts conclusion that maternal use of the 
drug had caused birth defects in animal studies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower 
courts decision citing Frye v. United States, which states an expert opinion based on 
scientific technique is inadmissible unless the technique is generally accepted as reliable 
in the relevant scientific community. In 1993 the Supreme Court accepted the case and 
identified the following four standards for admissibility of scientific evidence: 

.. Has the theory or evidence been tested? 
.. Has the scientific theory of evidence been published or subject to peer review? 
.. What is the error rate of the theory or technique and are there controlling standards? 
.. Has the scientific community generally accepted the theory or technique? 

As digital video is a relatively new science and there are currently no standards set for 
digital video, prosecutors and police agencies can expect and must prepare for similar 
challenges if they intend to use digital video as evidence. 

Police officers using digital video should recognize that they are simply the operators of 
technology and, much like the radar and lasar equipment, their testimony should be limited 
to their ability to setup and test the equipment, and to read the results. In the case of video, 
be it analog or digital, the officer need only testify that the images presented are a true and 
accurate depiction of events. If a defense attorney successfully lures a witness officer into 
testifying beyond their training and expertise, valuable evidence may be suppressed. 

With this in mind, police executives must be cognizant of the challenges of implementing a 
digital video system and should seek guidance from or employ experts in the field who are 
experienced in the intricacies of presenting digital evidence in court. Further assistance in 
this matter can be found through professional organizations such as the Law Enforcement 
Emergency Video Association (LEVA), the International Association of Identification (IAI), or 
the IACP. 

E. Technical Requirements 

The aforementioned cases demonstrate that mobile video recording systems must conform 
to technical requirements if evidence thus collected is to be of value in prosecution of 
suspects. While overall cost is a factor that agencies must take into consideration when 
deciding upon the purchase of video systems, it cannot be the sole criterion if this 
technology is to adequately serve the police agency. The operating environment and 
requirements of a mobile video/audio recording system should be evaluated prior to 
implementing a system. Consider the following issues when purchasing a system: 

System Components: 

A typical mobile video system consists of a windshield mounted camera, secured vault 
containing the recording mechanism, control center, compact monitor, wireless 
microphone/transmitter system to capture audio outside the vehicle for traffic stops and a 
hard wired microphone to capture audio from inside the police vehicle. The entire system 


should operate on the vehicles 12-volt power system and must maintain an even voltage 
supply for all components without excessive power drain on the patrol vehicles electronic 
system. The mobile video system should be totally compatible with all electronic systems of 
a patrol car. 

Camera - Usually mounted on the dash or windshield, the camera must be able to 
withstand extreme heat and cold. The camera should be mounted in a position that 
minimizes obstruction of the drivers view through the windshield, but still captures a 
clear view of a vehicle in front of the patrol car, including the occupants of the vehicle 
and the license plate. Special attention should be given to testing the system's 
ability to recover a license plate image at night when a police vehicle's high beam 
and emergency lights are reflected off the rear of the target vehicle. A field of view 
16 feet wide at a distance of 20 feet from the camera is recommended. Any system 
selected should include a camera with automatic and manual focus, automatic white 
balance (color adjustment) and automatic exposure. Cameras with low-light, night 
vision capabilities will provide better images in dark or otherwise difficult lighting 
conditions. 

In the digital realm, in order to obtain better nighttime images by reducing glare and 
bleed over, the camera should be equipped with a CCD chip set that provides a high 
degree of isolation between pixels to prevent spill over of charges from one pixel to 
the next, and lenses designed to reduce internal lens flare and reflections will be 
necessary. A resolution of at least 450 horizontal lines is recommended. 

Video Monitor - A high-quality color LCD video monitor should be installed to 
monitor live audio and video and to playback recorded images and sound. The 
location of the monitor should be carefully considered for ease of use, visibility, and 
safety, and may vary depending on the type of vehicle in which it is installed. 

The operator must have the ability to independently turn off the sound and video 
display, i.e., if a suspect is in the vehicle while another is being interviewed outside 
the car it is advisable to turn off at least the audio playback so the suspect in the rear 
of the vehicle cannot hear the conversation). The monitor should display all video 
and text (time stamp, brake or emergency light indicator, etc.) that is being recorded. 

Microphone - Microphones are often overlooked or an inferior model is chosen as a 
cost-saving measure. However, they are critical components of any in-car video 
system, and compromises could negatively impact the effectiveness of the in-car 
camera strategy. The IACP recommends, at a minimum, a wireless microphone 
operating on the 900 MHz band that utilizes digital spread spectrum technology. The 
microphone transmitter should be equipped with an internal antenna and should not 
use the microphone cable for an antenna. 

Analog microphones, though generally less expensive than digital, are more prone to 
interference and have fewer frequencies available, which can lead to cross talk from 
other units. Many microphones use thin cables that connect the microphone to a 
transmitter clipped to the users belt or uniform. Often, these fragile wires also serve 
as transmission antennas and can break if stressed or bent sharply. A wireless 
system that includes a secondary microphone built into the transmitter unit that is 
automatically activated if the primary microphone is separated from the transmitter is 
recommended. 


If a system requiring batteries is used, it is necessary to maintain an adequate stock 
of fresh batteries, including at least one spare set in each video-equipped patrol 
vehicle at all times. This can be a significant expense that will have to be considered 
in the agency-operating budget. Consideration should be given to systems that have 
microphones with built-in batteries that can be recharged by chargers located in the 
vehicle. Using a rechargeable lithium ion battery will provide 8-10 hours use before 
charging, and an effective range of 1000 feet. The charging station for the 
microphone transmitter device should also act as a linking station that sinks the 
transmitter to the individual recording device. 

A second, hard-wired microphone should be located inside the patrol vehicle, with 
the audio recorded on a separate channel from the wireless microphone where 
possible. 

Control Panel - An ergonomically designed control panel should be installed in each 
video-equipped vehicle in a convenient location for operation by the vehicles driver. 
The panel should include controls for camera operation (zoom, focus, exposure, 
shutter speed, etc.), recorder operation (record, play, fast forward, rewind, etc.), and 
indicators informing the operator of system status (power on, microphone on, tape 
inserted, record, warning alarms, etc). Controls should be illuminated to facilitate 
use at night. 

Recorder - Typically, in-car camera systems in use by the majority of police 
agencies in the U.S. use VHS or Hi-8 tapes. These analog recording systems 
generally provide good image quality and have a long, proven history with law 
enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the courts. However, handling and storage 
of large numbers of videotapes can require the dedication of significant resources in 
both employee time and physical space within a facility. 

Digital recorders are now widely available, and offer a number of attractive features 
not available on analog devices. For instance, digital recording systems can utilize 
buffers that collect video for a period of time before the recorder is activated, often 
capturing the underlying infraction that leads to a traffic stop or other event. Digital 
storage might appear to be a desirable alternative to costly and cumbersome 
videotapes, but an agency may need to purchase expensive servers and digital 
asset management software to handle the exceedingly large digital video files. 
Compression of digital video files reduces the storage space requirements, but can 
also severely diminish the quality and reliability of the recorded images. 

An agency must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of digital and 
analog-recording systems to choose the equipment most closely suited to the 
agencys needs and performance expectations. 

Secure Storage of Media  In dealing with VHS systems, the preferred method of 
securing the recording mechanism and the media is for the system to be vaulted in 
the trunk of the patrol vehicle. If vaulted, the outer casing should be composed of 
heavy gauge material that is capable of withstanding crash damage and that is fire 
resistant. Any storage or containment device should have restricted access keeping 
in mind that when the device is open, the system should be designed so that the 
operator cannot circumvent any record-over protection components of the exposed 


controls. The operator should only be able to insert and remove the media, thereby 
providing total physical integrity for the system. 

Environmental Controls - The environmental controls of the mobile video system 
should be able to accommodate wide ranges in operating temperatures from 60F 
degrees below zero to over 120F degrees regardless of whether they are trunk or 
interior mounted. Systems incased within the trunk will require independent 
environmental systems. 

Computer Based/Upgradeability  A microprocessor computer that controls all 
facets of the system operation should drive a mobile video recorder system. The 
system should be easily upgraded by computer hardware and/or software 
modifications. Although they have made great improvements over the past few 
years, mobile audio/video systems will continue to be refined over the years to come. 
Systems that do not provide for these improvements risk obsolescence in the near 
future. 

Time and Date Stamp/Identifiers  In order for a video recording to be admissible 
in court, it must have a time and date stamp imprinted on the media. To ensure 
accuracy, by using a GPS function, the time and date will continue to be accurately 
stamped by accessing the Greenwich Mean Time clock. By enabling this function, 
the need to use an additional tracking number is eliminated. The system must be 
designed with an internal, backup battery to ensure continuous operation of the time 
and functions for up to 30 days in the event of a loss of power. The time and date 
functions must appear continuously on the monitor and on the videotape recording. 
The system should allow for additional identifiers, such as, name, officer 
identification number, and or vehicle number. A note of caution: when placing 
identifiers on the recording the rule of thumb is less is better. The system is 
imprinting these identifiers directly on the media, which may later interfere with the 
forensic analysis of the media by blocking artifacts when it needs to be enhanced for 
clarification. This also holds true for where the identifiers are placed on the media 
face, i.e., bottom, top, right, or left sides. 

F. Procedural Requirements 

In addition to the technical requirements of audio/video recording systems law enforcement 
personnel should be cognizant of the operational differences between systems and how 
they factor into their working environment. 

A department that employs mobile video systems must establish policy and procedures on 
the use of these systems. In the final analysis, even the best systems are of limited use if 
they are not employed properly in the operations of the agency. For example, many law 
enforcement agencies require that their officers only activate the recording system during a 
traffic stop or when the officers safety is an issuein effect, once the patrol cars 
emergency lights are activated. While this provides a record of the events at the time of the 
stop, it does not record any of the activity prior to the stop. In many situations, such as 
those in which probable cause must be established, it is essential to record all events 
precipitating the use of emergency lights and siren. 

At the scene of accidents, when conducting roadside sobriety tests or in a multitude of other 
situations where emergency lights and siren might not be used, the video recording system 



may be useful as evidence in a criminal or matter or civil litigation. Therefore, at a minimum, 
mobile video systems must be capable of allowing the officer to record at his discretion 
provided they are within legal parameters for audio and video recordings. Most analog 
mobile video systems, once activated, take at least five to six seconds to begin recording. 
During that period of time, much valuable information could be lost. This problem is being 
resolved with the advent and use of the newer digital systems. All of the digital systems 
have the capability of the pre and post event recording. The camera is running in a 
continuous loop and has the ability to send to the recorder events accruing the previous 30 
seconds up to five minutes (depending on the system and the setting) once the camera is 
activated. 

As mobile audio/video recording systems become more widely used in law enforcement 
patrol and related operations, procedures for their use will become more refined and 
uniformly accepted. To ensure that important events are captured, it is recommended that it 
be mandated that mobile video systems are in operation whenever an officer is involved in 
the following: 

. All priority responses 
. All vehicular pursuits 
. All prisoner transports 
. All crimes in progress 
. All traffic stops. 

In order for an agency to engage in a successful mobile video program, it is essential that it 
build from the management side (sometimes referred to as the back end) outward to the 
practitioners. The management of the system includes, but is not limited to: 

. Product selection to include media formats 
. Acceptance of the media format by the prosecutors 
. Establishing policies and procedures 
. Ensuring a clear and defined chain of custody for all recorded media is 
established 
. Having a standard operating procedure for duplication and distribution of all 
recorded media 
. Establishing a retention schedule for media consistent with state and local 
legislation 
. Providing training in applicable laws involving audio and video interception 
. Providing training for practitioners with regards to equipment operation and 
limitations 
. Establishing a schedule of supervisory review of recorded media 
. Establishing protocols to ensure training sections are made aware of and 
have access to recorded events of interest 

G. Summary 

Technological innovations now allow law enforcement greater flexibility in the use of audio 
and video recording. However, as with other technologies, proper selection and use of 
these systems is essential if they are to meet the needs of the agency and the officers in the 
operational environment. Agencies that are considering the purchase and use of mobile 
video recording equipment should contact the IACP Research Center Directorate, Technical 
Assistance Program as well as other agencies that have had experience with these 


systems. Their experiences with mobile audio-video recording and with the procurement 
process can be invaluable in acquiring an MVR system that is suitable for the agency. 

Grant No. 2001-CK-WX-0157 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. 
Department of Justice, supported this project. The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, 
coordinates the activities of the following program offices and bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the 
Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention, and the Office of Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the 
author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice or the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

Every effort has been made by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center staff and advisory board to 
ensure that this model policy incorporates the most current information and contemporary professional 
judgment on this issue. However, law enforcement administrators should be cautioned that no model policy 
can meet all the needs of any given law enforcement agency. Each law enforcement agency operates in a 
unique environment of federal court rulings, state laws, local ordinances, regulations, judicial and 
administrative decisions and collective bargaining agreements that must be considered. In addition, the 
formulation of specific agency policies must take into account local political and community perspectives and 
customs, prerogatives and demands; often divergent law enforcement strategies and philosophies; and the 
impact of varied agency resource capabilities, among other factors. 


X. APPENDICES 
i. CALEA Standards for In-Car Cameras 

ii. Findings from Prosecutors Survey 

iii. Videotape Log Example 

iv. Suggested Guidelines for Mobile Video 
 Vendor Bid Requirements 
 Sample Bid Specifications 

v. Forensic Video Analysis and the Law 

vi. Agency Video, Audio, and Imaging Inventory 

vii. Charts and Tables 

viii. Acknowledgements 
 In-Car Camera Advisory Board 
 Points of Contact 
 Evaluation Team Members 


CALEA Standards for In-Car Audio/Video Recording Systems 

41.3.8 If agency-owned, in-car audio or video recording systems 
are used, a written directive establishes policy and procedures for 
the following: 
a. situations for use; 
b. tape security and access; and 
c. tape storage and retention schedule. 

Commentary: The policy and procedure should provide direction 
to field personnel for the use of this technology. The products of 
this technology could become an important piece of evidence in 
any type of case and should be maintained in a way to insure the 
integrity of contents. When tapes become evidence, they should be 
treated as any other evidentiary items in accordance with 
standards in Chapters 83 and 84. (M M M M) 


The report that follows represents the data collected from the National Prosecutors In- 
Car Camera Survey. The Internal Association of Chiefs of Police and the Department of 
Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office wish to express our sincerest 
gratitude to the National District Attorneys Association and the American Prosecutors 
Research Institute for their collaboration in the presentation of this information. 


Prosecutors Response to In-Car Cameras 

To evaluate the prosecutors perspective on a national level the IACP entered into a 
collaborative research effort with the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) and 
their research counterpart, the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) to 
develop a national survey. This survey examined the positive and negative aspects of 
acquiring and using video evidence, along with the legal challenges prosecutors are 
facing. 

Respondents - The prosecutors survey was distributed to a nationally representative 
sample of approximately 330 prosecutors throughout 42 states. The respondents 
covered a wide range of jurisdictions; local police and sheriffs departments; county law 
enforcement agencies; and state police and highway patrol agencies. The majority of the 
prosecutors serve jurisdictions with a population under 250,000. Their experience 
ranged from less than two years to over eight years. In total, 45 percent of the surveys 
distributed were returned. 

Overview - The survey revealed that 90.5 percent of the prosecutors questioned have 
had experience with video evidence captured by police in-car cameras. The 
respondents concluded that the presence of video evidence has improved their ability to 
prosecute cases successfully. According to the prosecutor respondents, the most 
common and effective uses of video evidence have been in the prosecution of: driving 
under the influence (DUIs), traffic violations, vehicle pursuits (attempting to elude), 
assaults on officers, narcotics enforcement, cases of domestic violence, and defense of 
civil litigations against law enforcement. The majority of prosecutors reported that the 
use of video evidence has reduced the actual time spent in trial, however the same 
video evidence has increased their case preparation time. When the video clearly 
shows the defendants guilt, time is usually saved because the defendant will most often 
accept a plea offer. Almost two-thirds (64.3 percent) of the prosecutors reported that 
cases involving video evidence were usually less successful for the defendants in the 
appellate courts. 

Prosecutors also identified several of the challenges they encountered when using video 
evidence in court. The most frequently cited problems were: 1) limitation of the systems 
field of view, 2) poor quality or lack of audio, 3) the poor quality of the video image, 4) 
obtaining copies of the videos from law enforcement, 5) having inadmissible portions of 
the audio/visual recording redacted, 6) obtaining copies for disclosure to defense, 7) 
video evidence contradicting the officers testimony, 8) the lack of available equipment to 
display the video evidence in court, and 9) the chain of custody when handling the video 
evidence. 

To avoid the aforementioned pitfalls, it is essential that law enforcement agencies 
properly train their officers in the use and application of in-car cameras and provide them 
with the proper equipment to ensure quality audio/visual images are captured. There 
must be policies and procedures in place to ensure the integrity of the video evidence is 
preserved and a chain of custody can be established. 


The Value of Video Evidence  As previously stated, the majority of the prosecutors surveyed 
have experience in prosecuting cases involving video evidence captured through the in-car camera. 
Most of the respondents (95%) reported that law enforcement agencies in their jurisdiction use 
in-car cameras or other audio/visual recording equipment.  Although most of the prosecutors have 
experience using video evidence in court, 87% have never received training in the use, or operation, 
nor do they understand the limitations of the recording equipment they are defending.  

Prosecutors were asked to rate the value or effectiveness of video evidence in court proceedings.  
A large percentage (93%) of prosecutors reported that video evidence is an effective tool for prosecutors.  
When asked to rate the effectiveness of video evidence, 92% characterize their experience as either 
highly successful or successful.

Effective Use of Video Evidence  In the survey, prosecutors were asked to identify the types of cases 
where they found the use of video evidence to be of more use.  The results are depicted in the following graph.    

Pie Chart - Rating the Value of Video Evidence

Cases Best Supported by Video Evidence Bar Graph
DUI 33%
Traffic/Vehicular Violations 22%
Police pursuit 18%
Assaults on citizen/police 10%
Search warrants/Narcotics enforcement 8%
Domestic Violence 6%
Civil claims against law enforcement 4%

Preparing a Case with Video Evidence  To successfully prosecute a case involving video evidence certain 
precautions need to be taken.  Video evidence must be reviewed to ensure the facts presented in the case are 
not in dispute.   The following pretrial steps have been recommended by prosecutors: 1) Ensure the officer 
reviews the video to 


recall events, sequence of events and facts that may have been omitted from the report.  2) Compare the video 
evidence with the officers reports for accuracy.  If any discrepancy is noted, be prepared to offer a logical 
explanation.  3) Review the video evidence with the officer present.  This will allow the prosecutor insight 
into events that may be occurring off screen and allow the officer a review of events to refresh his or her 
memory.  Preparation is the key to the successful prosecution of any case.  When video evidence is present, 
additional steps must be taken to ensure that there will be no surprises.  

Impact on Prosecutors Time - Recognizing that there are many demands on the prosecutors time, they were 
questioned on the impact video evidence has on their time spent per case.  Of the prosecutors responding, 42% 
experienced an increase in case preparation time, while 31% reported no significant impact in their time for 
case preparation. In contrast, 17% found that the use of video evidence actually decreases case preparation time.

Pie Chart - Whether Defendants Are More Likely to Plea with Video Evidence

On rare occasions, due to the graphic or prejudicial nature of the events depicted on the video evidence, prosecutors 
will have to prepare a written transcript from the audio portion of the video evidence for presentation to a jury or 
trial judge.   If this occurs, the process can be very time consuming.  Regarding the time spent on the discovery process, 
63 of the prosecutors responding reported there was no time lost due to the fact that the copying is managed by the local 
police agency.  Prosecutors recommend all copies of video evidence released to the defense be coordinated through their 
office and at their direction.   The majority of the responding prosecutors (58%) reported that the use of video evidence 
has reduced the actual time that they spend in trial, whereas, 42% reported no impact on their actual trial time.

Pie Chart - Does Video Evidence Reduce Prosecutors' Trial Time

Impact on Cases Appealed  The study sought to determine if the prosecutors have experienced any change in the number of 
convictions appealed in cases involving video evidence.  The majority of prosecutors (70%) reported no change, while a 
small number of prosecutors (10%) experienced a decrease in the number of cases appealed when video evidence was present.   
When a conviction involving video evidence is appealed to the higher courts, 64% of the time the appeals are unsuccessful 
for the defendant. 


 Impact on Prosecution of Criminal Cases - Of the 147 prosecutors, 122 (96%) reported that video evidence has improved 
their ability to prosecute cases. In every state visited, officers and troopers reported that some judicial jurisdictions 
were unwilling to present video evidence in court.  In a majority of these jurisdictions, the court did not have the 
equipment or training necessary to use video evidence. In the state of Texas, where the Department of Public Safety and 
local police agencies most commonly use in-car cameras, there are still several political subdivisions that do not 
entertain the presentation of video evidence in court.  Officers reported that in several cases it is not so much the 
lack of equipment as it is the misunderstanding of the value of the video evidence and lack of training within the 
office of the prosecutor that have prevented the effective use of video evidence in court.  

As explained in the overview, since the introduction of video evidence the number of guilty pleas has increased. This 
time saved by prosecutors and police equates to a financial savings for the entire Criminal Justice System.   

Challenges to Video Evidence  Through the survey, prosecutors were asked to share challenges they have faced when 
introducing video evidence. The following chart depicts their responses in order of frequency:

Challenges Raised by Defense When Presenting Video Evidence Table

Challenges                                   Percentage   Rank 
Inadmissible statements                      22%          1 
Redaction of tape                            20%          2 
Miranda challenges                           14%          3 
Statements of prior convictions              11%          4 
Statements of in-custody suspects            11%          4 
Chain of custody challenges                   9%          5 
Admissibility of viewing field sobriety tests 4%          6 
Privacy issues/Fourth Amendment challenges    4%          6 
Sixth Amendment challenges                   14%          6 
Notification of two-party recording           1%          7 

1 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of 
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained 
by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; 
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.


Summary  The availability of video evidence for criminal prosecutions is an effective tool and the majority of the 
surveyed prosecutors welcome its use.  Video evidence, also referred to as the silent witness, if used properly by 
law enforcement, has the ability to present unbiased facts. Although the presence of video evidence often reduces the 
amount of time spent in court for law enforcement, it can also increase the trial preparation time for the prosecutor.  

According to the prosecutors, the greatest value of video evidence is its ability to refresh the officers memory on 
the facts, circumstances and sequence of events.   The video evidence also serves to verify the accuracy of written 
reports and statements surrounding the incident. 

Garnered from the survey are some valuable lessons to be learned by law enforcement executives: 

1 The quality of the equipment selected to capture video evidence is crucial.  This equipment and recording medium must 
be adequate to ensure proper audio and visual are captured.   

2 Law enforcement must ensure that policies and procedures are in place that will ensure the camera is operational and will specify its use.   

3 To avoid chain of custody issues, law enforcement executives must ensure evidential polices and procedures are in place and followed.   

4 In light of the issues surrounding redaction and audio/visual enhancement, police agencies should consider investing in more advanced 
video editing or forensic analysis equipment and training. 

5 Law enforcement must ensure proper training is in place to educate officers in the proper use and operation of audio/visual 
recordings (in-car cameras).   

t is apparent that there is a need to educate and train Prosecutors on the rapidly developing in-car camera technology. New challenges 
in evidence presentation (particularly with new digital media) are occurring daily.  Prosecutors must be prepared for these challenges.  
The IACP, the International Association for Identification (IAI), and the Law Enforcement and Emergency Service Video Association (LEVA) 
all offer training in this technology.  To assist both law enforcement and prosecutors, included in Appendix F is an overview of pertinent 
cases involving this new technology.  Forensic Video Analysis and the Law was written by Jonathan Hak, a prosecutor and recognized expert 
in the presentation of video evidence in criminal trials.  Information regarding training is available on the association websites. 


Sample In-Car Camera Tracking Log


IACP logo
COPS logo
Draft Watermark

Suggested Guidelines: Mobile Video System

Part 1: Vendor Bid Requirements
Part 2: Sample Bid Specifications


The IACP intends to identify minimum performance standards for police in-car 
cameras in the future under the auspices of our In-Car Camera Evaluation and 
Technical Assistance Project.  These specifications will be created in 
collaboration with the COPS Office and the National Institute of Justice, 
Office of Science and Technology.  In advance of the availability of these 
specifications, and to support the urgent need of local law enforcement 
agencies currently procuring camera and video recording equipment, we are 
distributing these draft in-car camera design guidelines.  The information 
in these draft guidelines has been gleaned from our ongoing In-Car Camera 
Project, working with law enforcement agencies across the country that have 
purchased camera equipment for their vehicles.  These guidelines are intended 
to support and inform the development of unique local bid specifications for 
any type of law enforcement agency.  Importantly, each agency must arrive at 
a set of final bid specifications that reflects their own local needs.  

This document has been arranged in two parts; general recommendations for 
minimum performance and features of in-car systems and a sample bid 
specification, which can be used as a model for agencies preparing proposal 
requests.  

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement number 2003-CK-WX-0261 
awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 
Policing. Points of view or opinions contained in this document are those 
of the IACP, and do not necessarily represent the official opinion or policies 
of the U.S. Department of Justice. 


Suggested Guidelines: Mobile Video System  
Part 1: Vendor Bid Requirements 

When developing an in-car video initiative, it is important to remember that the 
recording system is just one component of the program.  A successful strategy 
must include careful consideration of tape or media storage and handling; 
playback and duplication capabilities; forensic video analysis; and budgeting, 
acquisition and maintenance of supplies such as batteries, replacement media, 
labels, etc.  Even more important, though not specifically addressed in this 
document, is the development, review and implementation of policies and procedures, 
backed up with documented training of officers who will be using the equipment.  
It is highly recommended that additional training be provided to supervisors and 
administrators. 

General System Requirements 
The mobile video system (in-car camera) selected should have a proven, reliable 
record in actual patrol car use under a variety of conditions. Have the vendor 
supply your agency with several systems for testing under various conditions.  
Vendors should be willing to provide names and contacts at other agencies that 
use their equipment.  Contact these agencies and ask what problems they have 
encountered, their level of satisfaction with a vendors technical support, 
and what improvements could be made.  Many vendors, especially those who actually 
manufacture the equipment, will be willing to include custom features or modifications 
to meet your agencys specific needs.  For that reason, the IACP recommends that 
the vendor should have experience in manufacturing and supporting such systems 
and include provisions for parts and service as needed.  Be sure a reasonable 
warranty and repair policy is a requirement of the proposal.

Performance Testing and Evaluation  
Field-testing should take place within the jurisdiction the equipment will be 
employed to verify its acceptable level of performance and conformity to specifications 
under the conditions in which it will be used.  For instance: 

- Does frequent use on rough terrain affect the adjustment of the camera 
or recording quality?   

- For analog recording systems, does high humidity result in condensation 
on tapes and recording components, causing the recorder to stop functioning 
(a condition known as dew lock)?   

- Does the system capture reliable and accurate images under difficult 
lighting or poor weather conditions? 

Performance might also be affected by electromagnetic interference from 
high-powered television stations or other radio frequency interference 
(including UHF, VHF and HF transmitters); automobile alternator, ignition, 
and electrical systems, 

emergency lights, siren, mobile data computers, speed measuring devices, high 
voltage power lines, traffic signals, neon signs, etc.  Expose the system to a 
wide range of conditions throughout the jurisdiction. 

During field-testing, attention should be paid to occupant safety factors as well.  
Be sure the installed equipment does not obstruct the drivers vision or interfere 
with any safety or operational devices (airbags, rear-view mirrors, etc.)   Be 
sure the driver or other occupant has a reasonable amount of room to move without 
interference, especially entering and exiting the vehicle.  

System Components 

A typical mobile video system consists of a windshield mounted camera, trunk mounted 
vault containing the recording mechanism, control center, compact monitor, wireless 
microphone/transmitter system to capture audio outside the vehicle for traffic stops 
and a hard wired microphone to capture audio from inside the police vehicle.  The 
entire system should operate on the vehicles 12-volt power system.   

Camera 
Usually mounted on the dash or windshield, the camera must be able to withstand extreme 
heat and cold conditions.  It is important that the camera is mounted in a position that 
minimizes obstruction of the drivers view through the windshield, but still captures a 
clear view of a vehicle in front of the patrol car, including the occupants of the vehicle 
and the license plate.  The camera should be mounted in a manner that will securely hold the 
cameras position under all driving conditions, including the event of accident, while allowing 
easy repositioning of the camera without tools. Special attention should be given to testing 
the system's ability to recover a license plate image at night when the police vehicle's high 
beam and emergency lights are reflected off the rear of the target vehicle.   A field of view 
16 feet wide at a distance of 20 feet from the camera is recommended.  Camera function controls 
should be located for easy access by the operator, and backlit for easy nighttime operation.  
Any system selected should include a camera with automatic and manual focus, automatic white 
balance (color adjustment) and automatic exposure. Cameras with low-light and backlight 
compensation capabilities may provide better images in dark or otherwise difficult lighting 
conditions.  A resolution of at least 450 horizontal lines is recommended.

Video Monitor 
A high-quality color LCD video monitor should be installed to monitor live audio and video 
and playback of recorded images and sound.  It is important that the 
operator has the ability to independently turn off the sound and video display if necessary 
(for instance, if a suspect is in the vehicle while another is being interviewed outside the 
car it is advisable to turn off at least the audio playback so the suspect in the rear of 
the vehicle cannot hear the conversation).  The monitor should display all video and text 
(time stamp, brake or emergency light indicator, etc.) that is being recorded.  The location 
of the monitor should be carefully considered for ease of use, visibility, and safety, and 
may vary depending on the type of vehicle in which it is installed. 

Microphone 
Microphones are often overlooked or an inferior model is chosen as a cost-saving measure.  
However, they are critical components of any in-car video system, and compromises could 
negatively impact the effectiveness of the in-car camera strategy.  The IACP recommends, 
at a minimum, a wireless microphone operating on the 900 MHz digital spectrum with a rechargeable 
(lithium) power source capable of 8-10 hours use before charging, and an effective range of 1000 feet.   

Analog microphones, though generally less expensive than digital, are more prone to interference 
and have fewer frequencies available, which can lead to cross talk from other units.  Many microphones 
use thin cables that connect the microphone to a transmitter clipped to the users belt or uniform.  
Often, these fragile wires also serve as transmission antennas and can break if stressed or bent sharply.  
A wireless system that includes a secondary microphone built in to the transmitter unit that is 
automatically activated if the primary microphone is separated from the transmitter is recommended. 

If a system requiring batteries is used, it is necessary to maintain an adequate stock of fresh batteries, 
including at least one spare set in each video-equipped patrol vehicle at all times.  This can be a 
significant expense that will have to be considered in the agency operating budget.  Consideration 
should be given to systems that have microphones with built-in batteries that can be recharged by 
chargers located in the vehicle. 

A second, hard-wired microphone should be located inside the patrol vehicle, with the audio recorded on a 
separate channel from the wireless microphone where possible.

Control Panel 
An ergonomically designed control panel should be installed in each video-equipped vehicle in a 
convenient location for operation by the vehicles driver.  The panel should include, at a minimum, 
controls for  recorder operation (record, play, fast forward, rewind, etc.), and indicators informing 
the operator of system status (power on, microphone on, tape inserted, record, warning alarms, etc).  
Controls should be illuminated to facilitate use at night. 


Recorder 
Typically, in-car camera systems in use by the majority of police agencies in the U.S. use VHS or Hi-8 tapes.  
These analog recording systems generally provide good image quality and have a long, proven history with 
law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the courts.  However, handling and storage of large numbers of 
videotapes can require the dedication of significant resources in both employee time and physical space 
within a facility. 

Digital recorders are now widely available, and offer a number of attractive features not available in 
analog devices.  For instance, digital recording systems can utilize buffers that collect video for a 
period of time before the recorder is activated, often capturing the underlying infraction that leads 
to a traffic stop or other event.  Digital storage might appear to be a desirable alternative to costly 
and cumbersome videotapes, but an agency may need to purchase expensive servers and digital asset management 
software to handle the exceedingly large digital video files.  Compression of digital video files reduces 
the storage space requirements, but can also severely diminish the quality and reliability of the recorded 
images.   

An agency must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of digital and analog recording systems to 
choose the equipment most closely suited to the agencys needs and performance expectations. 

Court admissibility of visual exhibits produced from a mobile in-car video system must be an agency's first 
consideration prior to a purchase commitment.   Analog systems have long been accepted by the courts as 
reliable scientific exhibits, most recently upheld in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Antone Wilson (2004).   
However, digital systems have not yet undergone the rigorous scientific tests the courts may demand.  
Courts consider video exhibits as scientific evidence, which may be subject to legal challenges under 
a Daubert1 or Frye2 hearing. 

The courts may need to consider whether the digital video recording system accurately and reliably reproduces 
the original image as witnessed by the camera; specifically: 

1. Has the recording process been subject to peer review? 
2. Does the recording process adhere to a recognized scientific standard?   

______________________________________________________________________
1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92-102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993) 
2 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923) 


3. Is the recording process generally accepted by the relevant scientific community (i.e., forensic 
video analysts from the Law Enforcement & Emergency Services Video Association, or the International 
Association for Identification)? 

Vendors must be able to provide a White Paper which establishes that its technology has undergone rigorous 
field-testing by an independent and relevant scientific body.  The White Paper would form the basis of a 
defense to any scientific challenge mounted under Frye or Daubert. 

The standard for these tests is high and agencies investing in digital video recorders should demand that 
vendors provide supportive documentation for the admittance of the technology in court. 

Failure to survive a Frye or Daubert test could result in the exclusion of any evidence produced through the 
in-car video system, rendering recordings made by any or all of the agency's similar systems inadmissible 
in future trials within that jurisdiction. 

The IACP will continue to monitor the issues and case law regarding digital video evidence and disseminate 
the information to law enforcement agencies. 

What to Look for in an In-Car Video System 

General system requirements 
- Rugged, reliable construction 
- Compatible with 12-volt power system 
- Customizable to agencys needs 
- Vendor provides units for field testing 
- Warranty, service support 

Camera 
- Mounted without obstruction of drivers vision 
- Captures complete view of vehicle ahead 
- Automatic focus, exposure, color 
- Capable of low-light imaging 
- High image resolution 

Monitor 
- High image quality, brightness 
- Sound can be turned on/off 
- Displays all video and text information 
- Mounted for convenient viewing without obstruction 

Microphone 
- Digital 900 MHz Wireless, worn by officer 
- 8-10 hours use on single charge 
- 1000 range 
- Backup built-in microphone in case primary is defective 
- Hard-wired microphone in vehicle 

Control Panel 
- Ergonomic design 
- Convenient placement in vehicle 
- Full camera, recorder controls and indicators 
- Controls are visible at night 

Recorders 
- VHS, Hi-8 or a scientifically reliable digital recording format 
- Capable of recording 8 uninterrupted hours 
- Mounts in secure, climate controlled vault in vehicle 
- Recording starts automatically with lights and siren 
- Time, date, lights, braking and other data recorded with video 
- Audio track recorded simultaneously with video 
- Alarm indicating dew or dust conditions 
- Backup power to maintain time/date in power loss 
- Automatic daylight/standard time adjustments 


COPS logo
IACP logo

Suggested Guidelines:
Mobile Video System
Part 2: Sample Bid Specifications


The sample bid specifications on the following pages are for 
demonstration purposes only.   This document is intended as a 
guide to assist agencies in the preparation of bid proposal 
requests.  Pending the publication of performance standards by 
the IACP, the specifications listed herein generally reflect the 
recommended minimum performance guidelines of the IACP. Agencies 
seeking proposals for in-car video systems should review the 
specific requirements of their agency to determine the equipment 
specifications appropriate for their organization. 


Suggested Guidelines: Mobile Video System  
Part 2: Sample Bid Specifications 

The mobile video system (in-car camera) selected must have a proven, reliable 
record in actual patrol car use under a variety of conditions.   

The vendor must have experience in manufacturing and supporting such 
systems to include provisions for parts and service as needed.  

The vendor shall provide documentation proving a minimum of ___ years 
experience in the active marketing, production, and sale of video systems. 

1. Vendors that do not manufacture the components comprising the video 
system shall be authorized by the original component manufacturer to resell 
such components.  A copy of a factory authorized dealer certificate shall 
be provided. 

2. The basic design of all equipment shall be in full production, no prototype 
models will be considered. 

3. All components of the system must comply with Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) standards. 

4. To document vendors experience in the manufacture, sales, and support of 
mobile video systems, the vendor shall list agencies to which mobile video 
systems were sold.  Letters of reference for verification should be included. 

Sample and Demonstration:   
Prior to award, the agency reserves the right to require any bidder to provide 
complete video systems of the exact configuration offered for the purposes of 
evaluation to determine compliance with the specification requirements.  The 
bidder will provide the mobile video systems within two weeks of the request. 

Performance Testing and Evaluation:   
Any mobile video system may be field and laboratory tested by state or 
independent laboratories to verify its acceptable level of performance and 
conformity to specifications.

1. Emphasis will be placed on the video systems ability to maintain 
consistent audio/visual recording quality, while subject to interference 
from the following sources: 

a. High-powered television stations 

b. Other radio frequency interference (including UHF, VHF and HF transmitters.) 

c. Automobile alternator, ignition, and electrical systems 

d. Automobile heaters / air conditioner fan motors  

e. Other patrol vehicle electrical systems to include radios, emergency lights, 
siren, mobile data computers, and speed measuring devices 

f. High voltage power lines, traffic signals, neon signs, etc. 



2. When in operation, the mobile video system must not generate electromagnetic 
or radiation that interferes with communications or other electronic equipment 
found within a police vehicle. 

Occupant Safety:   
The mobile video system must be designed to minimize any and all protruding 
connections or edges that may cause physical injury to vehicle occupants in the 
event of an accident. 

1. The camera and any other component shall be mounted in a manner as not to 
interfere with the effective operation of the airbag or any other safety device. 

2. The camera and any other component shall be mounted in a manner as not to 
interfere with any vehicle control mechanism or obstruct the vehicle operators 
view. 

3. The system must be properly fused and protected to prevent overheating in 
case of a system malfunction. 

Applicable Standards:   
All mobile video systems and related audio equipment must conform to the 
minimum standards as set by: 

1. Electronic Industries Association (EIA) 

2. National Television System Committee (NTSC) 

3. Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations (FCC) 

4. Vendors must be able to provide a White Paper establishing its 
technology has undergone rigorous field testing by an independent 
and relevant scientific body.  The White Paper would form the basis 
of a defense to any scientific challenge mounted under Frye or Daubert.

All mobile video systems shall be of industrial/commercial grade.  
No prototype models will be considered. 

Warranty: 

1. All camera, recorder, environmental control components, wireless 
microphones and transmitters, receiver, monitor, and control circuit 
components, shall be warranted to ensure they are fit for their intended 
purpose for a minimum of one year. 

2. All defective equipment shall be repaired or replaced within 10 
working days. 

3. For warranty purposes, the warranty time begins with initial 
installation of said equipment in the desired vehicle. 



General Mobile Video System Specifications:  
The mobile video system shall consist of a windshield mounted camera, trunk-mounted 
vault with record mechanism, control center, compact monitor, wireless microphone/transmitter 
system to capture audio outside the vehicle for traffic stops and a hard-wired microphone 
to capture audio from inside the police vehicle.   

1. Camera: 
a. Camera dimensions shall not exceed 7 in length and 2.75 in width. 

b. The camera shall operate in extreme hot/cold weather conditions and 
shall be mounted on the windshield. 

c. The camera shall be a single unit including power lens. 

d. Lens will be equipped with automatic focus, automatic iris, and automatic 
white balance.  

e. It is preferred that the camera have a backlight setting which reduces 
glare and bleed over from outside lighting. 

f. The camera shall be a solid state, CCD imaging system that shall not be 
subject to burn in, or interference by magnetic fields. 

g. The camera shall have minimum color resolution of 450 horizontal lines. 

h. The CCD color camera shall prevent glare and light blooming during operation.

i. The camera shall be capable of being rotated 180 degrees in either direction on 
its mount without having to loosen any screws or knobs. 

j. The camera should have a control for enhanced low light recording. 

k. The camera shall have adjustments for shutter speed to compensate for all 
commonly experienced lighting situations 

l. The camera shall be capable of providing a clear image with the minimum 
illumination of 1 lux/.3 lux preferred  (the lower the lux, the better the 
night vision).  

m. The camera shall operate on a power source that is filtered, regulated, 
and short circuit protected.  The voltage supplied to the camera shall meet 
the camera manufacturers specifications and shall not vary with fluctuations 
of the systems electrical system voltage of between 9 and 18 volts. 

n. The camera shall be capable of withstanding temperatures from direct 
exposure to the sun as well as freezing temperatures that may be encountered 
during the winter (14 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit). 

o. The camera cover shall not wrap or distort under normal conditions.  


p. The camera shall provide a horizontal field of view of at least 16 feet 
at a distance of 20 feet. 

q. The camera shall provide both automatic and manual focus capabilities, 
which are user selectable. 

r. The camera shall offer a signal-to-noise ratio of at least 46db. 

s. The camera shall be mounted with a heavy-duty adjustable mount and 
shall be attached to the windshield. 

t. The camera mount shall be easily adjusted without tools. 

u. The camera shall have an LED indicator light near the lens to indicate 
solid when video is being captured and flashing/pulsing when audio and 
video is recording.  

v. The camera shall be equipped with light control which turns backlight 
on and off so as not to illuminate the user in darkened conditions.  

2. Video Monitor:  

a. The monitor must be a high-quality color LCD monitor of at least 3 
(but not greater than 6) diagonally measured. 

b. The display shall be of the LCD Active Matrix type. 

c. The monitor shall operate between 32F degrees and 120F degrees Fahrenheit. 

d. The monitor shall display a live picture from the camera when the system 
is powered (even if recording is not in progress). 

e. The monitor shall include a system speaker to provide monitoring of live 
audio from portable transmitter microphone or from recorded sound during the 
playback mode. 

f. The monitor shall have a volume control which will allow the user to adjust 
audio level and turn off monitor sound if desired 

g. The monitor shall operate independently of the recording device, ensuring 
the system shall function even if the monitor is not displaying a picture. 

h. The monitor shall display at a minimum: date/time, user identification 
information, emergency light indication, braking indicator and microphone 
activation indicator. 

i. The monitor shall be a dash mounted unit, overhead console, independent 
floor mount or between the seats console mounted  

j. The monitor shall operate on a power source that is filtered, regulated, 
and short circuit protected.  The voltage supplied to the monitor shall meet 
the monitor manufacturers specifications and shall not vary with fluctuations 
of the systems electrical system voltage of between 9 and 18 volts. 


3. Wireless Microphone: 
a. Wireless microphone transmitter shall operate in the 900 MHz band and utilize 
digital spread spectrum technology. 

b. Transmitter must be compact in size with dimensions not to exceed 
2.5x3.5x .75 h-w-d. 

c. Transmitter microphone must come equipped with compact carry case or device,
which attaches the system to the users utility belt and does not interfere with 
operational use. 

d. The microphone transmitter shall be equipped with an external microphone with 
a universal connection port for replacements microphones. 

e. The microphone transmitter shall be equipped with an internal antenna. It shall 
not utilize the microphone cord as an antenna. 

f. The microphone transmitter shall be equipped with an internal microphone, 
which will allow recording to continue even if the external microphone is 
disconnected.   

g. The microphone shall automatically turn on when the recording device is 
activated and off when the recording device is deactivated. 

h. The microphone transmitter shall operate on rechargeable (lithium) batteries. 

i. The transmitter microphone must be capable of working with any mobile video 
system of the same brand. 

j. The transmitter must be equipped with a backlit status display which informs 
the user of transmit status, battery strength and recorder status.   

k. The microphone transmitter shall be capable of 8-10 hours continuous use 
without recharging. 

l. The microphone transmitter shall have a minimum operating range of 1,000 feet. 

m. The microphone transmitter must be equipped with a linking device or station, 
which synchronizes the operating transmitter frequency to the mobile video 
system being used. 

n. Once synchronized to a recording device, the microphone transmitter will 
control that selected device only and no others in close proximity. 

4. Control Panel:  

a. System controller shall be made of durable construction and compact in 
design to be mounted in the overhead console, dash, or console between the seats. 

b. Controller must be enclosed in an ergonomically designed case with rounded 
edges to prevent injury to the user in the even of a sudden impact.  


c. The system controller shall have controls or indicators that will be 
illuminated when activated as listed in section (f) below. 

d. The controller shall be equipped with an automatic brightness control in 
each of the indicator circuits. 

e. Primary controls shall be backlit for night operations. 

f. Controls: 
1) Power on/off 
2) Play 
3) Record start/stop 
4) Fast Forward 
5) Rewind 
6) Stop 

Zoom Camera Controls (if not easily accessible on camera) 
1) Zoom in/out 
2) Auto Focus 
3) Selectable Shutter 
4) Backlight Control 

Indicators: 
1) Power on 
2) Microphone on 
3) Tape inserted and operational 
4) Recording 
5) Fast Forward 
6) Stop 
7) Time Counter 
8) Problem Indicator

g. The record function may be initialized by all of the following modes: 
1) User pushes record button. 
2) User activates the emergency equipment. 
3) User activates the record button on the wireless microphone transmitter. 

h. Programming of the in-car recording system shall be restricted to 
authorized personnel only through the system controller. 

i. The recording device rewind/fast forward/record controls shall not be 
accessible and/or usable by the operator when the environmentally controlled 
enclosure is opened to replace the recording media. 

5. Electronic Conditions  
a. All electronics shall have input voltage of 13.5 (+ - 20%) volts DC. 

b. The in-car recording system shall not interfere with the vehicles electrical 
or electronic components, including the police radio system, mobile data terminals 
or computer data terminals, speed detection devices, through electromagnetic 
radiation or radio frequency interference produced by the camera, recording 
device, system controller or its components. 


c. The in-car recording system shall not be affected in any way by transmissions 
from the police communication packages in the vehicles. 

d. The in-car recording system shall be protected from damage due to input of 
voltage, reverse polarity, and electrical transients that may be encountered. 

e. All programmable parameters shall be contained in non-volatile memory.  
Loss of power to the system shall not result in the unit requiring reprogramming. 

6.  Security Features 
a. The in-car recording system shall have the capability to restrict access 
to the programming functions, including but not limited to time/date features, 
to authorized personnel.   

b. The recording device must have the capability of preventing the user from 
erasing and taping over previously recorded information from either inside the 
vehicle or at the recording device controls. 

c. The recording device shall contain a method to determine if the recording 
media has been tampered with after it was recorded. 

d. The trunk-mounted recording device shall be enclosed in an environmentally 
controlled metal case with locking capabilities. 

7. Protective Enclosure/Vault: 
a. The vault enclosure shall be crash resistant and capable of providing security 
from any attempts to vandalize or remove the recording media without authorization. 

b. The vault must be sealed to prevent the introduction of dust or moisture that 
may harm or prevent functioning of the media recording device. 

c. The vault shall contain environmental controls and shall posses a self-contained 
heating and cooling system that is automatically controlled by internal electronic 
thermostatic unit.   To accomplish the heating and cooling function, the vault shall 
not require vent hoses or modification of the vehicle. 

d. The environmental control system must be designed to keep the recording device 
and internal electronics and equipment within operating range specified by recorder 
manufacturer.  During extreme conditions, the recording device should reach operational 
temperatures within ten minutes. 

e. The vault must be capable of being mounted either horizontally or vertically 
in the trunk of the patrol vehicle to maximize storage space.  
(In the event the vault is be placed in the Ford Crown Victoria, the vault shall 
be capable of being placed on the left side upper decking, above the gas tank 
and secured with bolts as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer so not to 
violate the integrity of the gas tank).   


f. The vault shall be capable of housing the receiver for the wireless microphone transmitter. 

g. All electronic controls and connectors shall be contained within the vault to 
provide additional protection from the elements for those components. 

8.  Recording Media
a. The recording media may be VHS, Hi8, or digital format.  If a digital format 
is chosen, it must accurately and reliably reproduce the original image as 
witnessed by the camera (see comments about digital recording in Recorder 
section of Part 1 of this document).  

b. The recording media shall be capable of recording events uninterrupted for 
the minimum of 8 hours. 

c. The recorder shall be capable of recording a minimum of one audio track 
simultaneously in conjunction with the video signal. 

d. The recorder shall have incorporated sensors that detect excessive moisture 
or dust. 

e. The recorder shall operate from 13.5 (+ - 20%) DC voltage source.  

f. The recording device shall be mounted in the trunk of the vehicle in an 
environmentally controlled enclosure (vault) to seal and protect the recorder 
from dust, humidity and temperature changes to ensure an operational climate. 

g. The recording system shall interface with the vehicle emergency equipment 
currently installed in the vehicle, having the minimum of (2) activation 
switches, and shall display on the recorded media and on the monitor, an 
indicator depicting when the emergency equipment was activated. 

h. The recorder shall generate to the recoding media and the monitor the 
date/time, users identifiers, bake light indicator, emergency equipment 
indicator and audio indicator. 

i. The date and time generator shall be self-adjusting for daylight savings 
time and leap year variances. 

j. The date/time and users identifier shall be on battery backup to prevent 
loss information in the event the vehicle battery is disconnected for up to 
a minimum of (4) hours. 

k. The operating system must be computer based and controlled.  It shall also 
be upgradeable and fully compatible with future technology applications 



In-Car Camera Techincal Assistance Project

Effective Use of Video in Law Enforcement for Managers and Prosecutors

Forensic Video Analysis and the Law

Jonathan W. Hak, Dipl. B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Copyright 2004

his paper was originally prepared for the Law Enforcement and Emergency Services 
Video Association (LEVA) as part of the course Forensic Video Analysis and the 
Law.  The IACP thanks Mr. Hak and LEVA for permission to use this paper for 
this report.  

This paper is not to be copied or distributed without the express consent of 
the author. 



FORENSIC VIDEO ANALYSIS AND THE LAW  
by Jonathan W. Hak, Dipl., B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.1

Introduction 

During a high profile murder trial, the prosecutions star witness takes the 
witness stand and is asked by the prosecutor Can you identify the man you saw 
running from the 7-11 store?  The witness scans the courtroom, points at the 
defendant and says Thats him right there.  From the jurors perspective, the 
witness must be correct  after all, he was there.    

Eyewitness evidence, though often powerful, is plagued by the frailties that 
accompany honest but mistaken witnesses.  There are countless cases where honest 
witnesses have erred in their evidence, sometimes by saying thats the man 
only to be later proven wrong.  Equally, there are many cases where witnesses 
cannot identify the perpetrator even though he is actually in the line-up or the 
prisoners dock.  Stress, sensory impairment, time and circumstance impact upon 
a witness ability to accurately identify perpetrators of offences.  

It is a fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system that we should prosecute 
criminal offences with vigor and ensure that only the guilty are convicted.  
Video evidence can be of significant value in identifying those who committed 
offences and those who did not.  Video evidence is not subject to the same 
frailties that face humans.  As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nikolovski:2 

The video camera on the other hand is never subject to stress.  
Through tumultuous events it continues to record accurately and 
dispassionately all that comes before it.  Although silent, it 
remains a constant, unbiased witness with instant and total 
recall of all that it observed.  

So long as the videotape is of good quality and gives a clear 
picture of events and the perpetrator, it may provide the best 
evidence of the identity of the perpetrator.  It is relevant 
and admissible evidence that can by itself be cogent and 
convincing evidence on the issue of identity.  Indeed it may 
be the only evidence available.  For example, in the course 
of a robbery, every eyewitness may be killed yet the video 
camera will steadfastly continue to impassively record the 
robbery and the actions of the robbers. 

________________________________________________________________
1 Jonathan W. Hak is a Crown Prosecutor employed by Alberta Justice in 
Calgary, Alberta.  He primarily prosecutes major crimes and specializes 
in forensic video analysis.  He is also an instructor in Forensic Video 
Analysis and the Law for LEVA and has instructed in this field at the FBI 
Academy in Quantico, Virginia and the Los Angeles Sheriffs Academy in 
California.  He received his legal education in the United States, Canada 
and England.  He may be contacted at jonathan.hak@gov.ab.ca and 
(403) 297-2344. 2 (1996), 111 C.C.C. (3d) 403, at p. 412 



Advances in digital technology have led to the use of various scientific techniques 
in the analysis and presentation of video evidence to the courts.  In some cases, 
this has allowed the courts to gain more valuable information from video evidence 
than would otherwise have been evident.  In other cases, it makes the difference 
between admitting video evidence and excluding it.  

It is important to understand the background of videotape evidence in our courts, 
how the law deals with the advent of new technology and how to effectively present 
such evidence in court.  We will also examine the critical aspect of becoming qualified 
as an expert witness in court.  

Both the United States and Canada are common law jurisdictions.  As such, we have 
much to learn from each country in our examination of forensic video analysis.  We will 
examine relevant case law from both the United States and Canada in order to gain a 
proper grounding of the law.  We will also review relevant provisions in the United 
States Federal Rules of Evidence and the Canada Evidence Act. 


Use of Videotape Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions 

1. Types of Videotape Evidence Used in Criminal Prosecutions 

Videotape evidence, as used in the criminal justice system, falls into one of 
three categories: 

a) illustrative video

These are videos that show or illustrate certain things to the court that it would 
not otherwise be able to readily see.  For example: 

 crime scene video 

 demonstrating that a weapon caused a certain injury where 
an in court demonstration is not practical 

 demonstrating that a firearm is capable of modification to fully 
automatic firing where firing the weapon in court is not an option 

b) staged video 

These are videos that record events that are about to occur for the record such 
as the interview of a suspect or witness. 

c) surveillance video 

Surveillance videotaping is becoming pervasive in our society as a method of both 
preventing and detecting crime.  It is estimated that in cities, we are captured 
on surveillance videotape 8-12 times per day. 

It is this latter category of videotape that is the focus of this course. 

2. Admissibility of Videotape Evidence 

Videotapes are classified as a form of photographic evidence under Federal Rule of 
Evidence 1001 and parallel provisions in most states.  In Canada, videotape evidence 
is classified as real evidence. 

a) theories of admissibility 

i)  illustrative evidence theory (pictoral communication) 

The traditional view of photographs and videotape is that they have no independent 
significance as they merely illustrate facts testified to by a witness.  



This is referred to as the graphic portrayal of real evidence.  Under this theory, 
photographs or videotape become admissible once a witness testifies that the photographs 
or videotape accurately depicts what was observed by the witness.

ii) silent witness theory 

Once the videotape has been authenticated, the tape speaks for itself.  No witness 
needs to have viewed what the camera recorded.

In R. v. Taylor,3 the Court admitted videotape evidence 
without eyewitness verification, stating: 

The issue is whether these tapes are capable of being real 
and demonstrative evidence to prove the scenes they depict 
as distinct from evidence that merely illustrates the testimony 
of a sworn witnessIf the tape is relevant, material, and 
reliable it has actual probative value.

The evidence is admissible upon proving the reliability of the process that 
produced the videotape.4

b) relevance 

Admissibility is contingent, in part, upon the court being satisfied as to the relevance of 
the video evidence.  There is no magic legal test for relevance.  Relevance is 
determined on a case-by-case basis and depends on the issues raised in the prosecution 
in question. 

The relevancy test applies to the videotape as a whole.  If irrelevant images appear on 
the video, which is typically the case in a surveillance context, that does not render 
the entire videotape inadmissible.  It is the images of interest that must be relevant. 

The test for relevance is a practical one.  If an eyewitness would be permitted to describe 
what is depicted on the videotape, then the relevancy requirement is met.5 

c) authentication 

In State v. Molasky,6 in admitting videotape evidence, the Court based its decision on the evidence 
of an expert who said that videotape could not be 

__________________________________________________________________
3 (1983), 10 W.C.B. 303 (Ontario Provincial Court) 

4 Hannewacker v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 419 So.2d 308 (1982, Supreme Court 
of Florida); Wagner v. State of Florida, 707 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA), review 
denied, 717 So. 2d 542 (1998, Florida) 

5 Simpson Timber Co. (Sask.) Ltd. v. Bonville, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 180 (Saskatchewan 
Court of Queens Bench) 

6 655 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. App. 1983), cert denied (1984) 464 U.S. 1049  



undetectably altered by any known editing method.  While that may have been 
true in 1983, it is unlikely true today. 

In order for the court to rule videotape evidence admissible and in order for the trier of 
fact to rely upon it, it must be established that the videotape evidence is reliable.  
This authentication requirement provides that the party tendering the videotape must 
establish that the video accurately depicts the scene and that it has not been altered 
or changed.7

Authentication focuses on these elements:  
 location 
 date 
 time 
 alteration of the image in whole or in part 

Proving the location of the captured images is generally not difficult.  In the monitored surveillance 
context, this will require the operator of the camera or someone present during the recording process 
to verify the location shown.  In the static surveillance context, such as a store or other commercial 
establishment, this would typically be done by someone familiar with the camera location and field of 
view, such as the store owner, employee or security officer.   In the case of a bank, either a bank employee 
or a representative from the company who installed and services the surveillance equipment will suffice.8

After proving location, the date and time of the images in question must be proven.  Most surveillance 
cameras show the date and time and provided such information is accurate, this requirement will be easily 
met.  Where the date and time shown are incorrect, such as failing to account for daylight savings time or 
failing to set the accurate time at all, the actual date and time must be proven.  My practice is to call 
the person who is responsible for ensuring that the date and time code is correct, if there is such a person.  
Where no such witness exists, the date and time can usually be proven by establishing the known time other 
events on the video occurred, such as the arrival of the police.  The bottom line is that in order for the 
videotape evidence to be admissible, it must be shown that what is depicted is the event in question. 

In R. v. Leaney and Rawlinson,9 Harradence, J., in dissent (though not on this point), 
noted the following regarding authentication: 

_______________________________________________________________________
7 Molina v. State of Alabama, 533 So.2d 701 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1988); 
cert. denied (1989) 489 US 1086 (silent witness theory); English v. State of 
Georgia, 422 S.E.2d 924 (Georgia Court of Appeals, 1992) (illustrative evidence 
theory) 

8 R. v. Schaffer (1988), 44 C.C.C. (3d) 507 (Nova Scotia Court of Appeal) 

9 (1987), 38 C.C.C. (3d) 263 (Alberta Court of Appeal) 



The party seeking the admission of the video must prove that it is accurate and fair through the verification \
evidence of a witness or witnesses under oath. In most situations this will be easily done. An eyewitness can 
testify that the video accurately represents the event that took place. Where there is no such eyewitness, 
accuracy and fairness will need to be verified by more technical evidence. The United States Court of Appeals 
examined the possible components of such evidence in United States v. Taylor, 530 F.2d 639 (1976) (at pp. 641-2):

In the case before us it was, of course, impossible for any of the 
tellers to testify that the film accurately depicted the events as 
witnessed by them, since the camera was activated only after the 
bank personnel were locked in the vault. The only testimony offered 
as foundation for the introduction of the photographs was by 
government witnesses who were not present during the actual robbery. 
These witnesses, however, testified as to the manner in which the 
film was installed in the camera, how the camera was activated, the 
fact that the film was removed immediately after the robbery, the 
chain of its possession, and the fact that it was properly developed 
and contact prints made from it. Under the circumstances of this case, 
we find that such testimony furnished sufficient authentication for 
the admission of the contact prints into evidence. Admission of this 
type of photographic evidence is a matter largely within the discretion 
of the court, Moore v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 F.2d 214, 
216 (5th Cir. 1955), and it is clear that the district court did not 
abuse its discretion here. 

These are the kinds of matters the trial judge may wish to consider in determining the accuracy and fairness of a 
video tape sought to be admitted into evidence where no eyewitness verification is possible.  

For analog videotape, authentication can usually be accomplished by proving chain of custody of the original videotape.  
The same approach is required for digital video evidence, though some argue that chain of custody is not enough.  

As Erik Berg noted:10

Until a digital image is either printed or displayed on a computer 
screen, it has no visual form.  It is completely dependent upon a 
host computer for its existence as a visual record.  The potential 
for alteration or corruption of a digital image is much greater 
than one might think.  Electrical power surges can scramble the 
binary bits that define the image.  Hardware failure can destroy 
the very media upon which the image is recorded.  Computer viruses 
can seek out and destroy the image.  Anyone with access to the computer 
can be a very serious threat to digital images and, thus, to 
authentication at trial.  One or two errant commands can be enough to 
destroy precious image data. 

Controlling access to the computer is, therefore, important.  So too, 
is tracking and preserving the images.  The original image should be 
preserved intact.  Any enhancement applied to an image must take 
place on a copy of the original.  If the original image is enhanced, 
there will be no way to reproduce the results.  The original image 
serves the function of control, much the same as any control used in 
scientific analysis.  Without effective controls, any conclusions 
drawn from the evidence will be suspect. 

_____________________________________________________________

10 The Legal Edge: Digital Imaging, A Legal Primer, in The FBI Associate 
Magazine, January/February 2001, at pages 22-23. 


Digital video is simply binary data recorded on tape or other media.  As such, it is inherently susceptible to 
accidental or malicious tampering.  That fact, coupled with the widespread availability of low cost digital 
video editing hardware and software, leaves digital evidence vulnerable to suppression on the grounds that it 
could have been modified.11

Technical experts have been trying to create a method whereby image alteration can be detected and conversely 
shown not to have occurred. One method has been the use of watermarking which modifies the digital video content 
by superimposition of the watermark.  A number of papers have shown that this is not a foolproof method of image 
authentication.12  

Another method that is being studied is a method whereby digital signatures are generated in an authentication 
system and stored on a media separate from the digital video evidence that theoretically would provide a means of 
proving digital video authenticity and simultaneously preserving the digital video in an unaltered state.13  The 
need for such authentication is predicated on the argument that something untoward may have occurred to the evidence 
between the time of collection and the time of presentation in court.  For a digital signature system to be most 
effective, the signatures would need to be created in real time as the digital video is recorded. 

Another method involves the use of encryption to scramble the image information making it impossible to view the 
image without the encryption key.  This might prevent image tampering but the encryption process itself alters the 
original image.  In order to view the encrypted image, it must be reconstructed.  Once encrypted, the original 
image is not retained.  This alone poses authentication problems.14

There is another method of establishing the authentication of analog and digital video evidence  the integrity and 
reputation of the expert.  This more basic method may not always carry the day, hence the desire to prove authentication 
objectively.  Indeed, where the credibility of the authentication witnesses is suspect, such a finding will impact 
upon an admissibility ruling.15

There are a number of legislative provisions that deal, directly or indirectly, with authentication related issues.

U.S. Federal Rule of Evidence 1002 states that the original of a writing, recording or photograph is required to 
prove the content of the writing, recording or

________________________________________________________________

11 Authentication of Digital Video Evidence, by Beser, Duerr and Staisiunas 
of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and the United 
States Postal Inspection Service, Forensic and Technical Services Division 

12 See note 10. 

13 See Authentication of Digital Video Evidence, note 11, for details. 

14 See note 10. 

15 R. v. Penney, [2002] N.J. 70 (Nfld. C.A.)


photograph.  FRE 1001(2) defines photograph as including still photographs, x-ray films, videotapes and motion 
pictures.  FRE 1001(3) provides that: 

If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout 
or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data 
accurately, is an original. 

Thus, in respect of digital images, there is no true original as defined in the Federal Rules of Evidence.   

A duplicate is defined in FRE 1001(4) as being: 

A duplicate is a counterpart produced by the same impression 
as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, 
including enlargements or miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic 
re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent 
techniques which accurately reproduces the original. 

According to FRE 1003: 

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless 
(1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the 
original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit 
the duplicate in lieu of the original. 

To a certain extent, this is simply an application of the best evidence rule. 

The Canada Evidence Act was amended in 2000 to deal with the reality of electronic documents.  
The amendments provide as follows: 

31.1 Any person seeking to admit an electronic document as evidence 
has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of 
supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it 
is purported to be. 

31.2 (1) The best evidence rule in respect of an electronic 
document is satisfied 

(a) on proof of the integrity of the 
electronic documents system by or in 
which the electronic document was 
recorded or stored; or 

(b) if an evidentiary presumption 
established under section 31.4 
applies. 

(2) Despite subsection (1), in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, an electronic document in the form of a printout 
satisfies the best evidence rule if the printout has been 
manifestly or consistently acted on, relied on or used as a 
record of the information recorded or stored in the printout. 

31.3 For the purposes of subsection 31.2(1), in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, the integrity of an electronic documents 
system by or in which an electronic document is recorded or stored 
is proven 

(a) by evidence capable of supporting a 
finding that at all material times the 
computer system or other similar device 
used by the electronic documents system 
was operating properly or, if it was not, 
the fact of its not operating properly did 
not affect the integrity of the electronic 
document and there are no other reasonable 
grounds to doubt the integrity of the 
electronic documents system; 


(b) if it is established that the electronic 
document was recorded or stored by a party 
who is adverse in interest to the party 
seeking to introduce it; or 

c) if it is established that the electronic 
document was recorded or stored in the usual 
and ordinary course of business by a person 
who is not a party and who did not record or 
store it under the control of the party 
seeking to introduce it. 

31.4 The Governor in Council may make regulations establishing evidentiary 
presumptions in relation to electronic documents signed with secure electronic 
signatures, including regulations respecting 

(a) the association of secure electronic 
signatures with persons; and 

(b) the integrity of information contained 
in electronic documents signed with secure 
electronic signatures. 

31.5 For the purpose of determining under any rule of law whether an electronic 
document is admissible, evidence may be presented in respect of any standard, 
procedure, usage or practice concerning the manner in which electronic documents 
are to be recorded or stored, having regard to the type of business, enterprise 
or endeavour that used, recorded or stored the electronic document and the 
nature and purpose of the electronic document. 

31.7 Sections 31.1 to 31.4 do not affect any rule of law relating to the admissibility 
of evidence, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence. 

31.8 The definitions in this section apply in sections 31.1 to 31.6. 

"computer system" means a device that, or a group of interconnected or related 
devices one or more of which, 

(a) contains computer programs or other data; and 

(b) pursuant to computer programs, performs logic 
and control, and may perform any other function. 

"data" means representations of information or of concepts, in any form. 

"electronic document" means data that is recorded or stored on any medium 
in or by a computer system or other similar device and that can be read or 
perceived by a person or a computer system or other similar device. It includes 
a display, printout or other output of that data. 

"electronic documents system" includes a computer system or other similar device 
by or in which data is recorded or stored and any procedures related to the 
recording or storage of electronic documents. 


"secure electronic signature" means a secure electronic signature as defined in subsection 31(1) 
of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.16

By virtue of the definition of electronic document and data, these amendments apply to video images that 
are recorded or stored on any medium in or by a computer or other similar device.  Practically, this would 
include the following: 

 images recorded by a digital CCTV system 
 digital video that is downloaded onto a computer system 
 analog video that has been digitized for use in court 

These amendments do not change what the common law already required.  Section 31.7 makes it clear that these 
amendments do not affect any existing rule of law relating to the admissibility of evidence.  Rather, they 
accentuate the present rules relating to authentication and best evidence. 

It remains the obligation of the party introducing an electronic document to authenticate the images contained 
within that document.  Translated, digital images must be proven to be authentic, accurate representations of what 
was originally recorded.   

Parliament has specifically required under s. 31.2(1)(a) that the best evidence rule in respect of electronic documents 
requires proof of the integrity of the electronic documents system that recorded or stored the electronic document.  
Thus, in the context of forensic video analysis, the competency of the analyst is not the only issue.  The competency and 
integrity of the computer system used by the analyst is also at issue.  Section 31.3(a) requires evidence that proves proper 
operation of the computer system in question. 

These provisions do not mandate the use of secure electronic signatures as part of an authentication scheme.  Section 31.4 
allows the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing evidentiary presumptions in respect of such an authentication 
scheme.  As of March 2004, so such regulations have been enacted. 

The only reported decision thus far regarding the amendments to the Canada Evidence Act is R. v. Morgan.17  This case dealt with 
fishing licenses that existed in a computer database.  In discussing these amendments, Flynn, J. said:18

_____________________________________________________________________
16 Under s. 31(1) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic 
Documents Act, secure electronic signature means a signature that 
results from the application of a technology or process prescribed by 
regulations made under s. 48(1) of the Act.  As of March 2004, no 
regulations have been enacted under s. 48(1). 

17 [2002] N.J. 15 (Nfld. and Lab. P.C.) 

18 At page 7 



[20]These sections must work in conjunction with either some common law general rule of 
admissibility of documents or some other statutory provision.  These sections themselves 
do not authorize the admissibility of the documentary evidence it describes.  Rather, 
what the sections do is to clothe electronically stored and produced documents with the 
status of "best evidence" provided they meet certain criteria for their admissibility.  
For example, the documents in this case must first be proven to be business documents 
or official or public documents which are admissible of themselves as documentary evidence 
and as exceptions to the hearsay rule. If they are admissible under these other criteria, 
then Sections 31.1 and 31.2 operate to make them the best evidence available for that purpose.  

[21] Enacted in the year 2000, the general purpose of section 31.1 and Section 31.2 as gleaned 
from the statutory provisions themselves is to allow the use of computerized information as 
either business, public documents or other types of documents provided the reliability of 
such documents can be established.  It is a legislative attempt to grapple with the realities 
of modern business practice.  

These comments reflect the likely intention of Parliament in enacting these provisions, namely the use of business documents 
that exist on computer databases, networks and hard drives.  However, the broad definitions of electronic document and data 
clearly envelop digital images as well, whether so intended or not.  

This does not change the way digital images should be approached.  If anything, it simply formalizes what the common law and proper 
practice already requires.  Integrity and reliability remain the watchwords. 

d) editing 

One of the concerns with videotape evidence (both analog and digital) is that the images have been edited in such a way as to present 
a false picture of what really happened.  This is different from concerns of authentication.  Editing in this context applies to both 
video and audio editing. 

Editing a videotape will not necessarily render the video evidence inadmissible.  The person tendering the video evidence, whether the 
forensic video analyst or another witness, must thoroughly explain any editing in such a fashion as to instill confidence in the evidence 
led in court.   

Editing is quite legitimate.  For example, if the original videotape records seven days of images and the robbery in question lasted three 
minutes, editing out the balance of the images is appropriate because they are irrelevant.  A forensic video analyst must be careful to ensure 
that there is nothing else relevant on the tape such as an earlier or later appearance by the suspect (or victim as the case may be). 



In general, editing goes to weight, not admissibility.19  However, edited videotapes will likely be excluded where the editing causes a disruption 
in the chronology or continuity of the event, or otherwise causes confusion.  Inadmissibility on this basis results from the fact that the tendered 
images do not accurately establish and depict the events in question.20  Further, where the probative value of the remaining images is outweighed by 
the prejudicial effect, the evidence can be excluded.  More on this latter test will be discussed further in this paper. 

The use of time-lapse surveillance video and multiplex cameras, though they involved forced editing by the cameras, is permissible provided the time-lapse 
operation or multiplex function is adequately explained to the court. 

e) accuracy of the images 

Accuracy of the images, while related to authentication, is a separate issue.  The accuracy of the images portrayed on the videotape can affect both 
admissibility and weight.  The overriding test to be applied is that the tape must be a consistent, true reflection of reality.  The primary objects 
in the videotape as well as the secondary or surrounding elements must all be accurately shown.  Distortion of material elements of the videotape may 
affect the admissibility of the evidence.  Distortion of non-material elements will likely only affect the weight of the evidence. 

A forensic video analyst must ensure that the proper aspect ratio is used so as to ensure that accurately proportioned images are shown.  

Digital surveillance equipment is being marketed as the solution to almost any commercial (and private) surveillance security concern.  On its face, 
there is an attraction to a digital video security system.  No videotapes to handle or store.  Many hours of surveillance can be recorded and erased.  
Some systems are quite inexpensive.  One of the concerns that affect the admissibility of images from these systems is compression.  If the images are 
compressed such as to produce ghosting or artifacts, then the images are not accurate and will not likely be admitted. 

f) chain of custody

A forensic video analyst must have confidence that the chain of custody of the video evidence is intact.  This is not just a concern for the prosecutor.  
The analyst should be satisfied that he/she is working on the original evidence and that the integrity of that evidence is intact.  It follows that the 
forensic video analyst must also account for the chain of custody of the video evidence while in his/her possession.

_____________________________________________________________
19 Pease Co. v. Local Union 1787, 393 N.E.2d 504 (Ohio Court 
of Appeal, 1978); Pritchard v. Downie, 326 F.2d 323 (Criminal 
Court of Appeal, 8th Circuit, 1964); R. v. Ramos (1997), 
101 O.A.C. 211 (Ontario Court of Appeal) 2

0 R. v. Penney, [2002] N.J. 70 (Nfld. C.A.)



Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) should adequately address these issues. 

g) probative value v. prejudicial effect 

A final, overriding consideration for the admissibility of any evidence is whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect.  The 
prejudice referred to in the term prejudicial effect does not refer to the increased likelihood of conviction.  Rather, it refers to evidence which operates 
unfairly against the accused - evidence that may be used improperly by the trier of fact. 

In the context of video evidence, if as a result of editing, the videotape is found to operate unfairly to the accused, it may be ruled inadmissible on the basis 
that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.  For example, in Toronto (City) v. Debono,21 the court refused to admit 
television news video that had been edited for television purposes because the edited version was inflammatory and unfair. 

This is a common law principle. 

This principle is codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which provides: 

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, 
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of 
cumulative evidence. 

In Ballou v. Henri Studios,22 the Court stated: 

[U]nfair prejudice as used in Rule 403 is not to be equated with testimony simply adverse to the opposing party.  Virtually all evidence is prejudicial or it isnt 
material.  Unfair prejudice within the context of Rule 403 means an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an 
emotional one. 

Forensic video analysis itself is unlikely to violate this principle but it is an important principle to keep in mind. 

____________________________________________________________
21 Unreported, June 1, 1990, Ontario High Court of Justice 
22 656 F.2d 1147 (5th Circuit, 1981) 



Videotapes as Evidence of Identification 

One of the most useful applications for videotape evidence is to establish the identity of the 
perpetrator(s) of an offence.  This is especially important given the frailties that are associated 
with eyewitness identification evidence. 

There are two key cases from the Supreme Court of Canada that have embraced the use of videotape 
evidence as evidence of identification and have placed logical restrictions on the use of such evidence.   

The first is R. v. Leaney and Rawlinson,23 where the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with a case involving 
two accused that were prosecuted for a number of offences, including a break and enter that was captured 
by a surveillance camera.  The main evidence against Leaney was the videotape evidence.  To bolster the 
weight given to the videotape evidence, the prosecution called five police officers to testify regarding 
the issue of identification.  Four of the police officers had no previous acquaintance with Leaney.  The 
fifth one had known him since childhood and had spent time with him shortly before the offence was 
committed. 

The issue was whether the police officers were allowed to express an opinion on identification of the 
person shown in the videotape.  The Court held that the four police officers that did not know the accused 
were not permitted to express such an opinion because they were in no better position than the trial judge 
to make such an assessment.  The evidence of the fifth police officer was clearly admissible due his past 
familiarity and association with the accused.  Further, the trial judge was entitled to make his own 
assessment as to the identification of the person shown in the videotape. 

Numerous American decisions have reached the same conclusion.24

The value of surveillance video in the prosecution context received another endorsement from the Supreme 
Court of Canada in R. v. Nikolovski.25  Nikolovski robbed a Macs store but at trial, the clerk was unable 
to identify the accused as the perpetrator and in fact thought that another man shown in a photo line-up 
was the robber but even then he was only 25-30% sure.  The prosecution tendered the surveillance videotape 
as evidence in the trial.  The videotape clearly showed that the accused was the robber.  After the clerk 
viewed the videotape in court, he was then asked if the man who robbed him was in court.  The clerk did 
not think so.  This is a good illustration of the frailty of eyewitness identification evidence. 

________________________________________________________________
23 (1989), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 289  

24 See for example, United States v. Pierce, 136 F.3d 770 
(11th Circuit), cert. denied 119 S.Ct. 430 (1998); 
Nooner v. State of Arkansas, 907 S.W.2d 677 (Arkansas Supreme Court, 1995) 

25 See note 2 



The trial judge studied the videotape very carefully and concluded that Nikolovski was indeed the robber 
and convicted him on the strength of the surveillance video evidence alone.  The matter was ultimately 
appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court stated something that is rather obvious but is often forgotten in our courts: 

The ultimate aim of any trial, criminal or civil, must 
be to seek and to ascertain the truth.26

Referring to the value of video evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada noted in R. v. KGB27 that video 
evidence is a milestone contributing to the triumph of a principled analysis over a set of ossified 
judicially created categories.

In R. v. DOL,28 the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the modern trend is to admit all relevant and 
probative evidence and allow the trier of fact to determine the weight to be given to such evidence in 
order to arrive at a just result.  Madam Justice LHeureux-Dube stated that it would be wrong to 
disallow evidence available through technological advances such as videotaping, that may benefit 
the truth seeking process. 

In Nikolovski, after commenting on the frailty of eyewitness identification evidence, the Court 
made these comments about video evidence:29

The video camera on the other hand is never subject to stress.  Through 
tumultuous events it continues to record accurately and dispassionately 
all that comes before it.  Although silent, it remains a constant, 
unbiased witness with instant and total recall of all that it observed. 

So long as the videotape is of good quality and gives a clear picture 
of events and the perpetrator, it may provide the best evidence of the 
identity of the perpetrator.  It is relevant and admissible evidence 
that can by itself be cogent and convincing evidence on the issue of 
identity.  Indeed it may be the only evidence available.  For example, 
in the course of a robbery, every eyewitness may be killed yet the 
video camera will steadfastly continue to impassively record the 
robbery and the actions of the robbers. 

It is because video evidence can provide such clear and convincing evidence of identification that the 
trier of fact can use such evidence as the sole basis of determining identification. 

The inherent value of quality video images is illustrated in a double robbery case wherein the trial 
judge convicted the accused of the robbery where there was 

______________________________________________________
26 At p. 409 

27 (1993), 79 C.C.C. (3d) 257 

28 (1993), 85 C.C.C. (3d) 289 

29 Supra, at note 2 



only videotape evidence and no eyewitness evidence but acquitted where there was an excellent 
eyewitness but no video evidence.30  

In Nikolovski, the Court put forth these procedural guidelines: 

  once it is established that the videotape has not been 
altered or changed and that it depicts the crime scene, it is 
relevant and admissible evidence 

 the clarity and quality of the images and to a lesser extent, 
the duration of the images, will impact upon the weight to be 
given to the video evidence 

 frame by frame analysis is permitted 

Finally, the Court cautioned that the trier of fact must exercise care in reaching 
conclusions based solely on video evidence. 

______________________________________________________
30 R. v. Geddes and Ledesma (unreported, 1998, Alberta Court of Queens Bench) 



Forensic Video Analysis 

1. Introduction

Some video evidence is so clear and convincing that the original untouched tape (or a copy made to 
preserve the integrity of the original) need only be played in court after the video evidence has 
been authenticated.  However, for video evidence that is less than stand-alone clear and convincing, 
where objective corroboration is advisable or where additional analysis is beneficial, forensic video 
analysis is essential. 

Forensic video analysis is defined as the scientific examination, comparison and evaluation of video 
in legal matters.  A typical case begins with an offence being committed.  Police investigators will 
then search for surveillance video evidence that shows the commission of the offence itself or that 
shows the suspects (or other persons of interest) in another location either before or after the 
commission of the offence.  Once that video evidence is obtained,31 it will be digitized so as to 
preserve the integrity of the original evidence and to allow for digital clarification.  Known images 
will be obtained of the suspect, once identified.  Similarly, clothing or other objects that were seized 
in connection with the offence or the arrest of the suspect will be photographed or videotaped.  These 
known items are then videotaped in the same location where the suspect was caught on surveillance video 
using the surveillance equipment from that establishment.  These are referred to as exhibit placement 
images.  Then the forensic analysis begins. 

The purpose of the analysis is to determine whether the defendant is the person depicted in the surveillance 
video and whether the known clothing and other objects that were seized match those seen in the surveillance 
video.  This is done by comparing clarified images from the surveillance video with known images of the defendant, 
clothing and other objects.  A further comparison is performed between the known images and the exhibit placement 
images.   

A thorough analysis may take many hours.  Presentation of the evidence in court may take several hours, even though 
the original surveillance videotape images only lasted a couple of minutes. 

2. Court Acceptance of New Technology 

Leading new types of scientific evidence in court can be an arduous task.  Not all judges (and lawyers) are young 
and wise in the ways of new technology.  It is the 

________________________________________________________
31 Either by consent or search warrant 



role of the prosecutor and the expert witness to lay a proper foundation for such evidence that will convince the 
court to admit and rely on the evidence. 

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Nikolovski,32 said: 

With the progress of scientific studies and advances in technology, 
evidence put forward particularly as to identification has changed 
over the years.  The admission of new types of evidence is often 
resisted at first and yet, later accepted as commonplace and essential 
to the task of truth finding.  Fingerprint evidence may be the first 
example of scientific evidence leading to identification.  Similarly, 
blood typing with its ever increasing refinements can be extremely 
helpful in identification.  DNA testing is yet another example.  It 
must never be forgotten that evidence of this type can serve to establish 
innocence just as surely and effectively as it may establish guilt. 

The Court held that expert evidence which advances a novel scientific theory or technique is subjected to special scrutiny 
to determine whether it meets the basic threshold of reliability and whether such evidence is essential in enabling the trier 
of fact to reach a proper conclusion.  Once ruled admissible, it remains a question of what weight should be attached to the 
evidence. 

What then is the test that is applied when considering novel scientific evidence? 

a) the American approach 

One approach that sets out the threshold test on admissibility of novel scientific evidence that is followed in many American 
jurisdictions is the test enunciated in Frye v. United States.33  The Frye test provides as follows: 

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the 
line between the experimental and the demonstrable stages 
is difficult to define.  Somewhere in this twilight zone 
the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, 
and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert 
testimony deduced from well recognized scientific principle 
or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made 
must be sufficiently established to have gained general 
acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. 

Some commentators view Frye as being too conservative in restricting admissibility to evidence that has gained general acceptance.  
Others view its wording as being too vague to be of real help to trial courts.  Some of this controversy has led to contradictory 
rulings in different jurisdictions on the same types of scientific evidence.34 

An example of the application of the Frye test in a case involving digital imaging is State of Washington v. Hayden.35  In Hayden, 
the defendant had been convicted of felony first degree murder.  It was alleged that he had raped and

_____________________________________________________________
32 Supra, note 2, at p. 409-410 

33 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir., 1923) 

34 Frye, Frye, Again: The Past, Present and Future of the General 
Acceptance Test, David E. Bernstein, 2001 

35 950 P.2d 1024 (Washington Court of Appeals, 1998) 



murdered a woman in her apartment.  Fingerprint evidence obtained at the scene was of insufficient quality to allow the latent print 
examiner to make a proper comparison.  The examiner took the questioned exhibits to Erik Berg, a Tacoma Police Department expert in 
enhanced digital imaging.  Mr. Berg produced digital images of the fingerprints, removed certain background fabric patterns and 
enhanced the fingerprints so that the prints became more visible.  This allowed the latent print examiner to conclude that the prints 
belonged to Hayden.  Hayden argued that the fingerprint evidence ought not to have been admitted. 

Following the practice in Washington State, a Frye hearing was conducted.  The trial court found that enhanced digital imaging is not 
novel scientific evidence to which the Frye test applies.  In any event, the trial court found that the process passed the Frye test. 

The Washington Court of Appeals examined enhanced digital imaging for the first time and applied the Frye test.  Noting the evidence 
led in the trial and the absence of any defense evidence to the contrary, the Court ruled that enhanced digital imaging is generally 
accepted in the relevant scientific community.  Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed. 

In 1993, the United States Supreme Court, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.,36 articulated the definitive threshold 
standard governing the admissibility of expert evidence in federal prosecutions.  The Court held that the proper standard for determining 
admissibility is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence rather than Frye.  In order for expert evidence to be admitted, the method 
of analysis used by the expert need not necessarily have gained general acceptance as is required under the Frye test. 

Prior to Daubert, most federal and state court judges had been relying on two standards to determine the admissibility of expert testimony - 
relevance and the Frye test.  Critics of Frye argued that this approach often excluded new but legitimate science that had not yet gained a 
consensus within the scientific community.  They also argued that science was not a majority rules proposition.  Yet, there was a legitimate 
concern that junk science not be admitted into legal proceedings.  The United States Supreme Court sought to clarify these standards in 
Daubert. 

The Court directed judges to act as gatekeepers and instructed them to examine the scientific method underlying expert evidence and to admit 
only evidence that was both relevant and reliable.  Daubert set out a two-part test that must be met in order for expert evidence to be 
admitted under the FRE: 

 the expert evidence must consist of scientific knowledge  that is, 
it must be supported by appropriate validation 

________________________________________________________
36 113 S. Ct. 2786  



 the evidence must assist the trier of fact in understanding the 
evidence or in determining a fact in issue 

In deciding the first issue, the court will consider a number of factors: 

 is the evidence based on a testable theory or technique? 

 has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication? 

 does the technique have a known error rate and standards controlling the 
techniques operation? 

 is the underlying science generally accepted in the scientific community? 

The Court cautioned that this was not a closed list and that judges could employ additional criteria.  FRE 403 (probative value v. 
prejudicial effect) must also be considered. 

In practice, other factors will be considered when determining the admissibility of scientific evidence: 

 whether there are analogous relationships with other types of scientific 
techniques that are routinely admitted into evidence 

 the experts qualifications 

 the existence of specialized literature in the area 

 the nature and breadth of the inference sought to be adduced from 
the evidence 

 the clarity with which the technique may be explained 

 the extent to which basic data may be verified by the court and jury 

 the availability of other experts to evaluate the technique 

 the probative significance of the evidence 

The essential question is not whether the technique is infallible but whether the scientific technique exhibits a level of reliability to 
warrant its use in the courtroom.  The court must also be aware of the potential for the jury to be awed by notions of mystic 
infallibility. 

In the aftermath of Daubert, some courts, particularly in civil litigation, are arguably misinterpreting and broadening the intended reach 
of Daubert, thereby excluding scientific evidence that ought not to have been excluded.37

The Daubert case is alive and well and has been followed and applied in numerous subsequent U.S.S.C. cases.38

_________________________________________________________
37 Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling 
Youve Never Heard Of, June 2003, Tellus Institute 



At the federal level, Daubert is the governing test.  At the state level, each states courts have decided and continue to decide which 
approach to follow.  At the state level, Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence approach is followed in Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, 
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming (a total of 26 states).39

Frye remains the test at the state level in Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.40  It should be noted that some of the 
case law under Frye is showing a convergence with Daubert. 

Some states follow neither Daubert nor Frye and instead use more liberal admissibility tests.41 

It has been argued that Frye jurisdictions should adopt amended FRE 702, which incorporates the holdings of the Supreme Courts expert 
evidence trilogy.42  This approach is argued to be the most sound and consistent method of assessing the admissibility of scientific 
evidence. 

b) the Canadian approach 

In R. v. Beland and Phillips,43 a case dealing with the admissibility of polygraph evidence, Wilson, J., in dissent (though not on this 
point), was critical of the Frye test.  Wilson, J. preferred a more expansive admissibility standard, that of relevancy and helpfulness.  
If relevancy and helpfulness are shown, then cross-examination on the expert evidence and opposing expert witnesses go to the weight of 
the evidence rather than its admissibility. 

Sopinka, J., in R. v. Mohan,44 stated: 

In summary, therefore, it appears from the foregoing that expert evidence 
which advances a scientific theory or technique is subjected to special 
scrutiny to determine whether it meets a basic threshold of reliability 
and whether it is essential in the sense 

___________________________________________________________
38 For an example of the application of Daubert, see U.S. v. 
Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809 (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit). 

39 State Standards for Admitting Scientific Evidence, National 
Traffic Law Center, Alexandria, Virginia 

40 Frye, Frye, Again: The Past, Present and Future of the 
General Acceptance Test, David E. Bernstein, 2001 

41 Ibid. 

42 Daubert, Joiner, Kumho Tire  see Frye, Frye, Again: The 
Past, Present and Future of the General Acceptance Test, 
David E. Bernstein, 2001 

43 (1987), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (Supreme Court of Canada) 

44 (1994), 89 C.C.C. (3d) 402 (Supreme Court of Canada) 



that the trier of fact will be unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion 
without the assistance of an expert.  The closer the evidence approaches 
an opinion on an ultimate issue, the stricter the application of this 
principle. 

The Court in Mohan kept the door open to novel science, rejecting the general acceptance test formulated in Frye and 
preferring instead the reliable foundation test laid down in Daubert. 

Citing Daubert, the Supreme Court of Canada listed a number of factors that could be helpful in evaluating the soundness 
of novel science: 

 whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested  scientific 
methodology is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if 
they can be falsified  it is this methodology that distinguishes science 
from other fields of human inquiry 

 whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and 
publication  submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a 
component of good science because it increases the likelihood that 
substantive flaws in methodology will be detected 

 the known or potential rate of error  

 the existence of standards 

 whether the theory or technique has been generally accepted  widespread 
acceptance can be an important factor in ruling scientific evidence admissible 
whereas a theory or technique that has only attracted minimal support within 
the community may properly be viewed with skepticism 

Therefore, in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a test akin to Daubert as the appropriate method to assess novel scientific evidence.  
Once the scientific evidence meets this test, it becomes a question of weight. 

3. Court Reception of Forensic Video Analysis 

Although forensic video analysis has been used in many criminal and civil cases over the past decade in the United States, Canada and the United 
Kingdom, relatively few of these cases have been reported.  It is often the case that forensic video analysis constitutes extremely powerful 
evidence and may be

_____________________________________________________________
45 [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600 



decisive in a given case, yet unless that evidence is challenged in a meaningful way, the decision of the trial judge may not be reported.  The 
reported cases that currently exist must therefore be taken as being only a small percentage of the cases where forensic video analysis has 
been used. 

a) United States cases 

The following are reported United States cases that have used forensic video analysis as part of the evidence being considered by the court.  In 
some of the cases, the level of forensic analysis is basic while in some cases, the analysis is quite advanced. 

English v. State of Georgia46

An undercover agent videotaped a cocaine sale.  The videotape was digitized and images of the defendant were subjected to computer enhancement 
and printed as single images.  A copy of the original videotape was entered as an exhibit at trial as well as a copy of the single computer 
enhanced image of the defendant seller. 

At issue was whether the trial judge erred in admitting the computer enhanced images.  The appeal court ruled that since the technician who produced 
the computer enhanced images testified as to the process used and established that the images were a fair and accurate representation of what 
appeared in the videotape, the computer enhanced images were admissible.  The conviction was upheld. 

United States v. Mosley47  

Mosley was charged with six counts of bank robbery.  An FBI Agent testified that he subjected surveillance video from one of the banks to digital image 
processing.  This procedure sharpened the images.  He further testified that he was then able to detect a mark on the face of the robber.  He then 
compared this mark with a mark on Mosleys face that was visible in a booking photograph and described the similarities noted.  The defense argued 
that the trial court erred in admitting this evidence. 

At issue was whether the trial judge erred in admitting this digital analysis evidence.  In a very brief ruling, the appeal court concluded that the 
trial court reasonably concluded that this evidence would assist the jury and that it was properly admitted. 

State of Minnesota v. Newman48 

_____________________________________________________________
46 422 S.E.2d 924 (1992, Court of Appeals of Georgia) 

47 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 23969 (United States Court of Appeals 
for the Ninth Circuit) 

48 1994 Minn. App. LEXIS 1246 (1994, Court of Appeals of Minnesota) 



Newman was charged with the theft of $474 worth of baseball cards from a store.  At trial, the evidence against Newman consisted of the testimony of 
the cashier and a surveillance videotape which showed two men leaving the store with the baseball cards.  

Following the verdict of guilt, Newman moved for a new trial alleging a prosecution discovery violation.  As part of this post-trial process, the 
trial court viewed computer-enhanced still images from the videotape.  It heard evidence from a defense witness, a digital imaging technician.  
The technician testified that the computer enhanced images showed a mark on the suspects left cheek whereas the defendant had a mark on his 
right cheek.  The trial court disagreed with this finding and denied a new trial. 

At issue was whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.  The appeal court ruled that the trial court did not err in 
denying the motion for a new trial.  The post-trial computer enhanced images were inconclusive on the issue of identification but the cashiers 
evidence was strong, coupled with the fact that the cashier had dealt with Newman on several occasions. 

Though not stated, implicit in the ruling of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals of Minnesota is the acceptance of the digital 
imaging evidence that was presented by the defense.  

Nooner v. State of Arkansas49

This was a capital murder case where portions of the incident were captured on videotape.  The defendant contended that stills taken from the 
videotape should not have been admitted as they had been manipulated and that therefore the silent witness theory did not apply. 

The following technical process occurred: 

 the original videotape was slowed down by making an exact duplicate of it 
in Betacam format and then freezing each frame for several seconds 

 still frames were then taken from the duplicate video and digitized 

 pixels on the suspects face were softened to remove graininess 

 no features were added or subtracted to/from the original, except to 
mosaic out the face of the victim 

 still photographs were prepared from the digitized images 

 in producing the still photographs, the number of pixels per square inch 
were increased to improve the contrast, and the brightness was also adjusted 

 no alteration was made of the original images 
_________________________________________________________________
49 907 S.W.2d 677 (1995, Supreme Court of Arkansas) 



At issue was whether the digitally created stills were admissible. 

The Court noted at page 686: 

Reliability must be the watchword in determining the admissibility of 
enhanced videotape and photographs, whether by computer or otherwise. 

The Court ruled that computer generated stills are admissible if they are verified as being reliable representations of images recorded on the original 
videotape.  Further, the original videotape should be entered as an exhibit for the trier of fact to view.  As each of these requirements was met in 
this case, the defendants argument failed. 

State of Arizona v. Paxton50

Paxton was convicted of first degree murder and appealed his conviction.  The victim was the driver of the car in which Paxton was a rear seat passenger 
and Smaulding was the front seat passenger.  While the vehicle was moving, Paxton shot the victim through the drivers seat back.  He then reached 
between the two front bucket seats and fired five more times into the victims right side.  Once Paxton stopped the car, he and Smaulding pulled the 
victim out of the car and put him in the rear hatchback.  The victims body was later dumped in a ditch.  Once it became apparent that the police were 
focusing on Paxton and Smaulding, Smaulding burned the car.  Smaulding eventually led police to the victims body. 

At trial, Paxton testified that in fact Smaulding was the killer, not Paxton.  He testified that the three of them had driven to a secluded spot where 
they smoked marijuana.  The seating arrangement was the same.  Paxton said that Smaulding pulled a gun and shot the victim five times in his right 
side and when the victim tried to escape out the drivers door, Smaulding shot him in the back.  Paxton said that Smaulding then dragged the victim 
from the car and dumped his body in a ditch.

A blood-stained seat cover was found with the victims body.  At issue at trial was whether the seat cover had been on the drivers seat when the victim 
was shot.  If it had, Smauldings evidence that Paxton shot the victim through the drivers seat would have been impossible because there was no bullet 
hole in the seat cover.  The State contended that the victim had removed the seat cover earlier because the straps were broken and that he was storing 
it in the hatchback where it became bloodstained when his body was placed there after being shot.

_______________________________________________________________
50 925 P.2d 721 (1996, Court of Appeals of Arizona) 



The victims mother testified that the drivers seat cover was not on the seat two days before the murder.  A friend of the victim also testified that he 
rode in the victims car the day before the murder and did not recall the seat cover being on the drivers seat.  Further, he said that it had been 
floating around in the back seat and hatch in the months prior to the murder due to the straps being broken.  The victims girlfriend testified that 
she knew that the passenger seat had a cover but was unsure if the drivers seat did.  The state tendered photographs of the car that the girlfriend 
had taken within three months of the murder.  The photographs appeared to show that only the passenger seat had a seat cover on it. 

Mark Little was qualified as an expert witness.  He digitized, clarified and analyzed the photographs of the victims car.  He testified that there 
was a difference in the colors of the front seats, thereby allowing the court to draw the inference that the drivers seat cover was not in place 
at the time the photographs were taken. 

Amongst other issues, Paxton argued that the evidence of Mark Little was irrelevant because it was based on photographs taken too remote 
in time from the murder. 

The Court ruled that the expert evidence was relevant and admissible because if the seat cover was off the drivers seat up to three months before 
the murder, it was likely off at the time of the murder, especially given the fact that the straps were broken.  The Court expressed no concern with 
the admissibility of the forensic digital analysis of the photographs.  The conviction was upheld. 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Auker51

Auker was convicted of the first degree murder and kidnapping of his former wife.  The body of the victim was discovered on a hot June day by a young 
woman who was walking down a rural dirt road.  She smelled an odor, investigated and found the badly decomposed body of the victim clad in a jacket, 
jeans and sneakers.  The Coroner observed holes in the victims jacket that continued through the sweater underneath, which were consistent with between 
7-10 stab wounds in the back and chest area.  He concluded that the wounds would have impacted the vital organs.  However, since the body was essentially 
skeletonized, no organs were present as they had disappeared from both decomposition and insect activity. 

An entomologist testified that the presence and relative maturity of insects in and around the body allowed him to estimate the approximate date of 
death, that being 19-25 days prior to discovery. 

__________________________________________________________________
51 681 A.2d 1305 (1996, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania) 



It was determined that the victim had been missing for 19 days and was last seen wearing clothing similar to that found on the body. 

The evidence established that the victim was afraid that the defendant would hurt her and take away their child, that he was following her and that the 
victim and the defendant were involved in a bitter divorce and custody battle. 

Amongst other evidence, the Commonwealth led evidence of videotape from an ATM at a local bank located just outside the entrance to the victims workplace.  
The ATM camera photographed the location directly in front of it at ten second intervals.  At 15:47:24, the camera recorded a woman wearing clothing similar 
to that worn by the victim walking from the area where the victims car was found toward the mall where the victim worked.  The next frame, taken at 15:47:34 
showed the same woman leaning into an open front passenger door of a vehicle that had pulled across her path and was stopped with its brake lights on in the 
wrong lane of travel.  No other images of the woman or the car were found.  This video was shot on the day that the victim was last seen alive.

The incident was reenacted using the banks ATM camera.  A Chevrolet Celebrity, the same vehicle Auker was using on the day the ATM images were captured, 
was placed in an identical position and captured on video.  Digital image enhancement was used to clarify the images taken from the ATM video.  The original 
video was of poor quality and contrast and lightening effects were applied to gain a more usable image.  

The original video frames were compared to the reenactment frames in both the enhanced and unenhanced format.  A Chevrolet representative testified that the 
vehicles depicted in both the original and reenactment video appeared to be Chevrolet Celebrities within certain production years including that of the car 
Auker was proven to have been driving.  It does not appear that anyone testified regarding a comparison of the woman or her clothing to that of the victim. 

This motor vehicle identification evidence was important because forensic evidence had been found in Aukers parents Celebrity, which Auker had used 
without their permission on the day the ATM images were captured. 

Amongst other issues, Auker argued that the comparison evidence of the video images should not have been admitted. 

The Court noted that expert testimony is permitted as an aid to the jury when the subject matter is distinctly related to a science, skill or occupation 
beyond the knowledge or experience of the average lay person.  Where a witness has a reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on a subject in issue, 
the witness may testify and the jury will assign the appropriate weight to that evidence.  Expertise, whether gathered from formal education or by experience, 
is expertise.  Here, the Chevrolet representative had specialized knowledge and



was properly permitted to express an opinion as to the make and year of the car depicted in the video. 

The Court expressed no concern with the admissibility of the digital image enhancement evidence. 

United States v. Beeler52  

The defendant was charged with blowing up a car by means of a pipe bomb.  Surveillance video from a nearby Mobil Mini-Mart 
captured the adefendant in the store shortly before the explosion when he asked for incriminating directions from the clerk.  
The clerk was unable to identify the defendant in a photo line-up.  The surveillance video was critical in proving the case. 

An ATF audiovisual enhancement expert digitized relevant images from the original tape using Image Lab.  He then enhanced the 
quality of the images by adjusting the contrast and brightness of those images and enlarging portions of the images that depicted 
the subject.  He did not modify the original images  rather, he made them easier to see.  The ATF expert testified that he 
recorded each step he undertook in this process. 

The defendant argued that the enhanced images were inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule and that they were untrustworthy 
because they are susceptible to tampering and subsequent modification through enhancement. 

The prosecution must establish that the enhanced images are accurate, authentic and trustworthy.  The Court was satisfied on each 
point in this case.   

The enhanced version is different only in that extraneous frames are 
no longer present and the images are larger, clearer and easier to view
The edited and enhanced versions of the Mobil Mini-Mart surveillance 
videotape are admissible because they have been proven accurate and 
serve to present the substance of the original videotape in a more 
easily understood form which is in accord with the spirit of the best 
evidence rule. (para. 13-14) 

Dolan v. State of Florida53

Dolan was charged with multiple offences arising out of the sexual battery of a store clerk in a lingerie shop.  The event and the 
perpetrator were captured on store surveillance video equipment.  The shop owner testified as to the placement of the cameras, their 
operation and the loading of the tape.  The police seized the tape immediately after the incident and established proper continuity.  
While the tape quality was poor, the perpetrators physical characteristics were discernable. 

____________________________________________________________
52 62 F. Supp.2d 136 (1999, United States District Court, D. Maine) 

53 743 So.2d 544 (1999, Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District) 



Fort Lauderdale Police sent the video to an expert for forensic video analysis.  At trial, the analyst testified that she digitized the 
images and then enhanced the digitized images to clarify and focus the images of the perpetrator.  The result was a computer enhanced image 
that was bigger, brighter and better.  Still prints were then made for court purposes.  Both the prints and the original video were entered 
at trial.  The forensic video analyst testified that the still prints were fair and accurate representations of what appeared on the original 
videotape.  She testified that she did not edit the images. 

The defense argued that the State failed to prove that the prints were fair and accurate representations of the incident.  At issue was whether 
the computer generated stills were properly verified as reliable representations of images recorded on the original videotape. 

The Court held that the original videotape was properly admitted under the silent witness theory.  As to the computer generated digitized stills, 
they were admissible providing the following requirements were met: 

 evidence is required as to the location and operation 
of the surveillance equipment 

 it must be shown that the original videotape accurately 
reflected the location shown in the videotape 

 continuity of the tape must be established 

 it must be shown that the computer generated stills did 
not alter or distort the images on the original videotape 

 the original videotape must be available to the trier 
of fact for review 

The Court stated that: 

Once the tape is authenticated and the forensic analyst explains the 
computer enhancement process and establishes that the images were not 
altered or edited, then the computer enhancements become admissible as 
a fair and accurate replicate of what is on the tape, provided the 
original tape is in evidence for comparison. 

The Court admitted the forensic video analysis evidence because each of the above requirements had been met.

State of Ohio v. Jones54

Jones was a hotel worker at an Embassy Suites Hotel in Blue Ash, Ohio.  It was alleged that he had illegally entered a guest room and then robbed and 
murdered an elderly guest.  The victim died of multiple trauma to the head and trunk.  During the investigation, police sent a walkie-talkie that was 
used by hotel employees to the FBI.  A forensic pathologist used digital image processing to compare autopsy photographs of the victims wound patterns 
to the patterns on

____________________________________________________________________
54 739 N.E.2d 300 (2000, Supreme Court of Ohio) 



the walkie-talkie and the door chains seized from Jones car and found them to be consistent.  An FBI specialist in forensic photography compared 
autopsy photographs to the walkie-talkie and also found the wound patterns consistent with the metal rivets and snaps on the walkie-talkies leather 
case. 

Following a trial, the defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.  He appealed initially to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, First 
Appellate District.  Amongst other issues, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting the digital comparison evidence of the forensic 
pathologist and the FBI Agent. 

The Court of Appeals of Ohio ruled that the digital imaging comparison evidence was reliable and admissible.  This ruling was appealed to the 
Supreme Court of Ohio. 

The Supreme Court of Ohio noted that both the forensic pathologist and the FBI Agent were presented as expert witnesses.  Accordingly, Evid. R. 702 
applies.  The Court held that the evidence of the FBI Agent was admissible as the comparison evidence given was similar to the techniques used to 
compare fingerprints and shoeprints.  The evidence was therefore admissible and the jury could assign whatever weight to the evidence it chose.  The 
conviction and death sentence were affirmed. 

In Re:  The Disciplinary Action of Patrick J. Gianforte55

The Grand Victoria Riverboat Casino had a give-away game promotion that required that tickets be drawn from a drum to select a winner.  Gianforte was 
the Executive Host and was to make the drawings.  The drawings were videotaped.  On the draw in question, Gianforte placed his right hand into his 
right jacket pocket, removed it, placed it in the drum, swished the entries around and purported to pull out the winning ticket.  It was alleged that 
Gianforte rigged the drawing. 

None of the witnesses to the drawing noticed anything amiss.  Jim Wood, a forensic video analyst from the Louisville, Kentucky Police Department, 
conducted a full forensic video analysis, including a PowerPoint presentation, of the videotape.  He was able to show that from the time Gianforte 
removed his right hand from his right jacket pocket, to the time his hand entered the drum, there was a white object, which appeared to be a white 
slip of paper resembling an entry ticket, slightly emanating from the bottom of his hand. 

At issue was whether the Gaming Board should rely on the forensic video analysis in determining whether Gianforte was guilty of misconduct. 

__________________________________________________________________
55 unreported, November 7, 2001, State of Illinois, Department of 
Revenue, Illinois Gaming Board, Administrative Hearing Division



The Judge found that Jim Wood was qualified to give expert evidence.  His evidence was of assistance to the trier of fact in understanding the 
videotape evidence.  The opinions of Jim Wood were supported by an adequate factual foundation.  The Judge ruled that Gianfortes occupational 
license be revoked.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Antone Wilson56

Wilson was charged with the murder of Tanya Taras.  It is alleged that he murdered her and disposed of her body.  Her body has yet to be found.  
Part of the evidence tendered by the prosecution was the expert forensic video analysis evidence of Grant Fredericks.  The tenor of this evidence 
is that a drive-thru ATM camera captured images of the defendant driving Taras vehicle and it is the theory of the prosecution that these images 
were captured after the murder of Taras. 

The defendant argued that forensic video analysis as used in this case is not accepted as reliable within the scientific community.  He asked the 
Court to exclude this evidence or alternatively, to conduct a Frye hearing to determine the scientific reliability of forensic video analysis. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702 controls the admissibility of expert testimony on areas of scientific knowledge.  Rule 702 provides as follows:

Rule 702.  Testimony by Experts 

If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge beyond 
that possessed by a layperson will assist the trier of fact to 
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness 
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training 
or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or 
otherwise. 

The Court noted that the Frye test was adopted in Pennsylvania in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Topa57 and is part of Rule 702.  As stated in Frye, 
novel scientific evidence is admissible if the methodology that underlies the evidence has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific 
community.  But it only applies when a party seeks to introduce novel scientific evidence.  It does not apply every time science enters the courtroom.  

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Dengler58, with regard to scientific evidence, the Court said that novel means new, original, striking, unusual, 
strange, etc.  In applying this test, the Court in Wilson held that:59

We find the technology used to clarify the ATM video in this case 
does not constitute novel scientific evidence, an issue previously 
addressed by our Superior Court in

___________________________________________________________________
56 Unreported, March 22, 2004, No. 2003-11167 (The Court of Common 
Pleas of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania) 

57 369 A.2d 1277 (Pennsylvania, 1977) 

58 2004 WL 318518 (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2004) 

59 at p. 29-30 



Commonwealth v. Auker, 681 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1996).  In the Auker 
case, digital image enhancement was used to clarify a picture 
from an ATM machine depicting a vehicle.  In a footnote, the 
Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted how the enhancement did not 
add or take away from the subject matter of the picture; rather 
it lightened or darkened the field of the picture.  Id. at 1313, 
fn.2.  Likewise, in the present case, Grant Fredericks testified 
at the Pre-Trial Hearing how the technology he used to clarify 
the ATM video did not add or take away from the information on 
the video.  (N.T. 11/24/03, at 15, 21, 30-31, 32, 76-77, 84).  
Based on the foregoing, it is evident video clarification and/or 
enhancement technology has been used and accepted by the courts 
for a number of years.  It is, therefore, not considered novel 
scientific evidence.  Because we find the technology used in 
this case does not constitute novel scientific evidence, it is 
not necessary to conduct a Frye analysis.  Accordingly, Wilsons 
Motion with regard to this issue is denied.  Grant Fredericks 
testimony is, therefore, admissible.

This is a significant ruling as it appears to be the first decision on the issue of whether forensic video analysis constitutes novel scientific 
evidence and whether it therefore requires a Frye or Daubert hearing. 

b) Canadian cases 

R. v. Cooper60

Cooper was charged with the robbery of a bank.  The only issue before the Court was the identification of the robber.  The prosecution led three 
types of evidence to prove this issue.  First, the videotape itself.  Second, recognition evidence by several corrections officers and a parole 
officer who were familiar with the defendant.  Third, forensic video analysis led by Cst. Grant Fredericks, then of the Vancouver Police Forensic 
Video Unit. 

The camera system in the bank consisted of five cameras that recorded sequentially to one video recorder. 

The Court summarized the evidence of Grant Fredericks as follows: 

[55] Constable Fredericks said that the digitization of videos 
involves transferring images on the video into the realm of 
computers. He assists investigations by protecting the evidence 
and securing it. Once the digitized elements are transferred into 
the computer, the video tape is returned to the investigators. 
The digitization does not change the original images in the video 
tape. The reason it is done is because it enables the investigators 
to receive the tape and play it only once. This avoids damaging or 
[sic] stretching the tape caused by frequent playing. Further, once 
the images are in the computer the investigators can examine them 
as long as they like. They can be distributed to the crown, to the 
defence, and shown in Court. Digital images never change, while 
tapes can be damaged. Images are not damaged or altered by the 
process. 

[56] The process enables its user to digitize a specific frame of 
a video, and then take one copy and isolate a specific area, and 
then blow it up, which may be of some value to the Court. Exhibit 
#9, which is four pages of stills or prints taken by Constable 
Fredericks 

____________________________________________________________________
60 [2000] B.C.J. 446 (British Columbia Supreme Court) 


from the Bank video tape, is an example of this. On the left side 
of each page there is a normal still. On the right side, a part of 
each still has been isolated and blown-up. The process also enables 
its user to lighten dark pictures or darken light pictures, so that 
there is a better contrast to be seen. I observe here that the 
blown-up images in Exhibit #9 do make it easier to see the distinguishing 
features of the robbers face. 

[57] Constable Fredericks also prepared a number of video slides 
which I carefully perused. They contained three known photographs 
of the Accused, one of which is the photograph used in the photograph 
line-up. The other two are more up-to-date, the first being taken on 
May 8, 1999, about 20 days before the robbery, and the second on 
August 3, 1999, about three months after the robbery. The video also 
contains slides of stills he took from the Bank video tape. The 
purpose of the slides is to enable the Court to compare the blown-up 
known photographs of the Accused's face, to the blown-up stills of the 
[sic] suspects face, which he selected from the video tape; also to 
compare the latter to the Accused in the Courtroom. When I did so the 
similarity between the stills and the Accused's face generally, but 
more particularly, with regard to his eyes, cheek bones, cheek lines, 
nose and mouth, were even more remarkable. The comparison simply 
bolstered my previous conclusions. The eyebrows, the eyes, the cheek 
bones, cheek lines, nose and mouth of the two faces were, in my view, 
identical. 

[58] On cross-examination Constable Fredericks acknowledged that when 
digitizing the analogue images he is simply transferring them into a 
format that can be read and processed by the computer. A software tool 
is used to "crop", that is to blow up certain portions of an image 
taken from the video tape. The contrast in the stills can be changed, 
which the witness described as "more akin to changing the lighting in 
a room". He agreed that the VCR itself was not capable of cropping, 
nor could it alter the black and white level of the picture elements. 

[59] It was put to him that in effect he was adjusting the image on 
the video tape. He did not agree. He noted that all of the images on 
the left side of Exhibit #9 are untouched copies of the video images; 
that those on the right are simply blown-up copies of those images. 
He did acknowledge that one of the purposes of digitization was to 
improve the quality of the image coming out of the video tape. However, 
in my view, his evidence on cross-examination in no way suggested that 
the process changed the images, which appeared to be the thrust of the 
cross-examination. 

At issue was whether the process of forensic video analysis changes the images as recorded to the original videotape such that they are no longer 
reliable images. 

The Court stated that: 

In my opinion the digitization, blowing up, and lightening of the 
images on the videotape does no more than enhance or clarify the images.  
They are not changed.  The digitized images are the same images seen 
on the videotape.  One need only compare the faces to see that the 
images have not been changed in the manner contemplated by Nikolovski.  
Digitization is clearly a useful tool to assist the court in viewing 
and comparing the videotape images.  Accordingly I find that Constable 
Fredericks video slides and other work product are admissible into 
evidence. (p. 11) 

And at p. 13-14, the Court stated: 



[90] Leaney and Nikolovski make it clear that a Trial Judge may on 
his own observations of a video tape, and of his comparisons of the 
tape to the Accused in the stand, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt 
that the person seen in the video is the Accused. In Nikolovski, Cory, 
J., speaking for the majority, reviewed the evolution of the use of 
audio tapes, photographs, and video tapes as evidence in Canada. At 
pg. 411 he pointed out that in R. v. B(K.G.) (1993), 1 S.C.R. 740, the 
Supreme Court of Canada praised the evidence obtained from video tapes 
as a "milestone" contributing to the "triumph of a principled analysis 
over a set of ossified judicially created categories". And after 
referring to the majority decision of McLachlin, J., as she then was, 
in Leaney, he had this to say: 

Similarly, in R.v. L.(D.O.) (1993) 4 S.C.R. 419, 85 C.C.C. 
(3d) 289 (S.C.C.) L'Heureux-Dube, J., in concurring reasons, 
noted that the modern trend has been to admit all relevant 
and probative evidence and allow the Trier of Fact to 
determine the weight which should be given to the evidence 
in order to arrive at a just result. She observed that this 
is most likely to be achieved when the decision-makers have 
all the relevant probative information before them. She 
wrote at pg. 455 that: 

"It would seem contrary to the 
judgments of our Court, (Seaboyer 
v. B.(K.G.) ...) to disallow evidence 
available through technological 
advances such as video taping, that 
may benefit the truth seeking process". 

In my opinion the forensic video evidence of Constable Fredericks 
did not alter or tamper with the images on the video tape in the 
case at Bar. His digitization and video analysis was a most useful 
tool in the performance of my task. It is in my view the type of 
evidence referred to by Mr. Justice Cory in Nikolovski, and by 
L'Heureux-Dube, J., in R. v. L. (D.O.), being at most an extension 
of the video taping evidence. 

Trans North Turbo Air Ltd. v. North 60 Petro Ltd.61  

This is a civil case wherein the plaintiff alleged that the employees of the defendant negligently set fire to an airport hangar.  A significant 
part of the plaintiffs evidence was the forensic video analysis of an airport security camera system.  By isolating and stabilizing relevant images, 
and using reverse projection to isolate light sources, Forensic Video Analyst Grant Fredericks was able to identify where the fire started.  A defense 
expert questioned the conclusions reached by Mr. Fredericks.  No challenge was made to the scientific validity of the forensic video analysis, rather 
the challenge was to the interpretation of the results.  The court preferred the evidence of Mr. Fredericks over that of the defense expert and 
together with the other evidence tendered by the plaintiff, ruled in favor of the plaintiff. 

R. v. Olivera62

Olivera was charged with the robbery of a Macs store.  The sole issue was the identification of the robber.  A forensic video analyst 
digitized the surveillance 

_________________________________________________________________
61 [2003] Y.J. 47 (Yukon Territory Supreme Court) 

62 [2002] B.C.J 2157 (British Columbia Provincial Court) 


videotape and isolated certain frames that showed the robber.  He eliminated certain background details thus allowing the images of the robber to be 
seen more clearly.  Still photographs were then generated for investigative and court purposes.  Together with the opinion evidence of other witnesses, 
the court concluded that Olivera was the robber depicted in the videotape and convicted him accordingly.  The forensic video evidence was the basis for 
the conviction. 

R. v. Pettman63

Pettman was charged with bank robbery.  A forensic video analyst digitized video images from the banks surveillance cameras.  She then forensically 
compared the digitized images with known images of the suspect and items of clothing.  This comparison was presented in the form of a PowerPoint 
presentation.  This analysis allowed the court to conclude that Pettman was indeed the robber shown in the surveillance video. 

4. Becoming Qualified as an Expert Witness 

Before expert evidence can be admitted at trial, the court must be satisfied that four requirements have been met:64

 the evidence must be relevant to issues that are before the court 

 the trier of fact must require the assistance of an expert in order 
to form a correct judgment 

 the evidence cannot be the subject of an exclusionary rule 

 the proposed expert must be appropriately qualified  

Further, FRE 702 provides as follows: 

If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the 
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, 
a witness qualified as a expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, 
or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, 
if 

(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data 
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles 
and methods, and 
(3)  the witness has applied the principles and methods 
reliably to the facts of the case. 

When seeking to be qualified as an expert in forensic video analysis for the first time, the responsibility of the prosecutor and the proposed expert 
is substantial.  The ability to convince the court that forensic video analysis evidence is reliable and worthy of consideration and that the proposed 
expert is worthy of an expert witness designation is dependent on three things: 

________________________________________________________________
63 [2003] A.J. 1451 (Alberta Provincial Court) 

64 R. v. Mohan (1994), 89 C.C.C. (3d) 402 (Supreme Court of Canada) 


 the ability of the expert witness to effectively communicate 
the evidence to the court 

 the knowledge and skill of the prosecutor in leading and 
defending such evidence 

 the quality of the forensic video analysis itself 

Before a proposed witness can present forensic video analysis evidence, he/she must first be qualified as an expert witness.  This begins with direct 
examination by the prosecutor, followed by cross-examination by defense counsel and sometimes questions from the judge. 

In the qualification phase, the following topics must be covered: 

 the field of expertise that is sought to be tendered to the 
court (in this case, forensic video analysis) 

 the curriculum vitae of the witness 

 an explanation of what forensic video analysis is [the 
scientific examination, comparison and evaluation of video 
in legal matters] and some examples of how it may (and has been) used 

 discuss the digitization process 

 be prepared to discuss the topic of improper image manipulation 

 explain what clarification means 

 the present professional position of the witness 

 the witness education 

 specialized education and training in the field of forensic video analysis 

 relevant literature that is consulted in this and related fields 

 any instruction or presentations conducted by the witness in 
the field of forensic video analysis 

 the number of cases the witness has worked on including the 
known disposition of those cases 

 how many times the witness has given expert evidence in the past 

 whether the witness has ever been tendered as an expert witness 
and not qualified by the court 

 discuss previous cases that led to guilty pleas or previous cases 
in which the witness gave expert evidence in court 

 list the courts in which the witness has been qualified as 
an expert witness 

 whether the work of the witness has been peer reviewed 

 whether the analysis in question is reproducible 

If defense counsel intends to take issue with the qualifications of the witness and the integrity and validity of forensic video analysis, it is during 
this phase that the witness will be challenged on his/her qualifications and the integrity and reliability of forensic video analysis.  This can be a 
very involved process if defense counsel is well prepared.  This type of cross-examination on qualifications is likely where defense counsel has an 
expert witness waiting in the wings.



This stage is critical to the future of the proposed expert witness and the ultimate acceptance by the court of forensic video analysis.  It follows 
that no forensic video analyst should be tendered as an expert witness until the analyst has sufficient qualifications to confidently make it through 
the voir dire qualification process. 

5. Presenting Forensic Video Analysis Evidence in Court 

In the qualification phase, the analyst will have advised the court of what forensic video analysis is in general and the witness qualifications and 
experience in particular.  Once the analyst has been ruled an expert in forensic video analysis and therefore able to present forensic video analysis 
evidence to the court, it is critical that the evidence be presented in such a manner as to lend credibility to the analyst and the field of forensic 
video analysis itself.  

As with many types of scientific evidence, especially relatively innovative evidence like forensic video analysis, the analyst must educate the 
prosecutor on the evidence and the best way to present it to the court.  In order to properly present such evidence, it is essential that both the 
expert witness and the prosecutor leading the evidence work together.  An educated prosecutor will do a far better job of assisting the expert to 
give the expert evidence and in convincing the court to rely on the evidence. 

For details on the presentation of forensic video analysis evidence in court, refer to the paper entitled Youre Going to Court to Present Forensic 
Video Analysis Evidence  Now What?  Guidelines for Giving Evidence.65

Evidence should be presented in a clear and understandable manner such that the trier of fact will walk every step of the way with the expert witness.  
The goal is to allow the trier of fact to discover the evidence that is being presented.  It follows that it is important to gauge the interest and 
understanding of the trier of fact.  If it appears that the expert witness is confusing or losing the attention of the trier of fact, it is important 
to back up and ensure that the evidence presented thus far is understandable and clear before proceeding further.  The assistance of the prosecutor is 
essential to ensuring this objective. 

One method of presenting forensic video analysis evidence in court is to outline comparisons that have been made between questioned images and known 
images.  This is often done in the context of a PowerPoint presentation and can be very powerful in aiding the trier of fact in reaching conclusions 
on comparative issues.  Interestingly, in a non forensic video analysis case, the Court of Appeal 

___________________________________________________________________________
65 2004, authored by Jonathan W. Hak 



of California, in People v. Maglaya,66 held that an officer who had taken photographs of shoeprints found at a crime scene was allowed 
to give non-expert opinion evidence as to the similarities between the crime scene shoeprints and the tennis shoes found in the defendants 
bedroom.  The Court noted that pursuant to California Evidence Code 800, a lay witness could offer his opinion when testifying before a jury 
if the opinion was rationally based on his perception and if it was helpful in gaining a clear understanding of the testimony.  This would 
avoid the jury having to make its own tedious comparison. 

Forensic video analysis evidence is more complicated and scientific than simply doing the comparison process at the end, yet this authority 
is certainly supportive of the value of opinions on comparison as an aid to the trier of fact. 

6. Preparation of an Experts Report 

A forensic video analyst must produce a report in conjunction with the work performed.  The report must be comprehensive enough to 
deal with the following:

  list all exhibits received, including the date of receipt and name 
of the person who provided the exhibits to the analyst 

 indicate what forensic work was requested 

 examination of each exhibit including an account of the 
condition of each exhibit 

 outline in detail each step that was taken with each exhibit 

 the result obtained and if applicable, any opinions formed 

 list the new exhibits that were created as a result of the 
analysis  ie. digitized copy of the original tape, stills, 
PowerPoint presentation 

 account for what was done with the exhibits once the analysis 
was completed 

While a report takes some time and care to prepare, a professional should always document his/her work.  Aside from disclosure obligations, 
a complete report is also for the benefit of the analyst when it comes time to present the evidence in court.  The more thorough the report, 
the easier it will be to give good evidence in court and the less fruitful cross-examination will be to opposing counsel. 

_________________________________________________________________________
66 112 Cal. App. 4th 1604(November 4,2003); review denied 2004 Cal. 
LEXIS 522 (January 22, 2004) 



7. Disclosure Issues 

The prosecution is required to disclose expert evidence to the defense.  In the field of forensic video analysis, the following evidence 
and documents should be disclosed: 

 a copy of the original videotape (if requested) 

 a copy of the digitized version of the original videotape 

 a copy of any stills produced that will be used in court 

 a copy of analysts report  

 a copy of the PowerPoint presentation (on CD in read-only 
format or hard copy)  

 a copy of anything else the analyst will be presenting in court 

 the analysts curriculum vitae 



Conclusion 

There is a perception that forensic video analysis somehow alters the true nature of the original evidence and is therefore unreliable.  
Reality does not support this concern.  Presented properly, forensic video analysis can be of tremendous assistance to the courts.  
Analysts and prosecutors are proving this with increasing frequency. 

The number of times that forensic video analysis will be subjected to Frye or Daubert hearings will likely be minimal as the evidence 
will no longer be considered novel.  That does not detract from the care with which this technology must be applied.  The use of 
qualified and competent analysts is critical to developing and maintaining a credible reputation for this evidence.  Comprehensive 
SOPs are a must for any agency that uses digital technology in the examination and presentation of evidence.  Poor work or poorly 
presented work can undermine the gains that have been made thus far.  Reliability is the watchword when it comes to the use of digital 
evidence in criminal prosecutions. 



Agency Video, Audio, and Imaging Inventory Form

Use this form to identify units and personnel employing video, audio, 
or imaging technology within your agency.  Identifying these resources 
may help your agency maximize their value through the sharing of 
knowledge and support.  There may also be cost savings realized by 
centralized procurement of equipment and supplies. Check the box next 
to each application in use in your agency, and identify the division 
or command to which it is assigned.   Check the box in the column marked 
D if digital technology is used, and the box in the column marked A if 
analog equipment is used.  (In some applications, both analog and digital 
technology may be in use.)  The blank lines can be used for applications 
not otherwise identified on this form. 

VIDEO 
Application   Division or location                         D    A 
___________   video production unit  __________________    __   __
___________   public information     __________________    __   __
___________   crime scene unit       __________________    __   __
___________   accident investigation __________________    __   __
___________   tactical units/SWAT    __________________    __   __
___________   covert/surveillance    __________________    __   __
___________   patrol vehicles        __________________    __   __
___________   robbery/investigation  __________________    __   __
___________   identification unit    __________________    __   __
___________   crime laboratory       __________________    __   __
___________   training               __________________    __   __
___________   jail/booking           __________________    __   __
___________   interrogations         __________________    __   __
___________   facility security (CCTV)_________________    __   __

PHOTOGRAPHY/IMAGING 
Application   Division or location                         D    A 
___________   crime scene unit       __________________    __   __
___________   accident investigation __________________    __   __
___________   tactical units/SWAT    __________________    __   __
___________   public information     __________________    __   __
___________   latent prints/ID       __________________    __   __
___________   crime laboratory       __________________    __   __
___________   forgery/documents      __________________    __   __
___________   sex offender registry  __________________    __   __
___________   training               __________________    __   __
___________   jail/booking           __________________    __   __
___________   security (ID badges)   __________________    __   __

AUDIO 
Application   Division or location                         D    A 
___________   tactical units/SWAT    __________________    __   __
___________   audio forensics        __________________    __   __
___________   public information     __________________    __   __
___________   interrogations         __________________    __   __
___________   covert/surveillance   __________________    __   __


Profile of the Line Officers' Survey Respondents Bar Graph

Camera Experience -

Over 10 Years = 2%
5-10 Years 13%
4-5 Years = 7%
3-4 Years = 9%
2-3 Years = 15%
1-2 Years = 26%
1 Year or less = 27%

Law Enforcement Experice -

Over 20 = 12%
16-20 = 13%
11-15 = 20%
6-10 = 30%
5 or less = 26%

Race - 

Other = 2%
Hispanic = 5%
African American = 8%
White = 86%

Gender -

Female = 4%
Male = 96%

Assignment -

Other = 2%
Special Enforcement = 2%
Patrol = 96%

The Line officers survey was the key instrument used to evaluate the impact
of in-car cameras. Altogether,3680 line officers from 20 state police agencies
and two test sites-Prince Georges County Police Department and Fairfax
County Police Department have completed the surveys.   


Comparison of Initial and Current Attitudes Bar Graph

Initial Attitude -

Very welcome = 44%
Somewhat welcome = 31%
Somewhat resistant = 21%
Very resistant = 5%

Current Attitude -

very welcome = 58%
somewhat welcome = 29%
somewhat resistant = 10%
very resistant = 3%

Initially, 74% of line officers were either somewhat welcome or very welcome to the
idea of in-car cameras. Currently, this percentage has increased to 87%. 

Pie Chart - Change in Attitude Toward In-Car Cameras

Attitudes not changed = 69%
Become mroe welcome = 26%
Become more resistant = 5%

The survey indicates that officers become more comfortable with the technology overtime.  
Since their agencies implemented in-car camera programs, over a quarter of
survey respondents reported their attitudes changed, becoming more accepting of the
technology; about 5% became more resistant. 



Line Graph - Law Enforcement Experience vs. Initial Attitude
Officers with 5 years or less law enforcement experience were much more welcoming
of the technology than more experienced officers. 

Initial Attitude vs. Whether Cameras Were in Use before Officers Joined the Agency Bar Graph

After Use -

very welcome = 59%
somewhat welcome = 27%
somewhat resistant = 13%
very resistant = 1%

Before Use -

very welcome = 35%
somewhat welcome = 32%
somewhat resistant = 26%
very resistant = 7%

Officers who were hired by an agency that already had an in-car camera program in
place were more likely to welcome the use of the cameras than officers whose
agency introduced the camera program after they were hired. 


Line graph - Camera Usage Experience vs. Attitude Change

Regardless of the length of camera experience, the proportion of officers becoming
more accepting to camera usage is bigger than those becoming more resistant.
Compared with officers with less camera usage experience, officers with more
camera usage experience are more likely to report change in attitude in either
direction. 

Line Graph - Camera Usage Experience vs. Current Attitude

Officers with longer camera experience tend to be more acceptant to the technology.


Line Graph - Change in Attitude across Police Departments

The change in attitude differs somewhat across police departments. For instance, in
Department A, B, and H, more officers have become more resistant to in-car cameras
than in other departments.

Line Graph - Current Attitude across Police Departments

In every department, officers welcoming in-car camera technology far out number
those resisting the technology.



Initial Attitude vs.  Seeking Input before Installing Cameras Bar Graph

The survey found that agencies that asked their officers for input into the decisions
leading to the installation of in-car cameras gained significantly more support for the
program from the rank and file.  Among officers who strongly agreed with the
statement that their agencies sought officers input before installing in-car cameras,
84% expressed that they were either very welcome or somewhat welcome to the use
of cameras.  Among officers who felt their agencies did not seek officers input, 62%
reported they were very welcome or somewhat welcome to the use of cameras. 

Camera Experience vs. Improvement in Courtesy Bar Graph

More than 10 = 31%
5-10 = 27%
4-5 = 21%
3-4 = 23%
2-3 = 19%
1-2 = 19%
less than one = 14%

When asked if the presence of the camera resulted in improved courtesy by the
officer during public contacts, the survey showed an increase in courtesy that
coincided with years of experience with the cameras. 



Initial Attitude vs.  Seeking Input before Installing Cameras Bar Graph

less satisfied = 17%
constant = 12%
more satisfied = 59% 

Officers who have become more satisfied with their jobs are more likely to report
improvement in courtesy. 

Improvement in Courtesy across Police Departments Line Graph

The percentage of officers reporting improvement in courtesy differs across agencies.



Stress vs. Ranking of Internal Affair as Reason for Camera Installation Bar Graph

1 for "Most Important" and 6 for "Least Important"

1 Ranking -

Moderately Successful = 15%
Very Stressful = 4%

2 Ranking -

Moderately Successful = 13%
Very Stressful = 3%

3 Ranking -

Moderately Successful = 9%
Very Stressful = 2%

4 Ranking -

Moderately Successful = 7%
Very Stressful = 2%

5 Ranking -

Moderately Successful = 7%
Very Stressful = 1%

6 Ranking -

Moderately Successful = 5%
Very Stressful = 1%

Officers who believed Internal Affairs investigation was an important factor in the
decision to install cameras also reported higher levels of stress caused by the
presence of the cameras.  



Seeking Input before Installation vs. Perceived Purpose of Installation Bar Graph

Strongly disagree = 41%
Slightly disagree = 18%
Neither agree or disagree = 19%
Slightly agree = 15%
Strongly agree = 7%

41% of the officers who do not think that their departments have taken enough efforts
in seeking their input have listed internal affairs investigation as the top most purpose
of camera installation, whereas only 7% of officers believing that departments have
sought their opinions have done so. 

Agency Taking Steps to Relieve Concern vs. Ranking of Internal Affairs as 
Reason for Camera Installation Bar Graph

Internal Affairs Ranking 1 -
No = 89%
Yes = 11%

Internal Affairs Ranking 2 -
No = 87%
Yes = 13%

Internal Affairs Ranking 3 -
No = 79%
Yes = 21%

Internal Affairs Ranking 4 -
No = 74%
Yes = 26%

Internal Affairs Ranking 5 -
No = 71%
Yes = 29%

Internal Affairs Ranking 6 -
No = 63%
Yes = 38%

Officers were asked if their agencies had taken steps to alleviate officers concerns
that the cameras primary role was their use in internal affairs investigations.  The
survey found that the officers who felt IA was the primary reason for installing
cameras overwhelmingly felt their agencies were not taking steps to alleviate those
concerns. Officers who did not believe the cameras were installed for IA
investigations were much more likely to report their agencies were taking steps to
alleviate concerns. 



Reduction in Traffic Stop across Police Departments Line Graph
Overall, 7% of officers reported an increase in traffic stops, whereas 5% reported a
reduction in traffic stops. The percentage of officers reporting deduction differs across
agencies, ranging from zero to 18%.



Advisory Board Members 

Wm. Grady Baker 
Project Manager 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext. 839   
Baker@theIACP.org

Raymond Bessette  
Lieutenant  
Maine State Police 
36 Hospital Street 
Augusta, Maine 
04333-0042 
207-624-7061    
ray.a.bessette@maine.gov

John A. Bobo, Jr. 
Director, National Traffic Law Center 
American Prosecutors Research Institute 
99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-549-4253   
john.bobo@ndaa-apri.org

Pam Cammarata 
Acting Deputy Director 
Community Oriented Policing Services 
1110 Vermont Avenue, NW 10th Floor 
Washington, DC 20530 
202-514-9193    
pam.cammarata@usdoj.gov

James Davis   
Lieutenant   
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department   
1277 Northeastern Avenue   
Los Angeles, California 90063   
323-267-2873   
jedavis@lasd.org

Linda Davis 
Chief 
Winston-Salem Police Department 
725 North Cherry Street 
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 
336-773-7701   
ldavis@wspd.org

Todd Diaz 
Captain 
Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Department 
805 Crescent Avenue, 
Lockport, Louisiana 70374 
985-532-4323   
todd-diaz@lpso.net

Teri Dioquino 
Lieutenant 
Pinellas County Sheriff's Dept. 
1-750 Ulmerton Road 
Largo, Florida 33778 
727-582-6217   
tdioquino@pcsonet.com

Steve Edwards 
Senior Social Science Analyst 
NIJ-Office of Research and Evaluation 
810 Seventh Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20531 
202-307-0500  
edwardss@ojp.usdoj.gov

Randy Elliston 
Chief 
Texas Department of Public Safety 
PO Box 4087 
Austin, Texas 78773 
512-424-2118   
randy.elliston@txdps.state.tx.us

Joseph Estey 
Chief 
Hartford Police Department 
812 VA Cutoff Road 
White River Junction, Vermont 05001 
802-295-9425   
jestey@dps.state.vt.us

John Firman 
Director of Research 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext. 207   
firmanj@theiacp.org

Grant Fredericks 
Manager, AVID Technology 
Forensic Video Solutions 
105 West Rolland Avenue 
Spokane, Washington 99218 
509-467-3559   
grant-fredericks@avid.com

Ken Galbraith 
Major 
Wyoming Highway Patrol 
5300 Bishop Boulevard 
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 
307-777-4301   
Ken.Galbraith@dot.state.wy.us

Jack Grant 
State & Provincial Division Manager 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext. 282   
grantjc@theiacp.org

Jim Kuboviak 
Director 
Law Enforcement Mobile Video Institute 
300 E. 26th Street, Suite 325 
Bryan, Texas 77803 
979-361-4300   
kuboviak@txcyber.com

Wes Mahr 
Liteutenant 
Assistant Speical Agent in Charge 
US Capitol Police 
119 D Street N.E.  
Washington, DC 20510-7218 
202-224-7910 
wesley_mahr@cap-police.senate.gov

Mike Maxfield 
Rutgers University-Newark 
123 Washington Street 
Newark, New Jersey 07102 
973-353-5030   
Maxfield@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Kieran May 
Lieutenant 
New Jersey State Police 
200 Mount Laurel Road 
Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054 
856-273-3224   
skutzabik@comcast.net

James McMahon 
Director 
NY Office of Homeland Security 
5 Empire State Plaza 
Albany, New York 12223-2170 

Laura Nichols 
Project Manager 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext.270   
nicholsl@theiacp.org

M. Elaine Nugent 
Director, Office of Research & Evaluation 
American Prosecutors Research Institute 
99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-549-4253   
elaine.nugent@ndaa-apri.org

John Oliphant 
Grant Specialist 
US Department of Justice - Community Oriented Policing Service 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
202-305-8450   
John.Oliphant@usdoj.gov

Bob Ricks 
Chief 
Edmond Police Department 
23 East First 
Edmond, Oklahoma 73034 
405-359-4420 

John Salle 
Captain 
Oregon State Police 
400 Public Service Building 
Salem, Oregon 97310 
503-378-3720   
John.Salle@state.or.us

Kathryn Schellenberg, PhD 
University of Michigan-Flint 
303 E. Kersly St. (522 FH)l 
Flint, Michigan 48502-1950 
810-762-3340   
kathsch@umflint.edu

Mark Seifert 
Major 
Delaware State Police 
1441 North Dupont Way 
Dover, Delaware 19901 
302-739-1168   
mseifert@state.de.us

Roger D. Stottlemyre 
Colonel 
Missouri State Highway Patrol 
PO Box 568 
Jefferson City, Missouri 
65102 
573-751-2901 
stottr@mshp.state.mo.us

Earl M. Sweeney 
Director 
New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council 
17 Institute Drive 
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-7413 
603-271-2133 
Esweeney@pstc.state.nh.us

Charles Wellford 
Chair and Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice 
University of Maryland 
2220 Lefrak Hall 
College Park, Maryland 20742 
301-405-4701 c
wellford@crim.umd.edu

Sara Wolf 
Deputy Project Monitor 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
202-305-2749 
sara.wolf@usdoj.gov



Points of Contact   

Arizona Department of Public Safety 

Karl Kjellstrom 
Lietutenant 
Arizona Department of Public Safety 
P.O. Box 6638 (2102 W. Encanto Blvd.) 
Phoenix, AZ 85005-6638 
602-223-2873 
Fax: 602-223-2918 
kjellstrom@cox.net

Robbie Milam 
Sergeant 
Arizona Department of Public Safety 
P.O. Box 6638 (2102 W. Encanto Blvd.) 
Phoenix, AZ 85005-6638 
602-223-2658 
Fax: 602-223-2918 
jmilam@dps.state.az.us

California Highway Patrol 
Chris D. Jenkins 
Captain 
California Highway Patrol Research & Planning 
2555 First Avenue 
Sacramento, CA 95818 
916-657-7237 
Fax: 916-454-5024 
cjenkins@chp.ca.gov

Doug Milligan 
Sergeant 
California Highway Patrol Research & Planning 
2555 First Avenue 
Sacramento, CA 95818 
916-657-7237 
Fax: 916-454-5024 
dmilligan@chp.ca.gov

Connecticut Department of Public Safety 

Cliff Theremer 
Sergeant 
Connecticut Department of Public Safety 
111 Country Club Road 
Middletown, CT 06457 
860-685-8180 
Fax: 860-685-8475 
Oas.staff@po.state.ct.us

Florida Highway Patrol 

James D. Wells, Jr. 
Lieutenant 
Florida Highway Patrol 
2900 Apalachee Parkway MS 47 
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500 
850-487-4363 
Fax: 850-414-2294 
James.wells@hsmv.state.fl.us

Illinois State Police 

Joyce Hayes 
Illinois State Police 
125 East Monroe, room 103 
P.O. Box 19461 
Springfield, IL 62794-9461 
217-782-5921 

Kansas Highway Patrol 

Kent Dean 
Captain 
Kansas Highway Patrol 
122 South West 7th Street 
Topeka, KS 66603 
785-296-6800 
kdean@mail.khp.state.ks.us

Maine State Police 

Raymond Bessette 
Lieutenant 
Maine State Police 
500 Civic Center Drive 
Augusta, ME 04333 
207-624-7061 

Christopher J. Coleman 
Sergeant 
Maine State Police 
500 Civic Center Drive 
Augusta, ME 04333 
207-624-7293 

Maryland State Police 

Charles Moore 
Sergeant 
Maryland State Police 
1201 Reisterstown Road 
Pikesville, MD 21208-3899 
410-653-4544 
camoore@mdsp.org

Charles A. Travers 
Sergeant 
Maryland State Police 
1201 Reisterstown Road 
Pikesville, MD 21208-3899 
410-575-6540 
ctravers@mdsp.org

Mississippi Highway Patrol  

Donald W. Loper 
Director of Communications 
Mississippi Highway Patrol 
P.O. Box 958 
Jackson, MS 39205 
601-933-2603 
dloper@mdps.state.ms.us

Joseph Naegele 
Mississippi Highway Patrol 
P.O. Box 958 
Jackson, MS 39205 
601-933-2603  
jnaegele@mdps.state.ms.us

New Hampshire Department of Safety 

Craig H. Wiggin Captain 
Commander Support Services 
Bureau New Hampshire Department of Safety 
33 Hazen Drive 
Concord, NH 03305 
603-271-3296 
Fax: 603-271-2527 
cwiggin@safety.state.nh.us

Mark G. Liebl 
Sergeant 
New Hampshire Department of Safety 
10 Hazen Drive 
Concord, NH 03305 
603-271-2518 
Fax: 603-271-3636 
mliebl@safety.state.nh.us

New York State Police 

John W. Van Steenburgh 
Major 
New York State Police 
1220 Washington Ave. Bld. 22 
Albany, NY 12226-2252 
518-457-3258 
Fax: 518-457-9620 
jvanstee@troopers.state.ny.us

Jim Halvorsen 
Sergeant 
New York State Police 
1220 Washington Ave. Bld. 22 
Albany, NY 12226-2252 
518-457-2358 
Fax: 518-457-9620 
jhalvors@troopers.state.ny.us

North Dakota Highway Patrol 

Gordon D. LaFrance 
Captain 
North Dakota Highway Patrol 
600 East Blvd. Ave. Department 504 
Bismarck, ND 58505-0240 
701-328-2455 
glafranc@state.nd.us

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety 

Jeff Griffith 
Lieutenant 
Okalahoma Highway Patrol 
3600 N. Martin Luther King Blvd. 
Oklahoma City, OK 73136 
405-425-2854  
Fax: 405-419-2179 
jgriffit@dps.state.ok.us

Oregon State Police  

Alan Hageman 
Oregon State Police 
255 Capitol Street NE, 4th floor 
Salem, OR 97301 
503-378-3725 ext. 4201 
alan.hageman@state.or.us

Pennsylvania State Police  

Michael Marcantino 
Captain 
Pennsylvania State Police 
1800 Elmerton, PA 17110 
717-783-5523 
mmarcantin@state.pa.us

South Carolina Department of Public Safety  

JD Connelly 
Captain 
South Carolina Highway Patrol 
10311 Wilson Blvd. 
Blythewood, SC 29016 
803-896-4644 
Fax: 803-896-7922 

Tennessee Department of Public Safety  

Daryl Miller 
Sergeant 
Tennessee Highway Patrol 
1150 Foster Ave. 
Nashville, TN 37249 
615-687-2403 
Fax: 615-253-2096 
Darrell.miller@state.tn.us

Angela Bain-Silva 
Trooper 
Tennessee Highway Patrol 
1150 Foster Ave. 
Nashville, TN 37249 
615-251-5293 

Texas Department of Public Safety  

Luis Gonzalez Major 
Texas Department of Public Safety 
5805 N. Lamar Blvd. 
Austin, TX 78752-4422 
512-424-2119  
Fax: 512-424-2176 
Luis.Gonzalez@txdps.state.tx.us

Washington State Patrol  

Robert L. Veliz 
Lieutenant 
Washington State Patrol 
PO Box 42600 
Olympia, WA 98504-2600 
360-753-0223 
Robert.veliz@wsp.wa.us

Wyoming Highway Patrol  

Keith R. Groeneweg 
Major 
Wyoming Highway Patrol 
5300 Bishop Blvd. 
Cheyenne, WY 82009 
307-777-4307 
Fax: 307-777-3897 
groeneweg@dot.state.wy.us

IACP Evaluation Team Members 

Wm. Grady Baker   
Project Manager  
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext. 839 
baker@theiacp.org

Raymond Bessette 
Lieutenant  
Maine State Police 
36 Hospital Street 
Augusta, Maine 04333-0042 
207-624-7061  
ray.a.bessette@maine.gov

James Davis 
Lieutenant 
Sheriffs Communication Center 
1277 Northeastern Avenue 
Los Angeles, California 90063 
323-267-2873 
Fax: 323-415-3385
jedavis@lasd.org

Mike Fergus 
Project Coordinator 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext. 811 
fergus@theiacp.org

John Firman 
Director, Research Division  
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext. 207 
jfirman@theiacp.org  

Greg Fountain 
Sergeant  
Jefferson County Sheriffs Office 
1001 Pearl Street 
Beaumont, Texas 77701 
Cell 409-284-2665 
Gman256@gt.rr.com

Kristy A. Fowler 
Project-Training Assistant 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, VA 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext. 816 
fowler@theiacp.org

Grant Fredericks
Manager 
AVID Technology 
105 West Rolland Ave. 
Spokane, Washington 99218 
509-467-3559 
Grant_Fredericks@avid.co

Scott Galbreath 
Sergeant 
Delaware State Police 
1441 N. DuPont Highway 
Dover, Delaware 19901 
302-834-2620 
Fax: 302-834-2647 
sgalbreath@state.de.us

Jack Grant   
State & Provincial Division Manager  
International Association of Chiefs of  Police  
515 North Washington Street  
Alexandria, Virginia 22314  
703-836-6767 Ext. 215  
grantjc@theiacp.org

Jim Halvorsen 
Sergeant 
New York State Police 
1220 Washington Avenue 
Albany, New York 12226 
518-457-3258 
Fax: 518-457-9620 
jhalvors@troopers.state.ny.us

Wayne Kline 
Trooper 
Pennsylvania State Police 
1800 Elmerton Avenue 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 
717-783-5523 
Fax: 717-783-7690 
wkline@state.pa.us

Robert V. Liberati   
Captain 
Prince Georges County Police 
7600 Barlowe Road 
Landover, Maryland 20785 
301-985-3661 
Fax: 301-985-3677 
rvliberati@co.pg.md.us

Charles Mazzone 
Assistant Chief (Retired) 
Maryland State Police 
19321 Rosewood Drive 
Stewartstown, PA 17363 
717-993-2304 
cmazzone@clearviewcatv.net

Wes Mahr  
Lieutenant 
Assistant Special Agent In Charge 
119 D Street N.E. 
Washington, DC 20510-7218 
202-224-7910 
wesley_mahr@cap-police.senate.gov 

Kieran May  
Lieutenant 
New Jersey State Police 
278 Prospect Plains Road 
Cranbury, NJ 08512 
609-860-9000 
Fax: 609-860-9642 
skutzabik@comcast.net

Laura Nichols  
Project Manager 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext.270 
nicholsl@theiacp.org

John Oliphant
Grant Program Specialist 
USDOJ-Community Orientated Policing Services 
1100 Vermont Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 
202-305-8450 
john.oliphant@usdoj.gov

Mark Seifert  
Major 
Delaware State Police 
1441 North Dupont Way 
Dover, Delaware 19901 
302-739-1168 
Fax: 302-739-5966 
mseifert@state.de.us

Sharon T. Stolting 
Major 
Division Commander 
Office of the Sheriff, Fairfax County 
4110 Chain Bridge Road 
Fairfax, Virginia 22030 
703-246-3333 
Fax: 703-352-4792 
sstolt@fairfaxcounty.gov

Donald E. Uelmen 
Lieutenant (Retired) 
California Highway Patrol 
1285 Sierra East Court 
Placerville, CA 95667-8949 
503-306-1920 
tspdon@cwnet.com

Hector Velez 
Lieutenant 
Research Fellow, IACP  
515 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
703-836-6767 Ext. 325 
velez@theiacp.org

Lonnie J. Westphal 
Chief (Retired) 
Colorado State Patrol 
7648 Molas Court 
Larkspur, CO 80118 
H  303-681-0180 
M  303-884-8805 
F  303-681-9299 
ljwestphal@aol.com