The impact of on-officer video cameras on police–citizen contacts: findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ

Participating officers in person-based BWC experiments have been volunteering officers.

“the participating officers in the person-based BWCs experiments have been volunteering officers (Jennings et al. 2015; see also Ready and Young 2015).”

The credible deterrent effect of BWCs may rest on four critical points: the camera is actually worn by the officer, turned on, used during the police-public encounter, and suspects are fully cognizant of the BWC (e.g., through officers announcing recording).

“These studies suggest that the credible deterrent effect of BWCs may rest on four critical points: that the camera is (i) actually worn by the officer, (ii) turned on, and (iii) used during the police -public encounter. It also requires that (iv) suspects are fully cognizant of the BWC, for instance through officers announcing to the suspect that the interaction is being officially recorded.”

Ready and Young (2015) found that officers who did not wear body-worn cameras were more likely to conduct stop and search, and were also more likely to make an arrest.

“officers who did not wear body worn cameras were more likely to conduct stop and search, and were also more likely to make an arrest.”

Ready and Young (2015) found that treatment officers were more likely to give citations and initiate encounters.

“treatment officers were more likely to give citations and initiate encounters.”

Ready and Young (2015) reported that Mesa, Arizona police officers activated their cameras in about 60% of required incidents.

“Ready and Young (2015) reported that Mesa (Arizona) police officers activated their cameras in about 60% of required incidents.”

Incidents with more bystanders present are more likely to result in BWC activation.

“Incidents with more bystanders (Ready & Young, 2015) and officers (Boivin & Gendron, 2021) present are more likely to result in activation.”