Examining Body‐Worn Camera Integration and Acceptance Among Police Officers, Citizens, and External Stakeholders
Abstract
Research Summary We explore integration and acceptance of body‐worn cameras (BWCs) among police, citizens, and stakeholders in one jurisdiction (Tempe, AZ) that adhered to the U.S. Department of Justice's (U.S. DOJ's) BWC Implementation Guide. We assess integration and acceptance through (a) officer surveys pre‐ and postdeployment, (b) interviews with citizens who had recent police encounters, and (c) interviews with external stakeholders. We also analyze (d) officer self‐initiated contacts, (e) misdemeanor court case time to disposition, and (f) case outcomes. We found high levels of BWC acceptance across all groups. Officer proactivity remained consistent. Time‐to‐case disposition and the rate of guilty outcomes both trended in positive directions. Policy Implications Although the results of early research on BWCs showed positive impacts, the findings from recent studies have been mixed. Implementation difficulties may explain the mixed results. Planning, implementation, and management of a BWC program are complex undertakings requiring significant resources. The technology also generates controversy, so the risk of implementation failure is substantial. The findings from our study demonstrate that adherence to the U.S. DOJ BWC Implementation Guide can lead to high levels of integration and acceptance among key stakeholders.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Activation rates can vary greatly among officers in a single department, with individual officer rates ranging from 0% to over 70%.
“Lawrence et al. (2019) and White et al. (2018) documented individual officer rates ranging from 0% to over 70%.”
From An Officer-Level Examination of the Prevalence and Correlates of Police Body-Worn Camera Activation (2025) · cites this paper as White et al. (2018)
Cites
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015) · Journal of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-016-9261-3 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An Officer-Level Examination of the Prevalence and Correlates of Police Body-Worn Camera Activation
Huff, J., White, M. D., Malm, A. E., & Katz, C. M. (2025) · Police Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10986111241241751 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- White, M. D., Todak, N., & Gaub, J. E.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- East Carolina University (US)
- Corresponding author
- White, Michael D.
- Venue
- Criminology & Public Policy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 649-677
- ISSN
- 1538-6473 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-9133
- OpenAlex
- W2886971603
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 60.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Criminology & Public Policy (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Laura and John Arnold Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
- Keywords
- body-worn cameras, police technology adoption, police-community relations, public perception of police, police accountability, stakeholder acceptance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review