Body Work Video Cameras (BWVCs) and Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) submission organised by the Scottish Institute for Policing Research ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
January 2021
Body Work Video Cameras (BWVCs) and Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems
(RPAS) submission organised by the Scottish Institute for Policing Research to the
Scottish Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing
Introduction
Important concerns exist regarding the use of new and emerging technologies in policing.
This involves balancing the need for efficiency and effectiveness in fulfilling the requirements of
various functions of policing, including for example, the prevention and detection of crime,
maintenance of order and a broader public service role, whilst safeguarding human rights and
public confidence. The purpose of policing in Scotland (enshrined in the Police and Fire Reform
Scotland Act 2012) includes enhancing the wellbeing and safety of communities and policing in a
manner which engages the public.
Despite some much needed and indeed overdue investment in aspects of technology in
policing in Scotland these plans have, to date, not consistently been matched with appropriate
investment in research and evaluation relating to the introduction of new technologies in
policing in Scotland. This written submission from SIPR does not aim to cover all of the associated
issues on this topic but seeks to make a contribution by drawing together two inputs. Firstly,
James Willis, our colleague at George Mason University, draws together some of the
considerations from the international literature on BWVC and RPAS. Secondly, Dr Penny
Woolnough focuses in on the use of RPAS in Scotland for missing person searches. We then
provide some concluding remarks.
Increasing the Use of Drones and Body-Worn Video Cameras:
Some Considerations for Policing in Scotland
(Prepared by Professor James Willis, George Mason University)
Section Introduction
If there is any principle regarding the effects of new technologies on law enforcement
organizations and operations, it is that they have positive and negative implications, and that
they produce unintended benefits and costs (Lum et al., 2017; Willis, 2019). The technical and
ethical complexities surrounding how well new technologies work and the outcomes they deliver
are due to the specific social and organizational contexts in with they operate. Consequently, any
guidance on their use and implementation requires systematic research that combines empirical
observation with normative inquiry in a variety of different settings.
In what follows, we provide a very brief summary of existing research on two recent
police technologies – Remote Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), or drones, and body-worn video
cameras (BWVCs). The largest body of research is from the U.S., and this provides a basis for
SIPR.AC.UK 1identifying key areas for future research in Scotland to help inform decision-making on these
technologies’ effectiveness and efficiency and on their implications for important public values.
Drones are unmanned aircraft that can be controlled remotely to collect data and visually
monitor public activities, and BWVCs are small, mobile devices worn by police officers to record
video and audio during encounters with civilians. Drones and BWVCs serve important
surveillance capacities, but it is more accurate to view them as information technologies (similar
to license-plate readers, records management systems, and CCTV), as the data they collect can
be stored, shared, analyzed, searched, and retrieved (Byrne & Marx, 2011-2013, pp. 19-20).
Drones
In his opening remarks at a 2013 hearing on the future of drones in U.S. law enforcement,
Patrick Leahy, the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated: “I am convinced that the
domestic use of drones to conduct surveillance and collect other information will have a broad
and significant impact on the everyday lives of millions of Americans.” Despite the gravity of this
insight, research on drones remains in its infancy. What we do know is that police agencies,
especially in the U.S., are increasingly integrating drones into everyday police practices while
their implications for crime reduction, public safety, community support, and privacy rights
remain unclear. As of March 2020, it appears that at least 1578 state and local public safety
agencies used drones in the United States, and 70% of these were engaged in law enforcement
(Greenwood, 2020).
Despite their rapid diffusion, there is very little research on the crime control
effectiveness of drones, but a more developed body of research on community attitudes
suggests that public support for drones is mixed and depends on civilians’ background
characteristics, their understanding of the specific law enforcement purpose for which they are
being used, and other factors, such as civilians’ level of trust or confidence in the police or
government. Researchers have long known that public acceptance of law enforcement is
stronger when police officers respond to a call for service than when they initiate contact on
their own accord (Weisburd & Majmundar, 2018). Unlike proactive policing, when police react to
a civilian request they generally have the assent of the public before mobilizing (Reiss, 1971).
Similarly, members of the public are more supportive of drones when they are used for reactive
rather than proactive policing. Thus, in a recent survey, respondents indicated a high level of
support (75% or more) for drones when they were used for monitoring accidents or traffic flow,
search and rescue operations (a primary focus of Police Scotland), tactical operations for police
safety, crime scene photography, and locating or apprehending fugitives. In contrast, support for
drone usage regarding proactive policing activities (including detecting traffic violations,
monitoring political protests or civil unrest, and managing crowds) was much lower (only about
40% of respondents indicated support) (Heen et al., 2018). Moreover, support for drones varies
across groups. People who are younger, have lower incomes, and place more value on individual
rights than public safety are less supportive of drone usage for law enforcement purposes (e.g.,
detecting crime) (Heen et al., 2018). Other surveys report similar results (Miethe et al., 2014;
Sakiyama et al., 2016). A major reason for concerns about drone use is their potential for
invading personal privacy and for excessive surveillance (Lieberman et al., 2014).
In addition to a neutral and systematic evaluation of the financial costs of drones, their
contributions to search and safety operations, and their potential public safety benefits, it is
important to assess public support for drones in Scotland and identify areas of greatest public
concern. From what we already know, citizens seem particularly concerned about human rights
issues and implications for privacy. Using drones in ways that undermine public trust in the police
could undermine police legitimacy making it harder for the police to secure short- and long-term
SIPR.AC.UK 2compliance and cooperation from members of the public. In addition to issues surrounding real-
time surveillance and potential violations of privacy, how is the information captured by drones
stored and retrieved, and what regulations would help strengthen police accountability and
transparency for drone programs? In the U.S. some states require ban the use of drones to
collect data on citizens “exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly,” while
approximately 18 states mandate that police acquire a warrant before they use drones in order
for any evidence to be admissible in court (Greenwood, 2020).
Body-Worn Video Cameras
Unlike research on drones, the evidence-base on BWVCs is much larger and more robust.
Still, similar to drones, much remains unknown about the benefits and costs of BWVCs,
particularly when it comes to public attitudes toward their use in specific public settings (such as
football games) and their potential for improving police supervision, training, and legitimacy.
According to a recent Campbell systematic review based on 30 randomized controlled
trials and quasi-experiments, how BWVCs are currently being used does not have consistent or
significant effects on most officer or citizen behaviors (Lum et al., 2020). Specifically, BWVCs do
not substantially affect officers’ use of force, arrest activities, or proactive activities. Moreover,
BWVCs do not have “clear effects on citizens’ calls to police or assaults or resistance against
officers” (Lum et al., 2020, p. 2). The authors conclude that researchers need to pay more
attention to context, including how cameras are implemented, their activation during
encounters, and whether citizens are made aware of the camera’s presence (Lum et. al., 2020a).
Other areas in need for additional research include the effects of cameras on police-community
relationships and police legitimacy, particularly across groups (Lum et al. 2020a). What research
is available suggests that cameras can improve citizen perceptions of being treated fairly by the
police (or procedural justice) and perhaps even enhance views of police legitimacy (Nagin &
Telep, 2020).
The Campbell review is limited to an evaluation of the effects of BWVCs on a limited
range of outcomes, but broader, narrative reviews that encompass both qualitative and
quantitative studies tend to be more positive about their effects (White & Malm, 2020). These
suggest that police officers and the public are generally supportive of BWVC implementation,
even though it is not clear whether BWVCs reduce antisocial behavior or other crimes when
BWVC-wearing officers are present. Whether or not the public would support officers wearing
BWVCs at sporting events, such as football games, has not been examined. Similar to research on
drones, there is variation in levels of support based on community members’ backgrounds.
Studies suggest that non-White and younger respondents see fewer benefits of BWVCs (Crow et
al., 2018; Sousa et al., 2018). Research on citizen privacy concerns about BWVCs remains unclear,
including how these concerns might vary across race, ethnicity, age, or gender groups (Lum et al.,
2019).
Another area that remains understudied but would seem important to any decision for
the widespread implementation of BWVCs is their effects on police supervision and training. To
date, research on how cameras contribute to police accountability and transparency have
focused on the ability of cameras to hold police officers responsible for misbehaving or violating
department policies. Much less is known about how cameras could be used to hold officers
accountable for behaving according to the tenets of the police craft – that is, how to do good
policing rather than focusing solely on misuses of police authority. The police craft offers a much
higher standard for evaluating police performance than adherence to law or to policy, which
tend to establish minimally acceptable standards for police work. Relatedly, how is camera
SIPR.AC.UK 3footage being used to improve police training, especially in police officers’ everyday encounters
with the public (Koen et al., 2018)?
Finally, police agencies have expressed major concerns about the cost of using cameras,
particularly in terms of storing video camera footage over time (Kindy, 2019). This is significant,
but some cost-benefit analyses suggest that cost savings result from reduced complaints against
officers and the reduced time required to resolve these complaints (Braga et al., 2017). In fact,
Braga and colleagues estimated that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department realized
benefits of about $4000 per BWVC user per year (2017, p. 10). This estimate does not include
other potential criminal justice savings, such through the courts. Research on the effects of
BWVCs on intimate partner cases suggest they are more likely to result in a guilty plea (rather
than going to trial), and lead to less time to disposition overall (Morrow et al., 2016; see also
White et al., 2019, for shorter times to adjudication for drug and alcohol cases).
In sum, researchers in Scotland could draw on a well-established body of research to
assess public and police attitudes toward the widespread use of BWVCs by the Scottish Police
Authority, including identifying concerns around privacy, accountability, and transparency.
Moreover, evaluations of BWVC use could include cost-benefit analyses and assessments of the
impact of BWVC on procedural justice and legitimacy. Finally, there would be much benefit to
examining how BWVCs could be used to strengthen police supervision and training in order to
improve the overall quality of police officer performance at the street level.
Section Conclusion
New technologies present new opportunities and challenges for police reform. In order to
make informed decisions on the increased use of drones and BWVCs, more research needs to be
conducted on the implementation and usage of these technologies within the specific
organizational and social context of Scottish policing. Moreover, in order for this research to be
helpful, it needs to combine empirical with normative inquiry to answer questions not only on
what is but also on the ideals to which truly democratic policing should aspire (Willis & Toronjo,
2020).
RPAS and Missing Person Searches
(Prepared by Dr Penny Woolnough, Abertay University)
Police Scotland conduct in the region of 22,000 investigations and concurrent searches
for missing people every year (Police Scotland, 2018). The immense police challenge of
responding to every reported missing person consumes approximately 13% of all police time,
and costs quickly escalate to thousands/millions of pounds for cases involving specialist officers
and equipment (e.g., helicopters, divers) (Shalev Greene & Pakes, 2014). More widely, an
average of 12 people are affected by every incident (Henderson, Henderson & Kiernan, 2000) -
for families especially, this is a period of ambiguity and intense pain (Holmes, 2008; Woolnough,
Stevenson & Parr, 2015). Consequently, resourcing the demands of and maximising the chances
of safely locating missing children and adults is one of the biggest challenges facing the police
service.
The majority of the missing are traced alive within 24hrs, but between 8 and 35 are found
dead each week (Newiss, 2005; 2006). At the best of times, this is a challenge, but as the effects
of the COVID-19 pandemic unfold, there is concern that there will be an increase in missing
SIPR.AC.UK 4person cases, particularly those concerning very vulnerable individuals. The pandemic has had a
negative impact on mental health and ongoing personal problems and stressful events are often
triggers for a person to go missing (Taylor, Woolnough and Dickens, 2018). Furthermore, suicide
is likely to become a more pressing concern as the longer-term effects of the pandemic are felt
(Gunnell, et. al., 2020), and individuals who suicide away from home are more likely to become
reported as a missing person (Woolnough, Magar and Gibb, 2019).
Over the past few years, SIPR researchers have been working closely with Police Scotland
to develop and enhance their policies and practices related to the investigation and search for
missing people. For example, systematic analysis of closed police-recorded missing person cases
led to new knowledge that has had significant impact on UK law enforcement via the
implementation of geospatial profiling guidance (Gibb and Woolnough, 2007), ongoing delivery
of training to investigators and specialist police search advisors, and provision of case-specific
profiling for high-profile and complex cases. Police Scotland, upon formation, also introduced a
new strategic and tactical structure for the management of missing persons accompanied by a
suite of policy and guidance. Colletively, this world-leading evidence-based practice has attracted
the interest of police forces around the world (e.g., SIPR/Police Scotland event with Swedish and
Canadian Police in October 2019).
In this regard, licensed Police Search Advisors (PolSAs), who plan and manage missing
person searches, can ensure an evidence based approach to the search for missing persons
allowing them to clearly define search areas and ensure appropriate allocation of resources
depending on the nature of the case and the terrain to be searched. Critically linked to this is the
use of RPAS, which can quickly and effectively be used to search large areas, which might
otherwise take a number pf hours to be physically searched by human searchers, or may be
particularly dangerous to search (i.e., cliffs and quarries), when time may be critical. We know,
for example, that the ‘window of opportunity’ between child abduction and murder has been
shown to be just three to six hours and in such cases critical mobilisation of resources is needed
if a child is to be located alive. Similarly, in terms of suicide, fast response and searching using
RPAS may allow the police to locate a person alive.
Consequently, it is argued that the use of RPAS for missing person searching is both an
efficient and effective use of police resources and one that offers the potential to save lives.
Furthermore, with pressures on police to simultaneously support families when a loved one is
missing, a period that can be intensely emotional, the use of RPAS in appropriate cases is also
likely to increase positive relations and perceptions of the police that can have much broader
repercussions if these are not maintained (Stevenson, Parr, Woolnough & Fyfe, 2013). In
conclusion, investment in police use of RPAS for missing person searches is a vital part of
ensuring the service maximises the use of technology to deliver a critical component of
operational policing.
Concluding remarks
(Prepared by Dr Liz Aston, SIPR and Edinburgh Napier University)
The benefits of RPAS for missing person searches, in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and
potential to save lives, have been outlined above. However, questions remain regarding the use
of RPAS for other operational areas of policing in Scotland, for which they were not initially
primarily intended. Public confidence regarding the usage of technology in policing varies
SIPR.AC.UK 5depending on its intended purpose. Different concerns arise regarding the usage of RPAS e.g. for
surveillance, local policing, public order or investigative purposes. Prior to the introduction of
new technologies, or deployment of technology in new areas, evidence of effectiveness,
efficiency and implications for public confidence should be considered. Informed public debate
regarding the incorporation of technologies in new areas of policing should take place. Key
stakeholders should be engaged and involved in providing scrutiny and it is clear that this has
often not occurred at an early enough stage, for example with regards to ‘cyber kiosks’ (digital
triage) and RPAS. Whilst Police Scotland have now stated that they will now bring RPAS to an
internal Ethics Advisory Panel, this should have been undertaken sooner as these panels, at least
in their earliest form, were introduced in Police Scotland in August 2019. Appropriate human
rights and equality impact assessments are undertaken but these must also be cognisant of all
intended operational uses and be updated on the basis of new uses. Policies and procedures
must be in place to monitor the usage of technology (e.g. RPAS) and ensure transparency and
ongoing oversight.
With regards to BWVCs, whilst being cognisant of the specificities and requirements of
the Scottish context, it is important to learn from the extensive international evidence which
exists (some of which is outlined above) regarding effectiveness, alongside other key
considerations such as continued costs associated with data storage. As outlined above
technology may bring benefits, costs, foreseen outcomes and unintended consequences, and
therefore it is essential to undertake research and evaluation. Appropriate stakeholder and
public engagement, research and oversight must be embedded at an early stage when
technologies like BWVC are being considered or introduced. Business cases e.g. surrounding a
case for introducing new technologies such as BWVCs should include a budgets to undertake
research and evaluation. Wienroth (2020) proposes the use of community based deliberative
engagement to discuss the value of new technologies relating to Reliability, Utility and
Legitimacy (RULE). This approach aims to combine an appreciation of scientific, operational and
social aspects of competing understandings of value. Clear agreed processes should exist in the
policing system and be consistently used to ensure that appropriate procedures regarding
consideration of evidence, debate, engagement, approval, impact assessments and continued
oversight are always followed. Not to do so risks damage to public confidence, which underpins
the functioning of the criminal justice system. Alongside other developments it is hoped that
work by members of the newly established Independent Advisory Group on New and Emerging
Technologies in Policing will inform and support improvements in this space.
Dr Liz Aston, Director, Scottish Institute for Policing Research, L.Aston@napier.ac.uk
School of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University, 9 Sighthill Court EH11 4BN
References
Braga, A.A., Coldren, J.R., jr., Sousa, W., Rodriguez, D., & Alper, O. (2017). The benefits of body-worn
cameras: new findings from a randomized controlled trial at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department. Final report to the National Institute of Justice.
Byrne, J. M., & Marx, G. (2011–2013). Technological innovations in crime prevention and policing: A
review of the research on implementation and impact, Journal of Police Studies, 3, 17-40.
SIPR.AC.UK 6Crow, M. S., Snyder, J. A., Crichlow, V. J., & Smykla, J. O. (2017). Community perceptions of police BWCs:
The impact of views of fairness, fear, performance, and privacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44,
589–610.
Gibb, G.J. & Woolnough, P. S. (2007) Missing Persons: Understanding, Planning, Responding. A Guide for
Police Officers. Aberdeen, Grampian Police.
Greenwood, F. (2020). How to regulate police use of drones. The Brookings Institute.
https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-to-regulate-police-use-of-drones/d
Heen, M.S.J., Lieberman, J.D., & Miethe, T.D. (2018). The thin blue line meets the big blue sky: perceptions
of police legitimacy and public attitudes towards aerial drones. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(1), 18-
37.
Henderson, M., Henderson, P., & Kiernan, C. (2000). Missing persons: Incidence, issues and impacts (No.
144). Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology. Holmes, L. (2008). Living in limbo: The
experiences of, and impacts on, the families of missing people. London: Missing People.
Kindy, K. (2019). Some U.S. police departments dump body-camera programs amid high costs. The
Washington Post, January 21. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/some-us-police-
departments-dump-body-camera-programs-amid-high-costs/2019/01/21/991f0e66-03ad-11e9-
b6a9-0aa5c2fcc9e4_story.html
Koen, M., Willis, J.J., & Mastrofski, S.D. (2018). “The effects of body-worn cameras on police organization
and practice: A Theory-Based Analysis. Policing and Society
https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2018.1467907
Lieberman, J. D., Miethe, T. D., Troshynski, E. I., & Heen, M. (2014). Aerial drones, domestic surveillance,
and public opinion of adults in the United States (Research in Brief report). Las Vegas, NV: Center
for Crime and Justice Policy.
Lum, C., Koper, C.S., & Willis, J.J. (2017). Understanding the limits of technology’s impacts on police
effectiveness. Police Quarterly, 20(2), 135-163.
Lum, C., Stoltz, M., Koper, C.S., & Scherer, A.J. (2019). Research on body-worn cameras: What we know,
what we need to know. Criminology & Public Policy, 1-16: DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12412
Lum, C. Koper, C.S., Wilson, D.B., et al. (2020). Campbell plain language summary of body-worn cameras’
effects on police officer and citizen behavior: a systematic review:
https://campbellcollaboration.org/media/k2/attachments/0412_CJCG_Lum_Body-
worn_cameras_PLS_EN.pdf
Lum, C, Koper, C.S., Wilson, D.B., et al. Body-worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behavior:
A systematic review. (2020a). Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1112.
Meyer, J. E. (1981). The Grief for Missing Persons – An interview of wives, children and siblings. Archiv für
Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 230(2), 91–101. doi:10.1007/BF00345170
Miethe, T.D., Lieberman, J.D., Sakiyama, M., & Troshynski, E. (2014). Public attitudes about aerial drone
activities: results of a national survey (Research in Brief Report). Las Vegas, NV: Center for Crime
and Justice Policy: https://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page_files/27/CCJP-
PublicAttitudesAboutAerialDrones-2014.pdf
Morrow, W. J., Katz, C. M., & Choate, D. E. (2016). Assessing the impact of body-worn cameras on
arresting, prosecuting, and convicting suspects of intimate partner violence. Police Quarterly, 19,
303–325.
Nagin, D.S., & Telep, C.W. (2020). Procedural justice and legal compliance: a revisionist view. Criminology
& Public Policy, 1-26: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12499
SIPR.AC.UK 7Newiss, G. (2005). A study of the characteristics of outstanding missing persons: Implications for the
development of police risk assessment. Policing and Society, 15(2), 212–225.
doi:10.1080/10439460500071655
Newiss, G. (2006). Understanding the risk of going missing: Estimating the risk of fatal outcomes in
cancelled cases. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 29(2),
246–260. doi:10.1108/13639510610667655.
Police Scotland (2018). Missing Persons Annual Report 2017/18.
Reiss, A.J., jr. (1971), The police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sakiyama, M., Miethe, T.D., Lieberman, J.D., Heen, M.S.J. (2016). Big hover or big brother? Public
attitudes about drone usage in domestic policing activities. Security Journal, 30(4), 1027-44.
Shalev Greene, K., & Pakes, F. (2014). The cost of missing person investigations: Implications for current
debates. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(1), 27. doi:10.1093/police/pat036
Sousa, W. H., Miethe, T. D., & Sakiyama, M. (2018). Inconsistencies in public opinion of body-worn
cameras on police: Transparency, trust, and improved police–citizen relationships. Policing: A
Journal of Policy and Practice, 12, 100–108.
Stevenson, O, Parr, H., Woolnough, P. and Fyfe, N. (2013) Geographies of Missing People: Processes,
Experiences, Responses. Glasgow, University of Glasgow.
White, M. D., Gaub, J. E., Malm, A., & Padilla, K. E. (2019). Implicate or exonerate? The impact of police
body-worn cameras on the adjudication of drug and alcohol cases. Policing: A Journal of Policy
and Practice, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paz043.
White, M.D., & Malm, A. (2020). Cops, cameras, and crisis: the potential and the perils of police body-worn
cameras. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Wienroth, M. (2020) ‘Value beyond scientific validity: let’s RULE (Reliability, Utility, LEgitimacy)’ Journal of
Responsible Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1835152
Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M.K. (Eds.) (2018). Proactive policing: effects on crime and communities.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Willis, J.J. (2019). Police technology. In M. Deflem (ed.), The handbook of social control, pp. 221-34.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Willis, J.J., & Toronjo, H. (2020). A way ahead: re-envisioning the relationship between evidence-based
policing and the police craft. Fairfax, VA: Unpublished manuscript.
Woolnough, P., Stevenson, O. and Parr, H. (2015). Investigating missing persons: learning from interviews
with families. Journal of Homicide and Major Crime Investigation, 10(1), 1-13.
Woolnough, P., Magar, E., and Gibb, G. (2019). Distinguishing suicides of people reported missing from
those not reported missing: retrospective: Scottish cohort study. British Journal of Psychiatry
(Open). http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2018.82.
SIPR.AC.UK 8You can also read
