Mike Brown Law. Requires all state, county, and local police to wear a camera.

[Lee-Lee]

24. Will you accept a DOJ report?

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/video_evidence.pdf

Page 15

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half of the instances, once the complainant is made aware that the stop or contact was recorded, the complaint was withdrawn.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 officer’s 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.