INTRODUCTION
Body cameras: small digital units that are worn either on the chest, shoulder, or head, which record public interactions from the perspective of the individual wearing it. These units record all audio-video interactions, primarily worn by law enforcement officers, including police officers, sheriffs, and border patrol. Said units admit to evidence-based transparency and accountability between law enforcement personnel and the public. Interactions may include field sobriety tests, arrests, searches, and one-on-one interviews. As routine and prominent as these products have become for law enforcement personnel, the usage of such devices hosts a series of logistical pros and cons regarding privacy concerns.
BENEFITS OF BODY CAMERAS
As depicted by the US Department of Justice, they attest that body cameras worn by police officers, "improves the civility of police-citizen encounters and enhances citizen perceptions of police transparency and legitimacy" (US Department of Justice). These units allow for unbiased interactions between law enforcement and the community, collect evidence that can be used against false accusations made by either law enforcement or the public, and help with training and accountability that can be used to develop law enforcement agencies. In 2022, President Biden signed an executive order, Executive Order 14074, aiming to build community trust with law enforcement as well as striving to make our justice system fair and equal for all Americans. This effort began further use of body camera usage on a federal level, yet the executive order was rescinded on January 20, 2025 by President Trump. The retrieval of data for body cameras also maximizes time for routine data logging done by law enforcement agencies, allowing for enhanced time for management of other public safe operations.
PRIVACY CONCERNS OF BODY CAMERAS
On the contrary, the use of body cameras holds a multitude of cons. One prominent concern is how long body camera footage is stored for. There is no federal law that depicts an exact retention period for captured footage; it is dependent on local and state regulations. Here in Utah, the police departments retain footage based on the logistics of the crime and how much the court needs. On the SLC Police Department page, the most updated site from 2014, their retention period exists between 1 and 3 years. Additionally, the cost of the equipment sparks concern amongst individuals. The deployment of these devices has been generally funded by taxpayer dollars and federal grants. With recent, deadly disputes of ICE in Minneapolis, the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said earlier this month that body cameras will go to immigration agents nationwide once funding is available after the public cries out for accountability. Common frustration lies in the accessibility of said actions by the current governing administration and what lies next with the executed retrieval of materials.
Privacy of footage is arguably the greatest concern as of recent, for it is only honored in some state legislatures. In 2025, Axon Enterprise Inc. started testing facial recognition features within their body-worn cameras with law agencies in Canada. In their test, it was depicted that FRT brings an assortment of challenges and problems. One, it provides extensive surveillance and imaging of citizens, regardless of their efforts to be law-abiding. Two, the storage of this information can be used in unlawful searches against random, innocent individuals, completely violating their rights to the Fourth Amendment. With the rise of technology, companies like Axon, are going to further implement strategies of FRT to improve surveillance strategies. The regulation of facial biometrics in the US is implementing the use of FRT in arrests and investigations acquired from body camera footage. Challenges have included wrongful arrests, gender and racial identification bias, and access to data, which require emerging laws at the federal, state, and local level.
MY OPINION
By outlining the pros and cons of body camera use by law enforcement, my opinion on body camera usage is further supported. I think the proper regulation of body camera footage is essential for proper regulation between the law and the public. Transparency is essential on both fronts, and allowing accountability of the facts to speak for themselves is a priority. The storage of data is understandable, yet I struggle with the transparency in clarifying how long data will be stored. For instance, the Salt Lake City Police Department website on body camera footage hasn't been updated since 2014. The details of funding and accessibility of data needs to also be more explicit to the public. As a citizen of the US, I think we have the right for this information to be disclosed due to it pertaining to the surveillance of our persons.
In my opinion, the use of facial recognition technology should not be implemented with real time body camera surveillance. The standardization of body camera footage alone has extreme inconsistencies throughout the country, hence I don't think another variable of surveillance should be introduced. In a world where federal regulations of body camera storage, data, price, and accessibility is explicitly depicted through a law, then I could see how proper use of FRT could be then introduced. But, as we've discussed in previous classes, there are so many variables of identification that must be regulated and manipulated to prevent problems. With the polarization of politics right now, I also don't think this variable should be introduced, for it will escalade situations and introduce further challenges with lawful actions and respecting each others right to the Fourth Amendment.
CITATIONS
“Body-Worn Camera Laws Database.” National Conference of State Legislatures, Apr. 2021, www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/body-worn-camera-laws-database.
Braga Anthony A. Braga; James R. Coldren Jr.; William Sousa; Denise Rodriguez; Omer Alper, Anthony. “Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras: New Findings from a Randomized Controlled Trial at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.” Office of Justice Programs, Sept. 2017, www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/benefits-body-worn-cameras-new-findings-randomized-controlled-trial.
Daly, James. “Body-Worn Cameras Build Transparency and Trust for Law Enforcement across the Nation.” POLITICOFOCUS, 24 June 2024, www.politico.com/sponsored/2024/06/body-worn-cameras-build-transparency-and-trust-for-law-enforcement-across-the-nation/.
“Executive Order on Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing, and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety.” Internal Revenue Service, www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/executive-order-on-advancing-effective-accountable-policing-and-criminal-justice-practices-to-enhance-public-trust-and-public-safety#:~:text=On%20May%2025%2C%202022%2C%20President,camera%20policy%20PDF%20for%20details. Accessed 21 Feb. 2026.
Gross, Paige. “Facial Recognition in Policing Is Getting State-by-State Guardrails • Stateline.” Stateline, Creative Commons, 4 Feb. 2025, stateline.org/2025/02/04/facial-recognition-in-policing-is-getting-state-by-state-guardrails/.
Laperruque, Jake. “Status of State Laws on Facial Recognition Surveillance: Continued Progress and Smart Innovations.” Tech Policy Press, Tech Policy Press, 6 Jan. 2025, www.techpolicy.press/status-of-state-laws-on-facial-recognition-surveillance-continued-progress-and-smart-innovations/.
Lipton, Beryl. “Axon Tests Face Recognition on Body-Worn Cameras.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 12 Dec. 2025, www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/axon-tests-face-recognition-body-worn-cameras.
NBC News. “Noem Says Body Cameras Are Going to All DHS Field Officers in Minneapolis.” NBCNews.Com, NBC Universal News Group, 3 Feb. 2026, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/noem-says-body-cameras-going-dhs-field-officers-minneapolis-rcna257120.
“Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement.” National Institute of Justice, 7 Jan. 2022, nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-body-worn-cameras-and-law-enforcement#:~:text=Body%2Dworn%20cameras%20are%20widely,trials%20%5B1%5D%20are%20needed.
“SLCPD Body-CAMS 101.” SLCPD, 9 Jan. 2014, police.slc.gov/2014/01/09/slcpd-body-cams-101/.
I agree with Teagan on all points here. Body cameras have the potential to add transparency and accountability to law enforcement if implemented carefully. The ABA Best Practices for Body Cameras addresses how this can be done and I think it provides a strong framework. I also agree that FRT should not be used alongside body cameras in any capacity due to privacy concerns. If police officers were able to get information about any citizen on the fly, there would be a clear fourth amendment violation as well as a big risk of abuse such as officers stalking or harassing innocent civilians.
ReplyDeleteAs Teagan says, the proper regulation of body camera footage is essential as it enforces transparency of use for law enforcement agencies. I’m a little torn on their widespread use as a tool for law enforcement. There have been studies done on the effectiveness of body cameras in different cases and while this is an older study, the results are mixed enough to give me pause. I am also of the opinion that facial recognition technology should not be implemented with real time body camera surveillance without federal regulations, especially regarding data storage and use. Unfortunately, like the other facial recognition technologies that we have previously discussed in this class, use of FRT is outpacing the rate at which legislation can regulate.
ReplyDeletehttps://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-body-worn-cameras-and-law-enforcement
I agree that body cameras on law enforcement officers and other similar positions (border patrol, ICE, highway sheriffs, etc.) are necessary to ensure no injustices are enacted upon the citizens under their jurisdiction. I want to believe that everyone has good hearts but I know that's not true, and a bad apple can spoil the whole batch. Yes, they are expensive but this is something that feels very appropriate when it comes to giving law enforcement funds. Not only is it a protection for the people, but it's also useful in investigations and training of new officers, like Teagan mentioned. However, I don't think that making these cameras "smart cameras" with incorporated FRT or other high-tech things is where we should be looking. I think that a very simple video and audio collection is sufficient, and that ensures no unreasonable searches of anyone that happens to be by a cop. Jackson's last few sentences sum that up pretty well. The footage could of course always be cross examined using these kinds of technology when back at a station or laboratory, but on-the-fly tagging seems way overboard. This makes all uses of FRT a very deliberate and controllable process.
ReplyDeleteI would concur that all federal, state, and local law enforcement officers that are participating in arrests should wear body camera footage for a multitude of reason. I believe that a body camera 80 years ago would raise more privacy concerns. However, today with the advent of mobile phones with video capability the privacy concerns are distinctly different. I believe that creating a federal database that holds footage(unless used in court) for only 6 months would be viable. Additionally, body cameras also help create public trust in law enforcement and help citizens or police officers demonstrate their innocence in police brutality cases. I believe that a simple video camera on the body is enough. I believe that advanced facial recognition systems might help catch criminals but would be potentially dangerous in eroding public trust and privacy.
ReplyDeleteThe report Shreya posted was very interesting to read. As I understand, the primary benefits of body cameras come from providing a way for the public to have transparency and accountability for officers, with the option for courts to review the footage if investigating a specific incident.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that this usage of body cameras shouldn't be allowed to "sneak" facial recognition technology into wider government use. Using body camera footage to identify suspects is a separate objective than the original objective of accountability, and should be regulated by law like any other additional government surveillance would be.
Body cameras, without special technologies, are generally a good thing, as there are more benefits that outweigh the costs. For instance, the collected footage helps protect and strengthen the truth with most interactions between law enforcement and the public. On the flip side, there are, or at least should be, ways to opt-out of being recorded, as long as the recording is not capturing particular aspects of an ongoing investigation. Transparency is something most people find invaluable. Regardless, there should be open communication between law enforcement and the public. In this case, the public should be aware that recording is taking place. In addition, other concerns that have been previously brought up in class, such as how long the recordings are being stored, where, and with what encryption (safety measures), would be nice to have available. As for FRT, it is not necessary for body cameras to be armed with this technology, as an underlying message of distrust would be solidified and deepened. As others have mentioned, FRT’s implementation could very well violate an individual's Fourth Amendment right under certain circumstances, providing law enforcement with too much power. Something that came to mind regarded the relationship between local and/or state enforcement agencies versus federal agencies and how the Supremacy Clause interacts with such. In other words, given the Supremacy Clause, do federal agencies need to abide by, or at least keep in mind, local or state regulations, or do they have immunity from this?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI want to start by addressing the last sentence. I don't think any conversation should be avoided because of political polarization. FRT should be included as a variable for consideration if it gets brought up. I personally don't mind FRT and I think it can be a useful tool for identifying suspects. To me, the main problem occurs with mass surveillance and automated enforcement where misidentification can occur. In the right context, it is simply a tool for gathering more information which ought to be validated by human beings.
ReplyDeleteWith that, the use of body cams should be up to the citizenry. I personally support having them and using public funds to supply them for public law enforcement. Initial implementation of body cams could be overseen by the respective law enforcement entities and their supervisors, but representative bodies should have the final say on whether or not to implement body cams.