Your session has expired.

Your authenticated session has expired due to inactivity. You can close this message and continue as a guest or log in again before proceeding.

FRESH IDEAS IN PUBLIC SAFETY


    Specified user is not valid
    Publish
     
      • How To Create Greater Judicial Efficiency While Deploying A Body-Worn Camera Solution

        Published Nov 02 2017, 7:12 PM by Jason Hutchens
        • Body Worn Camera
        • Law Enforcement

        A variety of body-worn camera (BWC) benefits have been outlined since they were thrust into the spotlight over the past couple years. In this series, we are breaking down three primary components of successfully using the digital evidence BWCs produce in court. This is based on a piece from our recently released Digital Evidence 101 white paper bundle.

        In this post we will focus on creating greater judicial efficiency and what needs to be considered when evaluating body-worn camera solutions to accomplish that.

        Automation Is Critical To Close Out Cases Faster

        To minimize disruption from the sheer volume of content BWCs capture and create, it is important to choose a BWC solution that automates as much of the digital evidence management workflow as possible. This will ensure minimal disruption to officers and save valuable administrative time and costs for your agency in delivering to judicial partners what they need to prosecute a case successfully.

        For instance, when searching through evidence, it can be tedious to manually associate pertinent file information or to comb through unorganized data. But when digital evidence can be searched for, grouped and filtered by metadata, tags, notes and incident information automatically associated with the files, that process is completed in seconds, not hours or days.

        Removing personally identifiable information when sharing evidence and even consistently purging content according to state and local policies can also be tedious processes if done manually. Consider integrated capabilities within your digital evidence management software such as object-based redaction and retention schedules assigned to tags to automate it.

        Automated processing facilitates better cooperation and collaboration with judicial partners by fulfilling requests more efficiently without having to hire additional administrative staff. This means not only are you able to successfully close cases faster, but you are even saving budget that can be used to retain or add officers in the field.

        If you’ve missed my previous two posts that dive into other important considerations for successfully using body-worn video in court, be sure to check them out here and here. If you are interested in our complete paper on this topic, visit our Digital Evidence 101 page for that exclusive content plus much more!

        Jason Hutchens is the Former Director of the Planning and Assessment Division at Indiana Homeland Security, and is a Current Public Safety Industry Expert at Motorola Solutions.

      • Securing Fair, Just and Accurate Rulings From Body-Worn Video Evidence

        Published Oct 12 2017, 2:22 PM by Jason Hutchens
        • Body Worn Camera
        • Law Enforcement

        A variety of body-worn camera (BWC) benefits have been outlined since they were thrust into the spotlight over the past couple years. In this series, we will be breaking down three primary components of successfully using the digital evidence BWCs produce in court. This is based on a piece from our recently released Digital Evidence 101 white paper bundle.

        In this post we will focus on securing fair, just and accurate rulings, and what needs to be considered when evaluating body-worn camera solutions to accomplish that.

        Body-Worn Video Evidence Admissibility Requires Chain-of-Custody Validation

        “Law enforcement must also work with other partners, such as the courts and prosecutors, to determine legal requirements regarding chain of custody and admissibility. Evidence is of little use to the criminal justice system when it is ruled to be improperly obtained after the fact.”

        Just as with physical evidence, steps must be taken, from capture to courtroom, to ensure that digital evidence is valid and untainted. These steps are essential to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and reinforce the public’s confidence.

        For any evidence used in a case, there has to be a validated chain-of-custody to avoid the risk of the evidence being ruled inadmissible in court. Handoffs of digital evidence throughout its journey from capture, to storage to use in court, must be evaluated for its security posture. Starting with the device, you should know how the BWC was authenticated on the system, from what point chain-of-custody can actually be validated for the evidence and whether the digital evidence is encrypted while at-rest on the BWC.

        It is also important to consider the storage, processing, and sharing stages of digital evidence handoffs. For instance, if using Wi-Fi for efficient upload to the cloud for storage, it is critical that the Wi-Fi access point is secure. Digital evidence should also be encrypted in-transit to the cloud as well as at-rest in the cloud, just as it was on the device.

        Throughout digital evidence processing and review activities, policies should be in place that determine who has access to digital evidence and how they are able to access it. Any actions taken with that digital evidence should be audit-logged, and an option for chain-of-custody validation should be presented during any interaction with a file. When digital evidence is shared for case prosecution, an original copy of the evidence should always be retained, along with any redacted or edited versions sent to your judicial partner that are required to protect personally identifiable information.

        Check back in later on as we dive into our last consideration and discuss how it can be achieved. In the meantime, if you missed our first post on generating objective digital evidence from BWCs, check it out here. If you can’t wait and want the full paper on how to successfully use body-worn video evidence in court now, visit our Digital Evidence 101 page for that exclusive content plus much more!

        Jason Hutchens is the Former Director of the Planning and Assessment Division at Indiana Homeland Security, and is a Current Public Safety Industry Expert at Motorola Solutions.

      • Generating Objective Digital Evidence With Body-Worn Cameras

        Published Oct 05 2017, 9:16 PM by Jason Hutchens
        • Body Worn Camera
        • Law Enforcement

        A variety of body-worn camera (BWC) benefits have been outlined since they’ve been thrust into the spotlight over the past couple years. In this series, we will be breaking down three primary components of successfully using the digital evidence BWCs produce in court, based on a piece from our recently released Digital Evidence 101 white paper bundle.

        In this post we will focus on the generation of objective evidence and what needs to be considered when evaluating body-worn camera solutions to accomplish that.

        Body-Worn Cameras Are About More Than Just Video

        “The utilization of body-worn camera video and audio recordings at trial can provide the court with the actual statements of officers, suspects, and others that might not otherwise be admissible in court based upon hearsay concerns, or might not get sufficient consideration if there are conflicting memories of the statements.”

        • The IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. Body-Worn Cameras.

        BWCs have been at the forefront of capturing video evidence for agencies. When evaluating these devices, considerations such as a camera’s field of view and wearability are important to understand before implementing. But don’t forget audio capture and quality.

        As multimedia continues to be a substantial part of case evidence, video is only one component. While flexible mounting and physical camera design can be instrumental in ensuring officers of all sizes can accurately capture visually what happened, audio evidence can provide valuable context for an officer’s actions when heard alongside that video. But capturing audio is not straightforward.

        An audio recording is going to pick up ambient noises – a dispatcher on the radio, a car’s siren, other people talking or shouting in the background. All of these contribute to providing valuable context to how a situation unfolded. But since many BWCs are located near a remote speaker microphone, they can be highly susceptible to radio audio overpowering other noise and things that were said on scene.

        Suddenly, the digital evidence isn’t as helpful in accurately portraying how an officer perceived a situation. This kind of interference can affect the usefulness of the digital evidence in prosecution and defense decisions. When deciding on a BWC ensure that video isn’t the only thing you’re evaluating. The ability of the camera to record audio as it was heard on scene can be vitally important in accurately portraying how an incident unfolded to the courts, or to the public.

        Check back in as we dive into two other components of successfully using BWC digital evidence in court. If you can’t wait and want the full paper on how to successfully use body-worn video evidence in court now, visit our Digital Evidence 101 page for that exclusive content plus much more!

        Jason Hutchens is the Former Director of the Planning and Assessment Division at Indiana Homeland Security, and is a Current Public Safety Industry Expert at Motorola Solutions.

      • Simplifying The Officer Body-Camera Experience: Get The Most Out Of Your Investment

        Published Sep 21 2017, 7:22 PM by Chi Tran
        • Body Worn Camera
        • Law Enforcement

        “With the introduction of Artificial Intelligence, we can do things like turn our body-worn cameras (BWCs) into sensors that continually monitor their environments.” This is the future, according to Dan Law, Chief Data Scientist here at Motorola Solutions - and he’s not wrong. Expectations for public safety are increasing and requiring technological innovation that looks beyond a single device.

        Before purchasing BWCs, you should recognize how this new piece of technology can impact frontline officers’ ability to successfully do their job and protect the community. To get the best results, reduce complexity, and ultimately help law enforcement better achieve their mission, we are outlining the most important things to consider when evaluating a BWC solution in this four part blog series.

        Consideration #4: Technology Will Progress. Will The Value Of Your Investment?

        BWCs are the next step toward more data-driven policing. But technology will continue to evolve and with it, the tendency for complexity. Thus, devices, networks and applications capable of working together seamlessly in an ecosystem will become even more important.

        When considering a BWC purchase and how it will affect your department’s ability to grow, the ecosystem it is a part of is just as important as its wearability, operability, and intelligent management features. From this viewpoint, the BWC transforms from a singularly purposed device into a part of a true policing solution platform. Therefore, it becomes critical to weigh a BWC vendor’s total breadth of expertise delivering larger value to organizations.

        Some of the simple things to note include the ability to expand your video beyond body-worn cameras. What about in-vehicle cameras, helmet mounting options, fixed surveillance experience and interview-room options? Does the solution offer the ability to integrate across those different touchpoints?

        Now think bigger. Think about the potential of artificial intelligence, facial recognition and data analysis to not only make the body-worn camera a passive video capture device, but an active partner for officers in the field.

        Be sure to check out our previous three articles on the most important considerations for deploying body-worn cameras to simplify the officer experience. If you want the full brief of our considerations, visit our Digital Evidence 101 page for that exclusive content plus much more!

        Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this series.

        Chi Tran is an Innovation Designer & Researcher at Motorola Solutions.

      • Simplifying The Officer Body-Camera Experience: Officers Can't Afford To Be Distracted

        Published Sep 15 2017, 5:34 PM by Chi Tran
        • Body Worn Camera
        • Law Enforcement

        As any police agency can attest, new technology deployments can have unexpected impacts that negate a solution’s intended value. This is no different for body-worn cameras (BWCs). Deploying a solution that changes your officer’s existing workflow stands to also leave them vulnerable and potentially in danger.

        Before purchasing BWCs, you should recognize how this new piece of technology can impact frontline officers’ ability to successfully do their job and protect the community. To get the best results, reduce complexity, and ultimately help law enforcement better achieve their mission, we are outlining the most important things to consider when evaluating a BWC solution in this four part blog series.

        Consideration #3: Manual Processes Pre-Occupy Officers

        While in-field tagging can reduce the time officers would spend back in the station, it can potentially reduce alert patrol time and lead to difficulties compiling evidence later if video data isn’t standardized or has to be manually added.

        Instead, a truly efficient process is one that keeps officers on the streets and engaged with the community while minimizing distractions. Tight technology integration that automatically associates metadata and other pertinent information with video can provide the necessary context to a clip while also making it more efficient to find and share that video later. This integration could be a BWC that can automatically associate capture location data and officer ID from an integrated radio, or an incident type and number automatically integrated from a computer-aided dispatch and records management system.

        Automated controls over video footage tags and metadata can also ensure standardization for grouping, filtering and searching for content when it’s needed later. This means that not only are your officers safer while in the field, but also waste less time before or after shifts on administrative tasks.

        Stay tuned as we outline our next consideration for deploying the right BWCs for your officers. If you can’t wait and want to know our four considerations now, check out our Digital Evidence 101 page for that exclusive content plus much more!

        Check out Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.

        Chi Tran is an Innovation Designer & Researcher at Motorola Solutions.

      • Simplifying The Officer Body-Camera Experience: What About Equipment Overload?

        Published Sep 08 2017, 7:59 PM by Chi Tran
        • Body Worn Camera
        • Law Enforcement

        Picture this: a typical uniformed law enforcement officer carries a weapon, radio, remote speaker microphone, baton, pepper spray, handcuffs, gloves, ammunition, at least one smartphone and a personal device, while wearing ballistic body armor under their uniform. That’s a lot of gear to carry around and be ready to run with in an instant. Now there is a nationwide push to add body-worn cameras (BWCs) to the mix.

        Before purchasing BWCs, you should recognize how this new piece of technology can impact frontline officers’ ability to successfully do their job and protect the community. To get the best results, reduce complexity, and ultimately help law enforcement better achieve their mission, we are outlining the most important things to consider when evaluating a BWC solution in this four part blog series.

        Consideration #2: Officers Have Equipment Overload - Don’t Add To It

        Think back to that laundry list of equipment law enforcement officers are carrying and add to it the technology in the police car, such as the radio, dashboard displays, a laptop and more. The technology overload officers face can make it hard to justify adding anything else. Yet, BWCs are rapidly becoming mandatory, requiring the adoption of a new piece of technology with minimal consideration to the burden it places on officers.

        Unfortunately, many BWCs are additive in nature, some even requiring a companion smartphone to manage the video, placing additional burdens on users. While the BWC/ smartphone combination may intend to create procedural efficiencies by allowing officers to tag video in the field, it inevitably leads to efficiency shortfalls because it adds to the sheer number of devices that have to be accounted for, secured and managed. Instead, a BWC should be about facilitating transparency and accountability without making an officer’s life and the agency’s operations more complex. An officer already has new policies to learn and new BWC standard operating procedures to memorize, so why add another distraction?

        One way to reduce this burden is to use BWCs that do more than just capture video. For instance, a BWC with an integrated user interface can eliminate the need to carry an extra smartphone while still allowing advanced features such as remote video tagging. Integrating remote speaker microphone (RSM) capabilities into the BWC can also go a step further to remove the need for multiple devices.

        Stay tuned as we outline our next consideration for deploying the right BWCs for your officers. If you can’t wait and want to know our four considerations now, check out our Digital Evidence 101 page for that exclusive content plus much more!

        Check out Part 1 of this series.

        Chi Tran is an Innovation Designer & Researcher at Motorola Solutions.

      2 pages