BWC – Etiquette

Quick Explainer Video for Briefing Use

Body-Worn Camera Etiquette: Professionalism Under the Lens

Body-worn cameras are now an anchor of policing, offering a transparent record of critical incidents like use-of-force events. They can protect officers and the public by providing objective evidence, but they also capture every word, gesture, and interaction in high-stakes situations. Through years of reviewing cases as a forensic expert, I’ve seen how seemingly minor behaviors on camera—such as a casual joke or an offhand remark—can escalate into legal battles, complaints, or career-ending consequences. This chapter explores the importance of body-worn camera etiquette, not about staging a performance, but about maintaining professionalism to ensure your actions align with the facts and don’t undermine a case.

The Double-Edged Nature of Body Cameras

Body-worn cameras document incidents in real time, but they don’t capture intent, context, or the full scope of human experience. They record behavior, and that footage is scrutinized by internal affairs, citizen review boards, attorneys, and juries. Unprofessional conduct—like high-fiving after a shooting (unrelated to the incident), using unnecessary profanity, or smiling at an inopportune moment—can be misinterpreted as indifference or malice. This is usually not the case, but the video has a built in “contextual setting” In one case, officers were recorded joking shortly after a fatal shooting, not out of callousness and not about the incident, but as a stress response. Yet, that clip was used in court to portray them as uncaring, leading to a costly settlement despite the justified use of force. The recorded evidence is forever and the context is easily misinterpreted.

The challenge is that cameras are always rolling during and after an incident, turning private moments among colleagues into public evidence. This isn’t about faking professionalism; it’s about recognizing that behavior on camera can either support or contradict the narrative of a reasonable, necessary response. Interactions with citizen review boards, which often include retired officers, have shown they aim to judge fairly. However, unprofessional footage makes it difficult to defend an officer, even when the core actions were appropriate. When the video shows cursing or casual disregard, it becomes evidence against the officer, overshadowing the incident’s facts. In some cases the video does reflect the shortcomings of an officer; professionalism, authority heavy attitudes, and just overall unacceptable behavior. But, in some cases the behavior is dissonant and not associated with the incident but there are no barriers buffering the context that others view in hindsight.

Common Pitfalls and Their Consequences

From analyzing hundreds of cases, certain behaviors consistently cause issues:

Inappropriate Language and Tone: Using profanity or sarcasm during an arrest might feel justified in the moment, but on video, it can appear abusive, unnecessary and inappropriate. In a pursuit case, an officer’s repeated cursing was highlighted by a plaintiff’s attorney, shifting focus from the suspect’s actions to the officer’s demeanor, fueling a complaint that could have been avoided with calmer communication.
Post-Incident Reactions: High-fives, smiles, or casual comments after a serious event can seem insensitive. In one instance, a detective’s offhand remark about “smoking motherfuckers” during a scene lockdown was caught on audio, derailing the defense and forcing a settlement, despite the incident being justified. This was an off color comment to the involved officer, not from the officer, easily avoidable..
Skipping Basic Protocols: Failing to identify as police, introduce yourself, or explain the reason for contact can make an encounter appear aggressive when the subject becomes non-compliant. In chaotic or low-light situations, this omission fuels claims of excessive force. Review boards often note how a simple introduction could change perceptions.

These behaviors don’t just impact individual cases; they erode public trust and lead to significant settlements or disciplinary actions. In some instances, they’ve contributed to criminal charges when footage is taken out of context, amplifying the stakes of unprofessional conduct.

Protocols for Professional Conduct on Camera

To navigate body-worn cameras effectively, I recommend these protocols, drawn from real-world lessons:

Stay Mindful of the Camera: Assume every activation will be reviewed in court. Avoid high-fives, jokes, or casual banter until cameras are off and the scene is secure. If stress relief is needed, step away or wait for debriefing.
Communicate Clearly and Professionally: When safe, introduce yourself and state the purpose of the interaction. Use clear, calm language—“Stop resisting” instead of profanity—to de-escalate and build a record of reasonableness.
Lead by Example: Veteran officers should guide newer ones to be effective while staying composed. I’ve seen seasoned cops turn volatile stops into compliant encounters by modeling professionalism, proving you can achieve results—seizing guns or drugs—without drama.
Handle Post-Incident Behavior Carefully: Focus on securing the scene, rendering aid, and coordinating with responders. Avoid casual conversations near active cameras. If a misstep occurs, address it in your report, noting it as a stress response, not intent.
Debrief and Review: Departments should regularly review footage as a training tool, catching patterns like unnecessary aggression early to prevent complaints or lawsuits.

These protocols aren’t about being robotic or about colusion; they’re about being a professional. In cases where officers stayed composed despite provocation, complaints were dismissed quickly because the video showed restraint and professionalism.

The Power of Professionalism

When used correctly, body-worn cameras are a powerful ally. They can exonerate officers by showing a suspect’s aggression, an officer’s warnings, or the split-second decisions made under pressure. In dealings with citizen review boards, professional footage often leads to swift dismissals of baseless claims. It also fosters community trust: people respect officers who handle tough situations with poise. It is inherently difficult to navigate the presence of unprofessional behavior, even for the most tenured reviewers

Professionalism on camera protects your career and your department. I’ve seen too many cases where officers’ unprofessional behavior—cursing or joking—gave plaintiffs’ attorneys or complainants the ammunition to prolong lawsuits or internal affairs investigations. By staying aware and professional, you ensure the video tells the true story: a dedicated officer doing a difficult job well.

The foundation of strong evidence starts with how you conduct yourself on scene. Slow down, stay professional, and let your actions speak for themselves.

Authors:

Sgt. Jamie Borden (Ret.) / Ofc. Danny King (Ret.)

Critical Incident Review.com AmericanPatrolman.com

Briefing Document

Study Guide for Briefing

Study Guide

This study guide is designed to review your understanding of the provided source materials regarding body-worn camera etiquette in policing.

Core Concepts

Transparency and Accountability: Body-worn cameras (BWCs) are a key tool for creating a transparent record of critical incidents, offering objective evidence that protects both officers and the public.
Double-Edged Nature of BWCs: While providing objective evidence, BWCs only capture behavior, not intent or full context. Unprofessional conduct, even if not malicious, can be misinterpreted and used against officers.
Importance of Professionalism: Maintaining professionalism on camera is crucial for ensuring actions align with facts, supporting the narrative of a reasonable response, and avoiding legal battles, complaints, and disciplinary actions.
Impact on Public Trust and Legal Outcomes: Unprofessional footage erodes public trust, makes it difficult to defend officers even when actions are justified, and can lead to costly settlements or criminal charges.

Key Themes

Context Misinterpretation: Actions or remarks captured on camera can be easily taken out of context, leading to misinterpretations of indifference, malice, or excessive force, even if the officer’s core actions were justified.
Behavioral Dissonance: Sometimes, unprofessional behavior on camera is unrelated to the incident itself (e.g., stress response, casual banter) but is still perceived as part of the incident, creating a “contextual setting” that works against the officer.
Officer’s Role in Shaping Narrative: An officer’s conduct on camera directly influences how an incident is perceived by review boards, attorneys, and juries. Professionalism supports the narrative of a justified, reasonable response.
Systemic vs. Individual Issues: While there may be systemic cultural issues contributing to certain behaviors, the focus is on individual officers taking responsibility for their professional conduct on camera.
The “Forever” Nature of Video Evidence: Once recorded, video evidence is permanent and subject to endless scrutiny, making every interaction and utterance critical.

III. Common Pitfalls and Their Consequences

Inappropriate Language and Tone:Examples: Using profanity, sarcasm, or degrading language (e.g., “sit your ass down you stupid fucker”).
Consequences: Appears abusive, shifts focus from suspect’s actions to officer’s demeanor, fuels complaints, derails defense, leads to settlements.
Distinction: The source differentiates between profanity used for emphasis in a command (e.g., “sit the fuck down”) and profanity used to degrade or disrespect an individual.
Post-Incident Reactions:Examples: High-fives, smiles, casual comments, joking after serious events (even if a stress response or unrelated banter).
Consequences: Appears insensitive, lacks empathy, misconstrued as callousness or malice, used as evidence against officers, can contribute to significant settlements.
Skipping Basic Protocols:Examples: Failing to identify as police, introduce oneself, or explain the reason for contact.
Consequences: Makes encounters appear aggressive, fuels claims of excessive force, negatively impacts perceptions by review boards.

Protocols for Professional Conduct on Camera

Stay Mindful of the Camera:Principle: Assume every activation will be reviewed in court.
Action: Avoid high-fives, jokes, or casual banter until cameras are off and the scene is secure. Step away for stress relief or wait for debriefing.
Communicate Clearly and Professionally:Principle: Build a record of reasonableness.
Action: When safe, introduce yourself and state the purpose. Use clear, calm language (e.g., “Stop resisting” over profanity).
Lead by Example:Principle: Senior officers guide newer ones in effective, composed policing.
Action: Model professionalism; demonstrate that results can be achieved without drama.
Handle Post-Incident Behavior Carefully:Principle: Focus on essential duties; prevent misinterpretation.
Action: Secure the scene, render aid, coordinate. Avoid casual conversations near active cameras. If a misstep occurs, address it in your report as a stress response, not intent.
Debrief and Review:Principle: Use footage as a training tool for continuous improvement.
Action: Departments should regularly review footage to catch patterns (e.g., unnecessary aggression) and prevent complaints/lawsuits.

Benefits of Professionalism on Camera

Exoneration: BWCs can be a “powerful ally” by showing suspect aggression, officer warnings, and split-second decisions, leading to swift dismissals of baseless claims.
Community Trust: Poise in tough situations fosters respect and trust from the community.
Career Protection: Prevents unprofessional behavior from providing “ammunition” to plaintiffs’ attorneys or complainants, thereby safeguarding careers and departments.
Strong Evidence: Professional conduct ensures the video tells a true story of a dedicated officer doing a difficult job well, forming the foundation of strong evidence.

Key Takeaways from Discussion

Impact of Audio: As seen in the Alton Sterling case, audio can dramatically alter the perception of an incident, even if the visual use of force was objectively justified. Unprofessional language can make officers sound like “thugs.”
Officer Standards vs. Citizen Behavior: Citizens’ behavior (even if bizarre or challenging) is often not judged, while officers are held to strict professional standards. Unprofessional conduct by officers is “clear as day” evidence of policy violation.
Senior Officer Mentorship: Experienced officers have a responsibility to lead and mentor newer officers in professional conduct, demonstrating that “super cop” effectiveness can be achieved without sacrificing professionalism.
Pervasiveness of Recording: Officers are constantly being recorded from multiple angles (BWCs, bystanders, mobile video, drones), making continuous awareness of etiquette essential.
Predicting Behavior: Professional conduct at the outset can prevent escalation and help establish that any subsequent “upside down” behavior is solely the citizen’s responsibility.

Quiz: Body-Worn Camera Etiquette

Instructions: Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.

According to the “Body.pdf” excerpt, what is the primary benefit of body-worn cameras for both officers and the public?
How can seemingly minor behaviors, like joking or a casual remark, captured on a body-worn camera lead to significant negative consequences for an officer?
Explain the concept of “contextual setting” as it applies to BWC footage and how it can misrepresent an officer’s intent.
Why is “inappropriate language and tone” considered a common pitfall for officers wearing body cameras, even if they feel justified in the moment?
What advice is given regarding “post-incident reactions” when cameras are still recording after a serious event?
List two specific actions officers should take, as per the recommended protocols, to “Communicate Clearly and Professionally” on camera.
How can senior officers contribute to better body-worn camera etiquette among their colleagues?
Beyond individual cases, what broader impact does unprofessional footage have on public perception and trust?
In the context of the Alton Sterling case discussed by Jamie and Daniel, what aspect of the video evidence was highlighted as particularly damaging, and why?
Daniel King argues that cursing often “makes no difference” in the outcome of an encounter. What, then, is his primary reason for advising officers to avoid it?

Answer Key

Body-worn cameras offer a transparent and objective record of critical incidents like use-of-force events. This provides objective evidence that can protect officers from false accusations and ensures accountability to the public.
Minor behaviors like joking or offhand remarks can be easily taken out of context by review boards, attorneys, or juries, leading to misinterpretations of indifference or malice. This misinterpretation can then escalate into legal battles, complaints, or career-ending consequences for the officer.
The “contextual setting” refers to how recorded video evidence, once viewed in hindsight, can make unrelated or stress-induced behaviors appear to be part of the incident’s core. This means that actions not associated with malicious intent can be easily misinterpreted as such, leading to negative perceptions.
Inappropriate language and tone, such as profanity or sarcasm, can appear abusive and unnecessary on video, shifting focus from a suspect’s actions to the officer’s demeanor. This can fuel complaints and undermine a case, even if the officer’s core actions were justified.
Officers should handle post-incident behavior carefully by focusing on securing the scene, rendering aid, and coordinating with responders. They should avoid casual conversations, high-fives, smiles, or jokes near active cameras, as these can be misinterpreted as insensitivity or callousness.
To communicate clearly and professionally, officers should, when safe, introduce themselves and state the purpose of the interaction. They should also use clear, calm language, such as “Stop resisting,” instead of profanity to de-escalate situations and build a record of reasonableness.
Senior officers can contribute by leading by example, modeling professionalism, and guiding newer officers to be effective while remaining composed. They can show that achieving results (e.g., seizing guns or drugs) is possible without drama or unprofessional conduct.
Unprofessional footage not only impacts individual cases negatively but also significantly erodes public trust in law enforcement. When the public perceives officers as unprofessional, it undermines the credibility of the entire department and profession.
In the Alton Sterling case, the audio, specifically the unprofessional and aggressive language used by the officers, was highlighted as particularly damaging. Despite the visual use of force potentially being justified, the audible signals led to the perception of excessive force and fueled public outrage.
Daniel King argues that avoiding cursing is crucial because it often provides “needless” ammunition for complaints, negative media stories, and administrative scrutiny. While it may not change an outcome, it gives opponents something “cut and dry” to use against the officer, making it harder for administrators to defend them.

Essay Questions

Analyze the “double-edged nature” of body-worn cameras as described in the source material. Discuss how BWCs simultaneously serve as an essential tool for transparency and accountability while also creating significant challenges for officers regarding public perception and legal scrutiny.
The source material emphasizes that “professionalism conduct lends itself to intent behind what people believe is already happening.” Using examples from the text, explain how an officer’s on-camera demeanor, language, or post-incident reactions can be misconstrued to imply malicious intent, even when their core actions might be objectively justified.
Evaluate the importance of “Skipping Basic Protocols” (e.g., introductions, stating purpose) as a common pitfall. Discuss how these omissions can negatively impact the perception of an encounter and how adhering to these simple steps can significantly alter the narrative from the perspective of external review bodies.
Jamie and Daniel discuss the role of senior officers in leading by example. Elaborate on why mentorship and modeling professional behavior are critical for the long-term success and integrity of law enforcement, particularly in the context of body-worn camera use.
Discuss the statement, “The video is going to show you being professional. It’s going to show your behavior as a professional in a critical incident.” How does consistent professional conduct on camera act as a “savior” for officers, protecting them from meritless complaints and ensuring the video supports their actions, even in high-stakes situations?

Glossary of Key Terms

Body-Worn Camera (BWC): A small, wearable recording device used by law enforcement officers to capture audio and video of their interactions with the public and during incidents.
Critical Incident: An event involving law enforcement that results in serious injury, death, or significant public interest and often triggers extensive review and investigation.
Transparency: The principle of open and honest practices, in this context, the use of BWCs to provide a clear record of police actions for public and internal review.
Accountability: The obligation of law enforcement to be responsible for their actions and to justify them to internal and external oversight bodies.
Objective Evidence: Factual, unbiased information, such as video or audio recordings, that can be used to prove or disprove claims without personal interpretation.
Forensic Expert: An individual with specialized knowledge who provides expert testimony or analysis in legal proceedings, often reviewing evidence like BWC footage.
Contextual Setting (of video): The narrative or interpretive framework in which recorded video evidence is viewed, which can often be manipulated or misinterpreted to suggest intentions not present in the original event.
Behavioral Dissonance: A situation where an officer’s behavior captured on camera, though perhaps a stress response or unrelated to the incident’s core, clashes with the expected professional decorum and is then viewed as part of the incident’s negative context.
Internal Affairs: A division within a police department responsible for investigating complaints and allegations of misconduct against officers.
Citizen Review Board (CRB): An independent panel, often composed of civilians, that reviews complaints against police officers and incidents involving law enforcement to ensure accountability and transparency.
Plaintiff’s Attorney: A lawyer who represents the individual or group bringing a lawsuit (the plaintiff) against another party, such as a police officer or department.
Settlement: A legal agreement reached between parties in a lawsuit to resolve a dispute without going to trial, often involving monetary compensation.
Use of Force: The application of physical force by law enforcement officers against individuals, which is typically governed by specific policies and legal standards (e.g., reasonableness, necessity).
De-escalate: To reduce the intensity or severity of a conflict or potentially violent situation, often through verbal communication and tactical maneuvers.
Debriefing: A structured discussion after an event, often a critical incident, to review what happened, discuss performance, identify lessons learned, and address emotional impacts.
Exonerate: To clear someone of blame or wrongdoing, which BWCs can do by providing evidence that an officer’s actions were justified.
Malice: The intention or desire to do evil; ill will. In legal contexts, it implies a deliberate intention to harm or injure.
Unwavering Stance: Maintaining a firm and consistent position or attitude, especially when dealing with non-compliant or argumentative individuals.

Excited Utterances: Statements made spontaneously or under the stress of excitement, which are often admissible as evidence in court due to their perceived reliability.