The Case for Delaying Video Review in Officer-Involved Critical Incident Investigations

Explainer Video

Authored By Investigative Specialist TJ Lewis

Illustrations from “Anatomy of a Critical Incident – Navigating Controversy”

As an Investigative Specialist, I have extensive experience related to the critical issue of body-worn camera (BWC) use in officer-involved incident investigations. Having retired as a homicide investigator, I’ve spent years unraveling complex use-of-force cases, grounding my work in real-world investigative challenges. Now, as a perpetual student and specialist in the field, I focus on dissecting critical incidents, particularly how officers perceive and process events under pressure. This article shares my perspective, honed by application and personal experience, on why preserving an officer’s raw, unfiltered recollection should be a consideration for fair and accurate investigations.

In use-of-force investigations, the timing of when an officer views their body-worn camera (BWC) footage is critical to preserving the integrity of their recollection, their “perspective.” From my point of view, the reason consideration should be given to viewing video evidence after providing their initial statement or interview about the incident is impactful on the raw perspective of officers. Because of the way that BWC’s were designed, the end result is BWC footage has known and documented facts that are often times only known in hindsight, after review of all the evidence.

These are distortions that can unintentionally effect or influence an officer’s perception, memory and ultimately their statement. Watching the video beforehand can create suggestibility, where the footage influences or alters the officer’s memory of events, contaminating their authentic perspective. Human memory is highly susceptible to external influences, (Artwohl A. , 2018) especially in high-stress critical incidents, and viewing the video too early may lead officers to unintentionally align their recollection with the footage rather than their actual experience.

Equally important, officers should be allowed to view the BWC footage immediately after their interview or statement if they choose. This practice helps put the officer’s mind at ease, providing reassurance about what was captured. If discrepancies arise between the officer’s account and the footage, these can be addressed in a follow-up interview immediately after viewing or on a later day with investigators. Such inconsistencies are common and expected in critical incident investigations due to natural human reactions to stress. (Lorraine Hope, 2016) The investigators responsibility is to explain these potential misalignments in the investigative documentation. One such effect of stress in critical incidents is an officer’s narrow focus of attention during the event. Officers are also unlikely to have noticed or processed all the details captured by the camera, such as peripheral actions or sounds, because their attention was focused on a specific threat. Recognizing these differences as normal human responses, rather than (un)intentional errors, allows investigators to quantify and explain inconsistencies accurately, as supported by the pilot study in Anatomy of a Critical Incident: Navigating Controversy.

Camera Distortions (Mechanical Limitations)

BWCs capture footage through a single mechanical lens, unlike the two eyes humans use to perceive depth and distance in three dimensions (3D). This creates several distortions:

Two-Dimensional (2D) vs. Three-Dimensional (3D): A camera’s 2D output flattens the scene, removing depth cues that human eyes naturally process. This can make it harder to judge distances accurately in footage. (link to the study)
Lens Distortions: Many BWCs use wide-angle or fisheye lenses to capture a broad field of view. This is done so that the single lens can mimic the field of view of two human eyes working together, thus the distortion. These lenses can make objects appear farther away than they actually were for the officers during the incident, misleading reviewers about the proximity of threats or actions during an incident.
Human Perception Difference: Human (Officer’s) vision relies on two eyes working together to create a 3D understanding of space. A single-lens camera, designed to capture the same or similar field of view as two human eyes working together cannot replicate this, leading to a mismatch between what an officer perceives and what the footage shows.

Body-worn camera (BWC) footage can distort an officer’s real-time experience during a critical incident, meaning it may not fully or accurately reflect what the officer perceived. In simpler terms, BWC footage is not a complete representation of the officer’s experience. However, decision-makers and reviewers often treat the footage as factual, making judgments without proper context. This can lead to unfair administrative discipline or criminal charges against the officer.

Human Focus of Attention (Human Limitations)

It is widely accepted that human vision is highly selective, especially in high-stress situations. Unlike a BWC camera, which captures everything within its lens’s range (120 degrees or greater), humans focus on a narrow portion of their visual field under stress (1-3 degrees) which can present information, both visual and audible, which is not contained within the officer’s narrow focus of attention:

Foveal Focus: The human eye’s fovea, responsible for sharp central vision, covers only about 1 to 3 degrees of visual angle—roughly the size of a thumbnail at arm’s length. This is where attention is concentrated during critical incidents, such as when an officer assesses a threat.
Limited Peripheral Awareness: Areas outside this foveal focus, including the near-peripheral (parafoveal) and peripheral fields, provide less detailed information. In high-stress moments, officers may not process or react to information in these areas, as their attention is locked on the immediate threat.
Camera’s Broad Capture: A BWC, by contrast, records the entire visual range of its lens, often 120 degrees or more. This creates a discrepancy between the officer’s narrow focus and the camera’s wide-angle footage, which includes details the officer may not have noticed.[1]

The difference between body-worn camera (BWC) footage and an officer’s perception are critical in use-of-force investigations. Reviewers often assume officers saw and processed everything captured by the camera’s wide field of view. In reality, officers’ attention is far more focused, and they may not have had the opportunity to process details that appear obvious to someone analyzing the footage later, from the safety of an office.

Reviewer Assumptions (Reviewers Limitations)

When reviewing BWC footage, investigators, media, or the public often assume the officer was focused or even aware of the same elements that the “reviewer” noticed in the video. This very common assumption overlooks camera distortions, human attentional limits and orientation of the BWC compared to the officers eyes:

Misinterpreting Focus: Reviewers may fixate on details in the footage—such as a suspect’s hands, a bystander, or an object—that were outside the officer’s foveal focus during the incident. In critical moments, officers are likely prioritizing a specific threat to them in the moment, not scanning the broader scene as the camera does.
Distorted Evidence: The 2D, wide-angle, or fisheye distortions in BWC footage can exaggerate or minimize distances and actions, leading reviewers to misjudge the officer’s perception of the situation. For example, a suspect who appears far away in the video may have been much closer in reality.
Hindsight Bias: Reviewers have the luxury of pausing, rewinding, and analyzing footage in a calm setting, unlike officers making split-second decisions under stress. This can lead to unfair judgments about what the officer “should have seen” or done. Reviewers get countless times to watch and pick apart the details of an event, officers only get one chance in the field.
BWC Orientation vs Officers Eyes: Too often, reviewers assume that a body-worn camera (BWC), typically positioned at the center of an officer’s chest, captures the same perspective as the officer’s eyes at the precise moment in question. This misconception is widespread, even among experienced investigators who intellectually understand the difference but overlook it in the moment. They fall into the common trap of believing that the BWC footage represents the ‘real’ or complete truth.

Law Enforcement in general has lagged in leading the way to educate or inform the public of the limitations of video footage in particular BWC footage. Departments will produce, often at a very professional level, a “Community Update” about a critical incident, but fail to illustrate not just verbally but more importantly visually, the distortions in the video evidence.

The pilot study in Anatomy of a Critical Incident (Borden, 2024) highlights how these factors contribute to misinterpretations of BWC evidence, emphasizing the need for training on human perception and camera limitations in use-of-force investigations.

Preserving an Officer’s Raw Perspective in Critical Incident Investigations

When an officer is involved in a critical incident, their memory of the event—what is referred to as their “raw perspective” (Borden, 2024)—is a vital component of the investigation. This perspective captures what they perceived, believed, and acted upon in the moment, shaped by their training and a reasonable belief of a deadly threat. As outlined in Anatomy of a Critical Incident, an officer’s decision to use force, including deadly force, is typically a tactical choice to de-escalate or neutralize a threat, not a deliberate intent to kill. Capturing this unfiltered account during the initial interview is essential to understanding the officer’s decision-making process. Capturing the “why” not the “what happened”.

While valuable, BWC footage presents a perspective that may differ from the officer’s real-time experience due to factors like camera position, lighting, distorted perceptions of distance, or details the officer didn’t process during the incident. This discrepancy can trigger what is termed term “reconciliation,” where officers, either subconsciously or unintentionally adjust their memory to align with the footage. As anxiety and self-doubt emerge, this conflict between the “unreal” BWC perspective and their actual recollection can harm both the officer and the investigation.

The Danger of Reconciliation and Credibility Loss

Reconciliation is not merely a psychological phenomenon; it has serious consequences for the investigation and the officer’s legal standing. When officers view BWC footage before their interview, they may inadvertently incorporate “now-known facts” from the video—details they didn’t perceive during the incident—into their narrative. For example, an officer might justify their actions by referencing something visible in the footage that they didn’t notice in the moment. This can create inconsistencies that raise questions about their decision-making. A reviewer might think, “If the officer was aware of this information at the time, it should have altered their actions.” In reality, the officer wasn’t aware of it, but suggestibility from the footage led them to include details that misrepresent the reasonableness of their original decisions. Such discrepancies can undermine the officer’s credibility, weaken their legal protections, and compromise the investigation’s integrity.

In Anatomy of a Critical Incident, the emphasis is on the importance of the “RADOO loop” (Result, Action, Decision, Orientation, Observation), a reverse application of the OODA loop, to analyze critical incidents. (Borden, 2024) By starting with the result and working backward, investigators can better understand the officer’s orientation—what they made sense of in the chaotic moment. Allowing officers to view video before their interview disrupts this process, as their orientation becomes clouded by hindsight information not processed by the officer at the time. The raw perspective, untainted by video, is essential for investigators to accurately assess whether the officer’s actions were reasonable based on what they knew and perceived at the time.

Video as a Piece, Not the Whole, of the Investigation

A common misconception is that video footage is the definitive record of an incident. However, the video is only one piece of the investigative puzzle. It provides a surface-level view of a potentially critical threat, lacking the full context of the officer’s perception, training, and decision-making. Over-relying on video can lead investigators to pressure officers for answers that align with the footage, even if those answers don’t reflect the officer’s actual experience. This approach risks creating a narrative that feels forced or fabricated, further damaging the officer’s credibility.

By conducting the initial interview before the officer views the video, investigators can capture the officer’s episodic memory—the story in their head of what they saw and why they acted. After this raw account is documented, the officer can be given the opportunity to watch the video, reflect, and address any discrepancies after taking a break in the original interview or conduct a follow-up interview. This process allows investigators to compare the officer’s perception with the video evidence thoughtfully, without the officer feeling compelled to reconcile the two in real time. The goal is to “navigate controversy” by ensuring the investigation is transparent, evidence-based, and respectful of the officer’s authentic experience.

Communicating to Chiefs and Stakeholders

For police chiefs and other decision-makers, the argument for delaying video review is straightforward: it protects the integrity of the investigation and the officer’s credibility. Chiefs may struggle with technical explanations, so the message must be clear: “These guys have a memory, they know what they saw, their perspective, and why they pulled the trigger. Something that alters their belief of what happened out there is going to shake the whole thing.” Showing the video after the interview preserves the officer’s raw perspective, reduces the risk of unnecessary reconciliation, and ensures the investigation reflects the truth of the officer’s experience, not a hindsight-driven narrative.

Conclusion

Body-worn cameras are powerful tools for the investigative process, but the evidence they produce demands careful interpretation. Distortions from single-lens, 2D capture, wide-angle lenses, and the limits of human attention during high-stress incidents create gaps between what officers perceive at the time and what cameras record. Reviewers must avoid assuming footage fully captures an officer’s perspective or accurately depicts real-time threats and distances. Equally critical is the timing of video review: requiring officers to provide statements before viewing footage preserves their authentic recollection, while allowing post-interview access supports completeness and addresses inconsistencies. As highlighted in Anatomy of a Critical Incident: Navigating Controversy, investigators must use video as one piece of a broader investigation, not the sole measure of truth and fact reasonably believed to be present from the officer’s perspective. By adopting these practices, chiefs, investigators, and trainers can ensure fairer, more accurate evaluations of use-of-force incidents.

[1] The exact FOV depends on the specific model and manufacturer (e.g., Axon, Motorola, or Wolfcom).

Authored by Sgt Jamie Borden (Ret.), Ofc. Danny King (Ret.), TJ Lewis, Investigative Specialist

Interview Summary and Article

Body-worn cameras (BWCs) have become a cornerstone of modern policing, providing a visual record of officer-involved incidents. However, their use in critical incident investigations—particularly whether officers should view BWC footage before giving a statement—remains a topic of heated debate. In a recent conversation, law enforcement professionals TJ Lewis, Jamie Borden, and Danny king explored the complexities of this issue, shedding light on the potential benefits, pitfalls, and human factors at play. This article, based on their discussion, aims to provide clarity for officers, investigators, and command staff navigating these high-stakes situations.

The Core Issue: To Watch or Not to Watch?

The question of whether officers should view BWC footage before providing a statement in a critical incident investigation is far from straightforward. As TJ, an active law enforcement officer, explained, the topic arises consistently in discussions with agencies, command staff, and unions. “It comes up every time I meet with a new agency,” TJ noted, citing a recent conversation with a a command level officer that prompted him to write an article on the subject. The debate stems from a lack of widespread understanding about the implications of watching BWC footage before an interview, coupled with the emotional and legal weight of critical incidents like officer-involved shootings (OIS).

TJ’s perspective, shaped by his experience in the field, emphasizes the risks of viewing footage beforehand. He observes that officers who watch BWC footage often deliver statements that feel “robotic” or “scripted,” lacking the raw emotional context of the moment. This can create a disconnect, as officers may try to reconcile their memory with the video, potentially introducing inconsistencies or altering their narrative in ways that could be misinterpreted by investigators or prosecutors.

The Human Factor: Memory Distortions and Emotional Impact

A key theme in the conversation is the frailty of human memory under stress. Jamie, a use-of-force expert, highlighted how officers’ recollections of critical incidents can differ significantly from what BWC footage shows—not due to dishonesty, but because of how the brain processes high-stress events. “Intentions become memories,” Jamie explained, citing Danny’s own experience in a 2011 OIS where he vividly recalled laying across the hood of his truck, only to learn from video evidence that he never did so. This discrepancy wasn’t a lie; it was a manifestation of Danny’s tactical intention, which his brain encoded as a memory.

Danny’s story underscores a critical point: memory distortions are normal in high-stress situations. In his case, he was focused on his iron sights and stopping a suspect who was shooting at his colleagues. The 75-foot discrepancy in his recalled position and the actual location of his shell casings was a procedural memory lapse, irrelevant to his primary goal. “I felt like I was lying,” Danny admitted, but a seasoned homicide sergeant reassured him, “There’s science behind this.” This science—rooted in cognitive psychology—explains why officers may not recall details like steps taken or exact positions, as their attention narrows to the threat.

TJ echoed this, noting that officers who view BWC footage may experience anxiety when confronted with details they don’t remember. This anxiety can lead them to interject video-based information into their statements, potentially creating a confusing narrative. “They start injecting that in, and it changes the decision-making matrix,” TJ said, which could lead reviewers to question why an officer made a particular decision if they seemingly had information they didn’t actually possess at the time.

The Investigator’s Role: Connecting the Dots

For investigators, the challenge lies in reconciling an officer’s raw perspective with the objective, yet limited, evidence provided by BWC footage. Jamie emphasized that inconsistencies between an officer’s statement and the video are inevitable but not necessarily problematic. “There will always be inconsistencies,” he said, but these are often outweighed by consistencies that align with the officer’s reasonable decision-making. The investigator’s job is to “connect the dots,” explaining discrepancies through an understanding of human factors like focus of attention, context, and stress.

Danny added that many agencies treat OIS investigations as ancillary duties, with investigators juggling multiple cases and lacking specialized training in human factors. This can lead to snap judgments based on BWC footage viewed on small screens, like cell phones, which miss critical details. “You can’t be the variable in this,” Danny stressed, urging investigators to seek training on video analysis and cognitive distortions to ensure accurate assessments.

The Command Staff Perspective: Avoiding Premature Conclusions

TJ’s article also addresses the role of command staff, who may rely heavily on BWC footage without considering its limitations. “I’ve seen chiefs show up on an OIS, look at the BWC, and leave,” TJ said, noting that such quick assessments often ignore the broader context. Command staff, many of whom no longer wear BWCs or face critical incidents regularly, may forget the pressures officers experience. A chief in one of Jamie’s classes admitted to forgetting his own visceral reaction to watching his BWC footage, highlighting the need for leaders to stay grounded in their own experiences when evaluating incidents.

The Legal and Union Perspective: Balancing Rights and Risks

Danny, drawing on his experience as a union representative, offered a nuanced view of the legal and union considerations. Some officers, exercising their legal rights, choose to view BWC footage with their attorney and union representative to craft a detailed statement. This approach can ensure that legal elements—like the justification for a Terry stop or deadly force—are clearly articulated. However, Danny cautioned that attorneys or union reps who encourage officers to align their statements with the video without first capturing their raw recollection can create problems. “It nearly cost officers their freedom,” he said, citing cases where officers’ video-influenced statements didn’t hold up under scrutiny.

The Limitations of BWC Footage

A recurring point in the discussion is that BWC footage, while valuable, is not a definitive record of reality. TJ’s article breaks down the technical limitations: a single-lens camera cannot replicate the depth perception of two human eyes, and factors like lighting, distance, and timing can distort what viewers see. “What you’re watching isn’t real,” TJ emphasized, urging officers and investigators to approach footage as one piece of evidence, not the whole story. Jamie reinforced this, describing BWC footage as a “two-dimensional distorted version of the officer’s reality,” which must be contextualized with the officer’s raw perspective and other evidence.

Practical Recommendations

Based on the conversation, here are key takeaways for officers, investigators, and command staff:

Officers: If you choose to view BWC footage before an interview, understand its limitations and focus on your raw recollection. Avoid letting the video create anxiety or alter your narrative. Work with your attorney and union representative to ensure your statement reflects your perspective at the time of the incident.
Investigators: Seek training on human factors and video analysis to recognize memory distortions and avoid premature conclusions. Use large screens for video review and consider the broader context, including officer training, experience, and the chaotic nature of the incident.
Command Staff: Resist the urge to make snap judgments based solely on BWC footage. Reflect on your own experiences in high-stress incidents and ensure investigations are thorough, incorporating all available evidence.
All Stakeholders: Recognize that inconsistencies between BWC footage and officer statements are normal and do not inherently indicate dishonesty. Focus on whether the officer’s actions were reasonable given the totality of circumstances.

Conclusion

The debate over viewing BWC footage before a critical incident interview is complex, with valid arguments on both sides. However, as TJ, Jamie, and Danny’s conversation illustrates, the key lies in understanding the interplay of human memory, video limitations, and investigative rigor. By approaching BWC footage as one piece of a larger puzzle, law enforcement professionals can ensure fair, accurate, and defensible outcomes in critical incident investigations.

For more insights, check out TJ’s article and join the conversation by sharing your experiences with BWC footage in critical incidents. Have you seen cases where watching the video helped or hindered an officer’s statement? Let us know in the comments or reply to our email blast.

TJ Lewis Disclaimer: The viewpoints and opinions expressed by me are solely my own and do not reflect the views, positions, or policies of any employer, agency, or organization with which I am affiliated. These statements are my personal opinions and should not be attributed to any other entity.

FAQ

What is the core debate surrounding officers viewing Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage before giving a statement in a critical incident investigation?

The core debate centers on the potential benefits and pitfalls of officers viewing BWC footage before providing their official statement. While some argue that it helps officers recall details and articulate legal justifications, others contend that it can lead to “robotic” or “scripted” statements lacking emotional context. The concern is that officers might unconsciously or consciously alter their narrative to align with the video, potentially introducing inconsistencies or misinterpreting their original decision-making process. This issue consistently arises in discussions with law enforcement agencies, command staff, and unions due to a lack of widespread understanding of the implications.

How does human memory function under stress, and how does this impact an officer’s recollection of a critical incident compared to BWC footage?

Under high-stress conditions, human memory is susceptible to distortions. Officers’ recollections can differ significantly from what BWC footage shows, not due to dishonesty, but due to the brain’s processing of traumatic events. For instance, “intentions become memories,” meaning an officer’s tactical objective might be encoded as a vivid memory even if their physical actions didn’t perfectly align with it. Officers often experience “focus of attention” where their awareness narrows to the immediate threat, causing them to miss or not recall other details like their exact position or specific movements. When confronted with BWC footage, officers may experience anxiety when they see details they don’t remember, potentially leading them to inject video-based information into their statement, which can create a confusing narrative for investigators.

What are the key limitations of Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage as evidence in critical incident investigations?

BWC footage, while valuable, is not a definitive record of reality and has several technical and perceptual limitations. A single-lens camera cannot replicate human depth perception, and factors like lighting, distance, and timing can distort what viewers see. Experts describe BWC footage as a “two-dimensional distorted version of the officer’s reality.” It captures only a narrow slice of the event and cannot convey the officer’s internal thought process, sensory input, or emotional state at the time. Therefore, BWC footage should be treated as one piece of evidence among many, not the entire story, and must be contextualized with the officer’s raw perspective and other collected data.

How should investigators approach inconsistencies between an officer’s statement and BWC footage?

Investigators should expect and recognize that inconsistencies between an officer’s statement and BWC footage are normal and do not inherently indicate dishonesty. Instead, these discrepancies are often a manifestation of human factors like memory distortions, focus of attention, and the chaotic nature of high-stress incidents. The investigator’s role is to “connect the dots” by understanding these human factors and using them to explain discrepancies. They should avoid snap judgments based solely on the video and instead consider the broader context, including officer training, experience, and the totality of circumstances. Specialized training in human factors and video analysis is crucial for investigators to ensure accurate assessments and avoid premature conclusions.

What are the concerns regarding command staff’s use of BWC footage in critical incident assessments?

Command staff often rely heavily on BWC footage for quick assessments, but they may overlook its limitations and the broader context of an incident. Many command-level officers no longer wear BWCs or regularly experience critical incidents, leading them to forget the intense pressures officers face. Some may make immediate judgments after a brief review of the footage, ignoring other crucial information. This can result in an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of the event. Command staff are urged to reflect on their own experiences in high-stress situations and ensure that investigations are thorough, incorporating all available evidence rather than solely relying on video.

What role do legal and union perspectives play in the decision of whether officers view BWC footage?

Legal and union representatives offer nuanced perspectives. Officers, exercising their legal rights, may choose to view BWC footage with their attorney and union representative to craft a detailed statement that clearly articulates legal justifications (e.g., for a Terry stop or use of deadly force). However, there is a risk that attorneys or union reps might encourage officers to align their statements with the video without first capturing their raw recollection, which can lead to statements that don’t hold up under scrutiny and could potentially jeopardize the officer’s freedom. The goal should be to ensure the officer’s statement reflects their genuine perspective at the time of the incident, while also ensuring all relevant legal elements are addressed.

What practical recommendations are offered for officers, investigators, and command staff regarding BWC footage?

Officers: If choosing to view BWC footage, understand its limitations. Focus on your raw recollection and avoid letting the video create anxiety or alter your narrative. Work with your legal representation to ensure your statement reflects your perspective at the time of the incident.
Investigators: Seek training on human factors and video analysis to recognize memory distortions and avoid premature conclusions. Review footage on large screens and consider the broader context, including officer training, experience, and the chaotic nature of the incident.
Command Staff: Resist making snap judgments based solely on BWC footage. Reflect on your own experiences in high-stress incidents and ensure investigations are thorough, incorporating all available evidence.
All Stakeholders: Recognize that inconsistencies between BWC footage and officer statements are normal and do not automatically imply dishonesty. The focus should be on whether the officer’s actions were reasonable given the totality of circumstances known at the time.

Why is specialized training in video analysis and human factors critical for investigators?

Specialized training in video analysis and human factors is critical because simply having experience watching video is not enough. Without proper training, investigators can develop poor techniques or habits, miss crucial data, and fall prey to biases. This training helps them understand memory distortions, the technical limitations of BWC footage, and how to effectively connect the dots between an officer’s subjective experience and the objective evidence. An untrained investigator viewing footage on a small screen, like a cell phone, can miss significant details and potentially make incorrect conclusions, which could unfairly implicate or exonerate an officer. The goal is to ensure the investigator is “right,” regardless of the outcome, and this requires a solid foundation of proven techniques and a deep understanding of the complexities involved.

Briefing Doc

Sources:

Excerpts from “Critical Incident Review: Navigating Body-Worn Camera Footage in Critical Incident Investigations Authored by Sgt Jamie Borden (Ret.), Ofc. Danny King (Ret.), TJ Lewis, Investigative Specialist” (referred to as “Article”)
Excerpts from “tj-jamie-daniel.txt” (referred to as “Transcript”)

Executive Summary

The use of Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) in modern policing has introduced significant complexities into critical incident investigations, particularly regarding whether officers should review BWC footage before giving a statement. This briefing, based on a discussion between law enforcement professionals TJ Lewis, Jamie Borden, and Danny King, highlights the benefits, pitfalls, and human factors involved. A central theme is the inherent unreliability of human memory under stress and the limitations of BWC footage as a definitive record. The discussion emphasizes the need for comprehensive training for officers, investigators, and command staff to ensure accurate, fair, and defensible outcomes in these high-stakes situations.

The Core Issue: To Watch or Not to Watch?

The debate over whether officers should view BWC footage before providing a statement in a critical incident investigation is a persistent and complex issue.

Prevalence of the Debate: TJ Lewis notes that this question “comes up every time I meet with a new agency, or a new command staff or a union,” indicating a widespread lack of understanding or consensus on the implications. (Transcript, 0:43.04)
Risks of Pre-Viewing: TJ emphasizes that officers who view footage beforehand often deliver “robotic” or “scripted” statements, lacking the “raw emotional contact or context of the moment.” (Transcript, 5:10.882) This can lead to a disconnect where officers attempt to reconcile their memory with the video, potentially introducing inaccuracies or altering their narrative.
Concerns about Misinterpretation: Such altered statements could be “misinterpreted by investigators or prosecutors,” leading to questions about an officer’s decision-making if they appear to have information they didn’t possess at the time of the incident. (Article)

III. The Human Factor: Memory Distortions and Emotional Impact

A critical aspect of the debate centers on the fragility of human memory, especially in high-stress environments.

Stress-Induced Memory Lapses: Jamie Borden, a use-of-force expert, explains that officers’ recollections can significantly differ from BWC footage “not due to dishonesty, but because of how the brain processes high-stress events.” (Article)
“Intentions Become Memories”: Jamie highlights that “Intentions become memories,” citing Danny King’s experience in a 2011 OIS where he vividly recalled a tactical position (laying across his truck’s hood) that video evidence disproved. (Article; Transcript, 27:37.819) Danny clarified, “This discrepancy wasn’t a lie; it was a manifestation of Danny’s tactical intention, which his brain encoded as a memory.” (Article)
Focus of Attention: Danny’s experience further illustrates that in high-stress situations, an officer’s “focus of attention” narrows to the immediate threat (e.g., his iron sights and stopping a shooting suspect), leading to “procedural memory lapse[s]” about non-consequential details like exact positions or steps taken. (Article; Transcript, 29:20.925)
Anxiety and Narrative Alteration: TJ notes that seeing BWC footage can cause anxiety when officers don’t remember specific details. This anxiety can lead them to “interject video-based information into their statements,” potentially creating a “confusing narrative” and raising doubts about their honesty. (Article; Transcript, 10:39.074)
“Watching Someone Else’s Use of Force”: Jamie recounts a case where an officer, after viewing footage, felt he was “watching someone else’s use of force” because he didn’t remember disarming a suspect. This underscores how BWC footage can drastically alter an officer’s “raw perspective interview.” (Transcript, 11:36.685)
Normalcy of Distortions: Danny emphasizes that “distortions like this are completely normal.” He shares an example of multiple officers in a shooting incident reporting the same, unverified details (e.g., suspect screamed, raised hand, and charged), highlighting that these are common and not necessarily indicative of lying. (Transcript, 34:55.572)

The Investigator’s Role: Connecting the Dots

Investigators face the challenge of reconciling an officer’s subjective memory with objective BWC evidence.

Inevitable Inconsistencies: Jamie states, “There will always be inconsistencies” between an officer’s statement and video, but these are often “outweighed by consistencies that align with the officer’s reasonable decision-making.” (Article)
Explaining Discrepancies: The investigator’s role is to “connect the dots,” explaining discrepancies by understanding “human factors like focus of attention, context, and stress.” (Article)
Need for Specialized Training: Danny points out that many agencies treat OIS investigations as “ancillary duties” and investigators often lack “specialized training in human factors.” This can lead to “snap judgments based on BWC footage viewed on small screens,” missing critical details. He stresses, “You can’t be the variable in this,” urging training in “video analysis and cognitive distortions.” (Article; Transcript, 44:01.358)
Extracting Information: TJ highlights that interviewers must “dig into certain things to extract that information” and “explain why he doesn’t remember or she doesn’t remember something in an OIS.” (Transcript, 26:15.548)

The Command Staff Perspective: Avoiding Premature Conclusions

Command staff’s reliance on BWC footage without understanding its limitations can lead to flawed assessments.

Quick Assessments: TJ observes, “I’ve seen chiefs show up on an OIS, look at the BWC, and leave,” making “quick assessments [that] often ignore the broader context.” (Article; Transcript, 40:49.951)
Forgetting Personal Experiences: Many command staff, no longer regularly involved in critical incidents, may “forget the pressures officers experience.” A chief admitting to forgetting his own “visceral reaction to watching his BWC footage” underscores the need for leaders to remain grounded in their own experiences. (Article; Transcript, 42:26.855)

The Legal and Union Perspective: Balancing Rights and Risks

Legal and union considerations add another layer of complexity.

Crafting Detailed Statements: Danny, as a union representative, notes that some officers, with legal counsel, choose to view BWC footage to “craft a detailed statement,” ensuring “legal elements—like the justification for a Terry stop or deadly force—are clearly articulated.” (Article; Transcript, 18:05.304)
Risks of Attorney Influence: However, Danny cautions that attorneys or union representatives who encourage officers to “align their statements with the video without first capturing their raw recollection can create problems.” He states, “It nearly cost officers their freedom,” in cases where video-influenced statements failed scrutiny. (Article; Transcript, 17:37.835)
Strategic Use of Video: Conversely, Danny has seen situations where a “knowledgeable union rep, by the way, and a knowledgeable attorney will sit down, review the evidence,” sometimes with the officer, to ensure “the officer puts the relevant facts on the record” regarding the legal elements of their actions. (Transcript, 18:35.319)

VII. The Limitations of BWC Footage

A recurring and crucial point is that BWC footage is not an objective reality but a limited piece of evidence.

Technical Limitations: TJ highlights technical limitations: “a single-lens camera cannot replicate the depth perception of two human eyes,” and factors like “lighting, distance, and timing can distort what viewers see.” (Article; Transcript, 39:33.09) He emphasizes, “What you’re watching isn’t real.” (Article; Transcript, 25:36.438)
“Two-Dimensional Distorted Version”: Jamie describes BWC footage as a “two-dimensional distorted version of the officer’s reality,” which must be “contextualized with the officer’s raw perspective and other evidence.” (Article)
Part of the Totality: BWC footage is merely “one piece of evidence, not the whole story.” (Article) Investigators must “look at everything else to either corroborate what you’re seeing or not or…give some reasoning for why there are discrepancies.” (Transcript, 39:33.09)

VIII. Practical Recommendations

Based on the discussion, the following recommendations are provided:

Officers:If choosing to view BWC footage, “understand its limitations and focus on your raw recollection.”
“Avoid letting the video create anxiety or alter your narrative.”
Collaborate with legal and union representatives to ensure statements reflect the perspective at the time of the incident. (Article)
Investigators:Seek “training on human factors and video analysis to recognize memory distortions and avoid premature conclusions.”
Utilize “large screens for video review” and consider the “broader context, including officer training, experience, and the chaotic nature of the incident.” (Article; Transcript, 44:01.358)
Jamie adds that investigators need to be able to “connect the dots” and explain inconsistencies in the report narrative. (Transcript, 14:26.151)
Command Staff:“Resist the urge to make snap judgments based solely on BWC footage.”
“Reflect on your own experiences in high-stress incidents” to avoid overlooking the pressures faced by officers.
Ensure investigations are “thorough, incorporating all available evidence.” (Article)
All Stakeholders:Recognize that “inconsistencies between BWC footage and officer statements are normal and do not inherently indicate dishonesty.”
Focus on whether the officer’s actions were “reasonable given the totality of circumstances.” (Article)

Conclusion

The integration of BWC footage into critical incident investigations necessitates a nuanced approach that acknowledges both its value and its limitations. By understanding the interplay of human memory under stress, the inherent distortions of video evidence, and the distinct roles of various stakeholders, law enforcement professionals can work towards “fair, accurate, and defensible outcomes.” The key is to treat BWC footage as “one piece of a larger puzzle,” providing context rather than definitive truth. (Article)

Study Guide

This study guide is designed to help you review and deepen your understanding of the provided source material regarding the use of Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage in critical incident investigations.

Core Concepts & Debates

The Central Dilemma: The ongoing debate about whether law enforcement officers should view BWC footage before providing a statement in a critical incident investigation.
Human Factors and Memory: The significant role of stress, focus of attention, and cognitive distortions in shaping an officer’s memory of a high-stress event.
Limitations of BWC Footage: Understanding that BWC footage is not an objective, complete, or “real” representation of an incident but a limited, two-dimensional, and potentially distorted record.
Stakeholder Perspectives: Recognizing the different viewpoints and challenges faced by officers, investigators, command staff, and legal/union representatives concerning BWC footage.

Key Arguments Against Pre-Statement BWC Review (TJ’s Perspective)

“Robotic” or “Scripted” Statements: Officers who view footage beforehand may deliver statements that lack emotional context and feel rehearsed, potentially leading to misinterpretation.
Memory Reconciliation and Inconsistencies: Officers may attempt to reconcile their personal memory with the video evidence, leading to the injection of video-based details they didn’t actually perceive at the time. This can create a confusing narrative and raise doubts about their decision-making.
Anxiety and Doubt: Seeing discrepancies between their memory and the video can cause anxiety for officers, potentially influencing their statement negatively.
“Changes the Decision-Making Matrix”: Injecting video-derived information into a statement can make it appear as if the officer possessed information they didn’t have during the incident, leading reviewers to question their actions.

III. The Human Element: Memory Distortions (Jamie & Danny’s Experiences)

Stress-Induced Memory Lapses: High-stress situations significantly impact memory. Officers may not recall peripheral details (e.g., exact position, number of steps) because their attention is narrowly focused on the threat.
“Intentions Become Memories”: An officer’s tactical intention or belief about an action can be encoded as a vivid memory, even if the actual physical action did not occur (e.g., Danny King’s recollection of laying across his car hood). This is not dishonesty but a manifestation of cognitive processes under stress.
Procedural Memory Lapse: Forgetting routine or non-critical details during a high-stress event is normal because they are not consequential to the primary goal.
Reconciling Discrepancies: Skilled investigators must understand these human factors to explain inconsistencies between an officer’s statement and BWC footage, rather than automatically attributing them to dishonesty.

Investigator’s Role & Challenges

Connecting the Dots: Investigators must reconcile an officer’s subjective perspective with objective (but limited) BWC evidence. Inconsistencies are normal and often outweighed by consistencies in reasonable decision-making.
Specialized Training: Many agencies treat OIS investigations as ancillary duties. Investigators often lack specialized training in human factors, video analysis, and cognitive distortions, leading to premature or inaccurate judgments.
Screen Size Matters: Viewing BWC footage on small screens (like cell phones) can lead to missing critical details.
Avoiding Bias: Investigators must resist forming instant opinions based solely on BWC footage and instead view it as one piece of evidence within the totality of circumstances.

Command Staff Perspective

Risk of Premature Conclusions: Command staff may rely too heavily on BWC footage without considering its limitations or the broader context of the incident.
Forgetting Personal Experience: Leaders who are no longer regularly involved in critical incidents or wear BWCs may forget the intense pressures officers face and their own visceral reactions to reviewing footage.

Legal and Union Considerations (Danny King’s Insights)

Officer’s Legal Rights: Officers have the right to view BWC footage with their attorney and union representative to prepare a detailed statement.
Risks of Video-Influenced Statements: Attorneys or union representatives who encourage officers to align their statements with video without first capturing their raw recollection can create problems, potentially leading to statements that don’t hold up under scrutiny and “cost officers their freedom.”
Ensuring Legal Elements are Articulated: A knowledgeable union rep and attorney can help ensure that the officer’s statement clearly articulates the legal justifications (e.g., Terry stop elements, deadly force criteria).

VII. Limitations of BWC Footage

Not a Definitive Record: BWC footage is not an objective reality. A single-lens camera cannot replicate human depth perception, and factors like lighting, distance, and timing can distort what is seen.
“Two-dimensional Distorted Version”: BWC footage offers a limited and distorted view of the officer’s reality, requiring contextualization with the officer’s perspective and other evidence.

VIII. Practical Recommendations for All Stakeholders

Officers:Understand BWC limitations if choosing to view footage.
Focus on raw recollection; avoid anxiety or altering narratives based on video.
Work with legal/union reps to ensure the statement reflects the officer’s perspective at the time of the incident.
Investigators:Seek training in human factors and video analysis to recognize memory distortions.
Avoid premature conclusions; use large screens for review.
Consider the broader context (training, experience, chaotic nature).
Command Staff:Resist snap judgments based solely on BWC footage.
Reflect on personal high-stress experiences.
Ensure thorough investigations incorporating all evidence.
All Stakeholders:Recognize that inconsistencies are normal, not inherent dishonesty.
Focus on the reasonableness of the officer’s actions based on the totality of circumstances.

Quiz: Critical Incident Review

Instructions: Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.

What is the core issue that repeatedly arises concerning Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage in critical incident investigations, according to TJ Lewis?
How might an officer’s statement be perceived if they view BWC footage before giving it, and why does TJ Lewis see this as problematic?
Explain Jamie Borden’s concept of “intentions become memories” using Danny King’s experience as an example.
Why might officers inject video-based information into their statements, and what negative consequence does TJ Lewis associate with this?
What key challenge do investigators face when reconciling an officer’s statement with BWC footage, and what skill is emphasized for overcoming this?
According to Danny King, what is a potential pitfall of legal or union representatives encouraging officers to align their statements with BWC footage too strictly?
What are two specific technical limitations of Body-Worn Camera footage mentioned in the discussion?
Why is it important for command staff to reflect on their own experiences in high-stress incidents when reviewing BWC footage?
From the perspective of all stakeholders, what should be the primary focus when inconsistencies arise between an officer’s statement and BWC footage?
What did Danny King identify as a common deficiency among law enforcement agencies regarding officer-involved shooting investigations?

Quiz Answer Key

The core issue is a lack of widespread understanding regarding the implications and potential conflicts of watching BWC footage before an interview. This consistent debate stems from the emotional and legal weight of critical incidents.
An officer’s statement might be perceived as “robotic” or “scripted” if they view BWC footage beforehand, as they may lose the raw emotional context. TJ believes this can do a disservice to the officer and be misinterpreted by reviewers.
Jamie explains that under stress, an officer’s tactical intention can be encoded as a memory, even if the action didn’t physically happen. Danny vividly recalled laying across his truck’s hood, which was his intention, but video evidence showed he never did so.
Officers might inject video-based information when they see details they don’t remember, leading to anxiety. TJ warns this “changes the decision-making matrix,” potentially causing reviewers to question why an officer made a decision based on information they didn’t actually possess at the time.
Investigators face the challenge of reconciling an officer’s raw perspective with the objective, yet limited, BWC footage. They must seek training in human factors and video analysis to “connect the dots” and explain discrepancies without assuming dishonesty.
Danny cautions that if attorneys or union reps encourage officers to align their statements with video without first capturing their raw recollection, it can create problems. He cited cases where such video-influenced statements didn’t hold up under scrutiny and “nearly cost officers their freedom.”
Two technical limitations of BWC footage are that a single-lens camera cannot replicate the depth perception of two human eyes, and factors like lighting, distance, and timing can distort what viewers see. The footage is described as a “two-dimensional distorted version of the officer’s reality.”
It’s important for command staff to reflect on their own high-stress experiences because many forget the pressures officers endure and their own visceral reactions to footage. This reflection helps them avoid making snap judgments based solely on BWC footage and ensures thorough investigations.
When inconsistencies arise between BWC footage and officer statements, all stakeholders should recognize that these are normal and do not inherently indicate dishonesty. The primary focus should be on whether the officer’s actions were reasonable given the totality of circumstances at the time.
Danny identified that many agencies treat OIS investigations as ancillary duties, with investigators juggling multiple cases and lacking specialized training in human factors. This leads to snap judgments based on footage reviewed on inadequate screens.

Essay Format Questions (No Answers)

Discuss the ethical and practical implications of law enforcement agencies developing policies that either mandate or prohibit officers from viewing Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage before providing a critical incident statement. Consider the arguments from officers, investigators, command staff, and legal representatives.
Analyze how the “frailty of human memory under stress” significantly impacts the reliability of an officer’s statement in a critical incident. Using specific examples from the text, explain how memory distortions manifest and what an investigator’s role should be in addressing these discrepancies.
Evaluate the statement, “What you’re watching isn’t real,” in the context of Body-Worn Camera footage. Detail the technical and perceptual limitations of BWC footage and explain how these limitations necessitate a broader approach to evidence review than solely relying on the video.
Compare and contrast the roles and responsibilities of an investigator versus an officer’s union representative or attorney in a critical incident investigation involving BWC footage. How do their differing objectives influence the officer’s statement, and what potential conflicts or benefits arise from these interactions?
Propose a comprehensive training program for law enforcement agencies that addresses the complexities of Body-Worn Camera footage in critical incident investigations. Your proposal should include modules for officers, investigators, and command staff, focusing on mitigating the risks and maximizing the benefits identified in the source material.

Glossary of Key Terms

Ancillary Duties: Tasks or responsibilities that are secondary or subordinate to a primary job function, often implying a lack of specialized focus or training.
Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs): Small, portable cameras worn by law enforcement officers to record interactions with the public and evidence at crime scenes.
Cognitive Distortions: Errors or biases in thinking and memory, often occurring under high-stress conditions, where reality is perceived or recalled inaccurately.
Command Staff: Senior leadership within a law enforcement agency (e.g., chiefs, captains), responsible for policy, oversight, and decision-making.
Critical Incident: A high-stakes event involving law enforcement, such as an officer-involved shooting (OIS), where there is a significant risk of injury or death, leading to intense scrutiny and investigation.
Focus of Attention: The specific aspect of an environment or event that an individual is concentrating on, often narrowing significantly under stress and leading to memory gaps for peripheral details.
Furtive: Describing movement or behavior that is secretive, clandestine, or suggestive of an attempt to hide something, often used as a descriptor rather than a detailed observation in officer statements.
Graham (v. Connor): A landmark Supreme Court case (1989) that established the “objective reasonableness” standard for evaluating police use of force, emphasizing the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than 20/20 hindsight, and considering factors like the severity of the crime, immediate threat, and resistance to arrest.
Human Factors: The scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, applying theory, principles, data, and methods to design to optimize human well-being and overall system performance; in this context, psychological and physiological influences on perception and memory under stress.
Inconsistencies: Discrepancies or contradictions between an officer’s recalled statement and objective evidence, such as BWC footage. The source material argues these are normal under stress and not necessarily indicative of dishonesty.
Intentions Become Memories: A phenomenon where an officer’s tactical plan or mental intention for an action is so strong that it is encoded as a vivid memory, even if the actual physical action did not precisely occur as remembered.
Officer-Involved Shooting (OIS): An incident in which a law enforcement officer discharges a firearm at a person.
Procedural Memory Lapse: Forgetting routine, automatic actions or details that are not central to a high-stress goal, such as the number of steps taken or exact body positioning.
Raw Recollection: An officer’s initial, uninfluenced memory of an event, often characterized by emotional context and a less “scripted” narrative, considered valuable for understanding their subjective experience.
Reconcile (Memory with Video): The mental process an officer might undergo trying to align their personal memory of an event with what they see on BWC footage, potentially leading to anxiety or altering their original narrative.
Robotic/Scripted Statements: Descriptions of officer statements that lack natural emotional content and sound rehearsed, often attributed to pre-interview review of BWC footage.
Terry Stop: A brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest. Justified by the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio.
Totality of Circumstances: The overall context and all relevant facts and conditions surrounding an event, which must be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of an officer’s actions.