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

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.

1. 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. 

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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).