Video Evidence – Surface Review: Cautions

In a recent discussion between Use-of-Force Experts Jamie Borden and Daniel King, the complexities and potential pitfalls of relying on initial, surface-level reviews of video evidence in investigations were thoroughly explored. Their conversation, part of a four-part series on actionable steps for investigators, highlighted the critical need for proper video analysis to ensure accurate conclusions and uphold objectivity, particularly in use-of-force cases.

The Power and Peril of Video Evidence

Video evidence, whether from body-worn cameras, vehicle cameras, CCTV, or bystander cell phones, has become a major element of modern investigations. As Borden emphasized, video is compelling and often shapes the entire trajectory of a case from the moment it is viewed. However, both experts cautioned that this initial review, typically conducted on small screens like laptops or cell phones, can lead to misleading conclusions if not approached with caution.

Borden recounted a case where investigators, after viewing a video for just 14 seconds, charged an individual with second-degree murder. This conclusion, driven by the emotional impact of the footage and a lack of deeper analysis, was later proven erroneous, resulting in the suspect’s acquittal. King echoed this sentiment, noting that surface-level reviews are a “necessary evil” to gain a general understanding of an incident but must be followed by rigorous, objective analysis to avoid confirmation bias.

Emotional Conductivity and Cognitive Bias

One of the key issues discussed was the concept of “emotional conductivity,” where the emotional weight of a video influences an investigator’s perceptions. Borden explained that videos often evoke strong reactions, leading investigators to form conclusions before collecting all the facts. This premature judgment can steer an investigation down the wrong path, especially when influenced by salient elements in the footage that may not tell the full story.

King added that this issue is compounded when senior officials, such as chiefs or sheriffs, view the video and form opinions based on their initial emotional response. These opinions can inadvertently “frame” the investigation, pressuring investigators to align their findings with the expectations of those in authority rather than the objective facts present in the video.

The Technical Challenges of Video Analysis

Borden stressed that video is not a straightforward representation of reality. Videos are digital reconstructions, affected by factors such as compression algorithms, frame rates, resolution, and lighting conditions. These technical aspects can distort what is seen in the video, particularly when viewed on small devices like cell phones or mobile data terminals (MDTs). Borden noted that minute details, critical to understanding an incident, may be missed without high-quality playback and thorough examination.  Just simply considering the physical size of the screen can make a difference, not just the resolution.

In one example, King described a case where a supervisor deemed a use-of-force incident reasonable based on a low-resolution (small screen) review on an MDT. However, a subsequent desktop analysis revealed details that completely contradicted the initial assessment. This highlighted the necessity of reviewing videos on stable, high-resolution and/or large viewing platforms and dedicating sufficient time to the process. Borden stressed; It is important to keep in mind that a video recorded is only as resolute as the encoding process allows, meaning that watching a video that may be high – resolution on a 4k monitor will not create additional data, it may interpolate information, but that is different than the creation of additional or new data that did not exist in the original recording.

Best Practices for Initial Video Review

To mitigate the risks of surface-level reviews, Borden offered several actionable best practices:

1. Treat Video as One Piece of the Puzzle: Video should not be considered the entire investigation but rather a single piece of evidence to be corroborated with other data, such as witness statements and forensic findings.
2. Seek Original Footage: Avoid relying on degraded or transcoded video, such as recordings of a video playing on a screen. Original footage provides the best evidence for accurate analysis.
3. Document Initial Impressions: Investigators should record their initial thoughts but remain open to challenging and attempting to disprove these initial conclusions to maintain objectivity.
4. Use a Checklist for Context: Identify missing context in the video, such as the officer’s intent, environmental factors, or events leading up to the incident, to avoid incomplete conclusions. Refer to tools developed for the investigation, review and analysis of force incidents in “Anatomy of a Critical Incident – Navigating Controversy.”
5. Conduct Dispassionate Analysis: Resist emotional biases and focus on objective facts, using structured methodologies like root cause analysis or the OODA loop in reverse to understand what happened and why.

The Importance of Professional Analysis

Borden emphasized that professional forensic video analysis can require reviewing footage hundreds or even thousands of times to uncover critical details. In the case he referenced, he spent hundreds of hours analyzing a video that investigators initially reviewed for just 14 seconds. This meticulous process revealed evidence that was missed in the initial review, ultimately proving the suspect’s innocence.

King underscored that such analysis must consider the perspective of a reasonable officer making split-second decisions in tense, uncertain circumstances. The goal is not to second-guess the officer’s actions but to understand the context and facts of the incident accurately.

Moving Forward

The discussion concluded with a call to action for investigators to recognize the limitations of surface-level video reviews and to adopt structured, objective approaches to video analysis. Borden and King plan to delve deeper into these topics in future installments, covering how to gather and assess video evidence, identify integrity issues, and ensure justice is served.

For those interested in learning more, Borden and King invited investigators to reach out via email at contact@criticalincidentreview.com or to join their upcoming training sessions, including a class in Chandler, Arizona, in November 2025, and a robust schedule of courses planned for 2026. By equipping investigators with the tools and knowledge to analyze video evidence properly, they aim to prevent miscarriages of justice and ensure investigations are grounded in objective truth.

The initial review of video evidence in investigations presents numerous problems that can profoundly impact the trajectory and outcome of a case, often leading to erroneous conclusions and miscarriages of justice. Daniel highlights that video is “running roughshod all over us” and creating significant issues in investigations, not only in use-of-force cases but across all types.

Nature of Initial Video Review and its Immediate Problems:

• Surface-Level Viewing: An initial video review is often a surface-level viewing, frequently conducted on small screens like a laptop computer in a vehicle or even a cell phone. This provides only a “gist” of the event, giving an idea of what occurred but “nothing beyond that”.
• Erroneous Early Conclusions: Officers and investigators often reach “conclusions in this case before they ever conducted an investigation based on what they viewed in the video”. These conclusions can be “completely erroneous” and have severe consequences, such as a second-degree murder charge that an individual faced for several years, despite ultimately being acquitted based on deeper video evidence analysis.
• Salience and Cognitive Bias: What “sticks out in the video the most” initially, or its “salience,” can quickly drive an officer’s early conclusions. This immediate impression guides the investigative pathway and can lead to a belief that one understands what happened, even if that understanding is incomplete or incorrect.
• Emotional Conductivity: Video evidence can be emotionally compelling, especially during an initial viewing. Tragic scenarios depicted in video can evoke strong emotional responses in investigators, which is normal. However, these “emotional conductors” are powerful and can lead to premature decisions and conclusions before a thorough investigation has even begun.
• Confirmation Bias: Without a deliberate “reset point” where investigators actively try to disprove their initial impressions or explore other possibilities, they “naturally start to confirm our bias”. This means that once an initial belief is formed from the video, subsequent investigative steps may inadvertently seek to prove that initial belief, excluding other potential realities.
• Premature Critique and Assessment: The problem is that the process of critiquing, assessing, and evaluating an incident often begins as soon as someone looks at the video, without sufficient information to substantiate that critique. This can lead to judgments about what “should have, would have, could have” happened, rather than an objective determination of “what did happen” and “why”.

Influence of Authority and Technical Limitations:

• Framing by Authority Figures: Initial video reviews conducted by individuals in positions of authority, such as a chief or sheriff, can “shape the entire investigation”. These leaders often view the video through a lens focused on public perception and departmental culpability, rather than an objective investigative lens. This can lead to departments “accepting culpability where culpability simply doesn’t exist”. Investigators are advised to prioritize “what you know” over what authorities “think, feel, or believe”.
• Inadequate Viewing Devices and Resolution: Viewing video on small screens like cell phones or in-vehicle laptops (a two-by-three-inch screen) introduces complications and limits the ability to review movement at the necessary level. Even on an MDT (Mobile Data Terminal), the resolution may be poor, leading supervisors to make incorrect determinations about the reasonableness of force because they cannot see critical details that a larger, higher-resolution desktop screen would reveal.
• Digital Representation vs. Reality: Video is a “digital representation of a real event,” composed of ones and zeros, and is inherently two-dimensional. It does not capture crucial contextual elements such as intent, history, the officer’s full reality, or their expectations. Algorithms used to compress video can also affect how movement is displayed, potentially altering what the reviewer sees compared to what an officer experienced. Minute movements and other “minutia” can be missed.
• Degraded or Transcoded Evidence: Sometimes, the video evidence initially reviewed is a “degraded source” or “transcoded evidence,” rather than the “most raw form” or “best evidence.” In one case, allegations of second-degree murder were made based on video evidence that “wasn’t even viable evidence” because it was transcoded.

Moving Beyond Initial Review: The Need for Comprehensive Analysis:

The sources emphasize that video analysis is “far more complex” than simply watching a video a few times.

• Extensive Time and Effort: Proper analysis can involve watching a video “hundreds upon hundreds, times,” pausing, rewinding, replaying, scrubbing through, and going frame by frame to identify crucial details. This contrasts sharply with an investigator’s 14-second review that led to a murder charge.
• Objective Methodologies: A “complex analysis method” or “practical analysis method” is required, incorporating tools such as root cause analysis, common thread theory, the OODA loop in reverse, and triangulation of evidence. This structured approach helps discern crucial information like perception, context, expectations, performance, behavior, and the decisions and actions that drove an event.
• Video as One Piece of Evidence: Investigators must understand that video is merely “a piece of the evidence,” “a slice of a much larger pie,” and “not the entire investigation”. It provides “comprehensive, complete and objective data” only “if it is analyzed properly” and used for comparison with other statements, physical, and forensic data.
• Challenging Personal Beliefs: A critical step is for investigators to “challenge yourself” and “try to disprove or dispel your beliefs” to maintain objectivity. Without this self-challenge, others may accept an investigator’s initial conclusions at face value.

Best Practices for Initial Video Review:

To mitigate the problems of initial video review, several actionable steps are recommended:

• Document all potential video sources: This includes body-worn cameras, vehicle cameras, CCTV, and bystander cell phones. Note their locations and perspectives, and ensure processes are in place for proper evidence retrieval in its “most raw form”.
• Treat video as one piece of the puzzle: Recognize that it’s not the entire investigation.
• Avoid degraded sources: Seek original footage for analysis before drawing conclusions.
• Document initial impressions: Record what is initially seen and believed, as this serves as a baseline to either ratify or disprove during a deeper investigation.
• Use a checklist for missing context: Actively identify information not captured by the video.
• Analyze behavior deeply: Examine the actions of all involved parties.
• Resist bias: Conduct a “careful, dispassionate analysis” by getting past emotional conductivity.
• Be aware of what you don’t know: Recognize the inherent limitations of initial viewing and the need for specialized training.