Body cameras
Body cameras are the one technology on this site that was adopted to watch the police rather than the public. Whether they do turns on two rules: when the camera has to be running, and who is allowed to see what it recorded.
Updated
In one sentence
A camera worn by an officer, recording encounters with the public. What it captures, how long the footage is kept and who may watch it are set by department policy rather than by one statewide rule.
What it records, and when
A body camera is not recording all the time. An officer starts it, and most systems hold a short rolling buffer so that the file begins a little before the button was pressed. That is why footage often opens mid-approach, with the officer already walking toward someone.
What happens next is governed by the department’s policy: which calls require a recording, when an officer may stop one, and what they have to say on camera before doing so. The footage then goes to an evidence platform, normally the camera vendor’s cloud service with the department as a tenant. The retention clock starts there.
The one surveillance technology aimed at the officer
Every other technology on this site was bought to watch the public. Body cameras were adopted to watch the police, and many civil rights organisations campaigned for them.
They are also a recording device pointed at the public. The person in frame is often a victim, a witness, a bystander, or a resident standing in their own kitchen on the worst day of their life. None of them chose to be recorded, and none of them can turn the camera off.
Both of those things are true at once. Which one dominates is not decided by the hardware, because the same camera serves both purposes. It is decided by two rules: when the camera has to be running, and who is allowed to watch what it captured. Those rules sit in policy documents and state statutes, and they are where a resident who wants to know what body cameras actually do in their county should look.
Whether the camera is on
Compliance with an activation policy can be measured, and where it has been audited the results have been mixed in a specific way. Philadelphia’s civilian oversight commission reviewed a random sample of incidents in one district and found recordings for a minority of the encounters that required them. The same audit found that when cameras were running, officers used them correctly almost all of the time.
That combination points at the gap. The technical system works. The question is how often it is switched on, and that is a policy and supervision question rather than an equipment one.
Who can watch it
California requires the release of footage from a narrow set of incidents: an officer shooting at someone, or force that causes death or great bodily injury. Everything else is generally withheld as an investigative record.
The practical result is worth stating plainly. Footage of the encounters most residents are likely to have, a traffic stop or a search or an arrest, is the footage least likely to be released. The statutory categories capture the extremes.
What is changing
Body camera footage is becoming searchable. Evidence platforms now transcribe audio and index what they hold, which turns an archive of recordings into something closer to a database of encounters.
California once addressed the sharpest version of this. From 2020 the state prohibited agencies from running officer camera footage through face recognition. That prohibition expired at the start of 2023, an attempt to make it permanent failed the year before, and we could not find a statute that replaced it.
How to recognise one
A body camera sits on the chest or shoulder, is roughly the size of a deck of cards, has a single forward-facing lens, and usually shows a small indicator light while recording. The part that matters more is invisible from the street: the docking station in the station house that uploads the footage, and the platform it uploads to.
Why agencies say they need it
-
Research
A randomised controlled trial at the Rialto Police Department in California, published in 2015, reported fewer use-of-force incidents and fewer citizens' complaints during shifts when officers wore cameras. The study ran for twelve months and randomly assigned 988 shifts, rather than officers, to camera and no-camera conditions. [1]
-
Research
A larger randomised controlled trial of 2,224 officers at the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, DC, published in 2019, found that cameras "did not meaningfully affect police behavior on a range of outcomes," including complaints and use of force. The authors wrote that the effects of cameras "are likely smaller than many have hoped." [2]
-
Vendor claim
Axon, the largest supplier of police body cameras in the United States, says it designs the cameras to provide objective video evidence that helps agencies be transparent with the communities they serve, and sells them alongside a cloud platform for storing and sharing that footage. [8]
What the concerns are
-
The officer decides when the camera is running
Activation is governed by department policy, and compliance is measurable. An audit published in July 2026 by Philadelphia's Citizens Police Oversight Commission reviewed a random sample of 125 incidents in one police district and found that of the 83 encounters where policy required a recording, 23 had one. The same audit found that once a camera was running, officers largely followed the rules: 91 percent of the recordings captured the full encounter and 88 percent were activated correctly. [7]
-
The camera is pointed at the public
Everyone in frame is recorded, including people who called for help, witnesses, children and people inside their own homes. Retention and access rules apply to their footage on the same terms as everyone else's. [5]
-
California no longer restricts face recognition on body camera footage
From 2020 the state prohibited agencies from applying face recognition and other biometric surveillance to officer camera footage, under a law that expired on 1 January 2023. A bill to make the prohibition permanent was ordered to the inactive file in May 2022 and did not become law. We could not find a successor statute in force. [3] [4]
-
Release of critical-incident footage runs on a clock with wide grounds for delay
California requires agencies to release recordings of an incident where an officer shoots at a person, or uses force causing death or great bodily injury, within 45 days. An agency may delay that release for up to a year where it shows by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation. [5]
-
Most footage is never released, and the routine cases are the ones that stay unseen
The statutory release categories cover shootings and the most serious uses of force. Footage of an ordinary stop, search or arrest falls outside them and is generally withheld as an investigative record, which means the encounters a resident is most likely to have are the ones least likely to become public. [5] [6]
What the law requires
| State | Law | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| California | AB 748 (2018) | Recordings of an incident in which an officer shoots at a person, or uses force resulting in death or great bodily injury, must be released within 45 days, subject to a delay of up to a year where disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation. [5] |
| California | SB 1421 (2018) and SB 16 (2021), Penal Code 832.7 | Peace officer personnel records are confidential except in named categories, which include the discharge of a firearm at a person, uses of force causing death or great bodily injury, and sustained findings of dishonesty, sexual assault, excessive force, or failure to intervene against another officer's excessive force. [6] |
| California | AB 1215 (2019), expired | Prohibited agencies from applying face recognition or other biometric surveillance to officer camera footage. The prohibition expired on 1 January 2023 and was not replaced. [3] [4] |
Only the states we have researched appear here. A state's absence from this table means we have not checked it yet, not that it has no law.
Where we have found it
13 counties documented so far. Each new county is added here as its research publishes.
- Mariposa County, CA 3 systems
- Active Body cameras [Mariposa County Sheriff]
- Approved Body cameras [Mariposa County Probation]
- Proposed Body cameras [Mariposa County District Attorney]
- Merced County, CA 2 systems
- Active Axon body cameras and connected camera tools [Merced Police]
- Expanding Axon body and fleet cameras [Merced County Sheriff]
- Mono County, CA 1 system
- Approved Body cameras [Mono County Sheriff]
- Nevada County, CA 1 system
- Approved Body cameras [Nevada County Sheriff]
- Tuolumne County, CA 2 systems
- Active Body cameras [Tuolumne County Sheriff]
- Approved Body cameras [Tuolumne County Probation]
- Josephine County, OR 1 system
- Active Body-worn and in-car cameras [Josephine County Sheriff]
- Lane County, OR 1 system
- Active Body-worn cameras [Lane County Sheriff]
- Multnomah County, OR 1 system
- Active Body-worn cameras [Multnomah County Sheriff]
- Washington County, OR 1 system
- Active Body-worn cameras [Washington Co. Sheriff (OR)]
- Clark County, WA 1 system
- Active Body-worn and vehicle cameras [Clark County Sheriff]
- King County, WA 1 system
- Active Body-worn and in-car cameras [King County Sheriff]
- Kitsap County, WA 1 system
- Active Body-worn and in-car cameras [Kitsap County Sheriff]
- Snohomish County, WA 1 system
- Active Body-worn cameras [Snohomish County Sheriff]
This list covers the counties we have researched, which is not the same as everywhere this technology operates. Counties we have not published say nothing either way.
Questions
- Do police officers have to turn their body cameras on?
- That is set by each department's policy, not by a single national rule. Policies typically list the call types that require recording and the conditions for stopping one. Whether officers follow the policy is measurable and has been audited: a 2026 review of one Philadelphia district found recordings for 23 of the 83 sampled encounters that required them. [7]
- Do body cameras reduce police use of force?
- The two largest randomised trials point different ways. A 2015 trial in Rialto, California reported reductions in use of force and complaints. A 2019 trial of 2,224 officers in Washington, DC found no meaningful effect on either. The larger study found less. Anyone citing a single figure for what body cameras achieve is quoting one trial and not the other. [1] [2]
- Can I get the body camera footage of my own arrest?
- In California, usually not. Release is required for incidents where an officer shot at someone or used force causing death or great bodily injury. Footage of an ordinary arrest falls outside those categories and is generally withheld as an investigative record, though it may be obtainable through a criminal case or a civil claim. [5] [6]
- Can police run body camera footage through facial recognition in California?
- There is no state prohibition in force. California barred the practice from 2020 under a law that expired on 1 January 2023, and a bill to make the ban permanent did not pass. Whether a particular agency does it is a question for that agency's policy. [3] [4]
- How long is body camera footage kept?
- Retention is set by department policy and varies, with longer schedules for footage tied to a use of force, a complaint or a pending case. The department's own policy is the document that answers this, and it is usually published. [8]
What you can do
Civic action
Purchases and policies for this technology are decided at public meetings any resident can attend and speak at. Start with your county's record.
Go to the Mariposa County hub →Personal protection
Practical steps to shrink your personal data trail. Our guides publish at launch; until then, EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense is the best starting point.
Surveillance Self-Defense ↗Sources
- 1.
- 2.
- 3. California AB 1215 (2019), Body Camera Accountability Act · Law · · accessed · archived copy
- 4.
- 5. California AB 748 (2018), peace officer video and audio recordings · Law · · accessed · archived copy
- 6. California SB 1421 (2018), peace officers, release of records · Law · · accessed · archived copy
- 7. Philadelphia Citizens Police Oversight Commission, audit of body-worn camera use in the 22nd Police District · Primary document · · accessed · archived copy
- 8. Axon, "Body cameras: the complete guide for law enforcement professionals" · Primary document · accessed · archived copy