Body-worn cameras (BWCs) have become one of the most visible tools in public safety and security today. Support for their use is overwhelmingly high. In point of fact, polls indicate that nearly nine out of ten Americans, or 89 percent, support requiring police officers to wear cameras that record their interactions while on duty. Additionally, adoption continues to grow nationwide. The most recent data available suggests that 47% of general-purpose law enforcement agencies had acquired BWCs, with that number rising to 80% among large police departments. It is safe to assume that these percentages are even higher today given the rapid rate of adoption and the growing demand for transparency. However, despite the widespread acceptance of the devices themselves, the policies governing how video footage is stored, accessed, and shared remain complicated. Agencies and enterprises face difficult questions: How do you promote transparency without compromising privacy? How can employee rights and the public’s right to know be balanced? And how do you remain compliant with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, state disclosure laws, and evolving privacy regulations?
This article explores the best practices for shaping a comprehensive body-worn camera policy, with a focus on three critical areas: redaction, retention, and review. By developing clear, consistent policies in these areas, agencies can protect themselves legally, maintain public trust, and safeguard the rights of their employees.
Why a Strong Body-Worn Camera Policy Matters
You can probably make your own assumptions about the significance of having a body-worn camera policy. Without a policy that members of law enforcement need to adhere to, it can be up to individual preferences as to when, where, and even how these body cameras are used. This kind of inconsistent behavior not only weakens accountability, but it also hinders the ultimate objective, which is to provide a dependable and open record of interactions. A well-defined body-worn camera policy is the foundation for building public trust. Communities expect transparency, and when they know that cameras are used consistently and fairly, confidence in law enforcement and security operations grows.
Policy also makes sure that agencies can meet Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and state-level public records requirements. Without clear rules around data access and disclosure, agencies risk delays, errors, or even accusations of withholding evidence.
At the same time, policy protects employees. The footage captured by body-worn cameras may intersect with workplace rights, union contracts, and disciplinary evaluations. By setting guidelines for when footage can be accessed and how it can be used, agencies create safeguards that respect both accountability and employee privacy.
Finally, a consistent policy reduces exposure to litigation and regulatory fines. Courts and oversight bodies are quick to call out inconsistent or incomplete practices, which can undermine cases or lead to penalties. A clear, enforceable policy not only strengthens compliance but also provides a legal shield for the agency itself.
Core Elements of a Body-Worn Camera Policy
Creating a strong body-worn camera policy requires more than deciding when officers should hit “record.” It must be comprehensive, detailed, and enforceable. Policies should clearly cover the following core areas, according to best practice guidance: Recording Protocols: Specify when the cameras must be activated, such as during service calls, traffic stops, arrests, or any hostile encounter. Include exceptions for unsafe, impossible, or impractical situations, and require officers to document any missed recordings.
Download and Storage Procedures: Assign responsibility for downloading data (typically the officer, except in serious incidents where a supervisor should take custody). End-of-shift downloads, safeguards against tampering, and the precise classification of footage as evidentiary or non-evidentiary should also be required by policies. Retention Schedules: Specify retention periods for both evidentiary and non-evidentiary footage, ensuring compliance with state law and balancing transparency with storage capacity. To encourage accountability, agencies should make retention timelines public. Data Storage Standards: Clarify where video will be stored (in-house servers, cloud databases, or hybrid models). Policies should address security, chain-of-custody, reliable backup methods, and audit trails, particularly if using third-party vendors.
Access and Review Rules: Define who can access footage and under what circumstances. In most cases, officers should be allowed to watch the video before making statements. Supervisors, on the other hand, may watch the video if there are complaints, training needs, probationary evaluations, or patterns of misconduct. Mandatory comprehensive training prior to deployment and annual refreshers are required for training requirements. Training should cover state laws, proper use of equipment, downloading/tagging, evidence preparation, malfunction reporting, and scenario-based exercises.
Policy Evaluation and Updates: Require periodic reviews that take into account recording practices, policies regarding storage and disclosure, training programs, feedback from the community, officer feedback, and audit findings. Transparency, accountability, and legal compliance throughout the agency are set by a well-written policy. Privacy and access to data: defining boundaries Not only do body-worn cameras record highly private data about suspects, but also about bystanders, police officers, and witnesses. That’s why strong boundaries around access and privacy are non-negotiable. Body-worn camera programs must protect personally identifiable information (PII) like names, addresses, medical information, and even incidental images of private citizens, according to federal guidance. Without these guardrails, agencies risk exposing sensitive data, undermining investigations, or eroding community trust.
Motorola’s SVX Body-Worn Camera System helps agencies set clear access controls right in the field. The SVX, in contrast to platforms that necessitate computer-based tagging, enables officers to immediately categorize footage, thereby reducing errors and strengthening the chain of custody. FedRAMP-certified data management and built recognition for integrated event activation are also features of other systems. Both approaches reflect an industry-wide recognition that controlling who can view, share, or redact footage is central to accountability.
For agencies, the privacy stakes are high:
Protecting bystander and officer privacy through redaction protocols and access control lists
Keeping sensitive information safe while meeting FOIA and state-level public records requirements Preserving data integrity with encryption and audit trails
Preventing unauthorized access through secure sign-on and case-level permissions
In short, clear boundaries on access and privacy don’t just keep agencies compliant—they protect employees, reassure communities, and uphold the legitimacy of the footage itself.
Redaction Best Practices
A solid body-worn camera policy needs to include robust redaction procedures that can be defended in court. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Best Practices for Video Redaction offers helpful direction.
What must be redacted?
faces, particularly those of witnesses, minors, victims, and bystanders. Addresses, license plates, and personal identifying information. Sensitive information, including medical data, privileged communications, or incidents inside private residences.
Automated Redaction vs. Manual Evaluation There are trade-offs. Automated tools (e.g. for blurring faces or plates) speed up processing, but may miss edge cases. Manual review catches more nuance but is time-intensive, especially frame-by-frame.
How to create a redaction workflow? Consider the following suggestions
Request intake: Define how FOIA or public record requests are submitted.
Review: Designate who reviews footage, what tools are used, what standard of redaction is required.
Approval: Establish who signs off before releasing footage (legal / FOIA officer/supervisor).
Ensure that those in charge of redaction are well-trained in using the tools, interpreting privacy laws, and identifying sensitive content. Legal defensibility depends on consistency. Also, under FOIA guidance, agencies must communicate with requesters early about realistic redaction timelines. Setting expectations, possibly narrowing the request’s scope, can help avoid delays. Courts expect video redaction to be manageable and not overly complicated.
How Long Should Footage Be Kept?
Retention timelines are one of the most important elements of a body-worn camera policy. In Florida, Statute Section 119.071(2)(l)5 requires law enforcement agencies to keep body-camera recordings for at least 90 days. After that point, retention depends on whether the footage becomes part of an official investigation. Agencies have the authority to create internal policies that extend retention beyond the 90-day minimum, based on the circumstances of an incident.
The following are some examples of records that are typically kept for a much longer period of time: Use-of-force incidents
Officer-involved shootings
Complaints filed against an officer
Criminal investigations
By aligning policy with both statutory requirements and operational needs, agencies prioritize compliance while maintaining accountability.
Prioritizing Accountability
A body-worn camera policy is only as strong as its oversight. Agencies that prioritize accountability create systems to regularly review, audit, and apply lessons from footage. This not only protects officers and communities but also reinforces public trust. Key practices include:
Supervisory reviews: Supervisors should periodically review recordings to confirm policy compliance and address concerns early.
