Bodycams on French police: what we can learn from the United States and Canada

Soon, wearable cameras will be introduced within the French security forces (police, fire department). This move, scheduled for the summer, aims to improve citizen-police relations and increase transparency during operations.

However, feedback from the ‘field’ differs. Some are in favour of the measure, in the name of protecting citizen rights, whereas others believe that it will have negative effects on operations, creating an atmosphere of voyeurism and excessive surveillance in policing.

Whichever side you are on, let’s take this opportunity to look into research undertaken in this area internationally, as no results from scientific studies performed in France are available as yet. Over 300 French communes participated in an experiment from June 2016 to June 2018, involving municipal police only. This experiment was the subject of a report for the Ministry of the Interior. In the absence of a legal framework, the wearing of bodycams was suspended until the implementing decree of 27 March 2019 was published, completing the law of 3 August 2018 and authorising the use of bodycams by municipal police once again.

In Europe, the practice of equipping police with cameras has already been rolled out in several countries, specifically in Germany, the United Kingdom and Denmark. But for now, scientific studies around this question have only been performed in the United States and Canada.

What studies have been undertaken in this area?

First of all, note that it is presumed that bodycams may have a dissuasive impact, both on individuals being policed and the police themselves. Knowing that their behaviour is being filmed, police and citizens alike act more in line with social expectations linked to the situation in question.

This question is investigated by a study, analysing the results of an experiment run in Rialto, California in 2013.

It revealed a roughly 50% reduction in police use of force for the experimental group (police who wore bodycams) and an 87% decrease in complaints against officers during the trial period. Furthermore, this was the experiment that provided the Obama administration with the legitimacy needed to subsidise police departments that wished to purchase bodycams as a sign of transparency towards local populations.

A four-year follow-up study indicated that the reduction in police use of force was sustained over time. It should also be noted that the city of Rialto recorded a spectacular drop in complaints against police. The same effect was observed in other American cities, including Mesa (Arizona), Phoenix (also Arizona), Orlando (Florida), Las Vegas (Nevada), Milwaukee (Wisconsin), and Spokane(Washington), as well as in seven other unspecified cities.

Another study, published in 2014 by Arizona State University, presents interviews with 249 people who had interactions with police wearing bodycams.

It shows that the people who knew about the cameras perceived actions from police wearing bodycams as ‘fairer’ than those from police without.

After an initial literature review was published in the United States, a second was released to bring the information up to date. Both have been followed by dozens of scientific articles and evaluation reports. All this research allows us to draw several conclusions.

Most empirical analysis focuses on the impact of bodycams or the behaviour of people directly involved in a filmed police operation; very few study the camera recordings, with a couple of exceptions. Furthermore, these studies generally focus on potential biases related to the use of bodycams.

Nearly all evaluations of the impact of bodycams generally measure said impact in three areas, known as the ‘Big Three’: citizen resistance, police use of force and complaints against officers.

Three studies of this kind were undertaken in Canada, in Edmonton in 2015, Toronto in 2016 and Montreal in 2019. Positive effects were observed, including greater ease in assessing the relevance of complaints against police, a reduction in aggressive and anti-social behaviour from citizens, (Edmonton) and an increased perception that it was appropriate to film police operations (Toronto).

However, it should be noted that the impact of bodycams depended on the situation and did not apply to all police operations. Furthermore, use of cameras was not accompanied by a significant reduction in police use of force for all three cases.

Contrasting results

In the United States, the spectacular decrease in use of force observed in Rialto and elsewhere accelerated the roll-out of bodycams, which have now been used by 95% of police in the United States for the past seven years. Police wearing bodycams were also more likely to arrest perpetrators of domestic violence and perform fewer arrests overall. In the context of challenges to the police’s legitimacy, this can be interpreted as a positive effect.

So on the one hand, we have neutral studies in Canada, and on the other, positive studies in the United States. But no negative studies at this point.

• "Neutral" studies in Canada: police departments in Edmonton (2015), Toronto (2016) and more recently Montreal (2019) did not observe radical changes in their pilot projects

• Positive studies in the United States: bodycams have been associated with statistically significant reductions in use of force, complaints against police, assault of officers, behaviour hindering police work and legal challenges.Also a noted was an improvement in police productivity, citizen satisfaction with the services provided and level of politeness from citizens and officers during operations.

A few provisional conclusions

• The cultural aspect of the country must be considered in assessing the use of this tool: in Canada, findings must be balanced with the fact that citizen-police relations are very good. This could be a determining factor in the success of bodycam use.

• Bodycams may only have a significant impact in places where the police act problematically.

• The public’s perception of bodycams remains a determining element for adopting the tool.

A recent study explores this question. Wallace, White, Gaub and Todak (2018) reiterate that bodycams are often presented and understood as a surveillance tool, allowing police bodies to demonstrate transparency in their work and society to investigate the work of police officers (Tanner and Meyer, 2015). Another study (Lollia, 2020) shows that it is especially useful to take action around public perception of this kind of tool, in order to transform it from a tool of surveillance to a tool of protection, and ensure it is better accepted..

In any case, future scientific findings from bodycam experiments on French police should be able to improve the approach on the ground, by showcasing the opportunities and drawbacks connected to this technology far more explicitly.