Chain of Custody for Body-Worn Camera Reports

By Humphrey Chen, CEO and Co-Founder of CLIPr

Law enforcement's deployment of body-worn cameras (BWCs) has grown significantly, fueled by the need for greater transparency and accountability in policing and the desire to collect unbiased evidence of officers' actions and interactions. Consequently, verifiable digital evidence is vital in today's legal landscape if BWC recordings are to be used in court proceedings. 

These devices, worn by officers on duty, record interactions with the public, suspects, and victims, offering a direct visual and auditory account of events as they unfold. They record what happened without forgetting any details and without bias, allowing courts and the police to obtain clear insights into the event. 

As with any physical or digital evidence, the manner in which BWC footage and associated evidence are captured, stored, and used, particularly in the generation of an officer’s incident report, is paramount to the legal process. Inconsistencies such as missed steps or unexplained additions and omissions in an officer's report about an occurrence, as well as concerns regarding the secure storage and handling of video evidence, can significantly affect the integrity of a court case. Without effective digital management, the prosecution's ability to present straightforward evidence could be at risk.

Just as physical evidence requires a clear and accurate chain of custody, digital evidence requires the same, from collection to documentation, storage, transfer of data, and version control of reports to the final presentation in court, where the prosecution must prove it has not been altered in any way. The chain of custody, also called the chain of evidence, "is a critical, procedural safeguard that ensures all physical and digital evidence presented in court remains uncontaminated and unchanged."

Confident and accurate presentation of evidence

In the case of BWCs, both the prosecution and defense must be satisfied that the video and audio recordings were transferred from the device to a digital evidence management system (DEMS) without interference. The DEMS should log the recordings, date stamp them and protect them from alteration using strict access control protocols. 

A brief look at BWC footage on social media shows that while many details are recorded, the angle and range of the camera may be restricted during an officer’s activity, possibly overlooking key elements of an event. Therefore, for a successful prosecution, the officers involved must produce reports that support the video and reliably fill in any gaps in the narrative.

Officers' written reports on the incident must be clear and concise, supported by video evidence. It is absolutely vital that different versions of every report must be logged and secured, and there must be no opportunity for undocumented access and changes to the reports. 

In a court environment, both the prosecution and the defense have the right to access all versions of the officer's report and the video footage (as well as other evidence). It is standard operating procedure for an officer to write a report on an incident, submit it to their patrol supervisor for review, and to receive a response from the supervisor with comments and requested amendments, if required. It is entirely acceptable to prepare multiple versions of a report for a case before presenting the final one to the prosecution, along with the supporting video.

If a defense attorney questions why certain information is not in the final report, they have the legal right to see earlier versions. If unavailable, the prosecution encounters a problem in that their case has a gap that cannot be explained, and this is where one of the risks that the prosecution and the law enforcement agency involved in the case lies. The missing information may not necessarily have to deal directly with the case but could provide the defense with reasonable doubt about the accuracy of a report and request that it be excluded from proceedings.

Consequences of lapses in the digital chain of custody

The consequences of lapses in evidential integrity include the dismissal of cases due to insufficient evidence, potentially releasing criminals back into society, and wasting the time the police and district attorney put into the case. The creation of doubt in any court case, legal or civil, is a core strategy the defense uses to influence judicial decision-making. 

Therefore, the credibility of digital evidence is critical. Judges evaluate cases based on various criteria, including but not limited to the quality of evidence, the method of presentation, and their confidence in the authenticity and reliability of the evidence. Discrepancies within the evidence can unfairly disadvantage one party and force judges to exclude the evidence in question. 

Other consequences can include prolonged appeals processes as the defense attempts to overturn what they consider wrongful convictions. There is also the potential for lawsuits against the police department or city for not providing the accused with access to all digital reports generated to formulate the case against them, and consequentially, potentially being accused of ‘violating the accused’s right to access all evidence to defend themselves.’

If poor evidence management becomes the norm, stakeholders such as towns or cities could lose confidence in their police force. Potential outcomes could include increased micromanagement and the implementation of more internal governance and compliance processes that may keep officers off the streets for extended periods. This could also make them feel like they are being watched.

Increased media scrutiny is also a risk, with the police suffering reputational harm and causing a loss of confidence in the justice system. A media that often highlights the negative outcomes of court cases against law enforcement can contribute towards a negative sentiment against officers.

Just as defense attorneys’ question BWC and the associated evidence to find fault and exclude it, prosecutors are also paying closer attention to the reliability of digital evidence. The situation can arise where the prosecution decides not to proceed with a case, as the likelihood of failure is too great because law enforcement does not have a verifiable digital chain of evidence. 

The critical role of digital report management oversight

Today's technology makes writing and revising reports and gathering input from others involved in the case much easier. While technology simplifies the process, it can also make it easy to omit critical evidence if strict oversight and monitoring are not part of the digital evidence management process. This is not a simple task. While the basic principles for the management of chain of custody or evidence is consistent across the United States, there are specific protocols and procedures, that vary from state to state and county to county, for managing a digital chain of evidence, including digitally generated BWC reports. Careful customization of implemented solutions is key to meeting law enforcement's governance standards. 

When set up correctly, a digital evidence management system monitors all evidence captured and stored, ensuring stringent compliance processes are followed. It quickly identifies problems, prompting officers to address problems in the chain of custody before the case reaches court. The district attorney's office will be able to prosecute a case in court, assured that the evidence presented is difficult to challenge because the digital chain of custody will stand up to the closest scrutiny.

This defeats the common strategy of criminal defense attorneys, who scrutinize the chain of custody, looking for any irregularities or discrepancies. Comparing the BWC footage with the officer's report is often the easiest way to find disparities, which can only be countered if the prosecution can present all versions of the report, from the original to the final, and the timeline of any updates and changes.

Version control is, therefore, a critical aspect of a DEMS, as every addition or alteration to reports must be recorded without deleting the original. For example, the DEMS will record when the video evidence was captured, when it was downloaded to the department's database, when the officer accessed it, what they did (write or edit a report), and who else accessed it. Even if a document undergoes simple grammatical changes, everything must be automatically logged and securely stored so the report and all its earlier versions can be accessed for any reason.

This technology aims to ensure complete visibility and transparency around digital evidence, leaving nothing to chance. If someone tries to 'adjust' the evidence or report to gain a conviction or acquittal, the individual and what they changed will automatically be logged and available to the prosecution and defense at the click of a button. In an era when transparency is vital, a well-designed and customized DEMS protects officers, their departments, and suspects from any untoward actions that might prejudice a trial.

Mitigating chain of evidence risks in the AI era

In our increasingly digital world, ensuring the integrity of the digital chain of custody depends on a secure, reliable DEMS designed according to law enforcement's strict compliance and governance processes. Video recordings from every incident must be authenticated as genuine through the real-time capture of metadata and GPS coordinates along with the video footage. Simultaneously, officers' written reports must be saved and linked to the video, irrespective of the number of versions. All the data must be unaltered, protected from tampering, and proven to represent the events accurately. 

All these factors contribute to establishing a verifiable, unbroken chain of digital evidence from the time of the incident to its presentation in court. Court cases can be delayed, so officers' written reports must be detailed enough to be acceptable in court now and years later. Effective version control with enhanced oversight from AI will support better, more objective case preparation (and better writing), making the legal discovery process simpler, faster, and more reliable for all parties, regardless of when or how often the case is heard in court.

Additionally, it is imperative that law enforcement agencies establish and regularly review their chain of evidence policies and procedures with their legal advisors to ensure that their body camera reports comply with all relevant and applicable laws of evidence. 

The full lifecycle of the digital chain of custody also includes training officers on proper equipment use, especially when aided by AI, which makes things easier, but should not encourage users to take shortcuts. All information must be stored in a DEMS that is compliant with CJIS (Criminal Justice Information Services) processes and data retention policies, governed by role-based access controls that log every person's access and activities. 

The DEMS effectively manages direct (video) and indirect (reports) BWC evidence in a verifiable and transparent manner. This is fundamental to promoting fairness, accountability, and public trust in the criminal justice system. Strictly adhering to best evidence management practices, including automated version control, will support law enforcement transparency and fair prosecutions where the reliability and authority of the evidence will be almost impossible to challenge.