Increase in Body Worn Cameras and Video Evidence for Trial

In the last few years, Primeau Forensics has seen an increase in cases that involve surveillance video, including body camera video recordings. This digital video evidence is very important in order of investigators and the trier of fact to understand events as they occurred.


An increase in activity began in 2013 when body worn cameras helped locate and identify the Boston Marathon Bombers. FBI investigators culled through hundreds of hours of CCTV video surveillance recordings in order to identify the terrorists that responsible for these acts of violence.

Video evidence is expanding to include body worn cameras implemented into many police agencies across the United States. At this point in time, agencies around the country are testing different makes of body cameras and learning how to properly integrate them into their procedures. Many have been transparent with their testing and have begun to approve funding for additional cameras.

The Grand Rapids, Michigan Police Department recently tested two different kinds of body worn cameras among its officers. Following their positive feedback, the city approved funding for two hundred additional cameras. The Seattle, Washington Police Department has also been very open about their body camera testing. They even released testing footage online for public view. The public has been pushing for police worn body cameras since the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri last August.


Body worn cameras protect everyone; police officers and citizens alike. Many police agencies fully support camera use because they reduce the questioning of events during an altercation. If a disagreement comes against an officer, internal affairs can check the body camera video and see the events as they occurred. Police agencies believe this will be very helpful with training officers and improving the relationship between the public and police.

The biggest issue arising from the increase in body worn cameras is the amount of data being created. Video evidence requires a very large amount of secure storage. Thankfully, many companies providing these cameras also include proprietary software. This ensures the evidence remains unaltered between the camera and the system. Only authorized personnel have access to the video to maintain the authenticity and safety of the video evidence.


As video forensic experts, we see many benefits to this increase in body worn cameras. We have worked on numerous cases in which evidence from these cameras greatly helped the investigation and proceeding trial. Police dash cameras have often been used as evidence, but they fail to the capture the entire altercation because of their stationary view. Police body worn cameras add a second perspective used along with the dash cam which can be invaluable to an investigation. Having two angles provides a better picture of what happened.

All video recordings submitted as evidence in a civil or criminal litigation must have an established chain of custody that supports the events and provides integrity for the digital video evidence. We also encourage you to review our series on How to Properly Record a Police Officer.

Body-Worn Cameras: Life or Death

The more video becomes available, the more real life situations enter the courtroom. Not to mention, the quality of body-worn cameras is improving to the point that video forensic enhancement is not necessary.

VIEVU Camera


For example, a department-issued body-worn camera recently captured events leading up to an officer’s murder in Flagstaff, Arizona. If the suspect hadn’t gone on to commit suicide, he could have stood trial to claim innonence in the incident. In this case, the video would save thousands of dollars that would have been spent investigating the officer’s death.


Primeau Forensics recently worked with VIEVU, a manufacturer based out of Seattle, Washington, to help in the research and development of their body-worn cameras. VIEVU sells its cameras to more than 4,000 police agencies in 16 countries. Our team helped them test the field of view (FOV) for their cameras. Additionally, we researched the various FOV options to learn the optimal lens degree in field situations.


President Obama recently proposed a bill to provide police department for the purchase of body-worn cameras. The proposal includes $75 million to help pay for 50,000 of the lapel-mounted cameras, with state and local governments paying half the cost. This proposal came shortly after the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. What is more, this is a crucial development in forensic video. These cameras help litigators learn more about a series of events that occurred, a reality that excites video forensic experts like ourselves. Most importantly, this has the ability to save our judicial system money and ensure a correct decision in a person’s guilt or innocence.

Body Worn Cameras | More Safe than Dash Cam for Police

After the controversial grand jury announcement in the case of Michael Brown, President Obama has proposed the idea of issuing police departments across the nation with body worn cameras for law enforcement. Between Michael Brown, and the controversy behind the Eric Garner case, citizens are asking, “Will body worn cameras help police as well as the public?” In this video forensic expert’s opinion, the answer to that question is a resounding YES!


Video is the least challenged of all digital media forensic evidence. It provides a clear indication of the events as they occurred by allowing the judge and jury to observe the event with their own eyes. Therefore, nothing is as revealing as video to clearly show the court exactly what happened.

If the officer involved in the Michael Brown shooting, Darren Wilson, had a body camera, the case might have had a different outcome. The ability for the jury to see something first person can be invaluable to their decision.

For example, in the video embedded below, courtesy of ABC News, we see two pieces of evidence. First, footage of a confrontation taken from the dash-cam. Second, evidence taken from the body worn camera. As the first half of the video shows, the police officer in question tackles the suspect for seemingly no reason. The body camera, however, tells a completely different story.

More ABC US news | ABC World News

The white Kia in the driveway blocks the event that takes place at 1:53 of the video. The suspect openly tries to assault the police officer in question. In this instance, had a body-worn camera not been issued, the jury may have interpreted this in a completely different way.


Last year, Primeau Forensics had the opportunity to test and review one of these body-worn cameras, the VIEVU LE2. These cameras would be phenomenal for police forces all over the U.S. It’s 72-degree wide angle lens allows for a wider first person perspective. That means even a suspect standing at a distance from the officer is still being recorded. The near-professional quality of the audio and video ensure a clear understanding of the situation. In addition, the digital signature security ensures that the video footage is tamper-proof while on the device.

In conclusion, body worn cameras could completely revolutionize the court system and how it interprets evidence. Video like this can be instrumental to the outcome of a case, as it provides the most realistic representation of what exactly transpired in a given confrontation. As shown above, not even a dash-cam can always show us everything. However, having a first person perspective of a given confrontation is pivotal to the jury’s final decision.

For more info on body-worn cameras, check out CEO Ed Primeau’s interview with VIEVU CEO Steve Ward here!