The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Objective

Police use-of-force continues to be a major source of international concern, inviting interest from academics and practitioners alike. Whether justified or unnecessary/excessive, the exercise of power by the police can potentially tarnish their relationship with the community. Police misconduct can translate into complaints against the police, which carry large economic and social costs. The question we try to answer is: do body-worn-cameras reduce the prevalence of use-of-force and/or citizens’ complaints against the police?

Methods

We empirically tested the use of body-worn-cameras by measuring the effect of videotaping police–public encounters on incidents of police use-of-force and complaints, in randomized-controlled settings. Over 12 months, we randomly-assigned officers to “experimental-shifts” during which they were equipped with body-worn HD cameras that recorded all contacts with the public and to “control-shifts” without the cameras (n = 988). We nominally defined use-of-force, both unnecessary/excessive and reasonable, as a non-desirable response in police–public encounters. We estimate the causal effect of the use of body-worn-videos on the two outcome variables using both between-group differences using a Poisson regression model as well as before-after estimates using interrupted time-series analyses.

Results

We found that the likelihood of force being used in control conditions were roughly twice those in experimental conditions. Similarly, a pre/post analysis of use-of-force and complaints data also support this result: the number of complaints filed against officers dropped from 0.7 complaints per 1,000 contacts to 0.07 per 1,000 contacts. We discuss the findings in terms of theory, research methods, policy and future avenues of research on body-worn-videos.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Change history

  • 17 September 2019

    We provide the corrected results table below. Note that this correction does not alter the findings from the analysis, nor the interpretation of results.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Notably, many agencies are moving away from a use of force continuum, making the force determination even more ambiguous.

  2. 2.

    For a more systematic account of rates and prevalence, see Adams (1996:85–91), see also Hickman et al. (2009) who estimate, based on three dozen recent publications, that police use or threaten to use force in 1.7 % of all contacts and in 20.0 % of all arrests; but cf. Garner et al (2002) who found that prevalence can increase to more than 58 % of police–public encounters.

  3. 3.

    Though not without reservations about the utilization of complaint data as a single outcome measure, as complaints produce low substantiation rates—frequently 10 % or less (Liederbach et al. 2008).

  4. 4.

    It is worth noting recent research that suggests that both internal and external controls are conditionally relevant and depend, in part, on the extent to which individuals deliberate (see Wikström et al. 2012).

  5. 5.

    Similarly, officers regularly encounter ‘the usual suspects’ on patrol, meaning that there is some dependence between shifts in terms of “interactees”. Other research (e.g. Wikström et al. 2012) would suggest that even with variations in ‘actors’, there may be stable environmental cues that are conducive to specific actions, but the use of force by police still depends on the interaction between individuals and their settings (the situation).

  6. 6.

    We acknowledge that prior knowledge of shift assignment might give rise to expectation effects—so that we would not know whether changes in behavior arise directly because of the presence of a camera, or anticipation of wearing a camera.

  7. 7.

    As noted by Adams (1996:65), “although there are many attractive reasons for using official records in research on [use of] force, the strategy is not without limitations…some concerns are based on practical issues of how the data are collected…the quality of data (e.g., accuracy, dependability, and coverage)…can influence counts dramatically…more significant problem is that of missing data or information that should be available in record-keeping systems but is not.”

  8. 8.

    Poisson is appropriate here because each event has a small probability in each shift, and there are many shifts.

  9. 9.

    Note that we have reverse coded the treatment conditions so that 1 = control and 0 = treatment, meaning that ratios reflect the incident rate of the outcome occurring for the control condition versus the incident rate of the outcome occurring in the treatment condition.

  10. 10.

    Results not shown in tabular form, but given here: {B = −0.713; [95 % CI −3.112 to 1.685]; p .560}.

  11. 11.

    As Aristotle observed: “We are what we repeatedly do”.

  12. 12.

    One benefit which we have overlooked but should be closely observed in the future is the “training potential” of body-worn-videos. Rialto officers downloaded their own footage in order to view their interactions on a routine basis. Much like surgery, football or acting, the footage recorded by police body-worn-videos can be used to “coach” police officers, about how they conduct themselves. We envisage future police training to incorporate one-on-one sessions in which junior officers train with their own footage, about police conduct and potentially improve their demeanor when dealing with suspects, victims and witnesses. The benefits associated with such an impactful evidence-based approach to training through digital coaching, for procedural justice, distributive justice and police conduct more generally, should be an area of future investigations.

  13. 13.

    If we assume that all members of public encountered by the police are ‘criminals’ then it might well be justifiable, but this is obviously untrue.

  14. 14.

    We argue that experiments that allow treatment-providers full discretion about when to give or not to deliver the treatment(s)—and with what dosage levels—are generally poor designs. If the study results in non-significant outcomes, then it would be very difficult to interpret the findings—are they due to fidelity failure or that the treatment ‘actually’ do not work in the hypothesized direction? Moreover, even if the study results in significant results, the magnitude of the treatment compared to control conditions would be either inflated or deflated and therefore misleading, depending on how the treatment-providers decided to contaminate the treatment delivery. These scenarios may have adverse impacts for any attempt of conducting reliable cost-benefit analyses, or at the very least force researchers to dabble in conversions, transformations and statistical corrections which may or may not work—but anyway take away from the ‘cleanliness’ of controlled experimental design. We are cognizant that in real-life, non-experimental settings police officers may end up owning the power of discretion when to use or not use body-worn-videos, yet at this stage of our knowledge on the potential effect of these novel devices, experimentalists should encourage the use of strict protocols with as little discretionary powers as possible, before making policy recommendations.

References

  1. Adams K (1996) Measuring the prevalence of police abuse-of-force. In: Galler W, Toch H (eds) Police violence: understanding and controlling police abuse-of-force. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 52–93

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alpert GP, Dunham RG (1997) The force factor: measuring police use-of-force relative to suspect resistance. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alpert GP, Dunham RG (eds) (2004) Understanding police use-of-force: officers, suspects, and reciprocity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alpert GP, Smith WC (1994) How reasonable is the reasonable man?: Police and excessive force. J Crim Law Criminol 852:481–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alpert GP, Dunham RG, MacDonald JM (2004) Interactive police–citizen encounters that result in force. Police Q 74:475–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alvarez RM, Sinclair B (2009) Matching and experiments: causal inferences without full randomization.

  7. Ariel, B (2009) Systematic review of baseline imbalances in randomized controlled trials in criminology. Presented at the communicating complex statistical evidence conference, University of Cambridge, UK, 8 Jan 2009

  8. Ariel B, Farrington DP (2014) Randomized block designs. In Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. Springer, New York, pp 4273–4283

  9. Ariel B, Vila J, Sherman L (2012) Random assignment without tears: how to stop worrying and love the Cambridge randomizer. J Exp Criminol 82:193–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Atherley LT, Hickman MJ (2014) Controlling use of force: identifying police use of excessive force through analysis of administrative records. Policing. http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/03/06/police.pau003.short

  11. Baker M (1985) Cops: their lives in their own words. Fawcett, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barclay P (2004) Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons”. Evol Hum Behav 254:209–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bateson M, Nettle D, Roberts G (2006) Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biol Lett 23:412–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bayley DH, Garofalo J (1989) The management of violence by police patrol officers. Criminology 271:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. BBC (2012) Metropolitan Police spends £9m in six years on compensation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18021317. Last updated 11 May 2012

  16. Beccaria C (1995) On crimes and punishment and other writings. (trans: Davies R.) Carnegie Institute, Washington

  17. Berk RA (2005) Randomized experiments as the bronze standard. J Exp Criminol 14:417–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bittner E (1970) The functions of the police in modern society. Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Black D (1976) The behavior of law. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Box S, Russell K (1975) The politics of discreditability: disarming complaints against the police. Sociol Rev 23(2):315–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Boyd R, Gintis H, Bowles S (2010) Coordinated punishment of defectors sustains cooperation and can proliferate when rare. Science 3285978:617–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Braga AA (2008) Police enforcement strategies to prevent crime in hot spot areas. Crime prevention research review no. 2

  23. Brey P (2004) Ethical aspects of facial recognition systems in public places. J Inf Commun Ethics Soc 22:97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown A (1998) Police governance in England and Wales. Cavendish, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Burke RJ, Mikkelsen A (2005) Burnout, job stress and attitudes towards the use-of-force by Norwegian police officers. Policing 282:269–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Burnham TC, Johnson DD (2005) The biological and evolutionary logic of human cooperation. Anal Krit 272:113–135

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chartrand TL, Bargh JA (1999) The chameleon effect: the perception–behavior link and social interaction. J Personal Soc Psychol 766:893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Clarke RV, Weisburd D (1994) Diffusion of crime control benefits: observations on the reverse of displacement. Crime Prev Stud 2:165–184

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cox DR (1958) Two further applications of a model for binary regression. Biometrika 45:562–565

  31. Crawford C, Burns R (2002) Resisting arrest: predictors of suspect non-compliance and use-of-force against police officers. Police Pract Res 32:105–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Croft EB (1985) Police use-of-force: an empirical analysis. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany

  33. Croft E, Austin BA (1987) Police use-of-force in Rochester and Syracuse, New York 1984 and 1985. Report to the New York State Commission on Criminal Justice and the Use-of-force 3

  34. Duff RA, Marshall SE (2000) Benefits, burdens and responsibilities: some ethical dimensions of situational crime prevention. Ethical Soc Perspect Situat Crime Prev 1:17

    Google Scholar 

  35. Duval S, Wicklund RA (1972) A theory of objective self-awareness. Academic Press, Oxford, England

  36. Dzieweczynski TL, Eklund AC, Rowland WJ (2006) Male 11-ketotestosterone levels change as a result of being watched in Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Gen Comp Endocrinol 1472:184–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Engel RS, Sobol JJ, Worden RE (2000) Further exploration of the demeanor hypothesis: the interaction effects of suspects’ characteristics and demeanor on police behavior. Justice Q 172:235–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fabricatore J, Azen S, Schoentgen S, Snibbe H (1978) Predicting performance of police officers using the sixteen personality factor questionnaire. Am J Community Psychol 61:63–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fehr E, Schneider F (2010) Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity? Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 2771686:1315–1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Finn P (2001) Citizen review of police: approaches and implementation series. NIJ Issues and Practices, NCJ

    Google Scholar 

  42. Friedrich RJ (1980) Police use-of-force: individuals, situations, and organizations. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 4521:82–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fyfe JJ (1988) Police use of deadly force: research and reform. Justice Q 52:165–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Garner JH, Schade T, Hepburn J, Buchanan J (1995) Measuring the continuum of force used by and against the police. Crim Justice Rev 202:146–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Garner J, Buchanan J, Schade T, Hepburn J (1996) Understanding the use-of-force by and against the police. National Institute of Justice: Reserach in Brief, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  46. Garner JH, Maxwell CD, Heraux CG (2002) Characteristics associated with the prevalence and severity of force used by the police. Justice Q 194:705–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gervais WM, Norenzayan A (2012) Like a camera in the sky? Thinking about God increases public self-awareness and socially desirable responding. J Exp Soc Psychol 481:298–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Goold B, Loader I, Thumala A (2013) The banality of security: the curious case of surveillance cameras. Br J Criminol 53(6):977–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Greene JA (1999) Zero tolerance: a case study of police practices and policies in New York City. Crime Delinq 45:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Grossman RL (2009) The case for cloud computing. IT Prof 11(2):23–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Haley KJ, Fessler DM (2005) Nobody's watching? subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evol Hum Behav 26(3):245−256

  52. Halim S, Stiles BL (2001) Differential support for police use-of-force, the death penalty, and perceived harshness of the courts effects of race, gender, and region. Crim Justice Behav 281:3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Henderson H, Wilson F (2008) Judicial interpretation of reasonableness in use-of-force cases: an exploratory analysis. Contemp Issues Criminol Soc Sci 23:91–110

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hinds L (2009) Public satisfaction with police: the influence of general attitudes and police–citizen encounters. Int J Police Sci Manag 11(1):54–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hobbes T (1928/1651) Leviathan, or the matter, forme and power of a commonwealth ecclesiasticall and civil. Yale University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Holland PW (1986) Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat Assoc 81(396):945–960

  57. Hunt J (1985) Police accounts of normal force. J Contemp Ethnogr 134:315–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Jefferis ES, Kaminski RJ, Holmes S, Hanley DE (1997) The effect of a videotaped arrest on public perceptions of police use-of-force. J Crim Justice 255:381–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jervis R, Lebow RN, Stein JG (1989) Psychology and deterrence. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  60. Jones EE, Nisbett RE (1971) The actor and the observer: divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. General Learning Press, Morristown, pp 79–94

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  62. King M, Waddington D (2004) Coping with disorder? The changing relationship between police public order strategy and practice—a critical analysis of the Burnley Riot. Polic Soc 142:118–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Klepper S, Nagin D (2006) The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited*. Criminology 274:721–746

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lester D (1996) Officer attitudes toward police use-of-force. In: Geller W, Toch H (eds) Police violence: understanding and controlling police abuse-of-force. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 180–190

    Google Scholar 

  65. Levenson LL (1993) Future of state and federal civil rights prosecutions: the lessons of the Rodney King Trial, The. UCLA L Rev 41:509

    Google Scholar 

  66. Liederbach J, Boyd L, Taylor R, Kawucha S (2008) Is it an inside job? An examination of internal affairs complaint investigation files and the production of nonsustained findings. Crim Justice Policy Rev 18(4):353–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Locke J (1952/1689) An essay concerning human understanding (1689)

  68. MacCormick N (2007) Institutions of law: an essay in legal theory. Oxford University Press

  69. Maguire M, Corbett C (1991) A study of the police complaints system. HM Stationery Office, p 59

  70. McCluskey JD, Terrill W (2005) Departmental and citizen complaints as predictors of police coercion. Policing 283:513–529

    Google Scholar 

  71. Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck H (2002) Donors to charity gain in both indirect reciprocity and political reputation. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B: Biol Sci 2691494:881–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority (1997) Redesign team report. Minneapolis Civilian, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  73. Munger K, Shelby JH (1989) Effects of an observer on hand washing in a public restroom. Percept Mot Skills 693:733–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Nagin DS (2013) Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime Justice 42(1):199–263

  75. Nambiar R, Chitor R, Joshi A (2014) Data management—a look back and a look ahead. In: Rabl T, Poess M, Baru C, Jacobsen HA (eds) Specifying big data benchmarks. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–19

  76. Paoline P, Terrill W (2011) Listen to me! Police officers’ views of appropriate use-of-force. J Crime Justice 343:178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Pate AM, Fridell LA, Hamilton EE (1993) Police use-of-force: official reports, citizen complaints, and legal consequences, volumes I and II. The Police Foundation, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  78. Paulhus DL (1988) Balanced inventory of desirable responding BIDR. Accept Commit Ther Meas Package 41. http://www.mindfulness-extended.nl/content3/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Measures-Package.pdf#page=41

  79. Pettit P (1997) Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press, NY

    Google Scholar 

  80. Phillips SW, Sobol JJ (2011) Police attitudes about the use of unnecessary force: an ecological examination. J Police Crim Psychol 26(1):47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. New York Times. Police Salaries and Pensions Push California City to Brink. Last visited 3/11/2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/police-salaries-and-pensions-push-california-city-to-brink.html

  82. Prenzler TJ, Allard TJ, Curry S, Macintyre S (2010) Complaints against police: the complainants’ experience. J Crim Just Res 1(1):1–18

  83. Ratcliffe J (2007) Video surveillance of public places. Problem-oriented guides for police series. Response guides series No. 4. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Washington, DC

  84. Reiss AJ (1968) Police brutality-answers to key questions. Society 58:10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Rojek J, Alpert GP, Smith HP (2012) Examining officer and citizen accounts of police use-of-force incidents. Crime Delinq 582:301–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Rosenbaum DP, Schuck AM, Costello SK, Hawkins DF, Ring MK (2005) Attitudes toward the police: the effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Q 8(3):343–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Rousseau JJ (1974/1762) Emile/Trans. Barbara Foxley. Dent, London

  88. Rubin DB (1990) Comment: Neyman (1923) and causal inference in experiments and observational studies. Stat Sci 5(4):472–480

  89. Sampson RJ (2010) Gold standard myths: observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. J Quant Criminol 26(4):489–500

  90. Saretsky G (1972) The OEO PC experiment and the John Henry effect. Phi Delta Kappan 539:579–581

    Google Scholar 

  91. Shapiro I (2003) The state of democratic theory. Princeton University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  92. Sherman LW (1980) Causes of police behavior: the current state of quantitative research. J Res Crime Delinq 171:69–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Sherman LW (2013) The rise of evidence-based policing: targeting, testing, and tracking. Crime Justice 42(1):377–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Skogan WG (2006) Police and community in Chicago: a tale of three cities. Oxford University Press

  95. Skolnick JH (2008) Enduring issues of police culture and demographics. Polic Soc 181:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Skolnick JH, Fyfe JJ (1993) Above the law: police and the excessive use-of-force. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  97. Spinello RA, Tavani HT (eds) (2004) Readings in cyberethics. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  98. Sproull L, Subramani M, Kiesler S, Walker JH, Waters K (1996) When the interface is a face. Hum–Comput Interact 112:97–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Strang H (2012) Coalitions for a common purpose: managing relationships in experiments. J Exp Criminol 8(3):211–225

  100. Surette R (2005) The thinking eye: pros and cons of second generation CCTV surveillance systems. Policing 28(1):152–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Terrill W (2001) Police coercion: application of the force continuum. LFB Scholarly Pub LLC, New York

    Google Scholar 

  102. Terrill W, Mastrofski SD (2002) Situational and officer-based determinants of police coercion. Justice Q 192:215–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Terrill W, Paoline EA, Manning PK (2003) Police culture and coercion. Criminology 414:1003–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Tilley N (1993) Understanding car parks, crime, and CCTV: evaluation lessons from safer cities. Home Office Police Department, London

    Google Scholar 

  105. Tyler T (2001) Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: what do majority and minority groups members want from the law and legal institutions? Behav Sci Law 19(2001):215–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Von Hirsch A, Bottoms AE, Burney E, Wikstrom PO (1999) Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: an analysis of recent research. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  107. Walker S (1997) Complaints against the police: a focus group study of citizen perceptions, goals, and expectations. Crim Justice Rev 22(2):207–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Walker S, Archbold C, Herbst L (2002) Mediating citizen complaints against police officers: a guide for police and community leaders. US Department of Justice, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  109. Waters I, Brown K (2000) Police complaints and the complainants’ experience. Br J Criminol 40(4):617–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Wedekind C, Braithwaite VA (2002) The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Curr Biol 1212:1012–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Weisburd D, Lum CM, Petrosino A (2001) Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 578(1):50–70

  112. Weitzer R (2000) White, black, or blue cops? Race and citizen assessments of police officers. J Crim Justice 284:313–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Weitzer R (2002) Incidents of police misconduct and public opinion. J Crim Justice 305:397–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Welsh BC, Farrington DP (2009) Public area CCTV and crime prevention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Q 264:716–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Westley WA (1970) Violence and the police: a sociological study of law, custom, and morality, vol 28. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  116. Wicklund RA (1975) Objective self-awareness. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 8:233–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Wikström P-OH, Oberwittler D, Treiber K, Hardie B (2012) Breaking rules: the social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  118. Wilson C, Willis C, Hendrikz JK, Le Brocque R, Bellamy N (2010) Speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11 Art No CD004607

  119. Worden RE (1996) The causes of police brutality: theory and evidence on police use-of-force. In: Galler W, Toch H (eds) Police violence: understanding and controlling police abuse-of-force. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 23–51

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to alphabetically thank Badi Hasisi, Daniel Nagin, David Weisburd, Joel Garner, Justice Tankebe, Lawrence Sherman, Neil Wain, Phillip Dawid and the anonymous reviewers of earlier drafts of this manuscript for their tremendously helpful comments. Funding for this research was granted by Rialto Police and the Jerry Lee Centre of Experimental Criminology.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barak Ariel.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ariel, B., Farrar, W.A. & Sutherland, A. The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Quant Criminol 31, 509–535 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Technology
  • Deterrence theory
  • Use-of-force
  • Police
  • Randomized controlled field trial
  • Body-worn-cameras