‘History is written by the victor … but in some cases,it's also now written by the recordings’: Body-worn cameras and the double-edged nature of police visibility

Abstract

This research examines the evolving complexities in the realm of police visibility with a focus on how frontline police officers experience and respond to the enhanced visibility that their body-worn cameras facilitate. By adding a layer wherein officers can actively participate in shaping the visual narrative of their actions, body-worn cameras challenge and expand earlier frameworks of police visibility. Our findings highlight the double-edged nature of this distinct form of police visibility. On the one hand, body-worn cameras may empower officers by enabling a “responsive visibility” that allows them to react to and potentially challenge claims made through other visibility regimes. On the other hand, body-worn cameras can have disempowering effects, because they subject officers to enhanced scrutiny by supervisors, the courts and the general public. This dual nature of visibility underscores the complex interplay between visibility and power for police officers.

Introduction

High-profile incidents of police brutality against racialized peoples have inspired a global movement for police reform, with proposed solutions ranging from enhanced training to defunding or abolishing the police. Technological solutions have also been suggested for documenting or exposing incidents of police violence, most notably the installation of body-worn cameras (hereafter BWCs). Among the potential benefits (Lum et al., 2020; Saulnier and Abbatangelo, 2024; Williams et al., 2021), proponents argue that BWCs may reduce use-of-force situations (Malm, 2019; White and Malm, 2020; White et al., 2018) and enable video-based reviews of such situations (Ariel et al., 2017; Bud, 2016). Central to these hypothesized benefits is the idea that increasing “police visibility” may serve as a mechanism for deterring unnecessary use-of-force while simultaneously increasing police transparency and accountability (AJ Goldsmith, 2010; Newell, 2021).

There is a rich and comparatively larger theoretical literature that considers the expanded visibility of police via the deployment of surveillance technologies and the implications thereof (Brown, 2016; AJ Goldsmith, 2010; Haggerty and Sandhu, 2014; Trottier, 2017; Wilson and Serisier, 2010). Unlike more traditional forms of surveillance that rely on direct observation and are driven by specific suspicion (Marx, 2002), this “new surveillance” (Marx, 1988, 2002) relies on technologies used to surveil police officers and citizens alike, including in-car cameras, smartphones, social media platforms and security cameras. However, the BWC's ability to expand police visibility renders it “the paradigmatic new surveillance” (Marx, 2002).

As yet, research has not provided clear empirical answers to questions about whether and how BWCs may achieve these effects. Meta-analyses of existing studies reveal mixed findings when measuring the impact of BWCs on use-of-force rates (Boivin et al., 2022; Katz and Huff, 2023; Lawrence et al., 2019; Martain et al., 2021). Studies also suggest that the impact of BWCs and their potential as accountability mechanisms varies depending on factors including how much discretion officers are given over the activation of BWCs and whether (or not) there are clear and enforced operational guidelines governing their use (Boivin et al., 2022; Huff et al., 2024; Katz and Huff, 2023). Taken together, the existing research has raised important questions about whether the widespread adoption of BWCs and the concomitant expansion of police visibility will lead to meaningful change (Glasbeek et al., 2020). Accordingly, more research is needed to explore how police use BWCs and what, if any, impact the technology makes by enhancing the visibility of police work.

Our research contributes to the existing literature on police surveillance by examining how BWCs are perceived and utilized by police officers, as well as the broader impact this technology has on police visibility. Our findings show that BWCs introduce a unique layer of visibility into policing, distinct from other surveillance technologies, offering both empowering and disempowering effects. On the one hand, BWCs may empower officers by providing what they allege is accurate and comprehensive visual evidence of their actions and interactions, potentially protecting them from unfounded accusations and enhancing their credibility. This aspect aligns with the cameras’ intended role as tools of accountability, ensuring that officers’ conduct is transparent and scrutinizable. On the other hand, the BWC can have disempowering and disciplinary effects because it subjects officers to enhanced scrutiny by supervisors, the courts, and the public. Our findings show how the deployment of BWC technology facilitates the “ever expanding, octopus-like surveillance society breaking borders of time, space, covertures, and human incapacity that previously protected information” (Marx, 2021: 14), through its capacity to get inside of the “black box” that is frontline policing, the inner processes of which are dynamic, highly discretionary and—until recently—mostly unseen.

We proceed as follows: the article begins with an overview of the concept of police visibility, with an emphasis on new surveillance technologies that render the police increasingly visible in contemporary society. Next, we provide a description of our research methodology and sample, followed by a discussion of key findings related to police perceptions of BWCs, the distinct forms of visibility the technology creates, and the implications of the BWC's capacity to penetrate the aforementioned “black box” from the perspective of the police officers in our sample.

Theoretical framework

Brighenti’s (2007, 2010, 2022) conceptualization of visibility enables an examination of how something is perceived, as well as the implications of and responses to being seen. His work details how visibility creates a relationship between subjects, initiating various social processes. For many scholars, this notion generally involves a relationship of top-down social control, whereby an authority engages in panoptic surveillance to monitor and control a passive subject (Haggerty, 2006; Marx, 2016). Although Brighenti acknowledges “asymmetries of visibility,” he theorizes a more complex process that recognizes the different but interconnected roles played by the watcher and the watched. The watcher recognizes and categorizes the subject, then engages in social sorting (Lyon, 2003), whereas the watched manages their visibility to influence how they are perceived, or attempts to evade detection altogether (Marx, 2002). Visibility, Brighenti posits, is facilitated in a diversity of ways, as numerous “mechanisms” are used to “visiblize” subjects. Each mechanism differs, informed by unique and contrasting politics. To understand its particular types, then, requires examination of Brighenti calls “the regimes of visibility,” which inform how a subject is recognized or, importantly, misrecognized.

AJ Goldsmith (2010) extends Brighenti's thesis by introducing the concept of “police visibility,” which recognizes the police officer as an increasingly visible subject in a broader context of new and proliferating surveillance technologies (A Goldsmith, 2015; AJ Goldsmith, 2010; A Goldsmith and McLaughlin, 2022). AJ Goldsmith (2010) offers a typology that includes “primary,” “secondary” and “new” visibility—generated and disseminated by journalists who report on police work and “citizen journalists” who use their personal recording devices, usually smartphones, to capture news-worthy images of police. ¹ This “sousveillance” (Brown, 2016; Brucato, 2015; Mann et al., 2003) has been celebrated for bringing greater awareness to incidents of police brutality that otherwise might have gone undetected (Antony and Thomas, 2010; AJ Goldsmith, 2010; Mann et al., 2003; Mohler et al., 2022). However, questions have been raised about the trustworthiness of this footage; some citizen journalists have been criticized for disseminating footage that is distorted, out of context and, in some cases, footage that captures confrontations with police deliberately provoked by civilians in a tactic known as “cop baiting” (A Goldsmith and McLaughlin, 2022; Huey and Ferguson, 2024; Newell, 2019).

The current research contributes to a growing literature that examines how BWCs modify traditional conceptualizations of police visibility. Unlike primary, secondary and new visibility types, which are externally generated, the BWC situates officers as both the watcher and the watched, blurring the roles of agent and subject (Marx, 2021). Given the officer's control over the BWC, Keesman (2023) offers the concept of “showability” to explain how the BWC allows the officer to not only record police work but create visual narratives that depict police work in a favorable way and/or that respond to criticisms of police work. However, BWC footage is not always supportive of police actions, as seen in the cases of George Floyd and Tyre Nichols, where BWCs and other surveillance forms captured disturbing incidents of police brutality. The diversity of narratives that BWCs facilitate illustrate what Brighenti (2007, 2010) calls the “double-edged” nature of visibility that can have empowering and disempowering effects for police officers, depending on what is recorded and how it is depicted by police organizations, social and mainstream media (Gaub et al., 2020; White and Malm, 2020). As Marx (2016: 10) aptly notes: “surveillance is neither good nor bad, but content and comportment make it so.”

In somewhat of a departure from the existing literature's tendency to emphasize the discrete nature of empowering and disempowering power dynamics—often with a greater focus on the latter—our findings show that they can and do occur concurrently and should therefore be examined in that manner. Recognizing this duality is critical for a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted impact that visibility stemming from the BWC exerts on police officers; the manner in which an officer's visibility is captured, shared and utilized shapes the empowerment or disempowerment inherent in the act of seeing and being seen. This dual nature of visibility, as both a tool for accountability and a potential mechanism of control, underscores the complex interplay between visibility and power for police officers.

Methods and sample descriptives

Our methodological approach is informed by Sierra-Arévalo's (2019) discussion of technological innovations in policing, which can produce complex and at times unexpected or counterproductive outcomes. Sierra-Arévalo emphasizes the importance of using qualitative methods to uncover the discretionary mechanisms through which technologies like BWCs are integrated into police practices. Our study therefore leverages interviews with frontline BWC-equipped police officers to examine how the technology is perceived and deployed.

Following an initial meeting in which we outlined our research objectives and methodology, management from Canada's largest municipal police service agreed to participate and facilitated access to BWC-equipped officers and their supervisors. We disseminated a recruitment email that explained the purpose and goals of the research and encouraged interested officers to contact us to learn more and/or sign up for an interview. We stressed that participation was voluntary, confidential and anonymous, and could be withdrawn at any time. Interviews were conducted in person at a time and location selected by each officer; oral consent was obtained from all participants.

In total, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 46 officers to explore their experiences with and opinions on the BWC technology, along with its potential and demonstrated benefits and drawbacks for officers, citizens, and the policing sector more generally. Participants were also asked open-ended questions that provided them with the opportunity to freely express opinions on issues related to BWCs that were most salient to them. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, then organized and analyzed using NVivo12. We established a coding scheme that captured key themes that emerged in the data; to establish inter-coder reliability, the first nine interviews were coded collaboratively with four coders (the two principal investigators and two graduate research assistants). The interviews were complemented and supplemented with data collected during 120 hours of ride-alongs with frontline road sergeants across twelve 10-hour shifts. The ride-alongs were scheduled to take place at different times of the day and in different parts of the city to enable observation of officer use of the BWC technology across diverse settings. Four members of the research team participated in the ride-along data collection (the two principal investigators and two graduate research assistants); an observation template was created to ensure comparability and consistency in terms of the observations made and noted. To validate the accuracy and resonance of the interview data reported below, we established a coding scheme that captured the thematic domains in the direct observation data, using a variation of the aforementioned coding procedure, then “checked” these against the thematic domains that emerged in the interview data; findings were consistent across interview and observational domains reported here (Di Zio et al., 2016; Stuckey et al., 2014).

Our interview sample included officers of varying backgrounds and levels of experience in policing. The average age was 45 years (range 24–60). Of the officers who provided gender identity information (n = 44), 36 were male and 8 were female, with an average tenure of 16.5 years. In terms of race/ethnicity, 28 self-identified as white and 16 as racial minorities.

Findings

Our findings highlight the “double-edged” nature of BWC footage; research participants emphasized the empowering qualities of BWC visibility that capture accurate and detailed footage of police work, in contrast to what they consider biased and out-of-context footage created by professional and citizen journalists. Officers emphasized that the BWC facilitates a form of “responsive visibility” that enables the policing sector to react to and potentially challenge claims and critiques made through other visibility regimes. However, the officers we interviewed also highlighted the risks of BWC visibility, including an increased likelihood of inviting unwanted internal and external scrutiny. Both perspectives are outlined below.

“It's another eye and it's got no bias”: BWC visibility as a police-oriented visibility

Our findings show that the BWC's unique perspective sets it apart from other forms of visibility. Unlike external cameras aimed at capturing the officer's body and work, BWCs are positioned to record footage from an officer's perspective. This can be described as a “police-oriented” perspective that officers in our sample said provided the most comprehensive account of their on-the-job activities and interactions.

Research participants emphasized that BWCs offer an up-close and comprehensive portrayal of police work, giving viewers a full account of events from start to finish and offering the most reliable source of visual information about police work. Such qualities are absent, participants explained, in footage recorded by professional or citizen journalists, which may feature biases or inaccuracies and generally offer a partial account of a given interaction. BWC footage, research participants insisted, tell “the real story” (Interview 36). One officer's comments exemplified this more general sentiment:

It's another eye and it's got no bias. It's not tainting the evidence … it's hands down in my humble opinion, the best tool that we’ve had in my 24 years of policing. I can see how it's going to change not just policing, but the entire legal system from the way we take our notes, the way we enter evidence, what the courts are going to use for evidence. It's a game changer. Really, it's a game changer. (Interview 14)

At the same time, however, some research participants acknowledged the potential limitations of BWC footage. For example, many officers we interviewed admitted that the failure to adhere to organizational policy regarding the activation of BWCs could result in footage lacking context and information. Others reported that BWC footage could be interpreted in varying ways depending on the audience: “there's still some ambiguity when it comes to what's seen on the camera and the way it's perceived and contextualized” (Interview 25). Still others acknowledged that BWC footage can be biased insofar as it privileges an officer's point of view and may lack context:

[The] body-worn camera doesn’t always tell the truth. The reason why is because the angle of the lens in which you’re showing something only shows a certain angle. You really need to have other supporting documentation or independent accounts of things. It will certainly help. It might capture most of the audio. But a lot of times, you have to put things in context. And we don’t always do that. (Interview 29)

Despite these limitations, all of the officers in our sample stressed that BWCs produce the most accurate footage detailing police–citizen interactions. They explained that this is because of organizational policy that requires them to activate the recording function of their BWCs prior to arriving at a call for service, when they start investigating an individual, or when they are asking a person questions for the purpose of collecting their information. This is done without stopping or muting the camera until the event has concluded except in special circumstances. ² This procedure results in lengthy but nonetheless highly detailed and informative video recordings that capture the nuances of police work. The continuous and comprehensive nature of BWC footage was therefore reported to offer a more complete account of police activities. In other words, while acknowledging the diversity of regimes that render police visible, officers consistently reported police-oriented BWC footage to be the most reliable contributor to their visibility.

“I’ve yet to have a complaint since I got this”: BWC visibility as a “responsive visibility”

Our participants also highlighted the importance of BWCs for responding effectively to what they view as the problematic narratives created by citizen journalists, particularly around allegations of excessive force. Such accusations sometimes gain traction in mainstream media platforms that widely disseminate imagery and narratives created by citizen journalist accounts. Officers explained that BWC footage can be leveraged to counter these allegations by demonstrating, where applicable, that force was legally and procedurally justified. For example, some emphasized that BWC footage could reveal the presence of a weapon held by an individual during an arrest, a critical detail that may not have been captured in a citizen journalist's video. One research participant explained how the BWC could even bolster an officer's confidence to use force when it is necessary:

So, there has [sic] been points where my guys are hesitant to use force. But if you wholeheartedly feel it's justified, then use force because the camera will portray that. And it's worked out every time, where the camera shows a violent person just attacking or trying to resist arrest. If you use as much force as necessary, then use it [I tell them]. It’ll show why you did it. It will absolutely show why you did it. (Interview 15)

Many of the officers in our sample expressed clear reservation about the narratives crafted by citizen journalists, often accusing them of harboring anti-police bias and using the footage they generate to inaccurately portray police work. Although officers did not adopt a combative stance toward citizen journalists, as they have grown quite accustomed to being recorded and see it as “part of the job,” they tended to view BWC footage and the enhanced visibility it affords as a means of offering another—and in their view, more accurate—perspective on events as they transpire. Indeed, consistent with other research (Boehme and Schnell, 2022), all of the officers we interviewed reported that the BWC increases their confidence such that they feel “empowered” and “protected” on the job, because the footage “convey[s] exactly what happens”.

In line with other research (Fouche, 2014; Gaub et al., 2016; Goetschel and Peha, 2017), our data also found that officers view BWCs positively because of their perceived capacity to protect them from citizen complaints. One reported that the BWC was “the most important piece of protective equipment we have” (Interview 27). When explaining why, many officers spoke of the BWC's capacity to reduce the filing of frivolous complaints in the first place—because interactions are recorded, they argued, most civilians understand that such complaints, were they to be filed, would be handily disproven. As one officer told us:

I’m going back to a call I was on recently … I remember the person saying, “Oh, the officer kicked me in the head. The officer did this, he did that” … And then the booking sergeant said, “We’ll play back the body-worn camera that the officer has because that recorded everything.” And that person paused for about five seconds and says, “Oh … I don’t want to make a complaint”. (Interview 19)

A frontline supervisor echoed this sentiment when he said:

Well, from my experience from being on the road, and being the boots on the ground with my guys, we get a lot fewer complaints … Because they know that they can’t just make a frivolous complaint anymore because we have our own documentation … People will say, “Oh, I’m taping.” “Well good, because we’re taping you, too”. (Interview 15).

In addition to responding to civilian complaints, many officers in our sample reported that BWCs can be used to demonstrate how complex and difficult police work can be, thereby humanizing police officers and the work that they do:

In terms of how we police up here in [names city], especially for the amount of people we police … we do it well. But I think for the most part, we don’t get the credit we deserve. So I think that [the BWC] really, really shows that … it can demonstrate high quality policing. And for the people that don’t think that they are getting high quality policing – [watch BWC footage and] see for yourself. (Interview 15)

Officers were, however, careful to distinguish between the release of footage that humanizes and demonstrates professional and effective police work from critical incident video. Most understood and appreciated that the premature release of BWC footage documenting a critical incident may compromise ongoing investigations. For example, releasing BWC footage could interfere with an accused person's or officer's right to a fair trial or impartial hearing. It could raise concerns about privacy rights because BWCs often capture civilian and officer personal information, which is protected under most public sector privacy laws in Canada. There are also important privacy considerations related to the real or perceived surveillance of racialized and other marginalized individuals and communities, and/or in sensitive violent situations. At the same time, many officers expressed frustration over such constraints in what they considered a broader context of pervasive anti-police sentiment that can sometimes lead to false allegations about police misconduct. These officers expressed hope that their organization will adopt a more public-facing approach to releasing BWC footage—or, in situations in which this is not possible, educate the public about the factors that may serve to preclude their ability to do so. The absence of this information, many officers argued, can prompt a “rush to judgment” (Interview 44) wherein police misconduct is assumed to be at play when footage is not released in the wake of an incident—which can exacerbate existing anti-police sentiment that is experienced most acutely by those on the frontlines.

These findings highlight that many of our research participants view BWCs as a responsive technology that empowers them to actively participate in shaping narratives around policing. Whereas primary, secondary, and new visibility are often seen as external and uncontrollable contributors to police visibility, BWCs were perceived as providing officers with a means to create internal, controlled, and (in their view) accurate narrative depictions of police work. In essence, then, BWCs allow police officers to reclaim a degree of what Ericson (1989) calls “account ability” by enabling them to contribute their own visual documentation of events, which at times may challenge narratives generated by other visibility regimes. This highlights the BWC’s perceived role as an “objective referee” (Houwing and van Eck, 2020) that incorporates the police perspective, thereby serving as an “equivalence tool” that may facilitate greater balance between surveillance and sousveillance perspectives (Houwing and van Eck, 2020; Mann et al., 2003).

“It's another tool to scrutinize or catch us …”: BWC visibility and over-discipline

Our findings also shed light on a less explored dimension of surveillance in policing: the internal monitoring of police personnel in the workplace via the deployment of BWC technology. Many of our participants articulated significant apprehension about the consequences of failing to adhere to policy and procedure, such as using inappropriate language during public interactions or failing to activate their BWC. Such concerns illustrate the complex web of visibility relationships at play, wherein BWC-equipped officers are cast as agents of state surveillance while simultaneously being subject to internal workplace surveillance by their employer (Ball, 2010; Sewell, 2021). As such, although research participants acknowledged the empowering effects BWCs may offer, they simultaneously underscored the device's capacity to disempower police officers, encapsulating the reciprocal nature of enhanced police visibility.

For example, many officers detailed instances in which BWCs could undermine officers’ authority, primarily by subjecting them to undue scrutiny by their managers. One officer worried that BWCs may have been misrepresented as a valuable tool to assist police in their work and were instead deployed primarily for the purpose of officer surveillance and discipline: “… in my short career, I’ve been through a series of technological innovations. And at each time it's been sold to us is, ‘this is to help you.’ And then shortly thereafter, it's employed as a disciplinary device” (Interview 40).

This perspective sees visibility not as a means of protection, but as a mechanism for punitive observation, where even trivial or inconsequential procedural breaches could result in verbal or documented reprimand; as one supervisor reported: “They’re afraid of getting in trouble with our internal. Our internal is pretty strict and [metes out] pretty strong discipline” (Interview 33). For example, officers expressed concern over the potential for disciplinary action related to the use of “tactical communication”:

There has to be a better understanding—whether it's a supervisor, whether it's a citizen watching the video—they have to be conscious that language isn’t necessarily going to be “Yes sir, no sir” all the time. It's going to be tactical strategy … sometimes you have to use forceful language so the person understands … when a drug dealer or drug user or whatever talks to me, they’re like “Hey [names officer], what's going on? How the fuck are you, man?” But I've been told if I swear a lot on camera, I’m going to lose hours, right? (Interview 11)

It is important to note that over time, most officers discovered that many of their initial apprehensions about BWCs—particularly those stemming from fears of enhanced scrutiny resulting in over-discipline—were not sustained. This gave way to a widely shared perspective that lauded the police-oriented and responsive forms of visibility the cameras generate. This shift in perception was attributed to both officers’ exposure to and experience with the technology, particularly involving situations in which officers experience or witness its empowering effects. This highlights a significant adaptation process, wherein many of the concerns officers articulated about the potential for disciplinary action were not realized and/or came to be outweighed by the benefits and assurances the technology offers:

One of the guys that's on my shift who's got 27 years on the job, he was very hesitant, and he was like, “Oh, this is going to ruin us.” And he actually went [to training] at the same time I did … And within a couple of weeks, he was like, “Yeah, this is amazing.” He goes, like, “This is completely helpful. It's the best technology we’ve had. (Interview 5)

This shift from suspicion to support for the BWC did not, however, mitigate officers’ concerns about the potential disempowering effects the technology may have, which illustrates the “double-edged” nature of police visibility. For example, although most officers reported an increase in professionalism when cameras are activated, some openly worried about the potential inhibiting effects BWCs may have on their professional conduct more generally. Many articulated concerns over the technology's potential to limit their discretion and otherwise function as a mechanism of discipline and control. Following Foucault's description of the panopticon as a technique of discipline that works even and especially based on the uncertainty of whether someone is watching (Foucault, 1977), BWC-equipped officers understand they may be observed at any point in real time or in retrospect by their supervisors. Each officer must therefore assume they are under constant observation when BWC cameras are activated, resulting in an individualized form of social control that manifests, among other things, in the form of increased professionalism. Although research has not conclusively demonstrated that BWCs impact officer behavior, many of the officers we interviewed and rode with reported making subtle adjustments to “clean up” their language and professional conduct, because of concerns about how they might appear in related BWC footage: “After I would interact with somebody, I would think about it. I’d sort of be thinking, ‘Okay. Am I going to get in trouble? Did I say the right things?’” (Interview 25).

Previous studies corroborate this sentiment, suggesting that officers might view BWCs as a tool for enforcing punitive measures for minor policy breaches, constraining their operational discretion and fostering an environment of excessive oversight and eroded trust within the organization (Constantinou and Markianos, 2023; Smykla et al., 2016; Wooditch et al., 2020). Consequently, apprehension over being monitored, not to mention “getting done” (disciplined) by supervisors, emerged as recurrent themes in our data. One officer, when discussing his initial impression of the BWC, compared it with the infamous Orwellian interpretation of surveillance: “I didn’t want the camera, to be honest. I was against it. I’m like, ‘I don’t want this. Big brother's watching. They hear everything we say’” (Interview 22).

A related concern expressed by many research participants was the BWC's potential to enable “over-discipline.” One officer specified that it was internal oversight and audits that primarily raised his concerns about BWC visibility:

I got my body-worn camera last fall. I was nervous about it, but not from a user … perspective, it was more [about] “How will we get into trouble operationally”, right? The oversight, and the audits, that sort of thing. So I was not nervous about my performance or how I interact with the public. I was more nervous about forgetting to turn it on or saying something in a conversation with somebody that ends up being relayed to a supervisor and getting in trouble from that perspective. Right? (Interview 41)

This nuance reveals a deeper apprehension not about the act of being observed, but about how observations might be used to penalize officers for minor infractions, underscoring a complex relationship between surveillance and accountability. One officer told us this may lead some of his colleagues to reconsider using the BWC:

So I think, if management uses it to discipline guys, like over­discipline guys, if management doesn’t use it to protect the guys, if the courts don’t use it to protect the officers on the stand, then I think you’ll see guys going, “… Why am I wearing this thing”, right? What's the point of this thing?’. (Interview 8)

It is, however, important to note that the exercise of disciplinary power facilitated by BWC surveillance is not absolute; Foucault's thesis (1977) emphasizes that resistance is an inevitable and inherent aspect of power relations, such that “where there is power, there is always resistance too” (Gutting and Oksala, 2022). Indeed, the BWC offers a potential technique of “counter-discipline” that functions alongside and against panoptic discipline—an officer might (temporarily) subvert and resist the BWC’s disciplinary capacity by deactivating the technology's recording function. Our data are unable to speak to the intentional use of such measures, although many of the officers in our sample were keenly aware of and concerned about the control that BWC-facilitated surveillance exerts over them insofar as it relates to the meting out of internal discipline. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that an internal audit of the organization's BWC program conducted in June 2023 identified significant compliance issues that include officers “who were unjustified in not activating their body cameras, obstructing the camera lens, muting the audio, and switching cameras off prior to the end of an encounter”—sometimes during use-of-force incidents (Schneider and Laming, 2024). Although the audit did not examine the factors underpinning these compliance issues, it is possible that some may represent efforts to resist or escape the gaze and disciplinary power of the BWC, if only temporarily. More research is needed to determine whether and to what extent the aforementioned compliance issues may result from the adoption of counter-disciplinary techniques on the part of some police officers.

“… it will weed out the bad apples”: BWC visibility and public criticism

In addition to excessive oversight by superiors, research participants also highlighted concerns about BWC footage casting them in a negative light, therefore prompting public criticism. One officer described policing as a profession that is “scrutinized day in, day out” (Interview 19). For these officers, BWCs represent not just tools of disciplinary oversight, but a means through which minor mistakes can be amplified and lead to significant public backlash. As one officer told us, BWC footage could be used to make allegations about the “pro-rough” tactical behavior and language police officers are trained to employ:

If a guy [witness] says to me, “that fucker went that way after he did whatever.” And I’d go, “okay, well, stay here [and] don’t fucking panic”. And we have dialogue there, right? He understands. I understand. But, third-party, again, reviews that. “Well, officer, that was rather pro­rough diction you were employing.” And it is, but it's a vernacular in the streets, right? (Interview 40)

Many officers expressed concern that footage illustrating the use of tactical language, in the absence of explanation, may facilitate the erosion of public trust and diminish community cooperation and support. Accordingly, they evidenced significant concern over the widespread visibility of contentious incidents presented without context or understanding of the intricacies involved in police work, which can over-simplify complex, dynamic and evolving situations. This reflects Brighenti's (2010) concept of “networked visibility,” wherein social media can be exploited and commodified for the purposes of political commentary, including police criticism. Officer concerns about the framing of BWC-generated footage echoes Goodwin's (1994) claims about the contested nature of visibility and corresponding asymmetries in “epistemic authority”. More specifically, police officers are trained to see and interpret phenomena through the lens of their professional expertise, which affords them institutional authority and credibility for analyzing and interpreting contested situations. Lay persons tend to lack such authority and credibility, which often relegates them to being objects of scrutiny lacking the discursive power to frame how events are analyzed, interpreted and discussed. The framing of BWC footage functions similarly: the technology records events that are then subject to interpretative frameworks that serve to empower and disempower different stakeholders; framing exercises that are grounded in specialized professional vision are often privileged over lay accounts, which illustrates how professional vision can serve as both a resource for accountability and a mechanism for maintaining control.

Our findings also build on and complicate Boutros’ (2024) concept of “police epistemic power,” revealing tensions in how officers perceive and navigate their ability to control knowledge and narratives about policing practices. On the one hand, officers in our study emphasized BWCs as tools that reinforce their epistemic authority by producing official representations of police work. This aligns with the first dimension of epistemic power: control over the production of data on crime and policing (Boutros, 2024; Goodwin, 1994). In this case, BWCs not only document police work, but also offer police a mechanism for privileging police accounts over alternative, civilian portrayals and narratives. On the other hand, officers expressed concerns about how BWCs might undermine their epistemic power by generating footage that may undermine their perceived legitimacy, including instances of police brutality and misconduct, but may also be a function of incomplete/fragmented footage stemming from BWC activation, angle, location, range of view and related factors. This dual epistemic potential of BWCs—that both strengthens and challenges police control over knowledge—demonstrates how the technology disrupts traditional mechanisms of epistemic power. Our data show that the struggle for epistemic power remains ongoing as officers vie to define what is known, unknown, and unknowable about policing in an era of growing police visibility.

These concerns notwithstanding, our participants’ perspectives revealed a layered understanding of the implications of BWC scrutiny. While many acknowledged the potential pitfalls of misrepresentation, they also displayed an openness to the idea that BWCs could serve as “credible threats” (Ariel et al., 2017; Jervis, 1989) that play a critical role in identifying and addressing the problem of misconduct within the ranks. This reflects a nuanced stance wherein officers recognize the value of using BWCs as a tool for weeding out “bad cops,” exposing those who fail to uphold their duties and/or engage in the inappropriate or excessive use-of-force, potentially leading to corrective actions such as retraining or even dismissal. This, by extension, was reported to enhance the integrity and effectiveness of the policing sector, underscoring a more nuanced understanding of BWC accountability functions.

Notably, research participants who highlighted the empowering aspects of BWC visibility also tended to downplay the potential drawbacks associated with increased surveillance. These officers expressed indifference to being recorded, often adopting a “nothing to hide” perspective (Solove, 2011). As one officer put it, “I have nothing to hide. Whatever I do—it's completely open for anybody to look at” (Interview 43). Another officer echoed this point of view, adding that he would be skeptical if an officer failed to deploy their BWC:

So that old saying, people have nothing to hide, hide nothing, right? I would be more concerned about officers not following that [adage], as a supervisor. If one of my officers wasn’t using his body­worn camera or was shutting it off prematurely or there was [sic] gaps in it or something, then I would start thinking, “Well, wait a second. Why are you not using it? Why did you shut it off?” (Interview 4)

This stance suggests a high level of comfort with BWC visibility, predicated on the belief that ethical and professional conduct will withstand scrutiny.

These findings align with and extend existing scholarship that outlines the potential for BWCs to positively transform policing practices, a development that some officers welcome enthusiastically (Ellis et al., 2015; Fouche, 2014; Gaub et al., 2016; Wood and Groff, 2019). However, it is noteworthy that the embrace of BWCs by some officers does not incorporate a broader institutional critique of policing. Instead, the discourse around BWCs in our data tends to foreground the technology's capacity to assist in the identification of “bad apples” within the organization, suggesting that the primary challenges facing the policing sector stem from individual misconduct while failing to consider systemic issues also at play. This viewpoint allows officers to distinguish themselves and the broader policing community from problematic “outlier” officers whose actions frustrate the efforts and tarnish the reputation of the majority officers who perform their duties in a professional and ethical manner. Although this perspective underscores a desire for accountability and improvement within the ranks, it also highlights a lack of understanding and reluctance to engage with broader critiques of policing that highlight systemic racism and other forms of discrimination in the Canadian policing sector, focusing instead on individual accountability facilitated by BWCs. As one officer told us:

… [i]t will weed out the bad apples. Because no one likes the bad apples, trust me. I work hard at this job. And I work hard to do this job properly. And if you talk to most [officers] … there's nothing that angers us more than the bad apples that make us look bad when we work hard every day. Right? When all that gets destroyed in the eye of the public because of a few bad apples, it infuriates us. (Interview 15)

The nuanced attitudes of officers toward the BWCs exemplify an inherent paradox in the concept of visibility: on the one hand, officers voiced apprehension about the potential disempowering effects resulting from the misrepresentation of their actions in the framing and interpretation of BWC footage, and that their enhanced visibility could render them subject to internal “over-discipline”. On the other hand, the same enhanced visibility was viewed positively when it came to its capacity to achieve more empowering effects—for example, by showcasing instances of laudable police work and for rooting out “dirty cops”.

Discussion and conclusion

Our findings show that BWCs add a new layer to police visibility, simultaneously empowering and disempowering the officers who deploy them. Research participants highlighted the technology's empowering potential, wherein BWCs facilitate a police-oriented and responsive form of visibility that can be leveraged to respond to—and sometimes challenge—incomplete and/or biased portrayals generated by other visibility regimes. This exemplifies Boutros’ (2024) concept of epistemic power, wherein “official” specialist interpretations of events and interactions captured by BWC footage tend to be privileged over those generated by civilian-produced recordings, which serves to reinforce the policing sector's epistemic authority.

At the same time, many officers adopted a nuanced perspective regarding BWC visibility, articulating concerns about its disempowering aspects, particularly the intensified scrutiny of police work by supervisors and the public. Most of the officers we interviewed worried about BWC footage being used to transform complex and dynamic events into simplified “criticizable moments” that could lead to punitive measures. In such cases, the BWC was reported to undermine the police's epistemic power by creating opportunities to view and critique police officers, producing alternative and critical knowledge about the policing. This heightened level of surveillance contributed to some officers feeling wary about using their BWCs, although on the balance and for most, the technology's benefits outweighed these potential drawbacks. Indeed, numerous officers went so far as to claim that they would feel uncomfortable and unsafe performing their duties without it.

Such favorable views on BWCs illuminate their nuanced role in policing as protective tools that can provide accurate and reliable accounts of police encounters. This perception underscores a significant shift toward viewing BWCs not merely as instruments of surveillance, but also as assets that can vindicate police actions and enhance the credibility of law enforcement in contentious situations (Lum et al., 2019; Mrozla and Pieper, 2023). These insights call for a deeper inquiry into police officers’ attitudes toward BWCs, suggesting that the widespread adoption of this technology across North America may be partly driven by its perceived utility in defending police practices—an element of BWC visibility that is often overlooked if the surveillance of police is overgeneralized as a tool for scrutiny and criticism and BWCs are mischaracterized as a “silver bullet” solution to problems in policing (White and Malm, 2020).

Our research also reveals evolving complexities in police visibility due to BWCs, which enable officers to shape their own visual narratives, challenging traditional visibility frameworks (AJ Goldsmith, 2010). These frameworks—primary, secondary, and new visibility—each represent different ways through which police actions can be observed and interpreted, from direct observation to mediated forms like video recordings and social media dissemination. BWCs introduce a form of mediated visibility that officers allege offers a comprehensive, unedited and “truthful” account of the police perspective that differs from other visibility regimes (Houwing and van Eck, 2020). The coexistence of multiple layers of police visibility necessitates an understanding of how different forms of media influence public perceptions and legal interpretations of police actions, particularly in contentious situations involving the use-of-force. This dynamic also raises theoretical questions about the interaction between different layers of police visibility, especially in increasingly common situations involving multiple sources of video evidence that present diverging and sometimes conflicting interpretations of the same incident. Although the police officers in our sample widely viewed BWC footage to represent the most accurate version of events, Vakhitova et al. (2023: 182) remind us that “viewers are never neutral … the footage will be read and responded to based on individual, social, political, ideological and cultural factors which influence interpretation.”

Of course, whether and the extent to which different layers of police visibility are themselves made visible for interpretation is often a function of power dynamics. Marx (2016: 11) points out that “the BWC is not necessarily neutral” in terms of control over and access to the footage, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that “substantial informational asymmetries” confront efforts to make BWC footage visible to the general public (Bloch-Wehba, 2021: 924). In the United States, this is because the decision to release BWC footage often rests with individual police departments, who for the most part control access; research shows that the American policing sector has “routinely delayed releasing footage, released only partial or redacted video or refused to release it at all” (Umansky and Farooq, 2023). Similar concerns have been raised in the Canadian context, although the reasons for withholding footage are generally tied to independent civilian oversight investigations that are invoked in the wake of incidents involving serious injury, death, allegations of sexual assault or discharge of a firearm by a police officer against a person. In such situations, external civilian agencies take possession of the BWC footage and often withhold public release of that footage to protect the privacy rights of accused persons and to otherwise maintain the integrity of the court process. These jurisdictional differences notwithstanding, concerns over the general opacity surrounding the release of BWC footage complicate claims that increasing police visibility will necessarily “rend the sacred canopy” (Robinson, 2012: 1420) that previously served to conceal police work and misconduct from public scrutiny.