Calibre Press:
Gathering and Verifying Video Evidence…The RIGHT Way
By Jamie Borden
In a previous Calibre Press Newsline we shared an important discussion between use-of-force experts Jamie Borden and Daniel King from Critical Incident Review that focused on the pitfalls of relying on surface-level reviews of video evidence in investigations. Here, they continue the conversation—part of a four-part series—highlighting the need for proper use and handling of video evidence and utilizing skilled analysis to ensure accurate conclusions and uphold objectivity, particularly in use-of-force cases.
When investigating a critical incident like a use-of-force event, video evidence is a critical piece of the puzzle. However, as I’ve learned through years of forensic video analysis, the process of gathering and verifying this evidence requires careful attention to detail and a systematic approach. Building on the pitfalls of surface-level video reviews discussed earlier (click here to read Newsline #951), this article focuses on the essential steps for collecting video evidence and spotting potential issues at the scene. By following these protocols, we can ensure that the evidence we rely on is accurate, reliable, and ready for deeper analysis, avoiding the biases and errors that can derail an investigation.
The Importance of Comprehensive Evidence Collection
Arriving at a scene, whether it’s an officer-involved shooting or a citizen-on-citizen incident, means confronting a chaotic environment with multiple potential sources of video evidence. Body-worn cameras, in-vehicle systems, CCTV from nearby businesses, and bystander cell phone videos are all common today.
The first step is to identify and document every possible source. This isn’t just about grabbing what’s immediately available; it’s about being proactive. For example, witnesses may have recorded the event but won’t volunteer their footage unless asked, often fearing their phone will be confiscated or because they’re aiming for social media attention. Asking direct questions about who was filming and where cameras are located is critical.
Beyond the immediate scene, consider the surrounding area. An incident may culminate in one spot, but videos from nearby locations—such as a business’s CCTV capturing a suspect’s approach—can provide crucial context. I’ve worked cases where departments used geofencing to track social media posts near the time and place of an incident, identifying IP addresses and contacting individuals for their videos. This tedious work can uncover the missing piece that connects the dots in an investigation. Documenting camera locations, their perspectives, and whether they include audio (many CCTV systems don’t) is essential, especially if access isn’t immediate, like at a closed business at 2 a.m.
Relying solely on known sources, like body-worn cameras, risks missing critical evidence. Crime scenes are often cordoned off to the immediate area, but video collection requires a broader approach. Slowing down to catalog all potential sources ensures a more complete picture of the event, which is vital when someone’s freedom or a department’s reputation is at stake.
Avoiding Degraded Evidence
One common mistake is settling for degraded or transcoded video, such as a cell phone recording of a CCTV playback. This is like photographing blood spatter and expecting a CSI to extract DNA from the image—it’s not viable evidence. In one case, a second-degree murder charge was based on such a “video of a video,” which was distorted, poorly lit, and lacked the integrity needed for court. To avoid this, prioritize obtaining raw, original footage. If a business provides a thumb drive with video, treat it as the best evidence available at the time, but verify its source and quality. If immediate access isn’t possible, document the camera’s location and dispatch a team to retrieve the original data as soon as feasible—a team or an investigator capable of identifying the type of system the footage comes from, and gaining the cleanest extraction possible.
Spotting Surface-Level Issues in Video Evidence
Once video evidence is collected, the next step is issue spotting—identifying potential distortions or limitations in the footage before diving into deeper analysis. This starts with understanding the technical characteristics of the video. Most body-worn cameras record at around 30 frames per second (fps), which appears smooth to the human eye. However, some cameras, especially older CCTV systems, may record at 15 fps or lower, resulting in choppy footage that misses critical movement data. Recognizing these differences is crucial, as lower frame rates can make actions appear less fluid, potentially skewing perceptions of speed or intent.
Another key issue is lens distortion, particularly with body-worn cameras that often use fisheye lenses to capture a wider field of view. While useful for gathering more data, these lenses distort distances, making objects appear farther away than they are. For example, a suspect 12 feet from an officer might look 35–40 feet away on an Axon body-worn camera. This can mislead reviewers about the immediacy of a threat. To spot this, look for curved lines—on sidewalks, light poles, or vehicles—where straight lines should be, indicating a barrel-shaped lens distortion. These distortions affect perceptions of time, distance, speed, and motion, which are often central to use-of-force investigations.
Verifying Video Integrity
Before drawing any conclusions, verify the integrity of the video evidence. This involves a surface-level check to ensure the footage hasn’t been altered or compromised. Using forensic software, examine the video’s metadata and header data to confirm its frame rate and source. Compare this to the actual frame analysis to identify inconsistencies, such as variable frame rates not listed in the metadata. Check the hexadecimal data for signs of editing software (e.g., Adobe Premiere or Final Cut Pro), which would indicate the video has been manipulated. These steps are critical to establishing the footage as reliable “best evidence” before deeper analysis begins.
Aligning Video with Human Perception
Video is a two-dimensional digital representation of a three-dimensional event, capturing everything within its frame without filtering for relevance. This contrasts with an officer’s experience, shaped by cognitive processes like perception, fear, or focus, which filter out irrelevant details in real time. For instance, a suspect charging an officer may appear to accelerate due to “looming”—a visual effect where objects moving directly toward someone seem to gain speed. A witness at a 90-degree angle, or a video camera, might show the same suspect moving steadily, not charging, leading to discrepancies between the officer’s account and the footage.
These differences aren’t necessarily contradictions but reflect the limitations of video in capturing human experience. Videos don’t convey intent, emotions, or sensory details like sounds or smells that influence an officer’s decisions. Recognizing these gaps early helps investigators avoid dismissing an officer’s account just because it differs from what the video shows.
Protocols for Gathering and Verifying Video Evidence
To ensure video evidence is collected and verified effectively, follow these protocols:
- Identify All Sources: Document every potential video source—body cameras, vehicle cameras, CCTV, and bystander videos. Ask witnesses directly about recordings and check surrounding areas for additional cameras.
- Secure Original Footage: Avoid degraded sources like cell phone recordings of playbacks. Obtain raw footage, even if it requires a warrant or cooperation from a business.
- Document Camera Details: Note the location, perspective, and audio capabilities of each camera. Photograph their positions to understand their field of view.
- Spot Technical Issues: Check for low frame rates (e.g., 15 fps) and lens distortions (e.g., fisheye effects) that affect time, distance, speed, and motion. Look for curved lines or choppy movement as red flags.
- Verify Integrity: Use forensic software to examine metadata, header data, and hexadecimal data for signs of tampering or inconsistencies in frame rates.
- Stay Inductive: Collect all evidence before forming theories. Avoid letting a surface-level review on an inadequate or small screen shape the investigation.
Setting the Stage for Deeper Analysis
These protocols lay the groundwork for a fair and thorough investigation. By systematically gathering and verifying video evidence, we reduce the risk of bias from salient or incomplete footage. In one case, a 22-year sentence for second-degree murder was avoided because a detailed analysis of time, distance, speed, and motion—built on properly collected and verified video—proved the suspect’s innocence. The next article will explore how to conduct this deeper analysis, focusing on micro-timelines and the critical elements that can make or break a case.
For now, the key is to slow down, be aware of what we don’t know, and treat video as a piece of the investigative puzzle. By setting aside assumptions and egos, we can ensure that our investigations are grounded in objective truth, protecting both justice and those involved in these critical incidents on both sides of the fence prosecution/plaintiff and the defense of both criminal and civil applications.
For more information, Borden and King invite investigators to reach out via email at contact@criticalincidentreview.com or to attend their Video Examination & Review course. Also be sure to check out Borden’s excellent book, Anatomy of a Critical Incident: Navigating Controversy available through Amazon.
