From Calibre Press
By Sgt. Jamie Borden (ret.), Critical Incident Review
Body-worn cameras are now an anchor of policing, offering a transparent record of critical incidents like use-of-force events. They can protect officers and the public by providing objective evidence, but they also capture every word, gesture, and interaction in high-stakes situations.
Through years of reviewing cases as a forensic expert, I’ve seen how seemingly minor behaviors on camera—such as a casual joke or an offhand remark—can escalate into legal battles, complaints, or career-ending consequences. Here, I explore the importance of body-worn camera etiquette, not about staging a performance, but about maintaining professionalism to ensure your actions align with the facts and don’t undermine a case.
The Double-Edged Nature of Body Cameras
Body-worn cameras document incidents in real time, but they don’t capture intent, context, or the full scope of human experience. They record behavior, and that footage is scrutinized by internal affairs, citizen review boards, attorneys, and juries. Unprofessional conduct—like high-fiving after a shooting (unrelated to the incident), using unnecessary profanity, or smiling at an inopportune moment—can be misinterpreted as indifference or malice.
This is usually not the case, but the video has a built in “contextual setting.” In one case, officers were recorded joking shortly after a fatal shooting, not out of callousness and not about the incident, but as a stress response. Yet, that clip was used in court to portray them as uncaring, leading to a costly settlement despite the justified use of force. The recorded evidence is forever and the context is easily misinterpreted.
The challenge is that cameras are always rolling during and after an incident, turning private moments among colleagues into public evidence. This isn’t about faking professionalism; it’s about recognizing that behavior on camera can either support or contradict the narrative of a reasonable, necessary response. Interactions with citizen review boards, which often include retired officers, have shown they aim to judge fairly. However, unprofessional footage makes it difficult to defend an officer, even when the core actions were appropriate. When the video shows cursing or casual disregard, it becomes evidence against the officer, overshadowing the incident’s facts. In some cases, the video does reflect the shortcomings of an officer; professionalism, authority-heavy attitudes, and just overall unacceptable behavior. But, in some cases the behavior is dissonant and not associated with the incident, but there are no barriers buffering the context that others view in hindsight.
Common Pitfalls and Their Consequences
From analyzing hundreds of cases, certain behaviors consistently cause issues:
— Inappropriate language and tone: Using profanity or sarcasm during an arrest might feel justified in the moment, but on video, it can appear abusive, unnecessary and inappropriate. In a pursuit case, an officer’s repeated cursing was highlighted by a plaintiff’s attorney, shifting focus from the suspect’s actions to the officer’s demeanor, fueling a complaint that could have been avoided with calmer communication.
— Post-incident reactions: High-fives, smiles, or casual comments after a serious event can seem insensitive. In one instance, a detective’s offhand remark about “smoking m#####f#####s” during a scene lockdown was caught on audio, derailing the defense and forcing a settlement, despite the incident being justified. This was an off-color comment to the involved officer, not from the officer. Easily avoidable.
— Skipping basic protocols: Failing to identify as police, introduce yourself, or explain the reason for contact can make an encounter appear aggressive when the subject becomes non-compliant. In chaotic or low-light situations, this omission fuels claims of excessive force. Review boards often note how a simple introduction could change perceptions.
These behaviors don’t just impact individual cases; they erode public trust and lead to significant settlements or disciplinary actions. In some instances, they’ve contributed to criminal charges when footage is taken out of context, amplifying the stakes of unprofessional conduct.
Protocols for Professional Conduct on Camera
To navigate body-worn cameras effectively, I recommend these protocols, drawn from real-world lessons:
1. Stay mindful of the camera: Assume every activation will be reviewed in court. Avoid high-fives, jokes, or casual banter until cameras are off and the scene is secure. If stress relief is needed, step away or wait for debriefing.
2. Communicate clearly and professionally: When safe, introduce yourself and state the purpose of the interaction. Use clear, calm language—“Stop resisting” instead of profanity—to de-escalate and build a record of reasonableness.
3. Lead by example: Veteran officers should guide newer ones to be effective while staying composed. I’ve seen seasoned cops turn volatile stops into compliant encounters by modeling professionalism, proving you can achieve results—seizing guns or drugs—without drama.
4. Handle post-incident behavior carefully: Focus on securing the scene, rendering aid, and coordinating with responders. Avoid casual conversations near active cameras. If a misstep occurs, address it in your report, noting it as a stress response, not intent.
5. Debrief and review: Departments should regularly review footage as a training tool, catching patterns like unnecessary aggression early to prevent complaints or lawsuits.
These protocols aren’t about being robotic or about collusion; they’re about being a professional. In cases where officers stayed composed despite provocation, complaints were dismissed quickly because the video showed restraint and professionalism.
The Power of Professionalism
When used correctly, body-worn cameras are a powerful ally. They can exonerate officers by showing a suspect’s aggression, an officer’s warnings, or the split-second decisions made under pressure. In dealings with citizen review boards, professional footage often leads to swift dismissals of baseless claims. It also fosters community trust: people respect officers who handle tough situations with poise. It is inherently difficult to navigate the presence of unprofessional behavior, even for the most tenured reviewers
Professionalism on camera protects your career and your department. I’ve seen too many cases where officers’ unprofessional behavior—cursing or joking—gave plaintiffs’ attorneys or complainants the ammunition to prolong lawsuits or internal affairs investigations. By staying aware and professional, you ensure the video tells the true story: a dedicated officer doing a difficult job well.
The foundation of strong evidence starts with how you conduct yourself on scene. Slow down, stay professional, and let your actions speak for themselves.
About the author: Sgt. Jamie Borden (ret.) is the founder of Critical Incident Review, which offers a variety of training including, Force Investigations: Video Examination and Review. Jamie is a court certified expert in a variety of topics including Controversial Use of Force, Forensic Video Examination, and Officer/Subject Movement Dynamics. He created the first “Use of Force Training & Analysis” unit for a large department in Nevada that focused on identifying and analyzing police performance related to use-of-force and training. Jamie is also the author of Anatomy of a Critical Incident: Navigating Controversy.
