video evidence
How we ensure footage recorded on our body camera devices remains compliant and admissible in court
Protecting the integrity of
Explore
The importance of integrity in court‑ready video evidence
Front-line use cases of evidential body camera footage
Legal requirements of evidential body camera footage
Technical specifications for compliant body camera technology
Learn more
Download the eBook
The importance of integrity in court-ready video evidence
In court, evidence is paramount. It is what judgements are based on and dictates how proceedings play out.
Traditionally, evidence would come in the form of written statements and reports, both from witnesses and the police. But with advancements in technology and the introduction of body cameras to the police and other industries, irrefutable video evidence can now be brought to court. Footage from body cameras can provide a first-hand account of the incident in question, making the evidence far more accurate than previously possible. Video evidence can also lead to much quicker outcomes, as it saves officers time in presenting their evidence and has caused an increase in guilty pleas,¹ resulting in less time spent preparing court papers and attending court. However, for body camera footage to be used as evidence in court, it must be deemed properly compliant and meet certain legal requirements. There needs to be proof that the footage has not been tampered with so that any recording shown in court is exactly what the camera picked up at the time of the incident. The integrity of the footage must be proven and verified to ensure it becomes useful as a piece of evidence. This means the integrity of body camera footage
Front-line use cases
1. https://library.college.police.uk/docs/homeoffice/guidance-body-worn-devices.pdf
There are countless examples of irrefutable evidence being needed in court. These are some of the most common scenarios in which body camera footage provides crucial front‑line evidence for court proceedings.
Domestic abuse incident
An officer is called out to a potential domestic abuse incident and, upon arriving at the scene, turns on their body camera. The camera remains filming for the entirety of the officer’s attendance at the scene, providing an exact record of the demeanour and language of the accused, the disturbance throughout the scene and the emotional effect on the victim. The body camera footage is kept secured and encrypted until it is presented in court as evidence. The footage significantly strengthens the prosecution’s case, resulting in a shorter trial and reducing the need for reluctant witnesses – including the victim – to be present in court.
Public disturbance
While on public order patrol in a city centre at night, officers come across a group of people being loud and disorderly in public. After speaking with the group, the officers deem they are disturbing the peace and serve them with penalty notices. They record the entire interaction on their body cameras. In the past, offenders – alongside a solicitor – have commonly disputed such allegations, citing that they have no recollection of the incident. In this instance, the offender and their solicitor are presented with the body camera footage the following day. The solicitor is satisfied that the footage has not been tampered with in any way, and they accept the evidence, choosing not to challenge the allegations. The offender pays the fine, meaning there is no need for the case to go to court, thereby reducing valuable officer time.
Deployment of a Taser
An officer is deployed to an incident involving a man armed with a knife displaying threatening behaviour. Equipped with a body camera, the officer records fully the information they receive before arriving at the scene. Once there, the officer attempts to defuse the situation but is forced to deploy their Taser to subdue the man with a knife. The body camera records the entire incident, including the circumstances that led to the officer’s use of the Taser and the aftercare given to the subject. In court, when the question of whether or not the use of the Taser was justified is raised, the footage from the body camera is submitted as clear evidence of the incident. As the footage has been provably protected from any editing or tampering, it is accepted as evidence and provides an accurate record of the officer’s justification for deploying their Taser.
Next: Legal requirements
For body camera footage to be effectively used as evidence in court, it needs to meet certain legal requirements. These outline the steps that should be taken to ensure the evidence’s integrity so that it may be used as part of the prosecution or defence's case. There are various pieces of legislation and guidance relating to body camera footage being used as evidence.
European Convention on Human Rights (1998)
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides for the right to a fair trial.² This is perhaps the most important piece of legislation concerning any piece of evidence, as it outlines that evidence retained in court – including that recorded on video – must be sufficiently safeguarded by an audit trail and other relevant measures. Simply put, you must be able to prove your video evidence has not been tampered with in any way for it to contribute to a fair trial.
Home Office Digital Imaging and Multimedia Procedure (2002)
In response to advancements in technology, the Home Office created the Digital Imaging Procedure (DIP) in 2002, which has since been updated to the Digital Imaging and Multimedia Procedure.³ It serves as a guide for practitioners within the police and Criminal Justice System (CJS) who are involved with the capture, retrieval, storage or use of evidential digital images, including video footage. The core principle of the Procedure is that, when a video is recorded (for example on a body camera), there is a definitive ‘bit-by-bit’ copy of this data, referred to as the Master Copy. This is to demonstrate that the images used as evidence are authentic and are a true representation of the data captured in the originating device. The Procedure states: “One of the fundamental requirements of digital imaging is the need to safeguard the integrity of images; part of this process involves an audit trail being started at the earliest stage.” It goes on to outline that this audit trail should run throughout the whole management process. An audit trail must include, among other things: Storage of the Master Copy Any access to the Master Copy Viewing of the Master Copy, including a record of any associated viewing logs Hash value or equivalent at the point of receipt The Master Copy must be stored in such a way that its integrity is preserved throughout the court process. The Procedure outlines that the most suitable solution for this is a secure network environment.
Next: Technical Specifications
Home Office Guidance for the Police Use of Body‑Worn Devices (2007)
This comprehensive document pulls together all of the relevant legislation for the use of body camera footage as evidence, as well as further guidance on how body cameras should be used by the police. Click to learn more:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984)
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (1996)
Data Protection Act (1998)
Freedom of Information Act (2000)
Section 64A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) permits a person to be photographed (including a moving image), with or without their consent, by a constable elsewhere than at a police station. The power is applicable if the person has: been arrested by a constable for an offence been taken into custody by a constable after having been arrested for an offence, by a person other than a constable been made subject to a requirement to wait by a community support officer (CSO) or been issued with a fixed penalty notice by a constable, CSO or accredited person.
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) introduced the statutory test for disclosure of material to the defence in criminal cases. It is a requirement that the police are in a position to disclose both used and unused images and be able to demonstrate that this has been done.
The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) is legislation that regulates the processing of ‘personal data’ or ‘sensitive personal data’, whether processed on a computer, CCTV, stills camera or any other media. This is likely to include all footage captured on body cameras. The DPA outlines that recordings should only be made when necessary, those on camera must be made aware of it and the footage must be stored securely and for an appropriate amount of time.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) grants a general right to access to all types of recorded information held by public authorities, which may include digital images recorded by body cameras. The Act provides exemptions to the requirements to disclose information. These include national security, investigations or proceedings, law enforcement and personal information.
2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-investigations-digital-imaging-and-multimedia-procedure
At Motorola Solutions, we are committed to solving for safer communities, which is why we work with the police and other public safety agencies to ensure they have the technology that meets the technical requirements for footage to be considered compliant and evidential. This includes rugged, high-quality body cameras and intuitive backend software.
Secure hashing algorithm
One of the primary ways our technology maintains the integrity of video evidence is through the use of a Secure Hashing Algorithm (SHA). At the time of the video being recorded by the camera, the SHA begins running. It uses the unique characteristics of the file to create an output hash. When the body camera is docked at the end of its user’s shift, the SHA runs again to ensure that this hash is identical to the one created when the video was first recorded. The SHA runs whenever the video is transferred or moved anywhere and can be run when the video is submitted as evidence. In our VideoManager software, you can check the integrity of the video at the push of a button. When you select this option, the algorithm is run to check that the hash outputs match, ensuring that the footage is accurate and has not been tampered with.
Robust security
All media uploaded to VideoManager - whether it comes from body cameras or other external sources - is encrypted at-rest using symmetric AES-256 encryption. Customisable playback reason fields require users to provide a rationale for viewing a piece of media, and unique video watermarks for every user discourage illicit screen recordings. There is also the option to introduce two‑factor authentication, which requires users to provide a code sent to an Authenticator app or click a link in their inbox, before gaining access to VideoManager. Control which instances of VideoManager your devices can connect to with access control keys. If a device tries connecting to an unauthorised instance of VideoManager, it will appear as locked.
Network storage
How you use VideoManager is up to you, but either way, your video footage will remain secure. Your first option is to host VideoManager, and your footage, on your servers for complete control over sensitive data and security policies. Alternatively, you can use a dedicated, organisation-specific instance of VideoManager, hosted by us, for upgrades managed on your behalf. Align organisational and VideoManager deletion policies to ensure videos and related content are securely deleted automatically when the deletion period expires.
Next: Learn more
Rapid video sharing
The amount of digital evidence you process is growing all the time; but the earlier you can access it, the easier it is to manage. The V500 speeds up evidentiary workflows by enabling officers to tag footage from the camera itself, and then send it to the backend software immediately. When their shift is over, any remaining footage can be offloaded quickly via the Smart Dock over a gigabit ethernet connection to free up cameras for the next shift. This allows for the rapid creation of a Master Copy of the evidence and ensures that the audit trail begins as soon as possible. Additionally, if you’re using our cloud-based VideoManager, the footage never needs to leave the system when shared within the CJS, making it even easier to trace and protect from tampering.
Automated audit log
Maintaining oversight is crucial, especially when your system is handling large volumes of sensitive data. VideoManager’s audit log automatically records every action taken on the system, from the moment a user logs in. VideoManager tracks every move made on the system audit log - essential for maintaining evidence integrity. You can download and review audit logs to monitor user behaviour, track system anomalies and more.
Effortless connectivity. Reliable insights.
MOTOROLA, MOTO, MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS and the Stylized M Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC and are used under license. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. ©2024 Motorola Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
