The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has recently commenced its nationwide rollout of body-worn cameras (BWCs) for frontline officers. This initiative, launched in November 2024, aims to equip most frontline members with BWCs over the next 12 to 18 months. This development will enhance transparency and accountability in policing but also raises important questions about privacy, fairness, and the practical implications for those navigating the criminal justice system.

This blog post will explore the potential benefits and challenges of the RCMP’s body-worn camera program.

The Case for Body-Worn Cameras

Advocates of body-worn cameras have long championed them as tools to improve accountability, deter misconduct, and provide an objective record of police-citizen interactions. These benefits are difficult to deny and, when implemented properly, could contribute to a more just and equitable criminal justice system.

  1. Transparency and Accountability
    For individuals accused of crimes, the existence of objective footage can level the playing field. Body-worn cameras offer an unfiltered account of interactions between law enforcement and the public, which can be invaluable in assessing the truth of conflicting narratives. For example, footage of an arrest can reveal whether police officers acted lawfully, treated the accused fairly, or used excessive force.

  2. Evidentiary Value
    For lawyers, body-worn camera footage could be critical evidence. Whether it corroborates or contradicts witness testimony, such footage can shed light on key moments that may otherwise be subject to interpretation. For instance, in impaired driving cases, the accused and the courts will no longer be at the mercy of a police officer’s description of the accused’s indicia of impairment, which are often prone to exaggeration or limited by an officer’s ability to articulate their observations. By capturing the accused’s indicia of impairment on camera, BWCs will provide objective evidence about the accused’s behaviour and physical state at the time.

  3. Trust Building
    For the government and the police, the adoption of body-worn cameras signals a willingness to embrace change in response to public calls for greater accountability. In recent years, high-profile incidents of police misconduct across Canada and the United States have fueled distrust in law enforcement, especially among marginalized communities. If used appropriately, this program could help rebuild trust and foster more constructive relationships between the RCMP and the communities they serve.

The Challenges

Despite their potential benefits, body-worn cameras are no panacea. As with the introduction of any new technology, there are new challenges that will need to be addressed.

  1. Selective Recording and Discretion
    One of the key concerns is the discretion officers have in activating their cameras. The RCMP has trained officers to activate their BWCs before arriving at a call, but exceptions exist for private or sensitive settings such as hospitals or dwellings or during intimate searches. While these exceptions are understandable, they open the door to selective recording, where critical moments may go undocumented. This creates an inherent bias: the footage the courts and the public see may be shaped by officers’ decisions about when to start and stop recording.

    The RCMP has provided a policy that requires members to document both intentional and accidental deactivations. Defence lawyers should ensure they request that documentation, particularly when scrutinizing gaps in video evidence.

  2. Access to Footage
    Another concern is how body-worn camera footage will be disclosed. The RCMP has indicated that footage will be stored in a secure digital evidence management system, with retention periods varying based on the nature of the incident. However, delays or restrictions in accessing this evidence could create significant hurdles for accused persons and their counsel.

    For example, if video evidence contradicting the police narrative is not disclosed promptly, it could impede the preparation of an effective defence. In cases involving 90-day immediate roadside prohibitions, there is limited time to file a dispute and mount a defence. Exonerating video evidence that is disclosed after a hearing is essentially useless to the disputant.

  3. Privacy and Data Management
    The collection, storage, and use of body-worn camera footage raise significant privacy concerns. While the RCMP has implemented safeguards to limit recording in sensitive settings, the potential for misuse or a data breach by a bad actor remains.

  4. Cost vs. Impact
    The federal government has allocated $238.5 million over six years for the body-worn camera program, with annual operational costs estimated at $50 million. While this represents a significant investment, it remains unclear whether the program will achieve its intended goals.

    Research on the effectiveness of body-worn cameras in reducing police misconduct and complaints is mixed. Some studies suggest that BWCs have little impact on officer behaviour, while others indicate modest improvements. Given these findings, it is fair to question whether this investment will deliver the desired returns in terms of increased trust and accountability. The success of the program will require monitoring in the coming years.

Conclusion

The RCMP’s rollout of body-worn cameras represents a significant step forward in modernizing policing practices in Canada. This development presents both opportunities and challenges. While body-worn cameras have the potential to enhance transparency and accountability, their effectiveness will depend on how they are implemented, used, and regulated.

It is important to hold the RCMP to the highest standards of accountability and ensure that body-worn camera footage is used to promote justice, not hinder it. This means advocating for fair access to evidence, challenging instances of selective recording, and safeguarding privacy rights.

Prev Next