The question of a mandatory requirement for police to wear body cameras has been a controversial one.  These body cameras serve as recording systems to capture both video and audio of law enforcement officers’ activity within society.  Many individuals are in opposition to this notion as they believe that the implementation of body cameras could be detrimental to citizens as it will significantly alter policing in a multitude of ways.  Others, however, are in support of the use of body cameras being mandatory, suggesting that they will serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers and will promote accountability.

The proliferation of stories regarding unimpeded police violence, such as the shooting of Michael Ferguson in 2014, in addition to the drastically high rate of homicides from officers has prompted the call for a solution.  In 2011 data that was voluntarily submitted, not required, from a mere 750 law enforcement agencies out of 17,000 revealed that there were 404 justifiable homicides that took place in the United States, however journalists, after compiling more complete date from news reports, estimated that that number was actually significantly closer to 1,000.  The mandatory use of body cameras will serve as both a check and deterrent to the abuse of power.  As it stands, often times accounts of violent encounters with officers differ in details both from the officer and individual involved, however body cameras have the potential to eliminate the potential for false accusations and officer misconduct thereby ensuring protection for both citizens and officers alike.  Despite the mass accumulation of video footage, only a small amount will actually have to be viewed and/or retained so long as decent practices and policies are put in place.  It is important to note that specific controls would have to be implemented in order to guarantee that footage cannot be destroyed, that audit logs are made to be immutable, a strict schedule is kept regarding destruction and retention of data, and that access to footage is limited until a permitted time.  The issue of an invasion of privacy could potentially be avoided if officers provide a warning that they are wearing a body camera and if footage is released with consent of the subject.  Those who are the subjects of the video will greatly benefit by the implementation of required body cameras as well in that they can access the recordings and make copies of them for whatever reason they see fit, such as providing a copy to a criminal defense attorney.  

	The mandatory utilization of body cameras has several potential drawbacks, may be proven to be ineffectual once the requirement is in place, and will detrimentally alter the nature of policing.
Access to the footage from these body cameras along with the concern of privacy are prevalent issues with this requirement.  More often than not police departments restrict access to garnered footage meaning that both the media and private individuals are unable to acquire it.  These departments are legally able to deny access to the recordings indefinitely as a result of the open-records laws that are in place in the vast majority of states coupled with the disclosure exclusion of records involved in law enforcement investigations from public record under disclosure laws.  The cameras themselves are highly intrusive in nature as officers frequently enter the private homes of citizens, their vehicles, or deal with delicate matters such as interviews with sexual assault victims.
