Editor’s note: This article is part of Police1’s Always on: Video Technology Week, which examines how constant, connected video is reshaping modern policing. This piece explores what that shift means for investigators, supervisors and command staff — and why managing video as evidence, not just data, is now a leadership responsibility. Thanks to our Video Technology Week sponsor, Motorola.
For most of policing history, an incident started on arrival and ended when the scene was cleared and the report was written. Today, that model no longer works. The call may be over, but the investigative workload is just getting started. Always-on video has fundamentally changed that reality, turning what used to be a single report into a complex, multi-stage investigative process that begins long before first contact.
In many agencies, video evidence begins even earlier. Policy now requires officers to activate body-worn cameras when they are dispatched, not when they just arrive on scene. That means investigations often start minutes before arriving, capturing driving, radio traffic, evolving information and officer decision-making before the first contact ever happens.
Always-on video, including body-worn cameras, in-car systems, fixed cameras and third-party footage, has fundamentally changed how investigations unfold. What used to be a single report and maybe a few photos is now hours of footage spread across multiple platforms, owned by different stakeholders, captured from different perspectives and reviewed by people who weren’t even present. Pretty complicated.
This is not an argument against body-worn cameras or expanded activation policies. It is an argument for acknowledging how always-on video has reshaped investigative workload, risk and expectations — and for updating policies and systems accordingly.
That’s not inherently bad. In fact, always-on video is one of the most powerful investigative and accountability tools policing has ever had. But it comes with a cost: volume, complexity, pressure, lower officer morale, and yes, risk acceptance. For investigators, supervisors and command staff, always-on video creates both opportunity and burden, and ignoring that reality is how agencies set themselves up for failure.
The volume challenge
A single call now generates an ecosystem of video, captured across multiple platforms, perspectives and timelines. Investigators are no longer dealing with “a video.” They’re dealing with an ecosystem of footage. Each source tells part of the story, often out of order and sometimes from conflicting perspectives. More video does not automatically mean more clarity, it usually means more work.
Time and staffing pressures
More video, however, will always do two things. Increase the time it takes to review and process this data, and increase staffing pressures. Here’s the part agencies don’t like to say out loud: no one staffed investigative units assuming every case would include hours of mandatory video review. When that reality collides with limited staffing, the result is delayed case review, weakened prosecutorial leverage and increased exposure for officers and agencies alike.
This workload has real downstream consequences. When investigators cannot review every recording promptly, cases stall. Prosecutors face delays, plea agreements may weaken, and in some instances, cases are dismissed. As I speak with both prosecutors and defense attorneys across the country, the sentiment is consistent: it’s often easier to dismiss or settle a case based on a single problematic clip than to dedicate the time and resources required to review every recording tied to an incident.
A major issue with pre-arrival video
Many agency policies have not kept pace with how and when video is now captured, reviewed and used as evidence. As police agencies, we need to take a serious look at how video is used as evidence. Many agencies have deployed body-worn cameras for more than a decade, yet policies governing activation, review and retention remain largely unchanged. This outdated approach increases processing and storage costs and can unintentionally expose agencies to risk by capturing video with little or no evidentiary value.
Consider a simple example: an officer records while driving to a routine call for service. That footage will likely have little or no evidentiary value in a criminal case. But what happens if, during that drive, the officer is cut off by another driver or makes an off-hand remark while alone in the car? That moment can later be used against the officer or agency. A defense attorney might argue, “See? The officer was angry before the encounter even started.” The risk here is not officer misconduct, but unclear evidentiary standards and review practices that allow low-value footage to be misinterpreted outside its proper context.
The recording may promote accountability, but it can also become a liability in administrative or civil proceedings. Officers may feel like they are being scrutinized for comments made in private moments which may lower officer morale when those comments are used against them. This is not an argument against pre-arrival activation. It is an argument for better policy, clearer evidence standards, and intentional review strategies.
Review fatigue and prioritization issues
Driving footage is rarely dramatic, but it isn’t meaningless. Speed, route selection, radio updates and officer demeanor can all become relevant later especially in pursuits, code-3 driving, or critical incidents where this information can be used as evidence of a crime.
The problem is that investigators often do not know what matters until after they’ve watched it. That reality creates review fatigue and forces prioritization decisions. Agencies need defensible, policy-driven frameworks that define what must be reviewed immediately, what can be deferred, and who is responsible for those decisions. Not every minute of video carries equal evidentiary weight, but agencies need a defensible way to decide what gets reviewed, when and by whom.
The connection challenge
The challenge isn’t that agencies have video. It’s that the video lives in silos. Body-worn footage in one system. In-car video in another. Fixed cameras managed by facilities. Third-party footage arriving via links, thumb drives, or email. Each system works well independently. Using them together as a single investigative tool is another matter entirely. These gaps are not just technical inconveniences — they are investigative risks that can undermine case integrity and officer protection.
Gaps created by disconnected systems
When systems don’t communicate, investigators become human routers by being forced to download, upload, rename files and manually align timestamps just to figure out what happened first. That’s not analysis; that’s administrative drag. We want officers out in the field and detectives investigating crime, not tagging video. When investigators become file managers, investigations suffer.
Disconnected systems do more than slow investigations. They create gaps in the narrative. And those gaps defense attorneys, oversight bodies, and the public are very good at finding.
Video without context is just motion. What investigators need is sequence: when the call was received, what information changed en route, when officers arrived, and how decisions evolved in real time. Context not only strengthens cases, it also protects officers by showing why actions made sense at the time.
Connected video accelerates investigations
Connected video shortens the time between what happened and what can be explained. Statements can be verified early. Key moments can be isolated without rewatching entire files. Investigators spend less time hunting and more time evaluating. That translates into earlier charging decisions, fewer supplemental reports, more consistent timelines and stronger case presentation under cross-examination.
That speed matters, particularly in officer-involved incidents, critical events, cases likely to draw public or media scrutiny, or time-sensitive cases like trafficking, kidnappings, and violent crime where a suspect is still at large and investigators need to act quickly. Being able to explain what officers knew before arrival, what they encountered on scene, and how events unfolded reduces second-guessing later in the process.
Connected video reduces uncertainty and improves messaging. Incomplete understanding can lead to inconsistent communications, premature conclusions, and reactive (knee-jerk) decisions by supervisors, command staff, or oversight bodies.
The evidence management challenge
Always-on video forces agencies to make hard choices about retention. Not everything can — or should — be kept forever. Retention decisions must be tied to investigative value, not storage convenience. Complicating matters, most states have strict retention laws, forcing agencies to store video, even when it has limited evidentiary value. This adds cost, administrative burden, and staffing pressure.
Today’s investigators also prepare evidence for multiple audiences. The same video may be reviewed by prosecutors, defense attorneys, internal investigators, civilian oversight bodies, or the public. Poor digital evidence management looks sloppy, consumes staff time and weakens trust when scrutiny is highest. Agencies must pause and reevaluate their camera programs, policies, and supporting systems before this stress arises. Waiting until a critical incident or high-profile case forces that evaluation is how small gaps become major failures.
Buying cameras is easy. Managing what comes after is the real work. If video is evidence, it must be managed like evidence — with clear standards for review, connectivity, retention and investigative use. Without that strategy, always-on video becomes a liability instead of an asset. Agencies that treat video as an investigative system, not just a recording device, are the ones seeing real operational value.
Closing
Always-on video has reshaped how cases move from call to close. Incidents now begin at dispatch, not first contact, and evidence continues long after the scene is cleared. Video is no longer a supplement to the case; it is the case.
Agencies that plan for volume, connectivity and investigative workflow will see faster resolutions, stronger cases and fewer surprises when scrutiny arrives. Those that don’t will keep asking their people to work harder inside systems that weren’t designed for the reality they now face.
Leaders should be asking whether their video policies, investigative workflows and systems were designed for today’s reality — or for a version of policing that no longer exists. Video doesn’t end when the incident does. Neither does the responsibility to manage it well.
| NEXT: The always-on video era and the new demands it places on police leadership
