In an always-on video environment, the consequences of leadership decisions surface most clearly when expectations for officers and supervisors are unclear. Unclear expectations create three predictable failure modes:
- Officer hesitation: “If I turn it on, will I be second-guessed?”
- Supervisor inconsistency: “I’ll only review video when there’s a complaint.”
- Organizational surprise: “Why is there no footage?” or “Why did this become public without context?”
The result is avoidable mistrust, both internally and externally.
RTCC-driven expectations add a fourth failure mode: “Why didn’t you see it?” When agencies promote real-time monitoring or DFR programs as force multipliers, leaders should anticipate that stakeholders may assume continuous coverage and immediate knowledge even where that is operationally impossible. Managing that expectation, without underselling the value, becomes a leadership responsibility, not a public relations exercise. [1,2]
DFR-driven expectations add a fifth: “Why didn’t you launch?” Once communities learn drones can arrive first, they may expect deployment to be consistent—even when weather, staffing, airspace restrictions, equipment availability, or policy thresholds prevent it. [2, 3]
Supervision in a recorded environment
How video changes sergeant-level/lieutenant-level decision-making
The always-on reality reshapes both first-line and second-line supervision. Sergeants become quality assurance monitors for activation and tagging, coaches for communication and de-escalation, and translators of policy into street practice; while lieutenants become guardians of procedural fairness when footage is used for discipline.
PERF notes agencies increasingly use BWC footage beyond investigations, such as officer safety, training and performance management, because it captures real interactions and decision points. [4] These can be powerful, but it raises the stakes for how footage is selected and interpreted.
RTCC programs reshape decision-making by adding analyst-supported situational awareness that can influence supervisor choices in real time. Supervisors may receive camera views, LPR alerts, or RTCC-generated situational briefs while responding or directing resources. [1]
DFR programs reshape decision-making differently by adding live aerial video that can change tactics, containment decisions, and de-escalation approaches before officers arrive. [2,3] This can improve safety and coordination, but it also means supervisory decisions may be second-guessed through multi-source reconstruction that includes what the RTCC saw, what the drone saw, when it was seen, and what was communicated to the field. [1,2]
For leaders, that creates a need for consistent standards about how RTCC and DFR information is incorporated into decision-making and documentation. This can improve safety and coordination, but it also means supervisory decisions may be second-guessed not only through BWC playback, but through a multi-source reconstruction that includes what the RTCC saw, when it saw it, and what it communicated. [1,2] For leaders, that creates a need for consistent standards about how RTCC information is incorporated into decision-making and documentation.
Coaching vs. discipline tensions
If video review is experienced as “gotcha,” officers will resist it, either subtly or openly through activation drift, minimal engagement, or reduced discretionary activity. A major research and leadership theme is that BWCs do not produce consistent benefits automatically; organizational culture and context matters. [5] A workable approach is to separate (as much as possible) routine coaching review (developmental, frequent, structured), from misconduct and critical incident review (investigative, rights-protected, formally documented).
Major Cities Chiefs have emphasized the sensitivity of BWC review after critical incidents, and how agencies structure review can affect fairness, trust and accountability in those highest-stakes cases. [6]
This same coaching-versus-discipline tension can expand in RTCC environments. If officers believe RTCC monitoring is primarily being used to “catch errors” rather than to improve safety and response, the tool can undermine morale and discretionary policing. Conversely, if RTCC capability is treated as a safety and coordination asset with clear guardrails, it can support coaching, better documentation, and better tactical outcomes.
The tension can expand further in DFR environments if drone video is perceived as “surveillance of officers” rather than “support for response.” Chula Vista’s framing of its drone program as responsible and transparent, paired with visible program information, is one way that agencies can reduce that friction by defining mission and guardrails publicly. [3]
AI-assisted VMS can also intensify or reduce this tension depending on how it is deployed. Used well, it can help supervisors find coaching moments faster (communication, de-escalation, tactics) and build learning libraries that reinforce standards. Used poorly, it can become a “compliance engine” that flags only mistakes and fuels the perception of algorithmic “gotcha” discipline. Leaders should set balanced review expectations, using AI tools for recognition, trend learning, and coaching as much as compliance, and ensure officers understand how AI-derived flags are reviewed, validated, and documented before any corrective action is taken.
The need for consistent review standards
In an always-on environment, the key question is not “Do we have video?” Instead, its, “Do we have a consistent, principled way to interpret and use video?” That means definingwhat supervisors review (and how often), what counts as a coaching opportunity vs. a policy violation, how to document findings, how to avoid biased or selective sampling, and how to ensure reviewers are trained and calibrated. Without standardization, agencies drift into two extremes, i.e. reviewing almost nothing (missing risk signals), or reviewing sporadically and punitively (creating fear and resentment).
In RTCC-enabled agencies, leaders also need consistent review standards for what “counts” as part of the record such as RTCC operator notes, query logs, LPR alert metadata, drone flight logs, and timestamps for when information was relayed to the field. NIJ’s RTCC guidance highlights that implementation involves not only the technology itself, but operational and governance considerations, exactly the areas where inconsistent standards can create risk. [1]
In DFR-enabled agencies, the “record” expands again: drone flight logs, launch authorization records, chain-of-custody for video files, retention schedules and documentation of what was communicated to responding units and when. [2, 7]
Coming next: Why integration, auditability and system design have become leadership risk-management issues in the always-on video ecosystem.
References
- National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Real-Time Crime Centers: Integrating Technology to Enhance Public Safety. Published April 2025.
- Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office); CNA. Addressing Crime through Innovative Technology: Chula Vista Police Department’s Unmanned Aircraft System Program. COPS-R1170. Published 2024.
- City of Chula Vista Police Department. UAS (Drone) Program.
- Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). Body-Worn Cameras a Decade Later: What We Know. Published 2023.
- Campbell Collaboration. Impacts of Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) in Policing. Systematic review.
- Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Body-Worn Camera Toolkit.
- Castañares v. Superior Court. 96 Cal App 5th 596 (Cal Ct App 2023).
