Will interviews attorney James Moore of Oklahoma City about a major body camera arbitration decision. An arbitrator ruled that “the use of body-worn cameras constitutes an enormous change in the working conditions of police officers,” and held that the City could not unilaterally implement its body camera program.


As my post on the negotiability of body-worn cameras demonstrates, life on the Internet can be simultaneously chancy and glorious.

Chancy in the sense that as soon as the ink was dry on the post — as soon as I was permanently committed electronically to the proposition that the Oklahoma City decision was the first in the country on the issue — people got in touch with me to point out that I was wrong. There were actually two decisions in the last year from Montgomery County, Maryland, each of which found negotiable significant elements of a BWC policy. It’s not nice to be publicly wrong.

But how glorious it is to have people be able to send in the Montgomery County opinions, and to have an information-sharing network that would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago. The more we’re able to exchange information like this, the better we all are.

Below are links to download the decisions.

Will Aitchison

Montgomery County BWC Arbitration #2

Montgomery County BWC Arbitration