HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ-1 Resolution: L3 Communications Mobile-Vision, Inc.City of ~Vlidmi ~ard~ens
1515-200 NW 167~' Street
Miami Gardens, Florida 33169
Aaenda Cover Paae
Date: June 27, 2007
Mayor Shirley Gibson
Vice Mayor Oscar Braynon II
Councilman Melvin L. Bratton
Councilman Aaron Campbell Jr.
Councilwoman Sharon Pritchett
Councilwoman Barbara Watson
Councilman Andre Williams
Fiscal Impact: No ^ Yes X Public hearing o
(If yes, explain in Staff Summary) Ordinance ^
Funding Source: Equipment Bond 1st Reading ^
Contract/P.O. Requirement: Yes X No^ Advertising requirement:
Sponsor Name/Department: RFP/RFQ/Bid #State of ~
Danny Crew, City Manager
Title
Quasi-Judicial ^
Resolution X
2nd Reading ~
Yes ^ No X
~rizona SCC070013-A2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER
TO L3 COMMUNICATIONS MOBILE-VISION, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $656,151.20 FOR THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE VISION IN-CAR DIGITAL
RECORDING DEVICES, BY RELYING UPON THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY BID #SW070013-A2; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF
REPRESENTATIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Staff Summarv
When the MGPD transitions police service from Miami-Dade County {MDC) on December 1,
2007, use of an in-car digital video recording system manufactured by L3 Communications
Mobile -Vision Inc. will be an integral part of daily police operations. In-car digital video provides
law enforcement with several advantages through use of video recording. This technology is an
asset for any officer-citizen contact, citizen transport in police vehicles, and probable cause
related questions. Typical benefits are increased conviction rates, less time in court proceedings
and litigation, increased officer awareness of their conduct, training situations and
reinforcement, enhancement of public confidence, and overall easier understanding of any
(recorded) situation.
The L3 Digital Video Systems allows for a period of pre-event recording whereby the camera is
always on and preserving a moving window of time in live memory. When the video recording is
activated, this memory is added to the beginning of the just-activated recording, thus recording
the immediate events preceding the activation of the camera. In most cases, video of the
`probable cause' can be added to the reason for the stop with only a few seconds of pre-event
recording (prior to when the officer flips on the overhead lights or otherwise activates the
system). Video recording has proven to be a positive tool for any law enforcement agency.
Conduct of both officers and citizens or prisoners can be scrutinized after any incident and the
audio track alone has proven to be very helpful in recreating incidents. J-1) CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION
L3 COMMUNICATIONS
MOBILE-VISION, INC.
Uploading video files from the vehicle to the server will be accomplished through a wireless
Ethernet whereupon the vehicle begins automatic upload when within range of the station (100'
or so) and continues until all files are transferred or the vehicle drives out of range again. In
addition to the wireless downloading capabilities, server capacity of the L3 system will allow for
up to two years of stored video and audio recordings given anticipated recording use by officers.
System also provides for an automated robotic CD burner allowing for full archiving capability of
all stored server recordings. Archiving schedule can be setup as requested and determined by
the City of Miami Gardens.
Analysis:
In order to provide the best police service available, the transition team researched various in-
car digital video recording systems in anticipation of the Miami Gardens Police Department
automated mobile video needs. Members of the MGPD command staff completed a needs
analysis and determined that the following components will provide features that will assist our
officers in providing service to the residents of Miami Gardens:
Recording capabilities
Quality of recordings
Resolution
Line of View
Installation
Wireless upload
Power consumption
Storage capacity
Video retrieval and filing
Archiving feature
This analysis included onsite visits to Naples Police Department, Riviera Beach Police
Department, and Indian River Sheriff's Department in order to obtain a first hand view of
individual systems, potential problems, and customer satisfaction. Several vendor
demonstrations were conducted to provide an overview of the capabilities and pricing of various
systems. Seven individual companies provided literature about their products and conducted
product demonstrations at our office. The companies that provided demonstrations were;
Apollo, Kustom, L3 Communications, Motorola, Panasonic, ICOP and Coban. Input was
received from various entities and law enforcement agencies as to which companies were
currently providing the best service and implementation options.
Based on feedback from points of contact and the department's need to aggressively implement
a product, three companies were contacted and asked to provide additional information and
pricing of their product. The three companies selected were Motorola, Kustom, and L3
Communications. While viewing product demonstrations and obtaining vendor information,
staff focused on product application, ease of use, quality of video and audio, uploading features,
retrieval ability, archiving/storage, and the ability for complete installation of all cameras in 115
marked patrol cars and full implementation of the wireless system prior to December 1, 2007.
The products that were viewed all had similar capabilities but there were aspects of each
company's product that were unique. The product from L3 Communications was distinguished
from the other products in the following areas:
1) Ease of use
2) Wireless upload utilizing flashcard rather than traditional harddrive system
3) Standardized installation for both in-car cameras and installation of upload antennas and
networking accessibility
4) Cost Comparison
a. Motorola system Harddrive: $730,305.00
b. Kustom System Wireless: $691,216.50
c. L3 Communications Wireless: $656,151.20
5) 3 year warranty
The L3 Communications in-car video is being utilized by several law enforcement agencies
comparable in size to the Miami Gardens Police Department. Several of these agencies
currently have 100% of their patrol fleet equipped with the L3 wireless video system while others
are currently phasing all of their cars with these cameras.
L3 Communications management has committed to implementing full system training prior to
December 1, 2007.
The purchase of the L3 Communications in-Car Video system will enable the MGPD to be at the
forefront of the law enforcement community in South Florida. Our officers will be equipped with
the latest in-car video technology to document and preserve citizen contact in a digital format.
L3 Communications will provide for the installation of a Flashback Digital in-Car Video System in
a total of 115 marked Miami Gardens Police vehicles. The recording devices will include a front
camera, rear seat Infrared camera and Collision Sensor for each vehicle. L3 Communications
will also provide all the equipment needed for the wireless upload to include: DVM server, 6
Wireless Access Points w/external mounted antennas, DVM backup/archiving station, software
configuration, and training.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety, on behalf of the State of Arizona competitively
solicited for the purchase and delivery of digital in car video systems to be utilized by all
authorized agencies, boards, and political subdivisions. The solicitation was awarded to L-3
Communications Mobile-Vision, Inc. for a period of one year from March 8, 2007 through March
8, 2008.
Total cost for complete L3 Communications in-Car Digital Video Recording solution is
$656,151.20. Quotation and Contract information is attached.
Recommendation:
That the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to issue a
purchase order in accordance with the Arizona Department of Public Safety bid #SW070013-
A2 to L3 Communications Mobile-Vision, Inc. located in Boonton, New Jersey, for the purchase
of Mobile Vision in-Car Digital Video Recording solution in an amount not to exceed
$656,151.20.
RESOLUTION No. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
GARDENS, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE
A PURCHASE ORDER TO L3 COMMUNICATIONS MOBILE-VISION,
INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $656,151.20 FOR THE
PURCHASE OF MOBILE VISION IN-CAR DIGITAL RECORDING
DEVICES, BY RELYING UPON THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY BID #SW070013-A2; PROVIDING FOR THE
ADOPTION OF REPRESENTATIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
1 WHEREAS, in order to assist the Police Department with their police operations,
2 it is necessary for the City to purchase in-car digital videos for the safety and assistance
3 of both police officers as well as citizens, and
4 WHEREAS, the Arizona Department of Public Safety awarded a bid to L3
5 Communications Mobile-Vision, Inc., for Mobile Vision In-Car Digital Recording
6 equipment, and
7 WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that the City Council rely upon that
8 certain Arizona Department of Public Safety bid to permit the purchase of in-dash video
9 equipment as outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto, and
10 WHEREAS, funding for this purpose is available in the Equipment Bond that was
11 previously issued by the City Council,
12 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
13 OF MIAMI GARDENS, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
14 Section 1. ADOPTION OF REPRESENTATIONS: The foregoing Whereas
15 paragraphs are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true, and the same are hereby
16 made a specific part of this Resolution.
17 Section 2. AUTHORIZATION: The City Council of the City of Miami Gardens
18 hereby authorizes the City Manager to issue a purchase order in an amount not to
19 exceed $656,151.20 to L3 Communications Mobile-Vision, Inc., by relying upon Arizona
20 Department of Public Safety Bid #SW070013-A2 for the purchase of Mobile Vision In-
21 Car Digital Video Recording equipment.
22 Section 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Resolution shall take effect immediately
23 upon its final passage.
24 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
25 GARDENS AT ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 27, 2007.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
SHIRLEY GIBSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONETTA TAYLOR, CMC, CITY CLERK
Prepared by SONJA KNIGHTON DICKENS, ESQ.
City Attorney
SPONSORED BY: DANNY CREW, CITY MANAGER
MOVED BY:
VOTE:
Mayor Shirley Gibson (Yes) (No)
Vice Mayor Oscar Braynon, II (Yes) (No)
Councilman Melvin L. Bratton (Yes) (No)
Councilman Aaron Campbell (Yes) (No)
Councilman Andre Williams (Yes) (No)
Councilwoman Sharon Pritchett (Yes) (No)
Councilwoman Barbara Watson (Yes) (No)
sentf ta ~ ir~end 0
The In-Car Camera: Value and Impact
By Lonnie J. Westphal, Chief (Retired), Colorado State Patrol, Denver, Colorado
' n the late 1990s, lawsuits alleging race-based traffic stops were being filed against state police and highway patrol agencies
throughout the United States. In some instances, the courts ruled that racial profiling was occurring. These court findings
strengthened the public perception that racial profiling by police did occur and weakened the public's confidence in the police.
If it was occurring, state police executives sought proactive steps to stop biased policing and to restore the public confidence in the
police. Many departments deployed the in-car video camera to record traffic stops and other encounters with the public. In the spirit
of building public trust, the in-car camera recording provides an unbiased account of events that allow citizens and others to view
what actually occurred during encounters that have been called into question. Agencies and others report that such evidence has
been invaluable and that the benefits of the in-car video camera far exceeded the original goals.
COPS Office Funding
In an effort to aid state police agencies confronted with allegations of racial profiling and other complaints, the Department of
Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) created the In-Car Camera Incentive Program. The program
provided financial aid to state police and highway patrol agencies for the sole purpose of purchasing and installing in-car camera
systems. The first federal awards were dispersed in 2000, and, by the end of 2003, 47 states and the District of Columbia had
received a total of more than 21 million doliars in federal assistance for the purchase of in-car cameras.
Prior to the COPS Office In-Car Camera Incentive Program, 11 percent of the state police and highway patrol vehicles were equipped
with in-car cameras. Currently, 72 percent of the state police and highway patrol vehicles used for patrol are equipped with video
systems, and this number continues to increase. During a three-year span, the number of in-car camera systems grew from 3,400 to
17,500. Twenty-five percent (4,500) of the in-car camera systems were purchased through the COPS Office incentive program.
Measuring the Impact of In-Car Cameras
In 2002 the Internationai Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) was tasked by the COPS Office to conduct a national study to
measure the impact of in-car cameras on state police and highway patrol agencies and the communities they serve. The purpose of
the study is to develop a best practices guide for selection and acquisition of in-car camera equipment and to provide an updated
model policy for the use and application of in-car cameras. Twenty states were selected for the study. What follows is a description oT
the preliminary results of this study.
To measure the impact that in-car cameras have had on policing, the in-car camera projecYs advisory board selected the following
critical areas as the focus of the study:
• Officer safety
• Professionalism and performance
• Complaints concerning police practices
• Public opinion
• Agency leadership
• Training
• Homeland security
Officer Safety: This study is showing that the single greatest value of the in-car camera is the positive impact that it has on officer
safety.
The written survey asked the officers and troopers to rate the impact the cameras have on their personal safety. The written survey
results indicated that the officers perceived only a slight feeling of increased safety when the camera was present. This response
contrasted significantly with the interview responses. Following the interview protocol, researchers ask the officers how they use their
recorded videotapes; an overwhelming majority stated they review their videotapes as a means of self-critique of their actions.
Individually, officers said they review how they approach each situation and take mental notes of any officer safety issues they
discover, such as turning their backs on a potentially dangerous individual, or allowing themselves to be distracted by other persons
or events. Troopers also reported when communicating to the citizen that a camera was recording the incident it would deescalate
situations that they felt were becoming confrontational, thereby improving to officer safety.
A small number of officers reported that the camera distracted their attention away from the violator and they would find themselves
performing for the camera. Some troopers believed that, when positioning themselves and the violators, they sometimes put
obtaining the best possible camera angle ahead of officer safety. It was noted during this study that these officers seldom received
any formal training in the use and operation of their cameras.'-
Professionalism and Performance: On the written survey, when asked how the use of the camera has affected their
professionalism and performance, officers reported only a slight improvement in both areas. In general, the troopers selected the
response "We are all trained professionals and the camera shouid not have any impact on our perFormance."
But during the in-depth interviews, troopers commented repeatedly that it is only human nature to perform to the best of one's ability
when you know you are being recorded. Also, knowing that supervisors regularly reviewed the video recording for perFormance
evaluations prompted them to behave more professionally.
In addition to reviewing the tapes for self-critique, many officers reported that they replayed their video for report writing, obtaining
exact statements for evidence. Especially in the realm of consent searches, this enabled the officers to better prepare cases for
presentation in a courtroom, where they may need to recount how they established probable cause for enforcement actions. They
reported that the video record of each incident allows them to rely less on memory when writing reports afterward.
Troopers reported that another great advantage the camera provides is the opportunity to review and critique a variety of dangerous
situations such as felony stops and vehicular pursuits. While most agencies routinely review all vehicu~ar pursuits to ensure that they
were conducted within the scope of departmental policy, the tapes serve an evidential value also. The tapes document the violator's
infractions leading to the chase as wetl as during the chase and the ending of the chase. In addition, the review of the tapes can often
help investigators locate weapons or contraband that may have been tossed from the suspect's vehicle.
In the unlikely but possible event that the officer is injured or killed in a high-risk stop situation, investigating officers have the ability to
review videotape. The chances of apprehending offenders in these instances are dramatically improved.
There is a downside: some troopers reported becoming increasingly dependent on their recording equipment to document the
sequence of events and statements made rather than mentally retaining information and taking notes. The troopers reported during
the research interviews that they replay the video recording to prepare their written reports, rather than using the videotapes to verify
and enhance their observations and notes. Because of this growing dependence on the recording, a few troopers reported that they
feel that their interviewing and note-taking skills have declined.
Complaints Concerning Police Practices: The study aiso showed the significant impact that the in-car cameras have on improving
the officers' ability to respond to complaints regarding professionalism and courtesy. The written survey asked troopers to describe
specific complaints filed against them and explain how they or investigators used the camera to adjudicate the complaint. Most of the
troopers reported that the camera had ultimately cleared them of accusations of wrongdoing; very few reported that the camera
sustained a complaint filed against them. According to the responses of more than 3,000 officers completing the written survey, the
statistical data indicates that 96.2 percent of the time, the recording of the event exonerated the officer of the allegation or complaint.
Complaints were sustained by video evidence 3.8 percent of the time.
Initial complaints against troopers are generally handled in the beginning by the first-line supervisor. Research interviews with
supervisors mirrored the findings from the line officers, but added two new dimensions:
• In at least half of the instances, once the complainant is made aware that the stop or contact was recorded, the complaint is
withdrawn.
• A significant amount of time is saved in conducting investigations when a videotape of the incident is available.
In most cases, a supervisor investigating a compiaint first reviews the video recording of the event before calling any witnesses or
interviewing the officer, determines whether the allegation requires further investigation, and then notifies the complaining party of the
findings. The experience of some supervisors has shown that reviewing the tapes and then explaining the trooper's actions will
usually satisfy the complainant.
Internal affairs sections also reported on the value of in-car cameras. Internal affairs units in the participating agencies reported that
first-line supervisors are resolving more complaint cases and not sending them to the internal affairs office for formal investigations.
The benefit is that relatively minor complaints regarding an officer's demeanor or their actions during traffic stops can be reviewed
and dealt with in a factual manner and addressed appropriately when there is a camera present. Overall, a majority of agencies using
in-car cameras reported a higher number of exonerations of troopers when video evidence was available.
Public Opinion: As part of the study, the evaluation team administered written surveys and held open meetings with citizens to
gauge public opinion in each state visited. Most of those responding to the written survey indicated that they approved of the police
agencies' use of the in-car camera. Most also believe that all police vehicles are equipped with in-car cameras and that each camera
is mobile and can follow the officer around the scene. In reality, not all vehicles are equipped with in-car cameras, and in those that
are so equipped the cameras are stationary and have a limited viewing area.
Agency Leadership: Agency executives reported that the cameras are a welcome, unbiased tool to ensure the accountability and
the integrity of the officers in the field. Years of community perception research have established that officers' attitude, demeanor,
responsiveness, and attentiveness toward a citizen determine that citizen's satisfaction with the pofice service. In fact, the citizen's
confidence in the police depends on their perceptions of a police officer's motives more than on whether the outcome of a contact
with an officer was favorable to the citizen.? The institutionalization of in-car cameras along with a regular supervisory review process
ensures professional accountability in citizen contacts.
Although a virtual ride-along review of a trooper's action will never replace the personal contact between supervisor and field trooper,
the periodic review of the trooper's video recordings by the supervisor is a valued element in today's supervisory process. Issues of
officer safety, demeanor, and professionalism can be diagnosed and addressed accordingly. The video recordings, along with other
supervisor observations, may serve as an early warning of an officer having problems. For example, observations during a review of
a recording that shows an officer suddenly becoming easily agitated or short with the public may alert the supervisor that the officer is
under additional stressors and the concern needs to be addressed. The camera, in effect, can provide another level of supervision
while providing additional protection for the agency against liability.
The agency leadership must establish policy and procedures on the use of these systems. In the final analysis, even the best
systems are of limited use if they not employed properly. Issues of when the video system must be in record mode, when the tapes
should be replaced, how the tapes are reused, how the chain of evidence is maintained with the tapes, and how the tapes are stored
all must be addressed by the leadership.
Training: The in-car camera can serve valuable training purposes. Experienced officers can use the video recording as an effective
tool for self-critique. When training new officers, the instructors have the ability to review the new officers' actions through the
objective eye of the camera, immediately after the event occurs, thus enhancing the learning process.
Video recordings provide the agency with a wealth of material that may be used for other training purposes. Training officers can
develop lessons around unusual or even routine events recorded on videotape for pre-service as well as in-service training to
reinforce appropriate behavior and procedures, to demonstrate inappropriate practices and procedures, to enhance interpersonal
skills and officer safery habits and to augment the instructions of field training officers and supervisory personnel.
Obtaining actual video recordings of field action enhances training. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that in using recordings
from the field that depict either positive or negative police behavior, care must be taken to present the material in a way that will not
embarrass an officer or undermine morale.
Homeland Security: Video recordings of highway contacts could soon be transmitted directly to a central location where these
images can be compared with state records, suspect files, or terrorist watch lists. Not only could this information help protect the
officer but the recorded audio and video could perhaps provide information needed to locate terrorists. In-car video cameras can be
considered an important tool for providing maximum national security.
The Future
The in-car camera can improve citizens' confidence in the police profession, enhance the ability to capture and convict violators,
record inappropriate police behavior, and provide valuable data in our efforts to ensure homeland security. It is becoming
documented that public safety will benefit from having in-car video cameras available to all police officers. Agency executives and
community leaders should ensure that adequate resources for the proper management, storage, and retrieval mechanisms in
hardware, software, and personnel are provided. There must be appropriate policies and guidelines in place to guarantee that while
citizens are being protected their personal privacy is not being violated.
~ Training on the positioning of the officer and violator is becoming more complicated with ongoing parallel studies of officer's safety.
Vehicle positioning in a traffic stop is basically a tactical decision influenced by highway design, traffic flow and volume, visibility and
sight distance, weather conditions, violation severity, and violator behavior. A factor that needs to be addressed in the future is the
positioning of violator and officer in relation to the in-car camera. The value of the audio- and videotaped evidence in such incidents
as field sobriety testing has been proven in court proceedings. However, the traditional position of conducting these tests in front of
the patrol car is now being evaluated in light of several recent vehicle collisions resulting in the death of troopers and violators. The
in-car camera technology and the training for positioning of the troopers and violators need to come into agreement in the near future.
? See the following articles for more details on the citizen's confidence and perceptions of police officers: Jeffrey H. Witte, "Identifying
~~
Elements of Customer Satisfaction in the Delivery of Police Service, The Police Chief 71 (May 2004): 18-21; Gary J. Margolis and
Noel C. March, "Branding Your Agency: Creating the Police DepartmenYs Image," The Police Chief 71 (April 2004): 25-34; and
International Association of Chiefs of Police, The Public Image of the Police, a report prepared by Catherine Gallaher, Edward R.
Maguire, Stephen D. Mastrofski, and Michael D. Reisig of the George Mason University Administration of Justice Program (October
2001), available at (www theiacp orq/profassist/ethics/public image htm).
The contents of this article represent only a portion of the findings from the National In-Car Camera Impact Evaluation. Police
executives using this technology, or those considering the adoption of the camera technology can obtain more information on in-car
cameras and the available free technical assistance from IACP. For details, visit the IACP Web site, (www.theiacp.orq).
Police In-Car Video Camera Evaluation Staff
Readers seeking more information on the in-car video camera systems are encouraged to contact the IACP project staff:
William Grady Baker
Michael Fergus
Kristy Fowler
E-mail: (in-car-camera(a~theiacp.orq)
Telephone: 800-THE-IACP
~
From The Police Chief, vol. 71, no. 8, August 2004. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 515 North
Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA.
Return to Article
send fc~ ~ friend' ~
There is a downside: some troopers reported becoming increasingly dependent on their recording
equipment to document the sequence of events and statements made rather than mentafly retaining
information and taking notes. The troopers reported during the research interviews that they replay the video
recording to prepare their written reports, rather than using the videotapes to verify and enhance their
observations and notes. Because of this growing dependence on the recording, a few troopers reported that
they feel that their interviewing and note-taking skills have declined.
Complaints Concerning Police Practices: The study also showed the significant impact that the in-car
cameras have on improving the officers' ability to respond to complaints regarding professionalism and
courtesy. The written survey asked troopers to describe specific compiaints filed against them and explain
how they or investigators used the camera to adjudicate the complaint. Most of the troopers reported that
the camera had ultimately cleared them of accusations of wrongdoing; very few reported that the camera
sustained a compiaint filed against them. According to the responses of more than 3,000 officers completing
the written survey, the statistical data indicates that 96.2 percent of the time, the recording of the event
exonerated the officer of the allegation or complaint. Complaints were sustained by video evidence 3.8
percent of the time.
Initial complaints against troopers are generally handled in the beginning by the first-line supervisor.
Research interviews with supervisors mirrored the findings from the line officers, but added two new
dimensions:
• In at least half of the instances, once the complainant is made aware that the stop or contact was
recorded, the complaint is withdrawn.
• A significant amount of time is saved in conducting investigations when a videotape of the incident
is available.
In most cases, a supervisor investigating a complaint first reviews the video recording of the event before
calling any witnesses or interviewing the officer, determines whether the allegation requires further
investigation, and then notifies the complaining party of the findings. The experience of some supervisors
has shown that reviewing the tapes and then explaining the trooper's actions will usually satisfy the
complainant.
Internal affairs sections also reported on the value of in-car cameras. Internal affairs units in the participating
agencies reported that first-line supervisors are resolving more complaint cases and not sending them to the
internal affairs o~ce for formal investigations. The benefit is that relatively minor complaints regarding an
officer's demeanor or their actions during traffic stops can be reviewed and dealt with in a factual manner
and addressed appropriately when there is a camera present. Overall, a majority of agencies using in-car
cameras reported a higher number of exonerations of troopers when video evidence was available.
Public Opinion: As part of the study, the evaluation team administered written surveys and held open
meetings with citizens to gauge public opinion in each state visited. Most of those responding to the written
survey indicated that they approved of the police agencies' use of the in-car camera. Most also believe that
all police vehicles are equipped with in-car cameras and that each camera is mobile and can follow the
officer around the scene. In reality, not all vehicles are equipped with in-car cameras, and in those that are
so equipped the cameras are stationary and have a limited viewing area.
Agency Leadership: Agency executives reported that the cameras are a welcome, unbiased tool to ensure
the accountability and the integrity of the officers in the field. Years of community perception research have
established that officers' attitude, demeanor, responsiveness, and attentiveness toward a citizen determine
that citizen's satisfaction with the police service. In fact, the citizen's confidence in the police depends on
their perceptions of a police officer's motives more than on whether the outcome of a contact with an officer
was favorable to the citizen.? The institutionalization of in-car cameras along with a regular supervisory
review process ensures professional accountability in citizen contacts.
Although a virtual ride-along review of a trooper's action will never replace the personal contact between
supervisor and field trooper, the periodic review of the trooper's video recordings by the supervisor is a
valued element in today's supervisory process. Issues of officer safety, demeanor, and professionalism can
be diagnosed and addressed accordingly. The video recordings, along with other supervisor observations,
may serve as an early warning of an officer having problems. For example, observations during a review of
a recording that shows an officer suddenly becoming easily agitated or short with the public may alert the
supervisor that the officer is under additional stressors and the concern needs to be addressed. The
camera, in effect, can provide another level of supervision while providing additional protection for the
agency against liability.
The agency leadership must establish policy and procedures on the use of these systems. In the final
analysis, even the best systems are of limited use if they not employed properly. Issues of when the video
system must be in record mode, when the tapes should be replaced, how the tapes are reused, how the
chain of evidence is maintained with the tapes, and how the tapes are stored all must be addressed by the
leadership.
Training: The in-car camera can serve valuable training purposes. Experienced officers can use the video
recording as an effective tool for self-critique. When training new officers, the instructors have the ability to
review the new officers' actions through the objective eye of the camera, immediately after the event occurs,
thus enhancing the learning process.
Video recordings provide the agency with a wealth of material that may be used for other training purposes.
Training officers can develop lessons around unusual or even routine events recorded on videotape for pre-
service as well as in-service training to reinforce appropriate behavior and procedures, to demonstrate
inappropriate practices and procedures, to enhance interpersonal skills and officer safety habits and to
augment the instructions of field training officers and supervisory personnel.
Obtaining actual video recordings of field action enhances training. Nevertheless, it is important to
remember that in using recordings from the field that depict either positive or negative police behavior, care
must be taken to present the material in a way that will not embarrass an officer or undermine morale.
Homeland Security: Video recordings of highway contacts could soon be transmitted directly to a central
location where these images can be compared with state records, suspect files, or terrorist watch lists. Not
only could this information help protect the officer but the recorded audio and video could perhaps provide
information needed to locate terrorists. In-car video cameras can be considered an important tool for
providing maximum national security.
The Future
The in-car camera can improve citizens' confidence in the police profession, enhance the ability to capture
and convict violators, record inappropriate police behavior, and provide valuable data in our efforts to ensure
homeland security. It is becoming documented that public safety will benefit from having in-car video
cameras available to all police officers. Agency executives and community leaders should ensure that
adequate resources for the proper management, storage, and retrieval mechanisms in hardware, software,
and personnel are provided. There must be appropriate policies and guidelines in place to guarantee that
while citizens are being protected their personal privacy is not being violated.
'- Training on the positioning of the officer and violator is becoming more complicated with ongoing parallel studies of officer's
safety. Vehicle positioning in a traffic stop is basically a tactical decision influenced by highway design, traffic flow and volume,
visibility and sight distance, weather conditions, violation severity, and violator behavior. A factor that needs to be addressed in the
future is the positioning of violator and officer in relation to the in-car camera. The value of the audio- and videotaped evidence in
such incidents as field sobriety testing has been proven in court proceedings. However, the traditional position of conducting these
tests in front of the patrol car is now being evaluated in light of several recent vehicle collisions resulting in the death of troopers
and violators. The in-car camera technology and the training for positioning of the troopers and violators need to come into
agreement in the near future.
? See the following articles for more details on the citizen's confidence and perceptions of police officers: Jeffrey H. Witte,
"Identifying Elements of Customer Satisfaction in the Delivery of Police Service," The Police Chief 71 (May 2004): 18-21; Gary J.
Margolis and Noel C. March, "Branding Your Agency: Creating the Police DepartmenYs Image," The Police Chief 71 (April 2004):
25-34; and International Association of Chiefs of Police, The Public Image of the Police, a report prepared by Catherine Gallaher,
Edward R. Maguire, Stephen D. Mastrofski, and Michael D. Reisig of the George Mason University Administration of Justice
Program (October 2001), availabie at (www theiacp orq/profassisUethics/pubtic imaqe.htm).
~"~~a~~~~~c~ _
~ ~ r~ci ` _.. ~ r~ .'.~ .g:^.^~~?v r.~r ^ _ •;?
c.t'~~+n 'r.7~-'~: ~t~ ~ua~~"r~,,'r~t>~~'`c`f in::l.~s~.~*_.~'i.F+ ~3 ~ ~ jlLl.~j 3' 1..7j''~)r ~~1~°"f ~~ ~ ~~~
i'~i!'•3~ j~.if~}'JIIQj .^-.nen~:n,~ni: ~ la Amend z: 9
nLS:;uisiiicn ~:
r~uSibl-G i ni?5 3olicitaii~~n ii:
JCC+G/OO~IJ-.=~
~
Coniraci :;:
SGCG,'GG13-1
PQ Assigned: PAargaret Hetricld,ADSP,1-6A4SX% Date Complete~J: 03/02/2607
PIVI Assigned: lu Himmelstein/ADSM-6A4SXZ PA Assigned: Lu Himmelstein/ADSfvi-6A4SXZ
Suppifer Name: L-3 Communications Mobile-Vision, Inc. Proposal tt: ADSM-6X4KHM
Gov't Eniity: Strategic Contracting Centers Type: Statewide
Process Status: Compiete Status: Gomplete
Total/Not to Exceed o Externai Contract:
Cost:
. e .
NOTE: As a State Agency, you ars only allowed to use contracts that are either Statewide Contracts or contracts that are assigned
to your Agancy, You are not allowed to use other Agency Contracts.
Start pate: 3/8/07 End Date: 3/7/08
Term: 1 Ysar{s) FOB:
Payment Terms: Net 30 Delivery: 9QA.R.Q. Days
Contract Extension Not Atlowed Max ExiensEon: 1 Year(s)
• s • e
Title: In car video cameras Type: IFB
Description:
The Arizona Department oi Public Safety, on behalf of the State of Arizona (herei~after referred to as the State},lntends to
estabiish a term statewide contract for the purchase and delivery of Digftal In Car Video Systems, to be utilized by ali authorized
State of Arizona agencies, boards, and pa~ficipaiing polictical subdivisions. For questions relating to the solicitaton or procurement
process, please contact Margaret hfetrick at (6Q2} 223-245i or via e-maii at mhetrickC~azdps.gov.For questions relating to Ihe
State's Automated eProcurement System, please contact the ADOA/EDPS/SPIRIT help desk at (602) 542-7600
Contract # SCC070013-1 03/08/07 14:51:59 1/15
Miami Gardens Pollce Dept
1575 ~JW 167 Sfreet eld 7 Suite 403
Miami Gardens, FL 33169
AKn: Deputy Chief John Feligen
~ communications
Mobi-e-Vision, Inc.
AATE 6/12/2007
Quotation # VMD61207-Ot
,.
Q'r'tir
. ,
, . , DESCRIPi"!ON , ' ':
' UNtT PRICE
_
AMOUNT `.
115 MVD-FBDVS
Mobfle-Vsion In-Car Di dal Video Rewrdin DVR solulion with:
9' 9 ( ) $4,56Q_00
$524,400.00
FlashBackT"' '~~~~ WatchTM Color camere with a 12X Opticai - 144X Digitai zoom lens
'
LCD Monitor.
• Vehicle Viewer in Piace of Ihe 3 5
Digital Video • VaiceLink PIusTM 900MHz OSS Wireless Microphane
ReCOrder (DVR) • Ovenvrite Prolection (eature.
• Wlreless 802 11(g) LAN Card and Mtenna
• bG8 Fiash Memory Card
• GPS Receiver and Antenna
• AII mounis. cabtes and hardware
• 3-Year Faclory Parls and Labor Warranry
'I 15 inst InstaUation - Fiashback Digital In Car Video System by Emerg Veh(cle Su $325 00 !'$37,375.00
Note: Includes Installation of IR Camera Note:
Includes Installation oi Collisfon Sensor,
115 NNU-IR-CAM Back Seat I/R Camera {OPTIDNAl.) $295.00 `;;: $33,925.00
115 MVO-CRASH•BAT Coilision Sensor (OPTJONAL) $150.OQ ' ' : : $17,25D.00
L-3 Mobile•Vision Diqital Eviden~e Pro
L-3 Mobile-Vision s DigNal Evidence Pro Solution features Network access and viewing o( evidence video. It provides the deparlment with a centratized.
secure cost eHeclive method oF storing and managing video files Featuring search capabilities via various "Key Data" inoluding: otficer name, vehlcis. date.
time, etc. Case file creaUon "Rich Media" support (digital pholo's. digilal audio, documenis, etc ) ebended case "Key Data" search Secure chafn oi custody
with user pro(ites and ac~ess righis Prrnides fast search, retrieval and copy capabilities. Allows for playback of videos with "VCR like` on-sc~een conlrols and
easy e~orting ot video to poriabfe media Fuily supports wireless downbad from Ihe FlashbackTM recorder via 802 1~(g) standazd
1 MVD-DEP2730 DVM Server, Storage & Distribution System (2U Rack Mounled) $ 29,907 20 '$29,907.2Q
Deli Server: Duai 3GHZ. 1 GB RAM. 80 GB RAIO 1 conflguralion
Mobile-Vision Digitai Eviden~e Pro Software
Redhat Linux Qp Syst / Postgresqi Database
DVD•Rom. Floppy. Monitor, Keyboard. Mouse
Power Connecl Switch 1 0/1 0 019 000
12 8 TB AITACWED STQRAGE with Housing, RAID 5 C~troller
U320 SCSI. 2 x 16 x 400G8 HOD SATA fiAiD 5(42 8 TB raw)
Hot Swappable Drives and Power Supply
3 U Raok confl uration
6 MVD-8675-EX Wireless Access Point w/Fadernal Mounted Antenna $660. ~0 `; $3,960.00
802 11(g) Wireless Aacess pant
Mtenna and Cabling
1 MVb•DVDlBU OVM Backup/Archiving Station $2,984.00 $2,984.00.
Oeli GX 290 Celeron 325, 256 MB 80G8 SATA/NTFS `
Primera Bravo Il DVD writer lprinter w150 DVD capacity 8 admin workstation
Windows XP Op System/DVD+R/RW ''
Mobile-Vision DVD Archiving Software
100 pack: white printable pVp-R media
1 (NST-WAP (nstaltaiion - For tho W iring of the WAP (COST I5 ESTIMATED) $3,500.00 ': `° -$3,500.00
0 MVD-124T-LT03 Digital Evidence Series Tape Back Up Sotution w/applicalion soFtware - $11,126.00 ;$0.00
rOPTIONAI)
0 MVD-UPS1Q00 UPS 1000 VA (OPTIONAL) $660.00 $d.fl0
~ MVd-DEP-BT2 So(tware Conf~guration / Training $2,850.00 ;$2,850.0.0
Syslem bufld out and con~guretion plus 2 days (on site) training ` `
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL ACCESSORIES FROM FOLLOWING PAGE
DelJvery: 90 Days or Less ARO
Credit Terms; Net 30 days
O[her State/l,oca! Fees: Not inciuded
SALES TAX (as required)
5hipping w/n the continental USA via UP5 Ground
TQTAL
$ ' 656,151.20
$ .
NA
5 -
~ 856,151.20