Body-Worn Cameras is a full BWC program — devices, video library, narrative review queue, redaction workbench, retention dashboard, public-share viewer, and an audit log covering every access. Built for the small jail’s reality: a few dozen cameras, one supervisor, real public-records requests every week.
What it does
- Tracks devices (BwcDevices) — assigned officer, last sync, battery, firmware.
- Surfaces the BWC Video Library with search, filter, and click-through to per-video detail (timeline, audit log, sharing controls).
- Runs the Narrative Review Queue so supervisors can confirm every recording has a written narrative attached before release.
- Provides the Redaction Workbench (face/audio redaction tooling), the Share Review queue (supervisor sign-off on public shares), and the Public Share Viewer (the shared URL’s render).
- Tracks retention class per video on the Retention Dashboard and writes every access to the BWC Audit Log.
How it works
The BWC module is a vertical slice from devices through video ingestion, narrative attachment, supervisor review, optional redaction, optional public sharing, and retention. Each step writes to the same audit log so the chain of custody is contiguous from camera button-press to public release.
Data captured
- Per device: officer assignment, sync history, firmware
- Per video: recording metadata, narrative text, reviewer, redactions, share decisions
- Audit log: every view, download, redaction, and share with user, time (UTC), and reason
- Retention class per video and the rule that assigned it
Compliance & retention
Retention follows state public-records law and the facility’s policy; the Retention Dashboard shows what’s eligible for deletion and what isn’t. Videos linked to a ThreatAssessmentCase inherit the longer case retention. The audit log itself is preserved beyond the video’s own life.
We rolled out BWCs about eight months ago and the redaction piece has been our biggest headache — glad to see a JMS that actually integrates that workflow instead of making us jump between three different platforms. Does the audit log track who accessed a specific clip and when, or just who exported it?
We’ve been struggling with the redaction piece specifically — our current workflow has deputies spending way too much time manually blurring faces before anything can go to a public records request. Really curious whether this integrates directly with the JMS incident narrative or if staff still have to cross-reference everything manually.
We rolled out BWCs about eight months ago and the piece I wasn’t prepared for was how fast the video library balloons — retention policies tied directly into the JMS would save my evidence coordinator a serious headache. Does your system handle tiered retention rules based on incident classification, or is it one flat policy across the board?
We rolled out body cams at our facility about eight months ago and the part nobody warned us about was how fast the video library fills up — glad to see retention policies getting called out specifically here. Quick question: does your system allow different retention rules per incident type, or is it one blanket policy across the board?
We rolled out BWCs at our facility about eight months ago and the audit log piece is the part nobody talks about enough — knowing exactly who accessed which footage and when has saved us from two grievances already. Curious whether your system allows supervisors to flag specific clips for mandatory narrative review or if that’s a manual process on the admin side.
We rolled out BWCs about eight months ago and the video library management piece has been our biggest headache — glad to see someone addressing how a JMS can actually integrate with that workflow. How does the redaction tool handle incidents where multiple detainees appear on the same clip?