Southern California Police Dogs and Body Cameras


Police dogs are valuable partners for law enforcement officers, helping them with tasks such as tracking suspects, detecting drugs, and protecting their handlers. But what if police dogs could also provide live video footage of their actions, giving officers a better view of the situation and potentially saving lives?

That’s the idea behind some of the body cameras that are being used by police dogs in Southern California and other parts of the country. These cameras are attached to the dogs’ harnesses or vests and transmit real-time video and audio to a handheld device or a car computer. The cameras can also record video for later review.

According to a New York Post article (2018), some of the benefits of using body cameras for police dogs include:

  • Enhancing officer safety by allowing them to see what the dog sees before entering a dangerous situation
  • Improving evidence collection by capturing footage of suspects, drugs, weapons, or other items
  • Increasing transparency and accountability by documenting the dog’s actions and interactions with suspects or civilians
  • Reducing liability claims by showing that the dog acted appropriately and within policy

However, not everyone is in favor of using body cameras for police dogs. Some critics argue that the cameras are unnecessary, expensive, or intrusive. For example, according to an ACLU of Southern California report (2016), some of the problems with body cameras for human officers include:

  • Lack of public access to the footage, which undermines transparency and accountability
  • Lack of clear guidelines on when to activate or deactivate the cameras, which could lead to selective recording or manipulation
  • Lack of safeguards on how long to retain or delete the footage, which could violate privacy rights or compromise investigations
  • Lack of oversight on how to use or share the footage, which could result in misuse or abuse

These issues could also apply to body cameras for police dogs, depending on how they are implemented and regulated. Additionally, some animal rights activists may object to putting cameras on dogs, claiming that it is cruel or stressful for them.

Despite these challenges, some police departments in Southern California have adopted body cameras for their canine units. For example, according to a Daily News article (2014), Hermosa Beach Police Department has been using body cameras for its two police dogs since 2014. The department said that the cameras have helped them with evidence collection and officer safety.

Another example is Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), which has been testing body cameras for its 20 bomb-sniffing dogs since 2018. The department said that the cameras have helped them with bomb detection and prevention.

In conclusion, body cameras for police dogs are a new technology that has both benefits and drawbacks. On one hand, they can enhance officer safety, improve evidence collection, increase transparency and accountability, and reduce liability claims. On the other hand, they can pose challenges such as lack of public access, unclear guidelines, privacy violations, misuse or abuse, and animal welfare concerns. Therefore, it is important to weigh the pros and cons of using body cameras for police dogs carefully and implement them with proper policies and oversight. Body cameras for police dogs are not a panacea for law enforcement problems, but they can be useful tools if used wisely and ethically.


1 ACLU of Southern California (2016). LAPD Body-Worn Cameras.

2 ACLU of Southern California (2015). LAPD & Body Cameras.

3 Dogington Post (n.d.). Bodycam Footage Shows Police Racing to Save Shelter Animals Before Wildfires Consumed Them.

4 New York Post (2018). These police dogs are using body cameras to stop crime.…

5 Daily News (2014). Southern California police agencies acquiring on-body cameras for officers.…

I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified