Oh Oh the policy/practice guidelines for when where and how to activate the cameras are loaded with loopholes which make the whole program look like a salve to offset public concerns about trigger happy or violence prone officers.
It's those officers who are likely to not deem a camera necessary in exactly the moments a camera is necessary.

I was initially pleased when the announcement of body cameras was made. Now I am skeptical about the application of the process and frankly have lost faith in it. Public oversight via camera phones is still our best bet for accurate coverage of police interactions with citizens.

@Maher:

At some point, law-abiding citizens will be wearing these cameras, so the police will likely be obliged into doing so, just so they have record of what happens from their side of the line. In a similar vein, a few cyclists have helmet-mounted cameras.

There are already video cameras on many patrol cars in the USA, this is just an extension of such technology.

Plus, it is likely this tech will spread to other realms: firefighters, EMTs/paramedics, doctors, nurses, hospital workers, public transit workers, pilots, TSA/airport operations staff, security staffers (corporate, events, whatever), border patrol, bank tellers, gas station cashiers, restaurant staff, retail sales managers/loss prevention, etc.

It's simply a matter of time.

Of course, if cameras are not on all the time or can be used or not used at the discretion of officers, no police misconduct will ever be captured or turned over. The alleged burglar shot and killed in Menlo Park whose police allegedly did not turn on cameras is a prime example of the need for more than just cameras.