When police were provided with dash‐cam or in‐car recorders, it was argued they would be able to confirm the stories officers were telling and assist with prosecutions, while capturing improper police actions. Soon after their implementation, the in‐car videos along with closed‐circuit television (CCTV) were being used to justify police activities, played in court to help convict criminals, and reviewed for police misconduct. These videos have been lauded for confirming proper behavior in driving‐under‐the‐influence (DUI) enforcement, sustaining comments and actions officers attributed to subjects, and showing the dangers of high‐speed pursuits, among other activities. When the first generation of cameras was rolled out in the 1980s, there was no agreed‐upon goal for them, some video was grainy, cameras were not always pointing in the right direction, they were not always working, they were not always turned on, and tapes were sometimes full or damaged (International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP], 2004). Watching the videos was, for the most part, a boring exercise. The video evidence, however, was helpful in understanding the daily routines of officers (Meyer, 2014) and helped prosecute drunk drivers. Mothers Against Drunk Driving helped convince government and private funders to purchase the equipment for law enforcement. Quickly, fears and apprehension transformed into satisfaction and support, as the videos more often than not exonerated officer behavior and in many cases reduced citizen complaints.1