I used to tell folks that I'd be the best witness for the prosecution if I violated the law. I allowed them to review my report to see if they agreed with how I had portrayed the probable cause for the stop and arrest. I put any disputed comments that they had in the report or modified my report to something we both could agree upon (conjunctive statements), but I stressed throughout that they had a duty to cooperate--even if I was wrong. I think video is the same and stop/frisk is the same. The conflict and arrests are coming in part because people are not cooperating; and, they may not be cooperating because they think officers are not honest in reports. In both cases, we have the tools to repair the issue. Through ADR, we can develop conjuntive statements of interests. For instance, cops and citizens want fair law and order. Cops know that they need to be able to stop people to investigate, but citizens think that, too often, these stops are motivated by reasons other than the officer's need to keep the peace and investigate crimes. Perhaps we can agree that there will be disagreement, but that citizens have a duty to cooperate; and, the cops have a duty to accurately collaborate on collecting information that will allow a fair review of what happened to determine fairness. Thus, cops won't take cameras, but can ask for an emailed copy of the footage. Cops and detainees would collaborate on the circumstances of the stop (after resolving the stop and after pat/frisk). In cases of dispute, cops and citizens would agree to participate in mediation.