At the heart of the violence and chaos in Ferguson, Missouri is one question: what actually happened in the moments leading up to the death of Michael Brown?
The public has heard from people who say they saw the incident. Authorities have spoken to the officer accused, but there's still something missing.
"If body worn cameras had been in place, there would be an objective account of the events that could at least be assessed for if the use of force policy was followed or not," said Chris Rickerd of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU often advocates against too much police surveillance. But when it comes to the authorities being watched, he says it's a win-win situation.
"It would exonerate the police officer if the allegation of abuse were false but also as you said provide an objective account of what happened. "
In a one year study in Rialto, California, the numbers speak for themselves
: use-of-force by officers wearing the cameras dropped 60% and complaints went down 88%.
Walter Olson, Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute says this could also help police by sorting out untrue claims, but says if widely adopted would need to come with some restrictions.
"As they record what the police is doing they are also recording often what citizens are doing perhaps storing that, Perhaps making it searchable. If the film is there and is being stored for some period of time someone else will want to use it."
The danger, he says, is another trove of video with the ability to apply facial recognition software in cases totally unrelated.
And even though the idea of uniform cameras has caught on with the events in Ferguson, Missouri this month, it's still unclear exactly what it would cost to equip every police officer in the United States with one - or who would pay for it.