US police worry Meta smart glasses could record officers

Law enforcement agencies across the United States are raising concerns that Meta’s consumer smart glasses could record officers without consent and be used to track their movements, according to a recent report.

Police officials told investigators they fear the glasses’ small cameras and continuous connectivity could capture encounters in public and private settings, creating risks for officer safety and evidence handling. Departments have asked the Department of Justice and state attorneys general for guidance on how existing recording and surveillance rules apply to wearable devices.

Several agencies are reexamining policies and have imposed interim limits on consumer wearables in secure areas. Some departments are drafting rules to bar camera-equipped glasses from booking rooms, evidence storage areas and operations centers. Internal reviews cover when civilians may bring devices into stations and how officers should react if they are being recorded.

Training materials under development aim to guide officers on preserving chain-of-custody when footage from a wearable could be evidentiary and on when to share such recordings with prosecutors. Officials say covert recordings could affect undercover operations and create potential safety or harassment risks for officers.

Meta has argued its glasses include visible lights that signal active recording and said it does not plan to enable facial recognition on the devices. The company pointed to on-device processing options and said consumer privacy protections and local laws apply to users.

Legal experts describe the regulatory landscape for wearable cameras as fragmented. Federal law generally permits recording in public, but state statutes differ on audio-consent requirements and private property rules can limit video capture inside certain facilities. Departments must consider criminal and civil liabilities, including whether footage from private devices will be admissible in court or used in civil suits alleging misconduct.

Police departments note precedents from body-worn cameras and smartphone video, which led to retention schedules, access controls and technical safeguards. Officials say those systems may need adjustments to account for footage originating from third-party devices, and that prosecutors and public defenders will need procedures for handling such material.

Civil liberties and privacy advocates have urged limits on persistent-recording devices and stronger protections against automated identification tools. Some local governments have already debated bans or restrictions on facial recognition and biometric tools, discussions that may now extend to consumer wearables that capture high-quality audio and video.

Police chiefs, union representatives, lawmakers and technology companies are expected to continue talks as smart glasses become more common. Departments say they will weigh operational security, legal obligations and public trust when updating policies.