This is a fascinating article, not for the fluff & buff at the beginning, but rather the ASU study numbers. 

To be more precise, the INVERSE of the numbers stated in your article.  Without quibbling over a percentage point here and there, the cameras, and the ASU survey reveals something disturbing, and yet not surprising.  To wit:

1.) A significant number of officers (perhaps a strong majority) find that a devise which makes their reports (the potential criminal record relied upon by the prosecutor) more accurate interferes with how they wish to perform their job.

2.) A significant number of officers (perhaps a strong majority) find that a devise which encourages caution (might we say more Judicious? Circumspect? Mature? ) interferes with how they wish to perform their job.

3.) A significant number of officers (perhaps a strong majority) find that a devise which makes them perform their duties in a more professional manner (as opposed to making the "law" up as you go along, and relying on a - shall we say - "vigorous" response to violations of the cardinal sin; "contempt of cop") interferes with how they wish to perform their job.

What these officers pine for is the "good olde days" where there is only ONE version of events... theirs.  The advent of video cameras, smart-phones, Copwatch, You-Tube, Qik, etc. play absolute hob with the Praetorians' antics.  It is even getting so bad that the COURTS are worried about these cops, and their co-conspirator prosecutors, splashing the metaphorical dog-sh#@ in their vaunted robes, that they are no longer AUTOMATICALLY playing ball.

This is a small move in the right direction.  The tenor of the pig-squealing says it all.