There is a new revolution underway in the field of policing. A revolution enabled by technology, and fuelled by the necessity of transparency and accountability. It is the use of Body-Worn Cameras (BWC) among police officers. This discussion delves deep into this new development in law enforcement.

The adoption of BWC among police officers is a product of continuous calls for transparency in law enforcement processes. Post-incident analysis availed by these cameras provides a unique perspective into the occurrences and the actions of both the police officers and the public, offering a level of objectivity often missing from person-person recounts.

The influence of BWC is multi-faceted. Most prominently, they protect both the officers and the citizens. By documenting the interactions, these cameras provide enough evidence to protect police officers from false accusations, saving them from potential lawsuits and reputation damage. On the other side of the coin, they also protect the public's rights from possible police misconduct.

However, the use of BWC is not without challenges. The primary one involves concerns about privacy. There is a fine balance between capturing evidence and intrusion into personal spaces and activities during police interactions. Additionally, the risk of surveillance and potential misuse of the videos also poses ethical and logistical challenges.

The concerns, however, have not hindered the undoubtably increasing adoption of BWC in law enforcement. Numerous studies, including the one carried out by The Rialto Police Department in California, have shown significant reduction in use-of-force incidences and complaints against police. Such positive outcomes propel the widespread support and adoption of BWC.

Despite these evident successes, there are procedural issues to be ironed out. One such issue is the question of when the camera should be turned on and off. To maintain trust in the system, public consent and understanding are crucial. Therefore, there needs to be well communicated policies on their usage.

The training of police officers on the appropriate use of BWC is another procedural concern. They not only have to understand how to operate these devices, but also how they fit into the larger scheme of their legal and professional responsibilities. To ensure this, frequent trainings and updates should become part of law enforcement culture.

As we continue to look at the use of BWC among police officers, there is a lot to learn. Their impact on behaviour change, accountability, and procedural justice is not to be underplayed. With further research and strict adherence to policy and regulations, BWC have the potential to bring a new era of transparency and trust in law enforcement.

While this is still a budding area and more research is warranted, preliminary indicators appear promising. The intricacies of BWC implementation and impact continue to unfold, and as they do, one thing is clear: the lens of accountability is watching, recording and changing the face of law enforcement. In the end, it's all about ensuring humanity, fairness and justice are upheld. And if something as small as a camera can contribute to this mammoth task, then the path is all but worth walking.