The decision by the grand jury in Ferguson, Mo. to not indict police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown sparked protests, some violence, and heated debates over race, police actions, the conduct of the district attorney and more.

There is heated debate over how the case was handled from start to finish. But there should be no debate about one change that could help reduce some uncertainties in future cases such as the deadly Wilson-Brown confrontation: body cameras for all police officers.

Many police forces already equip officers with body cameras. Many police cruisers already have dashboard cameras to capture the action seen through the front windshield, a view most often depicting traffic stops in which a vehicle is parked in front of the cruiser after being stopped.

Today’s technology has led to very small digital cameras that have been mounted by enthusiasts on bike helmets, car fenders, ski poles and motorcycle fenders. The digital cameras are small, inexpensive and simple to operate. They should be part of every police officer’s set of gear worn while on duty. They should also be mounted in different positons on the interior, and maybe exterior, of police cruisers.

When the district attorney described the evidence reviewed by the grand jury in the Brown case, he listed descriptions by a dozen or more eye witnesses. But few of the eye witnesses agreed on what they saw or believed they saw. Some said Brown was charging officer Wilson, some said he was runing away. Some said Brown had his hands up, some said his hands were down.

In many cases across the country in recent years, evidence has been produced, most often by DNA analsysis, that had disproven eye-witness testimony from a trial. The Innocence Project reports that eyewitness misidentification played a role in about 70 percent of cases that were later turned over by DNA evidence.

Experts looking at studies are concluding that eye-witness testimony, once considered a gold standard, is highly unreliable. Digital cameras worn by police officers and mounted in and on their vehicles can help reduce reliance on eye witnesses, at least for incidents involving police officers.

Body cameras and car-mounted cameras will not be a perfect solution. Some action might occur outside the camera’s view. It’s possible that technical problems could cause cameras to malfunction. It’s also possible an officer might disable or destroy a camera if he or she felt there might be some questions or consequences over an incident. There are also privacy concerns being voiced about cameras recording all police interactions, even in people’s homes. Police organizations fear that they will be flooded with requests for copies of videos taken at too many encounters.

But overall, widespread use of small digital cameras would reduce at least some of the confusion and uncertainty surrounding encounters with police. The public broadly supports more body cameras for police, and after the Ferguson incident one major supplier said requests for test units were up 70 percent.

Body cameras should be standard equipment for all police officers. While equipment is being ordered and installed, policies can be adopted and modified over time. But there is no reason to not have video evidence of most police incidents.