The NYPD ordered 2,000 officer to ditch their body cameras after a Manhattan cop who was wearing a particular model yanked off the device moments before it exploded. A 34th Precinct cop in Inwood detected smoke coming out of the underside of his Axon AB2 camera attached to his jacket on Monday and immediately removed it. The device 'ignited' once the unidentified police officer took off his coat, the NYPD said in a press release Tuesday. He was taken to a hospital 'out of an abundance of caution,' the statement said, where he was treated and released after suffering ringing to his ears due to the explosion. 'The incident revealed a potential issue with the battery inside the camera,' the NYPD said. An Axon 2 body camera (pictured) exploded on Monday after an NYPD officer from the 34th precinct noticed that it caught camera The NYPD said it would remove all 2,000 Axons out of the 23,000 body cameras in use The NYPD later revealed that all of its 2,000 Axons were being pulled from use —accounting for only a small share of the 23,000 body-worn cameras owned by the force. The department also pointed out that it was already within the process of getting rid of the older Axons for the newer model: the Axon AB3. Police Commissioner Dermot Shea demanded for 'the immediate examination of all Axon AB2 model cameras' after the camera caught fire. 'Our top priority is keeping the men and women of the NYPD safe,' the statement read. A NYPD spokesman later told the New York Post that 'by the end of business today, Dec. 7, all Axon AB2 cameras will have been inspected. If there is any sign of an issue — the back plate bulging out — the battery and back panel is being replaced.' The bizarre incident happened three years after another camera model used by the NYPD exploded. Some 3,000 Vievu LE-5 cameras were removed by the department, cops said at the time. As of 2016, about 47 percent of 15,328 general-purpose law enforcement agencies in the US had bought body-worn cameras 3,000 Vievu model LE-5 cameras (pictured) were removed from the department after one caught fire in 2018 Body-worn cameras are increasingly being used by U.S. law enforcement agencies and often play a central role in high-profile incidents. But wide disparities remain in how they are employed and when the footage is made public. Conflicting witness accounts of the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown, a mlack man, in Ferguson, Missouri, led former President Barack Obama's administration to fund body-worn camera programs across 32 states. As of 2016, about 47 percent of the 15,328 general-purpose law enforcement agencies in the US had bought cameras, according to a 2018 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the most recent study measuring nationwide usage. Larger agencies were more likely to adopt the devices. One notable exception is the police department in Portland, Oregon, which ceased its initial body-worn camera pilot program in 2020, citing 'major budget constraints.' Seven states — Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and South Carolina — have mandated statewide body-worn camera adoption, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. States have varying laws governing how recordings from body-worn cameras can be released. At least 12 states, including Massachusetts and West Virginia, did not have laws regulating public access to body-worn camera recordings as of October 2018, leaving it up to agencies to decide how to release the footage, according to the Urban Institute think tank. Among states that do regulate access, North Carolina has one of the most restrictive laws, requiring anyone seeking a copy of a body-worn camera recording to get court approval. By contrast, a new Colorado law will require recordings to be released to the public within 21 days after the agency receives a complaint of misconduct, with exceptions for privacy concerns or cases where the release would interfere with an investigation. More than half of the United States had no rule dictating where, when and how body-worn cameras had to be used as of October 2018, the Urban Institute said. Several states have enacted new regulations since then. Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York, for example, passed laws in 2020 requiring officers to wear cameras on the job, though the New York law only applies to state police. With some exceptions, such as cases where civilians request that cameras be turned off, the laws require police to record every encounter they have with members of the public. Average activations of body-worn cameras for police officers in Anaheim, California, ranged from 0 percent to 72 percent, according to a 2015 study co-authored by Daniel Lawrence, a policing expert at the Urban Institute. Audio and video recordings from body-worn cameras are often sought after police killings, including the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin. Prosecutors used Chauvin's body-camera footage to help convince a jury to convict the former officer on April 20. New York passed laws in 2020 requiring officers to wear cameras on the job, though the New York law only applies to state police. Pictured: An NYPD officer in riot gear seen with body-camera at a protest Almost two-thirds of state prosecutors' offices use body-worn camera video as evidence, according to a 2016 survey by George Mason University's Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy. The study found that 8.3 percent of offices in jurisdictions with body-worn cameras had used the footage to prosecute police officers, while 92.6 percent had used it to prosecute private citizens. Officers who wear body cameras consistently appear to have fewer complaints filed against them than officers without cameras, according to a 2020 report by the National Police Foundation that synthesized 10 years of research on the subject. Civil rights advocates say the timely release of body-worn camera footage, balanced with privacy considerations, is key to holding law enforcement officers accountable. Many police welcome the transparency because the recordings can be used to clear officers accused of racist or violent acts, while others say the videos only offer a partial view of incidents and can skew public reactions. All rights reserved for this news site (dailymail) and under his responsibility