Two Former Cops Lead Legislative Charge To Shield Body Camera Footage From Public Inspection
from the the-blue-line-goes-all-the-way-to-the-top dept
Body cameras have become democratized, for lack of a better word. They're relatively cheap, easy to use and can be deployed with minimal setup. They hold the promise of increased transparency and accountability, but legislators seem far more interested in ensuring the new technology will have zero net positive effects.
Four Indiana legislators -- two of them former law enforcement officers -- have introduced a bill that will keep the public out of the loop as far as body camera footage is concerned.
A newly proposed Indiana bill would allow police departments to decide whether to release video footage captured on body-worn or dashboard cameras to the general public.Leaving the decision to the discretion of law enforcement agencies does nothing but encourage the burial of any footage that doesn't show officers in the best light. Sure, there's a remedy, but it's not an affordable option. The final decision by law enforcement agencies can be challenged, but only if the requester is willing to put a lot of time and money on the line.
House Bill 1019 immediately drew criticism from the Hoosier State Press Association, which argued the bill could undermine the purpose of such cameras in the first place: to increase police transparency and allow the public to hold law enforcement accountable.
The proposed legislation would compel police departments to show recordings of law enforcement actions only to either the person depicted in the video or that person's relatives or attorney. For anyone else, the decision to release is up to the department.
Should the agency say no, the bill says, the person requesting the video would have to take the department to court and argue for the video's release.The legislators behind this bill know exactly what sort of opacity this will encourage. They cannot be that ignorant. They're just playing to their most powerful constituents -- especially the two who were officers before they were officials.
Other supporters of the bill likely know the intended side effects of the legislation as well, but they've decided it's more important to "protect" the police from the public, rather than the other way around. This particularly disingenuous statement from a supportive lawmaker pays the most minimum of lip service to the public's privacy concerns before going all #bluelivesmatter.
Rep. Wendy McNamara, an Evansville Republican, questioned whether the public or media should have access to footage that could potentially compromise the privacy of a person shown in the video, such as a witness to a crime.The "people" she's referring to, of course, are the ones with extra rights and vast amounts of power. Those are the "people" who need to be saved from the big bad Public, who apparently just want to see law enforcement officers hang for their perceived sins -- a desire that wouldn't be so intense if law enforcement agencies performed more "hangings" of their own.
"Which becomes more important?" she asked. "The privacy aspect of the individuals involved in the situation, or the public's need to, you know, hang a rope around peoples' necks at the jump of a video?
The bill may be altered en route to the governor's desk, but with this type of support behind it, it's likely the legislation will still err on the side of protecting law enforcement. One suggested fix is nothing more than shifting the burden of proof for refusals to the agency denying the request, which would greatly decrease the chance that an expensive lawsuit will be the only route to full disclosure.
In one major way, this bill is worse than others we've looked at. The law wouldn't even require agencies to hand over a copy of available footage to those the legislation grants access to.
While the person shown in the footage can view the video, the bill does not also require the department to give them a copy. That decision is up to the department.This means those filing abuse or misconduct complaints could be denied access to their own copy of the footage of the incident in question. The accused agency would still have complete control over the footage, making it extremely difficult for accusers to back up their assertions.
There's no excuse for this sort of legislation. The supporters claim to be concerned about protecting the public from its own prying eyes, but they're really only interested in shielding public servants from the people they serve.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: body cameras, indiana, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And while we wait
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That said, the Chicago cop (Jon Burge) who ran the Midnight Squad that tortured* people for twenty years spent a couple years in segregated custody at a cushy prison for perjury (statute of limitations on torture were up**, so no jail time for that) and is now free and collecting his damn pension. Please forgive me if you've that one before, I just feel compelled to bring it up when talking about Chicago.
_____
* - Actual, bona fide Hollywood torture: car batteries clamped to genitals type things.
** - I'm still not clear on why torture needs to have a statute of limitations in IL. On second thought, duh, yes I am. Because of cops like Burge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uh oh - guess who's got something to hide?
If you've got nothing to hide, you'll be fine, right?
So, tell me, whatcha hidin' there officers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's what these badged criminals are, they're "fighting the war on drugs" right? That makes them soldiers, which means they have to follow all the rules, including the Geneva convention which outlaws all of these sorts of things.
Let's round em up, give them their due trials, then execution time as due for their actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We do things to get the all important law & order support, even if it means screwing citizens over.
The problem seems to be the disconnect in many peoples minds that it hasn't happened to them or anyone in their friend circle... so it doesn't happen. All of these news stories showing unarmed people shot in the back are just setups and twisting the facts... because to accept that some cops are bad shakes the whole worldview they have.
Pretending to offer accountability while making sure the same broken system can continue should result in a change in leadership... instead they get an endorsement from people who can't imagine themselves on the receiving end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My initial thought was yes, but after reading this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Weird thing is, there are now (finally) tons of people tracking the victims of police misconduct, but I can't think of a decent big list of the bad cops. Can't even find one on copblock (they have a name search, but it uses instantcheckmate.com...?). Anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Have rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easy way to fix this
If a cop's bodycam ever stops recording audio or video, or is impeded in some way (cop covers it with clothing or there's a technical problem), the cop immediately is considered a normal civilian, immediately loses their powers of law enforcement status and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for any actions they take.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Easy way to fix this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So far, nobody's trying to pass laws making it illegal to watch politicians do their jobs, so there's that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Easy way to fix this
Remember that these cameras are filming US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sadly the direction that FOI is heading in both the US/UK, this could become a reality...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
- Google already have the tools to automatically blur car license plates and faces
- Facebook do an outstanding job of automatically blocking naked flesh
Get your Top Tech on the case. What could possibly go wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Easy way to fix this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Accountability Then Withdraw Your Consent
It is clear that many cops only want two things from American citizens they perceive as potential enemy combatants:
1. Our money in the form of taxes and civil asset forfeiture
2. Our unquestioning compliance.
Let the petty-tyrants operating under guise of law enforcement officers fund their incipient police state with a bake sale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks
[ link to this | view in thread ]