Should body cam footage be public property?

[justoffal]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5067267-ohio-governor-mike-dewine-body-cam-footage-charge/amp/

This is an interesting debate. The body cams and related equipment can cost as much as half a million for an average sized police force.

Body cam footage has now become a foundation for court cases and convictions of both perp and police officer..... I'm guessing it shouldn't be available for just any frivolous request. Especially if that is a lawsuit being filed against the police.

Despite the fact That many of the high profile police cases where an officer is convicted of a crime make it into the news there are literally thousands more frivolous and stupid charges every year being filed by criminals who just don't like police officers interfering in their criminality.

Jo

 

[debbiedowner]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5067267-ohio-governor-mike-dewine-body-cam-footage-charge/amp/

This is an interesting debate. The body cams and related equipment can cost as much as half a million for an average sized police force.

Body cam footage has now become a foundation for court cases and convictions of both perp and police officer..... I'm guessing it shouldn't be available for just any frivolous request. Especially if that is a lawsuit being filed against the police.

Despite the fact That many of the high profile police cases where an officer is convicted of a crime make it into the news there are literally thousands more frivolous and stupid charges every year being filed by criminals who just don't like police officers interfering in their criminality.

Jo

Answer to your OP is Yes.

 

[1srelluc]

I think it the right thing to do.....Lawyers hate spending their own money.

$75.00 an hour and if nothing is found their broke ass clients sure aren't paying for it.

 

[Thunk]

It depends on whos body it's recording.

 

[Arlette]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5067267-ohio-governor-mike-dewine-body-cam-footage-charge/amp/

This is an interesting debate. The body cams and related equipment can cost as much as half a million for an average sized police force.

Body cam footage has now become a foundation for court cases and convictions of both perp and police officer..... I'm guessing it shouldn't be available for just any frivolous request. Especially if that is a lawsuit being filed against the police.

Despite the fact That many of the high profile police cases where an officer is convicted of a crime make it into the news there are literally thousands more frivolous and stupid charges every year being filed by criminals who just don't like police officers interfering in their criminality.

Jo

Yes. Not having their bodycam turned on should be grounds for dismissal from the force.

 

[1srelluc]

Yes. Not having their bodycam turned on should be grounds for dismissal from the force.

Never heard of "technical difficulties?

 

[White 6]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5067267-ohio-governor-mike-dewine-body-cam-footage-charge/amp/

This is an interesting debate. The body cams and related equipment can cost as much as half a million for an average sized police force.

Body cam footage has now become a foundation for court cases and convictions of both perp and police officer..... I'm guessing it shouldn't be available for just any frivolous request. Especially if that is a lawsuit being filed against the police.

Despite the fact That many of the high profile police cases where an officer is convicted of a crime make it into the news there are literally thousands more frivolous and stupid charges every year being filed by criminals who just don't like police officers interfering in their criminality.

Jo

Absolutely, it should be public. You see all the time, footage that made it to YouTube, of pure BS of authorities, acting authoritative. Often it does not come out, until after there is a lawsuit lost or paid out by a municipality or higher government level. They should upload and end of shift into a searchable database by date and agency.

 

[Dekster]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5067267-ohio-governor-mike-dewine-body-cam-footage-charge/amp/

This is an interesting debate. The body cams and related equipment can cost as much as half a million for an average sized police force.

Body cam footage has now become a foundation for court cases and convictions of both perp and police officer..... I'm guessing it shouldn't be available for just any frivolous request. Especially if that is a lawsuit being filed against the police.

Despite the fact That many of the high profile police cases where an officer is convicted of a crime make it into the news there are literally thousands more frivolous and stupid charges every year being filed by criminals who just don't like police officers interfering in their criminality.

Jo

Sure, but traffic camera should be available too without the need for a court order to get it. Those are paid for with tax dollars as well.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The default should be that it is part of the public record, and thus available to the public, preferably by uploading it to a publically accessable site.

Exceptions can be made for the protection of children, or for when body cams record inside of private spaces, like people's homes.

But most body camera recording done by police is in public, where they interact with . . . the public. So what's the big secret?

 

[justoffal]

Absolutely, it should be public. You see all the time, footage that made it to YouTube, of pure BS of authorities, acting authoritative. Often it does not come out, until after there is a lawsuit lost or paid out by a municipality or higher government level. They should upload and end of shift into a searchable database by date and agency.

That's a great idea

 

[pknopp]

The public pays for it. It was instituted in large part to protect the public. It should belong to the public.

 

[AZrailwhale]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5067267-ohio-governor-mike-dewine-body-cam-footage-charge/amp/

This is an interesting debate. The body cams and related equipment can cost as much as half a million for an average sized police force.

Body cam footage has now become a foundation for court cases and convictions of both perp and police officer..... I'm guessing it shouldn't be available for just any frivolous request. Especially if that is a lawsuit being filed against the police.

Despite the fact That many of the high profile police cases where an officer is convicted of a crime make it into the news there are literally thousands more frivolous and stupid charges every year being filed by criminals who just don't like police officers interfering in their criminality.

Jo

Body and dash com footage should be in the public domain. Those videos more often defend a cops actions than indict them.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Sure, but traffic camera should be available too without the need for a court order to get it. Those are paid for with tax dollars as well.

Traffic camera footage usually isn’t paid for by tax dollars. The camera companies take off a profit from the top of any fines collected.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Absolutely, it should be public. You see all the time, footage that made it to YouTube, of pure BS of authorities, acting authoritative. Often it does not come out, until after there is a lawsuit lost or paid out by a municipality or higher government level. They should upload and end of shift into a searchable database by date and agency.

You see a lot more footage of civilians acting like asshats.

 

[progressive hunter]

Traffic camera footage usually isn’t paid for by tax dollars. The camera companies take off a profit from the top of any fines collected.

the majority of street cams have nothing to do with law enforcement for fines,,

youre thinking of red light or speeding cams which are outlawed in most states

 

[AZrailwhale]

the majority of street cams have nothing to do with law enforcement for fines,,

youre thinking of red light or speeding cams which are outlawed in most states

You’re correct. I’ve never lived in a place with street cams.

 

[White 6]

You see a lot more footage of civilians acting like asshats.

Well, it is YouTube. Plenty of asshats posting video, but most of the time, the video don't lie. Either we should hold our public servants to upholding our laws or accept what we are given, bend over and smile. Agencies, local, state and federal fight turning over video, while hiding behind the blue wall of silence and government lawyers on retainer, avoiding disclosure and closing ranks around the guilty, when they can.

 

[progressive hunter]

You’re correct. I’ve never lived in a place with street cams.

in missouri speed cameras are illegal but red light ones are legal,,

but not all intersection cameras act as red light cams,, while most major intersections do have cameras that can be subpoenaed for accidents or law enforcement use,,

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Absolutely, it should be public. You see all the time, footage that made it to YouTube, of pure BS of authorities, acting authoritative. Often it does not come out, until after there is a lawsuit lost or paid out by a municipality or higher government level. They should upload and end of shift into a searchable database by date and agency.

While I am 100% in favor of transparency when it comes to our civil servants, there are logistical challenges with making body cam footage public, such as the privacy rights of innocents or victims particularly in domestic violence or sexual assault cases especially if their is footage that captures parties inside of their homes.

Another unforeseen "problem" is individuals who have the right to access the footage same as anyone else but the purpose for which they want & use it strays into a grey area. Here in Washington State you don't have to prove to an agency that you're entitled to the footage, they have to find that you aren't entitled to it under one of the exceptions. The following is from AI:

The issue you mentioned about Washington State's privacy exceptions for bodycam footage and the legal case involving footage from a police investigation is complex and involves balancing public disclosure laws with privacy concerns. To clarify:

1. Public Records Act (PRA): In Washington State, the PRA generally mandates that government records, including police bodycam footage, be accessible to the public. However, there are exceptions, such as protecting personal privacy or when disclosure is against the public interest.
2. Privacy Concerns with Bodycam Footage: Police bodycam footage often includes sensitive or private moments, which might justify withholding it under exemptions. For example, footage revealing nudity or compromising situations could be withheld under RCW 42.56.240(1).
3. Legal Challenges: Despite privacy concerns, individuals or organizations can sue under the PRA if they believe footage is being withheld unjustly. If a court determines that withholding was improper, the government agency may be compelled to release the footage and could be liable for penalties.
4. Notable Cases:
   • If this case involved bikini barista footage, it highlights issues where the public's right to know conflicts with privacy. These cases often depend on the court's interpretation of what is "of legitimate public interest."
   • Damages in PRA cases can include statutory penalties, which are calculated per day of wrongful withholding. These penalties can sometimes amount to significant sums, as you noted.

 

[White 6]

While I am 100% in favor of transparency when it comes to our civil servants, there are logistical challenges with making body cam footage public, such as the privacy rights of innocents or victims particularly in domestic violence or sexual assault cases especially if their is footage that captures parties inside of their homes.

Another unforeseen "problem" is individuals who have the right to access the footage same as anyone else but the purpose for which they want & use it strays into a grey area. Here in Washington State you don't have to prove to an agency that you're entitled to the footage, they have to find that you aren't entitled to it under one of the exceptions. The following is from AI:

The issue you mentioned about Washington State's privacy exceptions for bodycam footage and the legal case involving footage from a police investigation is complex and involves balancing public disclosure laws with privacy concerns. To clarify:

1. Public Records Act (PRA): In Washington State, the PRA generally mandates that government records, including police bodycam footage, be accessible to the public. However, there are exceptions, such as protecting personal privacy or when disclosure is against the public interest.
2. Privacy Concerns with Bodycam Footage: Police bodycam footage often includes sensitive or private moments, which might justify withholding it under exemptions. For example, footage revealing nudity or compromising situations could be withheld under RCW 42.56.240(1).
3. Legal Challenges: Despite privacy concerns, individuals or organizations can sue under the PRA if they believe footage is being withheld unjustly. If a court determines that withholding was improper, the government agency may be compelled to release the footage and could be liable for penalties.
4. Notable Cases:
   • If this case involved bikini barista footage, it highlights issues where the public's right to know conflicts with privacy. These cases often depend on the court's interpretation of what is "of legitimate public interest."
   • Damages in PRA cases can include statutory penalties, which are calculated per day of wrongful withholding. These penalties can sometimes amount to significant sums, as you noted.

Good point. I can see that.