SC: The Body Camera Act of 2016 (Tabled)

[Anna Komnene]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: dfwlibertylover

The floor is now open for debate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This could help discourage violence against police officers and ensure that their murderers are brought to justice. It is easy to forget this with recent events, but police are in constant danger of being killed at traffic stops.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

How about this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: dfwlibertylover

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Yes, activities

[Santander]

I think all of us can appreciate both the accountability concerns of the public and the unique and dangerous nature of police work. The efficacy and unintended consequences of body cameras is something that has not yet been thoroughly researched, and I think it would be very irresponsible for us to pass such broad-reaching legislation without careful deliberation and development of procedures that would allow us to study the appropriate usage and implementation of body cameras.

It is rather convenient to think that body cameras will provide an unimpeachable, objective record of tragic events such as police brutality and violence against police, but unfortunately, as is seen in courts everyday in this country, video evidence can often be far from convincing and may sometimes lead to more questions than answers. We cannot think of this as a magic bullet that will solve all of our problems.

Imagine that you were recorded at work for every moment of every day - your conversations with your coworkers, your lunch break, your phone calls from your spouse or children, and even your bathroom breaks. Do you think this would make you do your job better, or worse? Of course, there are people who work under such scrutiny, such as casino or bank employees, but body cameras record at a much more intimate level than room security cameras. Police officers have a duty to protect us and uphold the law, but they are also expected to be compassionate and understanding. If every single action by a police officer was recorded, how could we expect them to show leniency when someone jaywalks across a quiet street or drives a few miles over the speed limit, or when a teenager smokes a cigarette? Are these the types of activities that we want our police to be spending their time on?

Police officers also do not cease to be police officers when off-duty - they are sworn to enforce the law, and may be forced into action when off-duty. Since police officers retain powers of arrest when off-duty, should we require them to wear body cameras when off-duty? Where do we draw the line? Along those lines, there are a wide range of law enforcement officers serving in this country. They range from city police officers to state troopers to prison guards to border patrol to immigration agents to military police. Which of these should require body cameras? What criteria should we use to make such distinctions? How do we keep such data safe from hacking, theft, or leaks? Is it not conceivable that police departments or individual police officers would be targets for retribution if body camera footage was leaked? How would we deal with the inevitable flood of FOIA requests associated with these?

Police body cameras are a technology that may help us solve some very pressing challenges. However, they are a largely untested technology, and are the most fundamental change to policing since tasers. Given that, I believe it is region's best interests to sponsor a pilot program in select police departments in the region for a period of 3-4 years to study and better understand the effects of body cameras in policing. We are privileged to have some of the finest police departments and academics in the world in the South, and I am convinced that such a measured approach would have a much more positive impact than a massive, untested, expensive mandate that could lead to many unintended consequences and create more problems than it solves.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I understand your concerns well. However, I believe they have all been addressed within the meat of the bill. Consider that police officers cannot be penalized for everyday activities and this footage will only be accessed when the officer is sued or is involved in some kind of major incident in a court of law. The footage is maintained in a private database, thus that private company would be at fault for any leaks, not our own government. Governor PiT has assured me that 2% of the budget would not put a major dent in our likely surplus and that this money very well spent.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/body-cameras-police-interact-with-public and we do have research based on a pilot program conducted before, this study proves that Police Cameras do in fact improve interactions between the police and the public and increases the overall efficiency of the Police. I'd be willing to bet on my reputation that this would give the government more money than it originally invested in the long run as well.

[tmthforu94]

All right, I'm going to raise a couple questions/concerns:
1. I would recommend removing the second part of Clause 9. Police officers are also private citizens and it completely infringes on their rights to even leave the option open for them to wear body cameras off-duty. This is just going to further discourage people from wanting to join law enforcement.
2. A lot of police departments are currently facing budget issues and this will add to the strain. Are you referring to 2% of the South's budget, or just 2% of the police budget? Is this going to be an addition to what they already receive, or are they going to have to make cuts elsewhere?
3. If we're going to do this, Clause 9 should be removed. I don't think we should advertise "all police officers have to wear body cameras" and then you see an officer walking around without one because their's was subpoenaed. The department will likely have a couple backup cameras - they can use one of those.
4. There are privacy concerns that I don't see addressed in this bill. Clause 1 stipulates they have to wear it nonstop while on the clock. So does this mean while they're going to the bathroom? There are also times when I think it should be allowed to be deactivated, such as interviewing a victim of sexual assault. I also think requiring the body cameras at all times will prevent potential witnesses from coming forward due to fear of public exposure. I don't feel comfortable with those type of files being saved out there with the potential to be hacked - security leaks do happen quite often, unfortunately.  Imagine a scenario where someone on the outs of a gang comes forward and gives names, then that video is leaked later - the effects of this could potentially cost lives. If we're gong to require them to have it on all the time and not be able to deactivate it in these types of circumstances, I could only support it if you could 100% guarantee that it could never be hacked, which is basically impossible.

At this point, my personal recommendation would be along the lines of what Santander is saying - allow individual police departments to make the call on this and provide funds/incentives for them to do it.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Madam Speaker, I wish to withdraw this bill from the floor for the time being, I will likely re-introduce a revised version at a later point in time.

[Anna Komnene]

Okay, consider it withdrawn.  I'll mark the bill as "tabled."