> Why do we even allow cops on duty with the camera off? Why do we give them the choice of when it will be turned on? As a matter of evidence, in many cases if

> Why do we even allow cops on duty with the camera off? Why do we give them the choice of when it will be turned on? As a matter of evidence, in many cases if one has a duty to preserve evidence yet fails in that duty, then a Judge may draw an negative inference against the bearer. In many common law jurisdictions a Judge must draw such an inference, for example with the chain of custody in criminal cases. A negative inference generally takes the form of a rebuttable presumption. For example, in the case of the chain of custody, if the police lose possession of evidence then the court is entitled (obliged in certain cases) to presume that it was tampered with. In the case of body cameras, I would argue that a police officer has failed in an analogous duty — namely to employ a device that would create an objective contemporaneous audio/video record of events that does not hinder the ability of a police officer to perform their other duties. Soon, I would hope and expect, the absence of body camera evidence will draw a negative inference against police. We may not be there yet, because law is a slow moving — progressed by individual cases that can take years to work through the system of appeals that create persuasive or binding precedents, but this is almost certainly the direction I believe the law properly should take. In my humble opinion, based on the examples I have seen, the people who benefit the most from this, by far, are good police officers that are naturally inclined to adhere to proper ethical and constructive behaviour of policing (such as those set out in the Peelian principles). IAAL, but the above is not legal advice.