Lame. Sounds like some buzz word that’s been circulating on social media lately. Instead why not have proper management: * Camera is engaged by officer at sta

Lame. Sounds like some buzz word that’s been circulating on social media lately. Instead why not have proper management: * Camera is engaged by officer at start of engagement with public. * Failure of officer to start camera is grounds for termination, therefore no default immunity regardless. This should also apply to any intentional interference. * Once started the camera remains active until stopped by a remote party, such as dispatch. * Camera recordings are stored centrally at police department as controlled evidence. * Failure to maintain integrity or chain of custody is grounds for termination of police supervisor(s). Done. At least that is how my hometown does it.