5 ms·

There are also potentially privacy considerations... for example, in jurisdictions where body-cam data is a matter of public record, should officers be recordin

There are also potentially privacy considerations... for example, in jurisdictions where body-cam data is a matter of public record, should officers be recording while inside someone's house where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy? And even assuming the footage isn't automatically public, what about the evidentiary value against the house's occupants? Currently, police need a warrant to execute a search of someone's residence, but there's a "plain view" exception: if while the officer is in the house anyway (either because the occupant let them in, or because they entered due to exigent circumstances like a violent crime in progress), if they happen to see evidence of a crime in plain view while there -- a gun, drugs, whatever -- they don't need a warrant to use that as evidence. If the officer has a camera on the whole time, that potentially means the officer could use not just what they happened to see in the moment, but retroactively whatever can be seen in the footage after the fact, which likely significantly expands the extent of plain-view evidence that can be used without a warrant. Some have asserted that video-recording itself constitutes a fourth-amendment search if the officer is someplace where the person has an expectation of privacy, though I don't think this question has been adjudicated. Also, in two-party-consent states, capturing body camera audio might also require either a warrant or consent for the capturing of at least some kinds of interactions. I think body cams are net-good, but it's more complicated than it seems at first blush.

syshum 5y ago
>> in jurisdictions where body-cam data is a matter of public record Where is this mythical land, because many times people have to go to court to get a court order to release the footage, i would love to know where body cam footage is public record. >>If the officer has a camera on the whole time, that potentially means the officer could use not just what they happened to see in the moment, but retroactively whatever can be seen in the footage after the fact, which likely significantly expands the extent of plain-view evidence that can be used without a warrant. While an interesting topic, i dont believe this is in view of the context. Further how many times does this issue really come up in the course of time. Seems like you are attempting to highlight edge cases in order to defend police corruption and their ability to hide their activities under the guise of public privacy. Most of the body cam footage "lost" or "offline" is when the police are killing people in the plain outdoors in other public venue's not when they are protecting Grandma's privacy from the big bad public.
- apendleton 5y ago
  > Seems like you are attempting to highlight edge cases in order to defend police corruption and their ability to hide their activities under the guise of public privacy. I'm not sure where you're getting that from what I wrote. I'm not saying police shouldn't use bodycams (I explicitly said I think they're a net good). I think there might be specific circumstances where not recording might be appropriate (e.g., if they're inside someone's house). I think those circumstances, if they exist, should be determined as a matter of department policy, and not left to the whims of individual officers, and that in circumstances other than those, officers should have to be recording at all times, and there should be consequences if they don't. Things officers do in public would pretty obviously be examples of that. The only thing I was pushing back on was the notion that it's universally the case that LEOs should need to have cameras on for every minute of ever shift.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > I think there might be specific circumstances where not recording might be appropriate (e.g., if they're inside someone's house). On the other hand, though, I think being inside someone's house is when having a recording is the most critical. Without video recordings, it's just the officer's word against the defendant's, and courts will more often believe the officer's version of events. Out in public, it's possible -- and in some places, likely -- that a concerned passerby would be recording what's going on, reducing the value of & need for the police body-cam video.
    - pugets 5y ago
      We should take a step back. The location of the recording doesn't matter so much (though sometimes it does matter). The bigger idea here is that some interactions between citizens and LEOs are private matters and not in the public's interest. As an anecdote, when my friend was the victim of domestic violence, she confided her history with her abuser to an officer, and that officer gave her very individualized care. Whether their conversation happened inside a bedroom, at a front door step, or at a public park doesn't matter. My friend would not want her abuser, her estranged family members, or anyone else to a hold of the conversation she had with the officer.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> for example, in jurisdictions where body-cam data is a matter of public record, should officers be recording while inside someone's house where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy? Public records laws already generally anticipate that public records will frequently contain sensitive, protected data and have general processes (involving redaction or denial of unprivileged general public access, depending on the circumstances) for handling public records to which that applies (source: spent a couple decades in government dealing with public records containing PHI, other PII, and other legally restricted-access information.)
- tomohawk 5y ago
  That hasn't stopped government officials from unmasking the identities of people in intercepts for political purposes. For example, Tucker Carlson, Gen. Flynn, and others. It's better not to have the record around where politicos can be tempted to abuse it.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The government doesn't need bodycams to spy on you.
    - nanis 5y ago
      > The government doesn't need bodycams to spy on you. While that statement is literally true, it is also bogus. It sure makes it convenient for government when always on body and vehicle cameras record everything everywhere all the time.
      - aussiegreenie 5y ago
        In a world where Google/FB/Amazon monitor every conversation, I do not think Police wearing body cameras it is a problem. Until privacy is a right, nothing will change.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
r00fus 5y ago
At the very least if any situation requires official capacity, the officer shouldn't have the camera off. The camera should have features like "toggle off for 5m" or "turn off persistent but you can't act as LE". The situation remains that law enforcement has no real checks on their own power, and they've moved to restrict or block such checks on their power.
kelnos 5y ago
Right, but also consider that what you're describing is a matter of law, and we're already talking about changing law (to require body cameras to be always-on), so why not change the other stuff too? Change the "plain view" exception to only apply to stuff the officer notices while physically there; if they see it in footage later, it's not admissible in court, and not grounds for a search warrant. Change the recording-consent laws to not apply to police body cameras. And regarding privacy, have retention policies: if there's no legal hold on some body cam footage (part of an active investigation or court proceeding, etc.), it gets deleted after 90 days (or whatever time period sounds reasonable). That way we don't have recordings of people's private residences living in storage indefinitely.
CamperBob2 5y ago
No, there are no "privacy considerations" to body camera footage. Those only into play when the footage is made public. When you cite "privacy," you're letting the police dictate the terms of the discussion. The footage must be recorded and retained, with the decision to edit and/or release it left up to courts or other independent authorities. As for two-party laws, those have to go. They don't have a place in a society where the people need the ability to hold police and other officials accountable. If the police are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear, right? Isn't that what they tell us?
- apendleton 5y ago
  The party in question that might object is the person being recorded, not the officer.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Too bad. The camera, like the officer himself, is supposed to be there for the individual's protection. Or, more accurately, the officer's job is to protect and serve those in his or her charge, while the camera's job is to protect society. That's a compelling interest if there ever was one. The courts can decide when it's appropriate for the footage to be viewed where privacy concerns exist. They can't do that if the footage never existed in the first place... but they will cheerfully take the officer's word regarding what he saw. It's misguided at best to think that this state of affairs is preferable from a privacy and security standpoint.
    - kansface 5y ago
      Police officers go to the bathroom. They take lunch breaks. They go to doctors appointments. They notify next of kin after a death. > The courts can decide when it's appropriate for the footage to be viewed where privacy concerns exist Any data that is recorded will be made public eventually, one way or another, which is why it shouldn't be recorded in the first place.
      - 5y ago
lazide 5y ago
I don’t think anyone has, or should have, a reasonable expectation of privacy when there is a uniformed officer there - for exactly the reason you say, the plain sight exception, the fact officers are armed agents of the gov’t, etc. If they could see it (real or imagined) and arrest you for it, having a camera to prove if they could or could not even actually see it seems like a pretty reasonable safeguard!
Aeolun 5y ago
I don’t think it is complicated at all. At least not based on the examples you gave here. Of course the video will be admissible as evidence. It’s a lot better in fact than relying on the officers memory. I’d much rather innocent people are exonerated based on video than that guilty people go free because a police officer happened to miss the evidence of a crime. What are we even talking about here? If you are being stopped by police, you are generally already not doing that voluntarily, so saying you need consent to record audio or video in such a situation strikes me as weird too.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  I believe when video exists (or at least is used in a trial), there's an obligation that the plaintiff receives a copy. I don't know how common this actually is, but I've seen speculation that in some circumstances (e.g. domestic and/or sexual violence) this could cause problems for the victim.
sumedh 5y ago
> should officers be recording while inside someone's house where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy? The officer has the opportunity to plant drugs if he is not being recorded.

syshum 5y ago

>> in jurisdictions where body-cam data is a matter of public record Where is this mythical land, because many times people have to go to court to get a court order to release the footage, i would love to know where body cam footage is public record. >>If the officer has a camera on the whole time, that potentially means the officer could use not just what they happened to see in the moment, but retroactively whatever can be seen in the footage after the fact, which likely significantly expands the extent of plain-view evidence that can be used without a warrant. While an interesting topic, i dont believe this is in view of the context. Further how many times does this issue really come up in the course of time. Seems like you are attempting to highlight edge cases in order to defend police corruption and their ability to hide their activities under the guise of public privacy. Most of the body cam footage "lost" or "offline" is when the police are killing people in the plain outdoors in other public venue's not when they are protecting Grandma's privacy from the big bad public.

apendleton 5y ago
> Seems like you are attempting to highlight edge cases in order to defend police corruption and their ability to hide their activities under the guise of public privacy. I'm not sure where you're getting that from what I wrote. I'm not saying police shouldn't use bodycams (I explicitly said I think they're a net good). I think there might be specific circumstances where not recording might be appropriate (e.g., if they're inside someone's house). I think those circumstances, if they exist, should be determined as a matter of department policy, and not left to the whims of individual officers, and that in circumstances other than those, officers should have to be recording at all times, and there should be consequences if they don't. Things officers do in public would pretty obviously be examples of that. The only thing I was pushing back on was the notion that it's universally the case that LEOs should need to have cameras on for every minute of ever shift.
- kelnos 5y ago
  > I think there might be specific circumstances where not recording might be appropriate (e.g., if they're inside someone's house). On the other hand, though, I think being inside someone's house is when having a recording is the most critical. Without video recordings, it's just the officer's word against the defendant's, and courts will more often believe the officer's version of events. Out in public, it's possible -- and in some places, likely -- that a concerned passerby would be recording what's going on, reducing the value of & need for the police body-cam video.
  - pugets 5y ago
    We should take a step back. The location of the recording doesn't matter so much (though sometimes it does matter). The bigger idea here is that some interactions between citizens and LEOs are private matters and not in the public's interest. As an anecdote, when my friend was the victim of domestic violence, she confided her history with her abuser to an officer, and that officer gave her very individualized care. Whether their conversation happened inside a bedroom, at a front door step, or at a public park doesn't matter. My friend would not want her abuser, her estranged family members, or anyone else to a hold of the conversation she had with the officer.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> for example, in jurisdictions where body-cam data is a matter of public record, should officers be recording while inside someone's house where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy? Public records laws already generally anticipate that public records will frequently contain sensitive, protected data and have general processes (involving redaction or denial of unprivileged general public access, depending on the circumstances) for handling public records to which that applies (source: spent a couple decades in government dealing with public records containing PHI, other PII, and other legally restricted-access information.)

tomohawk 5y ago
That hasn't stopped government officials from unmasking the identities of people in intercepts for political purposes. For example, Tucker Carlson, Gen. Flynn, and others. It's better not to have the record around where politicos can be tempted to abuse it.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The government doesn't need bodycams to spy on you.
  - nanis 5y ago
    > The government doesn't need bodycams to spy on you. While that statement is literally true, it is also bogus. It sure makes it convenient for government when always on body and vehicle cameras record everything everywhere all the time.
    - aussiegreenie 5y ago
      In a world where Google/FB/Amazon monitor every conversation, I do not think Police wearing body cameras it is a problem. Until privacy is a right, nothing will change.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago

r00fus 5y ago

At the very least if any situation requires official capacity, the officer shouldn't have the camera off. The camera should have features like "toggle off for 5m" or "turn off persistent but you can't act as LE". The situation remains that law enforcement has no real checks on their own power, and they've moved to restrict or block such checks on their power.

kelnos 5y ago

Right, but also consider that what you're describing is a matter of law, and we're already talking about changing law (to require body cameras to be always-on), so why not change the other stuff too? Change the "plain view" exception to only apply to stuff the officer notices while physically there; if they see it in footage later, it's not admissible in court, and not grounds for a search warrant. Change the recording-consent laws to not apply to police body cameras. And regarding privacy, have retention policies: if there's no legal hold on some body cam footage (part of an active investigation or court proceeding, etc.), it gets deleted after 90 days (or whatever time period sounds reasonable). That way we don't have recordings of people's private residences living in storage indefinitely.

CamperBob2 5y ago

No, there are no "privacy considerations" to body camera footage. Those only into play when the footage is made public. When you cite "privacy," you're letting the police dictate the terms of the discussion. The footage must be recorded and retained, with the decision to edit and/or release it left up to courts or other independent authorities. As for two-party laws, those have to go. They don't have a place in a society where the people need the ability to hold police and other officials accountable. If the police are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear, right? Isn't that what they tell us?

apendleton 5y ago
The party in question that might object is the person being recorded, not the officer.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Too bad. The camera, like the officer himself, is supposed to be there for the individual's protection. Or, more accurately, the officer's job is to protect and serve those in his or her charge, while the camera's job is to protect society. That's a compelling interest if there ever was one. The courts can decide when it's appropriate for the footage to be viewed where privacy concerns exist. They can't do that if the footage never existed in the first place... but they will cheerfully take the officer's word regarding what he saw. It's misguided at best to think that this state of affairs is preferable from a privacy and security standpoint.
  - kansface 5y ago
    Police officers go to the bathroom. They take lunch breaks. They go to doctors appointments. They notify next of kin after a death. > The courts can decide when it's appropriate for the footage to be viewed where privacy concerns exist Any data that is recorded will be made public eventually, one way or another, which is why it shouldn't be recorded in the first place.
    - 5y ago

lazide 5y ago

I don’t think anyone has, or should have, a reasonable expectation of privacy when there is a uniformed officer there - for exactly the reason you say, the plain sight exception, the fact officers are armed agents of the gov’t, etc. If they could see it (real or imagined) and arrest you for it, having a camera to prove if they could or could not even actually see it seems like a pretty reasonable safeguard!

Aeolun 5y ago

I don’t think it is complicated at all. At least not based on the examples you gave here. Of course the video will be admissible as evidence. It’s a lot better in fact than relying on the officers memory. I’d much rather innocent people are exonerated based on video than that guilty people go free because a police officer happened to miss the evidence of a crime. What are we even talking about here? If you are being stopped by police, you are generally already not doing that voluntarily, so saying you need consent to record audio or video in such a situation strikes me as weird too.

Rebelgecko 5y ago
I believe when video exists (or at least is used in a trial), there's an obligation that the plaintiff receives a copy. I don't know how common this actually is, but I've seen speculation that in some circumstances (e.g. domestic and/or sexual violence) this could cause problems for the victim.

sumedh 5y ago

> should officers be recording while inside someone's house where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy? The officer has the opportunity to plant drugs if he is not being recorded.