4 ms·

There's a petition for officers to wear cameras on petitions.whitehouse.gov that's rapidly approaching the required signature count: https://petitions.whitehou

There's a petition for officers to wear cameras on petitions.whitehouse.gov that's rapidly approaching the required signature count: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/mike-brown-law-requires-all-state-county-and-local-police-wear-camera/8tlS5czf https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/mike-brown-law-req... It will be interesting to see how some of the access / privacy details are worked out. For example, the mike Brown shooting happened on a public street, but what if it had happened in a private residence? Would the police recording be publicly available? Edit: There are also innumerable instances of police providing damaged, incorrect, or no footage at all even of events that were filmed. The Ferguson police, after beating a handcuffed man in a jail cell and then charging him for destruction of property for getting blood on their uniforms (no link, easy to google), submitted jail footage that was a) 12x speed, rendering it useless, and b) of a different time than the incident. Simply capturing video is not enough, it must be stored and later provisioned by a 3rd party.

kasey_junk 12y ago
I'm no constitutional expert, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how the federal government could possibly have the authority this sort of law would require.
- aliakbarkhan 12y ago
  Couldn't they do like they did with drinking age laws and restrict federal road/other funding to jurisdictions that don't implement police camera programs?
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    Sure, but that's not what the petition is asking for. It's asking for federal legislation to require it. Also, the police are going to fight cameras tooth and nail. Major demographics from both parties are going to be mobilized (unions & crime hawks). The liquor laws were much more sympathetic and even they took a long time for full federal compliance.
    - pyre 12y ago
      > Sure, but that's not what the petition is asking for. It's asking for federal legislation to require it. The petitions are not bills that people are submitting to the floor of Congress. To say, "well the petition didn't ask for this specific implementation," seems a bit disingenuous. Federal legislation requiring it to receive specific funding would effectively be "federal legislation requiring it" so I'm unsure why you're splitting hairs.
      - kasey_junk 12y ago
        Mostly because, this particular petition seems like the worst sort of political polly-anna-ism. That is, it shows a lack of political, constitutional and tactical understanding of how the US works. A much more effective solution seems to be local action in this case. If you could get a couple of big city police departments to install cameras the domino effect would be tremendous and local action will be the easier route!
      - baddox 12y ago
        > The petitions are not bills that people are submitting to the floor of Congress. True. They're not much of anything else, either.
- gscott 12y ago
  They don't but they attach it to money they give to Police departments. If you want money for xyz, you must also do this. The Federal Government also does mandates of these sorts with school funding and all types of funding to get what they want done when otherwise it wouldn't be possible.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I'm no constitutional expert, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how the federal government could possibly have the authority this sort of law would require. Requirements to make and keep records which demonstrate compliance with legal restrictions are a routine and essential part of the enforceability of many laws, so, to the extent that the Constitution explicitly imposes restrictions on the States and explicitly authorizes Congress to enforce those restrictions through "appropriate legislation" (especially in light of the necessary and proper clause), Congressionally-imposed recordkeeping requirements to demonstrate compliance would seem to be within the scope of the Congressional power thus granted. This is relevant because the 14th Amendment commands that "No State shall [...] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and provides that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article". Even with the way the Supreme Court has limited the authorization clause of the 14th Amendment to (unlike identical language elsewhere) only authorize corrective legislation, so that it might not be possible for Congress to impose a general and unconditional requirement, Congress could still impose a requirement on particular states as a consequences of past violation of Constitutional due process or equal protection occurring under the power of those states. (It could also do it by making it a prerequisite for, say, federal law enforcement assistance funding, or access to federal law enforcement databases, etc. -- and it could do both in parallel, so it would be required both for states found to have past violations for which it serves as a remedy, and for states wishing to federal assistance for law enforcement.)
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    "(It could also do it by making it a prerequisite for, say, federal law enforcement assistance funding, or access to federal law enforcement databases, etc. -- and it could do both in parallel, so it would be required both for states found to have past violations for which it serves as a remedy, and for states wishing to federal assistance for law enforcement.)" This is a much more likely to work approach (but not what the petition is asking for). That said, the political realities of police cameras are going to make this a fight that will not be won on the federal level (especially not in the current environment where getting anything done seems to be seen as treason). Local laws on the other hand could be easily implemented.
- baddox 12y ago
  The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may, under the Commerce Clause, prohibit growing marijuana for personal medical use in states where medical marijuana is legal, because it constitutes interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich Before that, the Supreme Court ruled that growing wheat to feed your own chickens constitutes interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filbur... If enough politicians wanted the law, the constitutional argument would be of minimal concern.
  - nroach 12y ago
    While I appreciate the cynicism that this embodies, it shows a gross misunderstanding of constitutional law. There is a deep divide in constitutional jurisprudence between commerce and police powers. One of the leading cases is Printz v. US: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1478 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1478 The federal government cannot rely on the necessary and proper cause to empower it to compel state LEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. The feds can offer "incentive" money, as previous commenters have stated.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Were the crop quotas in Wickard v. Filburn enforced by federal agents? I can't seem to find that information.
tomjen3 12y ago
That should be easy enough to work around - there is no reason police officers should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. No video that shows you didn't do it? Fine now you get 10 years + a felony. Believe me the video would always be working under this system. You give up many rights when you e.g join the marines. You might as well have the same rule when you join the police.

kasey_junk 12y ago

I'm no constitutional expert, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how the federal government could possibly have the authority this sort of law would require.

aliakbarkhan 12y ago
Couldn't they do like they did with drinking age laws and restrict federal road/other funding to jurisdictions that don't implement police camera programs?
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  Sure, but that's not what the petition is asking for. It's asking for federal legislation to require it. Also, the police are going to fight cameras tooth and nail. Major demographics from both parties are going to be mobilized (unions & crime hawks). The liquor laws were much more sympathetic and even they took a long time for full federal compliance.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > Sure, but that's not what the petition is asking for. It's asking for federal legislation to require it. The petitions are not bills that people are submitting to the floor of Congress. To say, "well the petition didn't ask for this specific implementation," seems a bit disingenuous. Federal legislation requiring it to receive specific funding would effectively be "federal legislation requiring it" so I'm unsure why you're splitting hairs.
    - kasey_junk 12y ago
      Mostly because, this particular petition seems like the worst sort of political polly-anna-ism. That is, it shows a lack of political, constitutional and tactical understanding of how the US works. A much more effective solution seems to be local action in this case. If you could get a couple of big city police departments to install cameras the domino effect would be tremendous and local action will be the easier route!
    - baddox 12y ago
      > The petitions are not bills that people are submitting to the floor of Congress. True. They're not much of anything else, either.
gscott 12y ago
They don't but they attach it to money they give to Police departments. If you want money for xyz, you must also do this. The Federal Government also does mandates of these sorts with school funding and all types of funding to get what they want done when otherwise it wouldn't be possible.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I'm no constitutional expert, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how the federal government could possibly have the authority this sort of law would require. Requirements to make and keep records which demonstrate compliance with legal restrictions are a routine and essential part of the enforceability of many laws, so, to the extent that the Constitution explicitly imposes restrictions on the States and explicitly authorizes Congress to enforce those restrictions through "appropriate legislation" (especially in light of the necessary and proper clause), Congressionally-imposed recordkeeping requirements to demonstrate compliance would seem to be within the scope of the Congressional power thus granted. This is relevant because the 14th Amendment commands that "No State shall [...] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and provides that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article". Even with the way the Supreme Court has limited the authorization clause of the 14th Amendment to (unlike identical language elsewhere) only authorize corrective legislation, so that it might not be possible for Congress to impose a general and unconditional requirement, Congress could still impose a requirement on particular states as a consequences of past violation of Constitutional due process or equal protection occurring under the power of those states. (It could also do it by making it a prerequisite for, say, federal law enforcement assistance funding, or access to federal law enforcement databases, etc. -- and it could do both in parallel, so it would be required both for states found to have past violations for which it serves as a remedy, and for states wishing to federal assistance for law enforcement.)
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  "(It could also do it by making it a prerequisite for, say, federal law enforcement assistance funding, or access to federal law enforcement databases, etc. -- and it could do both in parallel, so it would be required both for states found to have past violations for which it serves as a remedy, and for states wishing to federal assistance for law enforcement.)" This is a much more likely to work approach (but not what the petition is asking for). That said, the political realities of police cameras are going to make this a fight that will not be won on the federal level (especially not in the current environment where getting anything done seems to be seen as treason). Local laws on the other hand could be easily implemented.
baddox 12y ago
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may, under the Commerce Clause, prohibit growing marijuana for personal medical use in states where medical marijuana is legal, because it constitutes interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich Before that, the Supreme Court ruled that growing wheat to feed your own chickens constitutes interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filbur... If enough politicians wanted the law, the constitutional argument would be of minimal concern.
- nroach 12y ago
  While I appreciate the cynicism that this embodies, it shows a gross misunderstanding of constitutional law. There is a deep divide in constitutional jurisprudence between commerce and police powers. One of the leading cases is Printz v. US: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1478 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1478 The federal government cannot rely on the necessary and proper cause to empower it to compel state LEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. The feds can offer "incentive" money, as previous commenters have stated.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Were the crop quotas in Wickard v. Filburn enforced by federal agents? I can't seem to find that information.

tomjen3 12y ago

That should be easy enough to work around - there is no reason police officers should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. No video that shows you didn't do it? Fine now you get 10 years + a felony. Believe me the video would always be working under this system. You give up many rights when you e.g join the marines. You might as well have the same rule when you join the police.