Missouri introduces bill prohibiting body cameras

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
SB 331 - Under this act, any footage from a camera worn by a police officer or attached to a police officer's vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, or other device is not a public record and may not be released by a law enforcement agency except upon court order.

This act prohibits the state from requiring peace officers to wear cameras or attach cameras to their vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, or other devices. The state is also prohibited from requiring law enforcement agencies to provide such cameras to their officers.

http://www.senate.mo.gov/15info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=2035212

Why do this? Citizen's privacy, of course.

The president of the Northwest Missouri Regional Fraternal Order of Police said:
"If we respond to and are speaking to a victim of domestic violence or rape or even just something simple like a simple stealing call, we don't want that type of footage to be obtained by citizens, any citizen that decides they want it," Mr. Hardin said. "This legislation would stop a lot of that and protect the rights of citizens throughout Missouri."

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_db00f74a-e091-5d8a-84a6-5b0e60e34b0f.html

Of course, there's no mention of reigning back all the ways police attempt to bypass having to get a search warrant to search a person or said person's property. Stop and frisk? Drug-sniffing dogs? DUI checkpoints? License plate readers? StingRay cellphone tracking? Supreme Court decisions directly connected to police having no concern about citizen privacy?

The second half of this bill has absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting citizen's privacy. It simply forbids the state from requiring body cameras for police. Nowhere in this bill does it offer citizens who want to protect their privacy a means to block the public release of the footage. This law essentially requires anyone wanting video to go to court and explain why it should be released. Not to mention the costs of doing so.

New Mexico could use laws regarding citizen's rights, and it's a good thing they don't have this law, because this footage would probably not exist
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
http://www.senate.mo.gov/15info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=2035212

Why do this? Citizen's privacy, of course.

The president of the Northwest Missouri Regional Fraternal Order of Police said:


http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_db00f74a-e091-5d8a-84a6-5b0e60e34b0f.html

Of course, there's no mention of reigning back all the ways police attempt to bypass having to get a search warrant to search a person or said person's property. Stop and frisk? Drug-sniffing dogs? DUI checkpoints? License plate readers? StingRay cellphone tracking? Supreme Court decisions directly connected to police having no concern about citizen privacy?

The second half of this bill has absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting citizen's privacy. It simply forbids the state from requiring body cameras for police. Nowhere in this bill does it offer citizens who want to protect their privacy a means to block the public release of the footage. This law essentially requires anyone wanting video to go to court and explain why it should be released. Not to mention the costs of doing so.

New Mexico could use laws regarding citizen's rights, and it's a good thing they don't have this law, because this footage would probably not exist

Driving while redneck.
 
Top