DC’s Top Cop Backs Mayor’s Plan To Exempt Police Body-Cam Footage From FOIA Requests

Daily Caller ^ | 5/7/15 | JOSH FATZICK

[Usagi_yo]

The District of Columbia’s police chief told a city council panel Thursday she would support Mayor Muriel Bowser’s proposal to shield all body camera footage from Freedom of Information Act requests.

Police chief Cathy Lanier cited privacy concerns and logistical problems with redacting sensitive information from body camera footage as her main reasons for backing the proposal.

[Usagi_yo]

Police are just bureaucrats with guns.

Somewhere my mind is thinking .... 'I don't think it's up to the Mayor nor the Chief of Police to determine what can be fOI or not.

[MeshugeMikey]

‘I don’t think it’s up to the Mayor nor the Chief of Police to determine what can be fOI or not.

I think your mind is 100 percent correct!

[KarlInOhio]

Unedited video better be available for all criminal defenses and all uses of violence (both lethal and nonlethal) by the cops. And no "convenient" situations where every officer's camera malfunctioned at the same time.

[Osage Orange]

I want body cams on all people that "represent" us.

The President..the Vice President...and our so called "Representatives"

[LuvFreeRepublic]

Any body cam footage of police wrong doing will likely be all over the news. IMO, the ‘lack of transparency’ is so the public won’t see how the animals behave.

[hanamizu]

The downside of having each cop wear a camera is how long does the cop shop have to retain the video records? The storage costs will start to cost the agency real money. A local (Missouri) police force stopped using the cameras when FOI petitioners started asking for everything and then posting the amusing ones on YouTube. One or two full-time employees were required to just process the FOI requests. This was in a small town. A jurisdiction like DC might reqiire a small beaurocracy to do the same thing.

I don’t know what the answer is, but every cop’s every day being considered pubic record is a can of worms.

[Usagi_yo]

Uh, no. Then you get things like the IRS — admitting somebody broke the law but they can’t tell you because it would invade their privacy.

Unless of course it’s a conservative, then it will be promptly leaked, but the leaker can’t be identified by the IRS either if caught — back to the fake privacy cover screen.

Any agency with self-investigative approval, tacit or otherwise should not be able to with hold video information.

It’s different if it was just a plain jane arrest with no altercation or public spectacle. I could see that not being necessary.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Except when the video can be used to wrongfully accuse a white cop.

[puppypusher]

If the D.C. Police are not going to make that video available than why have the officers where the cameras?

The reason to have the cameras is to show the public, the People paying the checks. what the Police are doing on a daily basis, for the good or the bad. Hopefully for the good.

Those cameras should be tamperproof and should be running at all times while the officer is on duty except for those times when he needs a personal break. When that occasion occurs the officers immediate supervisor can deactivate the camera and then reactivate it after the break has ended.

[Rodamala]

"'Character' is doing the right thing when nobody is looking."

It is our charge to elect men of Character.

[Usagi_yo]

How do you wrongfully accuse a white cop with a video, and by specifically noting ‘white cop’ are you insinuating that it’s okay to wrongfully accuse black cops?

Maybe you get a video of a white cop shooting an unarmed fat black man in the back 8 times, complete with a nice little dramatic pause while the officer squares up a bit more, chin down, side profile towards the target, pistol double cupped and delivers the kill shot to the back at 15 to 20 feet away?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Two words: Rodney King.

[Osage Orange]

“we” have failed...

[zeugma]

Unedited video better be available for all criminal defenses and all uses of violence (both lethal and nonlethal) by the cops. And no "convenient" situations where every officer's camera malfunctioned at the same time.

If I were on a jury and there was supposed to be video available, and it was not, I would take anything said by the police with a healthy dose of skepticism.

If all the police had in such a case was the word of the cop, the defendant would walk.

[PapaBear3625]

If the D.C. Police are not going to make that video available than why have the officers where the cameras?

The video would not be subject to FOIA requests, but WOULD be available by court order (such as when the cop is a party to a criminal or civil case).

In cases where the video is "unavailable" due to "malfunction", the jury should be so informed, the opposing attorney should be able to cross-examine as to the reason for the "malfunction", and the jury should be allowed to form an opinion as to whether they think the lack of video was a deliberate attempt to suppress evidence.