Missouri lawmakers pass bill to restrict viewing of police camera footage

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Missouri lawmakers passed a bill on Tuesday to restrict the public's access to police camera footage, nearly two years after the slaying of a black teen in a St. Louis suburb fueled demands across the country for more police accountability.

The measure would block the public from accessing footage collected by cameras worn by officers and mounted inside patrol vehicles while investigations are ongoing.

Once an investigation is over, footage would remain restricted if recorded at locations where "one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy," such as inside schools, homes and medical facilities.

Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, was considering whether to sign the proposal, an aide said.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-missouri-police-footage-idUSKCN0Y200P

---

World | Tue May 10, 2016 8:16pm EDT
BY ERIC M. JOHNSON

[msongs]

1. so does the same law apply to videos by non-criminals? nt

[Hoyt]

2. I don't have a problem with that as long as police have cameras and are properly disciplined

based upon what's on the camera. Wish Wilson had a camera when he gunned down Michael Brown. If he had, it might not have happened. Personally, I think all yahoos who carry a gun should be required to wear a camera.

[scscholar]

3. Yahoo?

Are you calling for them to not carry guns? Because that would be the best way to protect the public.

[Hoyt]

4. Would love for yahoos to leave their guns at home. But since they can't, put a camera on them so

bullies like Zman, and racists who use lax gun laws, will have a tougher time getting away with crud.

[Massacure]

5. The title of this thread made me do a knee jerk

The law allows people who appear in the film to receive copies and I imagine there is nothing that stops them from releasing their copy once they receive it. I disagree that one should have an expectation to privacy while in a school though.

[Feeling the Bern]

6. Yeah, gives them plenty of time to concoct a story and erase or "lose" the video

Don't trust police no how no way.

[Thor_MN]

7. How about a law requiring all guns to have a camera?

[valerief]

8. Because...fuck the public.

[forgotmylogin]

9. Living near Ferguson here

I don't see any problem with restricting footage so it's not handed out willy-nilly to protect victims' and police privacy, etc. when all goes by the book. It should be available to attorneys and anyone involved in the handling or prosecution of a case.

However, there should be a procedure in place for the public to obtain information including camera footage as long as they take the extra step to request it. Family of a victim or perpetrator, or anyone in the footage should always qualify as long as they make the effort to fill out a form. Journalists and news organizations should always be blocked and should need to go through the family or an attorney.

Only problem is...the police get to edit it or leave out "irrelevant" parts.