Another Politician Attempts To Build A Wall Between The Public And The Police Who Serve Them

Body camera footage is a great tool for law enforcement accountability. But all the potential good can all be undone by ensuring the public has no access to the recordings. If recordings become just another internal "document," nothing has been gained by the addition of body-worn cameras. That outcome is perfectly fine with some legislators, like Michigan Senator Rick Jones.

A House bill that would exempt police body camera video from being released to the public under Michigan's Freedom of Information Act is raising red flags among some attorneys and civil libertarians. The proposal by Sen. Rick Jones would amend Michigan's 1976 Freedom of Information Act by keeping police body camera audio and video shielded from public disclosure.

Of course, Rick Jones -- a former sheriff with 31 years in law enforcement -- sees nothing wrong with preventing the public from keeping an eye on their public servants. This isn't being done to shield officers from accountability, according to Jones. No, this is being done to keep cops from being mocked by infamous cop-basher, the Internet.

"This is a first step and it will be tweaked,'' he said. "All of the police I have talked with believe that there are many times that private moments are filmed and it's not the sort of thing you want somebody to FOIA and then put on the Internet for entertainment, for people to laugh at.''

Jeezus. Got some very sensitive individuals hiding behind badges, bulletproof vests and FOIA exemptions. I think most would rather be laughed at than reviled. If the worst thing that happens to Michigan cops is a few embarrassing moments (and a host of just-as-embarrassing comments below them) being uploaded to YouTube, they should be grateful. It's far better than having footage of misconduct or excessive force circulating the 'net. Even the senator's ostensible opponent -- the Michigan ACLU -- agrees that some footage should be exempt from public records requests.

"If the police are sitting in their squad car talking to one another about their personal matters – that doesn't need to be on YouTube,'' [ACLU's Miriam] Aukerman said. "If police go to someone's home and tell them your child has died or your child's been in an accident, that doesn't need to be out in the public.''

Jones says the wording will be "tweaked," but it's unclear how much of it. So far, he's only talked to police officials and officers about their perspective. Until that changes, nothing in his amendment will either. As it stands now, the untweaked version grants a blanket exception to all body camera footage without exception. The following would be added to the list of items Michigan citizens can't obtain via FOIA requests:

(Z) AN AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING RECORDED BY A BODY-WORN CAMERA WORN BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF HIS OR HER DUTIES AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

An earlier bill introduced by a Michigan representative in the House asked for a much slimmer exemption -- footage recorded in private homes. Jones wants it all exempt. Supposedly, he'll be meeting with the ACLU and other interested parties to discuss changes to the wording. We'll see how much he's willing to budge, considering there's only room on his side for concessions. I'm guessing it won't be much. Jones didn't get named "Legislator of the Year" by the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police for nothing. He was the one who safely shepherded the state's asset forfeiture "reform" bill through the legislature -- one so badly-neutered by law enforcement meddling that the Michigan Association of Police Officers actually endorsed the final version.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story &