It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That's because a new law that goes into effect on October 1, exactly one week after the Scott footage was released, is set to block the public from obtaining similar kinds of recordings from body cameras or dashboard cameras.
It's about "respecting the public, respecting the family, and also respecting the constitutional rights of the officer," he said.
"One viewpoint of a video doesn't often always tell the whole story," McCrory said. "The angles can make a difference, and [you're] not hearing [the sound] often in the video, so that [adds to] the complexity. The video is one piece of evidence. We have to be careful."
I dunno folks... Many of us complained that the police needed video cameras they could not fiddle with which is a two edged sword... Protects them from outlandish claims and makes them hopefully think before they do something stupid....... Unfortunately there are always ways of legally getting around something ..... Just pass a law that says "Yep we have the video but you cannot see it!" Kinda defeats the whole purpose IMO..
(f) Release of Recordings; General; Court Order Required. – Recordings in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall only be released pursuant to court order. Any custodial law enforcement agency or any person requesting release of a recording may file an action in the superior court in any county where any portion of the recording was made for an order releasing the recording. The request for release must state the date and approximate time of the activity captured in the recording, or otherwise identify the activity with reasonable particularity sufficient to identify the recording to which the action refers. The court may conduct an in‑camera review of the recording. In determining whether to order the release of all or a portion of the recording, in addition to any other standards the court deems relevant, the court shall consider the applicability of all of the following standards:
(1) Release is necessary to advance a compelling public interest.
(2) The recording contains information that is otherwise confidential or exempt from disclosure or release under State or federal law.
(3) The person requesting release is seeking to obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a current or potential court proceeding.
(4) Release would reveal information regarding a person that is of a highly sensitive personal nature.
(5) Release may harm the reputation or jeopardize the safety of a person.
(6) Release would create a serious threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice.
(7) Confidentiality is necessary to protect either an active or inactive internal or criminal investigation or potential internal or criminal investigation.
(8) There is good cause shown to release all portions of a recording.
The court shall release only those portions of the recording that are relevant to the person's request, and may place any conditions or restrictions on the release of the recording that the court, in its discretion, deems appropriate.
That's sure to increase trust in law enforcement... no one would possibly suspect that they're just trying to bury evidence... not at all...