N.C. governor signs bill restricting release of police video footage

Damn dupe.

a reply to: In4ormant

originally posted by: In4ormant
There is no police state coming.

I'm sure you're right.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

And we all know, or should know, that there are instances where instantly available to the public, or live streaming, body cam footage is a massive invasion of privacy.

Sure, we will use body cams. We just won't show any video.

Problem solved.

Anyway, this seems to indicate that police believe that they are violating rights and are not willing to change. Otherwise, why wouldn't it be desirable to have the record clear that no wrong doing happened.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Couldn't agree more. Everyone's privacy...bystanders, witnesses, and all those involved, including law enforcement.

Isn't that one of the primary reasons red-light cams were done away with? The privacy issue?

Also, in ongoing investigations, not everything can or should be public...as in the case of an officer talking to a UC officer or an informant or a witness providing names and such that could tip someone off.

It's complex. But I still think, as I mentioned above, that the part that supports the written report should be available to the person with the report.

If something occurs in a public area, people there don't "usually" have the expectation a privacy.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: In4ormant

Court orders to get video by this law? And/or probably laws in all/most states? I didn't find much information about how we get stuff NOW as opposed to these "new" laws.

Same way. It's called a subpoena.

See now, I'm not sure this is correct.

After an incident (be that an accident or a complaint or what have you), within a day or two, I can go right down the the police station and get a report of the incident as written by the officer who responded.

Without having to get a court order or a subpoena.

To me, the body cam video is a part of this incident report, the objective recording in support or corroboration of the report. So why would it be treated any differently?

Why would I or should I have to go to court, hire a lawyer, pay for it?

Why else would you need the video unless going to court and/or filing a complaint? In which case, subpoena.

well, that defeats the whole purpose of them having the cameras.The public outcry for making the police wear cameras was so that the public could see what the police are doing.
The courts have already ruled that when you are in a public place you have no expectation to privacy so, a public servant doing their job in a public place while wearing a publicly funded camera has no expectation that what they do should be private or kept private.
The whole privacy concern for not releasing the camera videos is smoke and mirrors,and doesn`t reflect any current privacy law or laws.
public property being used in a public place by a public servant is the public`s business.
If they have nothing to hide then why are they trying to hide things?

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: In4ormant

originally posted by: In4ormant
There is no police state coming.

I'm sure you're right.

Extrapolating a bit

a reply to: In4ormant

Is the video paid for with tax dollars? If so then no reason is needed.

How and/or why would this be any different than the dash cam videos?

a reply to: In4ormant

I explained it.

I have a right to the report, maybe to make a decision about going to court (in some cases), maybe for insurance (in others). or should I need it for any other reaspn.

And the video corroborates and supports, is an extension of that report.

And I don't need to go to court to get that. Why should I have to go to court to get the video pertaining to same?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: In4ormant

I explained it.

I have a right to the report, maybe to make a decision about going to court (in some cases), maybe for insurance (in others). or should I need it for any other reaspn.

And the video corroborates and supports, is an extension of that report.

And I don't need to go to court to get that. Why should I have to go to court to get the video pertaining to same?

Who said you had to go to court? Just request the video.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Wow, I can't believe this. You seem to fall on the "at least I'll look at this from the other side as well" line for a change. Bravo.
There are a lot of factors involved and having to make a decision that will upset some and please others is the job the Gov must do. He has to use his best judgement and hope he made the right call. Time will tell, but it will be nice to have all LEO's using body cameras and have two sides of the altercations and not just the convenient cell phone footage that may not show the entire thing.

a reply to: In4ormant

You did. Court or subpoena.

They might as well take the camera's off then..time after time it's shown police dept's will bold faced lie.

I would have thought that its upto those captured on the video to decide weather the footage is made public or not.

The officers only choice in the matter should be if some of the footage should be burred out, things like gore or persons captured that do not want their face to be made public (so burring of faces).

Why would the law want to suppress this video footage, if their officers and the training given are of public knowledge then the officers will know whats lawful and whats not. It should never be the actual officers choice to decide anything, it should be the 'managers' choice, what have they got to hide - it'll only turn into a big conspiracy thing if any of the footage is withheld, its in their best interest that all is made available as standard practice.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

This was a very balanced and cogent take on the recently signed bill in NC. As mentioned above, bravo.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Thanks, I try. It is an extremely complex issue. The worst possible scenario would be making it both illegal to film the police and difficult to get video. Seems it might be heading that way if level heads don't prevail.

a reply to: Tardacus

If they have nothing to hide then why are they trying to hide things?

Exactly.

Then what is the point for officer wearing body cameras, and dash cameras for? The police may as well throw their camera in the garbage now, it no longer serves to protect the people.

If anything this new law allows more corrupt police officers to never be held accountable for abusing their authority.

Welcome to the police State USA.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

They need to be hard to get because just about any dip can import video and edit out parts that don't fit their particular agenda much like most of the main stream media, post to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. and create an out of context ruckus that gets blown out of proportion, making finding the truth harder. It needs to be in the courts where there is a least some semblance of rules.