At least 1,201 people were killed in 2022 by law enforcement officers, about 100 deaths a month, according to Mapping Police Violence, a nonprofit research group that tracks police killings. ProPublica examined the 101 deaths that occurred in June 2022, a time frame chosen because enough time had elapsed that investigations could reasonably be expected to have concluded. The cases involved 131 law enforcement agencies in 34 states.

In 79 of those deaths, ProPublica confirmed that body-worn camera video exists. But more than a year later, authorities or victims’ families had released the footage of only 33 incidents.

Philadelphia signed a $12.5 million contract in 2017 to equip its entire police force with cameras. Since then, at least 27 people have been killed by Philadelphia police, according to Mapping Police Violence, but in only two cases has body-camera video been released to the public.

ProPublica’s review shows that withholding body-worn camera footage from the public has become so entrenched in some cities that even pleas from victims’ families don’t serve to shake the video loose.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Absolutely not. That defeats the entire purpose. Foia requests should 100% be answered.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      An officer wears a body camera. A confidential informant against the mafia runs up to him in the street and starts talking to him.

      A mafia lawyer files a FOIA request for the body camera video of every officer in the department.

      Should the department comply with this FOIA request, give up the video and expose the informant to the mafia?

      Should the officer be allowed to leave his camera off throughout the day, so as to avoid creating a record that he would be forced to turn over?

      Suppose I were to SWAT you. I spoof your number, call the police, tell them I’m you, get them to raid “my” house. They get all geared up, turn in their cameras, raid your house, discover it was a prank. Should I, or anyone I tell, now be allowed to file a FOIA request for their video footage, and publish it “for the lulz”?

      The idealistic, absolute position you took here would be ripe for abuse.

      I want those cameras running all day long. They should be incorporated into the officer’s badge, and have no “off” setting. It should be recording from the time they take it off the charger at the start of their shift, and should keep running until they put it back on the charger after their shift.

      The only way that level of intrusiveness is feasible is if nobody - and I mean nobody - can view that video without a warrant or a subpoena.

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Obviously that’s not an artist situation. Easy appendage to the law. Arrests can’t be done with cameras off and turning a camera off should automatically be logged. Therefore a cup who presses the button to turn one off before an arrest should be subject to firing and prosecution. Pressing the button before a your convo with an informant should be no big deal.

        Welcome to nuance. It’s where we don’t blanket accept manipulation and bullying just to avoid a particular specific scenario included in the blanket.

        Also yeah, why shouldn’t a SWAT be recorded and subject to request?

        We also can’t rule out technical failure. That’s why they should be tamper resistant and have a log for button presses, GPS data, and automatically report. I don’t wanna see a cop be prosecuted because some tech fucked up on them.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Also yeah, why shouldn’t a SWAT be recorded and subject to request?

          You failed to comprehend that situation. You do not appear to understand the concept of “swatting” if you believe it even remotely reasonable to release that camera footage.

          Humans are notoriously bad at consistently following requirements. If your system requires extensive human interaction in real time, your system will also require tolerance for mistakes that humans consistently make when given only split seconds to consider their decisions. The exemplar scenarios I presented demand significantly more thought and consideration than a single officer’s quick decision as to whether or not to record. Cases should not succeed or fail, and confidence should not be kept or broken on a single officer’s split second decision as to whether his camera should be on or off at a particular moment.

          With your system, cameras will occasionally be off when they should be on. That’s just human fallibility. No amount of punishment will ever prevent an honest mistake.

          We can’t get footage if it was never recorded, so we should err on the side of creating the recording. But, we cannot allow the existence of a recording to create unnecessary harm, either to the officer or to members of the public.

          We don’t need to see any video where there is no suspicion of wrongdoing. When there is a suspicion, we need that camera to have been on. My approach systematically solves both problems; your approach does not.