When we talk with police departments, policy advocates, and the press about police body cameras, two questions come up with great regularity. The first is “what does the national landscape look like in terms of the laws and polices being adopted?” and the second is “are there any good state laws and departmental policies you can point us to?”
Both questions lend themselves to a single answer.
The landscape on body cameras throughout the nation is mixed. On one side, we have some really bad state laws, like and , and departmental policies, like the . These laws and policies seem to be primarily focused on preventing the public from viewing body camera footage unless the government decides to release it. To that end, they acknowledge little to no public right to access the footage.
On the other side, we have laws and policies that not only demonstrate a strong commitment to both protecting privacy and promoting police transparency and accountability , but also get many other critical issues right, such as when cameras should be activated and deactivated and when members of the public should be notified they are being filmed. These balanced, well-considered policies are the good ones. They include the recently adopted , and the department-level policies of the , Westmoreland County (Virginia) Sheriff’s Office, and Commerce City (Colorado) Police Department. Each of them bears a strong philosophical resemblance to the ACLU’s model bill for police body cameras, which we released in May 2015.
The takeaway from this analysis is simple but important. The ACLU has always said we do not support police body cameras in the abstract; rather, we support police body cameras if and only if the right polices are in place to govern them. The logical question that follows is whether state legislatures and local police departments are willing and able to adopt real world laws and policies that maximize the potential benefits of body cameras while minimizing their potential harms. The answer is yes. Now all we need are more of them.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.