ACLU of Delaware Calls on Public to Make Comment on Regulating the Use of Body Cameras by Law Enforcement
WILMINGTON — On September 2, 2021, the Delaware Council on Police Training held its first of two public meetings to begin the process of setting forth regulations for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement. This is a process that requires public input, and the ACLU of Delaware is calling on Delawareans to submit public comment at the next meeting on Thursday, September 9, 2021.
House Bill 195, passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor on July 21, 2021, requires certain police officers and other employees of the Department of Correction to use body-worn cameras to record interactions with members of the public. This bill also requires the Council on Police Training to create regulations for body-worn cameras to ensure consistent use by 2022.
With yesterday’s meeting, The Council on Police Training has begun the process of regulation-setting — and ACLU-DE says it is critical that people from all communities in Delaware take this opportunity to make sure their voices are heard in this process.
Javonne Rich, policy and advocacy director at ACLU-DE, stated in her public comment at last night’s meeting: “Spending millions on technology because of its promise to build trust between communities and police, but not requiring departments to use this technology in ways that will actually build trust, would not only squander taxpayer money but also waste a valuable opportunity to change the dynamic of policing in Delaware.”
ACLU-DE points to an as a good example of what to include in a set of regulations governing the use of body-worn cameras, and offers to help the public craft their own public comments.
The next meeting hosted by the Council on Police Training will be next Thursday, September 9, at 6 p.m. at the New Castle County Police Department — 3601 N. Dupont Hwy. New Castle, DE 19720. At this time, these public comment sessions are in-person and there is no virtual attendance option.
If you cannot attend a meeting in-person, you can submit your written public comment to: Susan McNatt at (302) 739-5903 or send an email addressed to susan.a.mcnatt@delaware.gov.
This press release can be found online here:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.