McCrory Signs Dumb and Bad Body Camera Bill into Law | News
INDY Week's news blog

Archives | RSS

Monday, July 11, 2016

McCrory Signs Dumb and Bad Body Camera Bill into Law

Posted by on Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:50 PM

click to enlarge 10-8 VIDEO LLC
  • 10-8 Video LLC
As expected, Gov. Pat McCrory signed into law today body-camera legislation that essentially defeats the purpose of having body cameras in the first place.

The bill, HB 972, received Democratic support due to the fact that legislators attached a provision decriminalizing needle-exchange programs to it. It is otherwise a terrible, terrible bill.

Here's our quick explainer on it, from last week's roundup of legislative activity, but just to sum up: Everybody is sick of police officers killing people and using excessive force and not being held accountable. Body cameras are a way to hold police accountable. A bunch of local governments started ordering body cameras and devising sensible policies for how and when body camera footage should be released to the general public. Then a bill surfaced this session that gives near-complete authority over the release of those videos to the police department—the very people body cameras are meant to hold accountable. And only a couple of people voted against this. 

The INDY spoke this afternoon with the ACLU's Susannah Birdsong, who has spent a considerable amount of time working on body-camera issues. 

"Obviously, we don't think this achieves the goals of transparency and accountability," Birdsong says. "We're trying to figure out what we can work with in the language of the bill." 

There may be some wiggle room. One section of the bill, regarding releasing the footage to the subject of the body-camera recording, reads, "The custodial law enforcement agency may consider any of the following factors in determining if a recording is disclosed," and then ticks off several factors, such as if the recording is "of a highly sensitive personal nature"; if it would "harm the reputation or jeopardize the safety of a person"; or—perhaps the best example of the wildly broad aims of this bill—if "confidentiality is necessary to protect either an active or inactive internal or criminal investigation or potential internal or criminal investigation," which could basically mean anything. 

Noting that the ACLU and others are still "in the infancy of looking into this," Birdsong says she believes the word may could leave room for local governments to decide for themselves which of those factors police departments are allowed to use to determine whether a video should be released. 

"For example, if you are requesting the release of a video of yourself, the clause about the video harming someone's reputation' isn't relevant, since you're that person," Birdsong says. "I think, the way the bill is written, it's discretionary enough that it leaves room for a city council to say, before it releases funds to a police department to purchase body cameras, that some of those factors should not be considered."

In this regard, Durham's snail-like approach to body-camera policy—it put off the decision to purchase cameras back in March—may turn out to be fortuitous. The council is on summer break at the moment, but will deal with the implications of this law when it returns. 

"We'll be encouraging Durham and other cities to really think through their options here," Birdsong says. "And, of course, we'll be working to collect stories from people who have had a hard time accessing footage. And we'll be working to amend the bill in the next session." 

Pin It


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in News

Twitter Activity


Most Recent Comments

@jerryg so if the mayor has no power why should we vote then?

by snake00 on Runoff for Raleigh Mayor's Post May Be Ahead as Francis Denies McFarlane a Majority of Votes (News)

Cora landed the endorsements of the Durham Committee (DC) and the Friends (FD) for 10,400 votes.
Huggins with the DC …

by Frank Hyman on Cole-McFadden Survives Durham Council Primary, Moffitt Does Not (News)

Cora landed the endorsements of the Durham Committee (DC) and the Friends (FD) for 10,400 votes.
Huggins with the DC …

by Frank Hyman on Durham's Next Mayor Will Be Steve Schewel or Farad Ali (News)

Just because one of our two newly elected Council members is pro-neighborhood and natural resources, it does not qualify her …

by Meredith de la Vergne on Make Way for the NIMBY Raleigh City Council, as Newcomers Nicole Stewart and Stef Mendell Oust Bonner Gaylord and Defeat Stacy Miller (News)

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation