Vermont continues to struggle with legal questions surrounding the use of police body cameras. The Vermont Supreme Court hears arguments April 17 to determine whether its citizens must pay money to access police video footage. In Doyle v. Burlington Police Department, the police required a $220.50 payment for processing costs for the redaction of minors' faces before it would release a body camera video to the plaintiff.
first comment wrote:The taxpayers pay the salaries of the police.
The taxpayers pay for the cameras carried by the police
The taxpayers pay for the information systems the video footage is stored on
The taxpayers have the right to view what they pay for. They've already paid for it.
Period.
counter point wrote:All government records, including those not involving police, cost money to be retrieved, redacted, and reproduced. Neither you nor the brain trust who discovered Foucault here understands the basics of budgeting in the legal system. It's not some grand drama of the panopticon: it's how many clerks you need to hire to process massive amounts of paperwork for cases, evidence, and civil law.
There has to be a compromise in here somewhere, no?
Vermont continues to struggle with legal questions surrounding the use of police body cameras. The Vermont Supreme Court hears arguments April 17 to determine whether its citizens must pay money to access police video footage. In Doyle v. Burlington Police Department, the police required a $220.50 payment for processing costs for the redaction of minors' faces before it would release a body camera video to the plaintiff.
first comment wrote:The taxpayers pay the salaries of the police.
The taxpayers pay for the cameras carried by the police
The taxpayers pay for the information systems the video footage is stored on
The taxpayers have the right to view what they pay for. They've already paid for it.
Period.
counter point wrote:All government records, including those not involving police, cost money to be retrieved, redacted, and reproduced. Neither you nor the brain trust who discovered Foucault here understands the basics of budgeting in the legal system. It's not some grand drama of the panopticon: it's how many clerks you need to hire to process massive amounts of paperwork for cases, evidence, and civil law.
There has to be a compromise in here somewhere, no?
If the issue is one of cost in making the footage available, then I think a reasonable compromise would be the complete and immediate release of all footage from any officers that were on scene at the time of an officer involved shooting. Any other footage can be requested, but the requestor bears the cost of making the footage available. I'd anticipate that such requests would commonly come from defense attorneys during the discovery process.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
No free lunch. Taxpayers will pay for retrieving and distributing the video. There is no way around that. It can be built into the annual budget process and come from all the taxes gathered, or it can be a point of service tax, or some combination.
The question is really about which taxpayer(s) are going to pay for it.
