Wednesday, January 27, 2016
House Republicans Overwhelmingly Pass Bill To Block Public Access To Police Videos
The House Republicans today struck a blow for government secrecy when it overwhelmingly passed HB 1019, legislation which essentially lets police departments decide whether the public should have access to videos police record of their interactions with members of the public. The 65-30 vote was largely along party lines. One of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. Ed DeLaney (D), tried to offer an amendment to make the bill appear less Soviet-styled protection of a police state, which was voted down. DeLaney wound up voting against the bill on third reading Rep. Tom Saunders (R) and Rep. Bruce Borders (R) were about the only Republican lawmakers to cast a no vote. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Kevin Mahan (R), a former sheriff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the public access to public records. That's why legislation is necessary to ensure access to public records.
This is bad law. It defaults the video to being available only if the police agree. The law should be exactly the other way; the video and audio should be available unless there are valid reasons to hold it back.
Refer to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160127/archer-heights/whats-behind-no-sound-syndrome-on-chicago-police-dashcams for reasons not to leave control of the records in the hands of the police force.
Public information is property of the people- this will require legal challenge.
The pigs want to maintain control so they have time to doctor the video before presenting it as perjured evidence
"Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the public access to public records. "
But it guarantees abortion, gay marriage, assault weapons bans and mandatory health insurance?
You don't understand how constitutional law is played.
Speak the number of an amendment, and say that records are covered by it. If the judges want to side with you, poof, you just made constitutional law.
Stick this under the First Amendment as appurtenant to the freedom of the press. One's press is worthless if one doesn't know what to use it complain about. A court will buy it.
You make a valid point, anon. 10:55. When Phyllis Schlafly led the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment she was quick to point out that it did more than ensure equality to women, which she said was already attainable under the Civil Rights Act. The ERA would require legalization of gay marriage, subject women to the draft, require uni-sex bathrooms, etc. They succeeded in beating the ERA, but the Supreme Court has slowly interpreted the Constitution to provide virtually everything the proponents of ERA sought. There's a pending case before the Court of Appeals in Denver that could pave the way to the legalization of polygamous marriages.
Negative. Releasing police videos prior to either pending criminal cases or civil litigation could jeopardize the integrety of the cases/litigation. Be careful what you wish for.
Post a Comment