Based on history, why would they care? Cameras or no, it appears that there are almost no consequences for their breaking of the law. Generally worst case scenario is that the residents of the city they work in pay a large fine to the victims. QI means the cops suffer no harm. Most of the time the department and prosecution conspires to ensure the video and crime never sees the light of day.

And if they do end up going to court: " the court held that California police who stand accused of stealing $225,000 cannot be sued because they never were told specifically that stealing money from people’s homes violates the Constitution"

https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/14/high-court-to-decide-i...

He's still on the job, and the person he wanted in prison is still in prison, so it's more that it doesn't matter he was on video, because not even video evidence is enough to get him fired, let alone arrested.

Cops are sworn to the law, not the people, but, in any case oaths, absent effective accountability to them, only matter to the people that didn't need to take them in the first place.

> against the people they are sworn to protect?

This is a misnomer.

Cops are not actually "to protect and serve", and this has been proven in court.

Their function is to uphold the law. That's it.