Judge says body cameras for Chicago officers "was not a suggestion" | Hacker News Reader

Judge says body cameras for Chicago officers "was not a suggestion"

cbsnews.com

56 points01-_-27 comments

The SAFE-T act of 2021 requires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE-T_Act "all law enforcement agencies to use body cameras by 2025". This is alongside research that indicates it is beneficial and cost-effective https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20533586-cl_bwc-stud...

The judge's insistence may come from other times that a judge's order has been ignored https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-ignores-judges-order-b...

The act you’re referring to is Illinois statute and doesn’t apply to federal agents.

Except a state law does and cannot force federal law enforcement to do anything, no matter how good of an idea body cameras may be.

That is not true. State laws cannot interfere with the work of federal law enforcement, but can require certain behaviours.

Eg. States set speed limits. A federal LEO can break these when required for their duties (eg. chasing a suspect), but only when required (eg. if they are late for a meeting, they still have to obey traffic laws).

Body cameras do not seem to directly interfere with an LEO’s duty, unless “avoiding accountability” is literally their duty.

But is a federal judge ruling on federal agents, and in the case of the national guard seems to be under control of the state? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406

I wasn't addressing the ruling by the judge, only the poster commenting on a state law, suggesting it's applicability here.

As usual most journalists are garbage LLM rewriters of other text by some source journalists who have also only heard it from someone else. You can tell because they cannot link the case or anything.

It must be related to this recent case

It is further ORDERED that all Federal Agents who are conducting immigration enforcement operations in the Northern District of Illinois, excepting those who do not wear a uniform or other distinguishing clothing or equipment in the regular performance of their official duties or are engaged in undercover operations in the regular performance of their official duties, that are currently equipped and trained with body-worn cameras (“BWCs”) shall activate them when engaged in enforcement activity unless exempted by CBP, ICE, or DHS policy.

a. The definitions of “body worn cameras” shall be as defined in DHS Policy Statement: Body Worn Camera: Audio/video/digital recording equipment combined into a single unit and typically worn on clothing or otherwise secured to a person, e.g., affixed to the outside of the carrier/tactical vest facing forward. DHS Policy Statement 045-07

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559589/66/chicago-hea...

And here’s the policy statement https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/23_0522_opa_...

A good journalist would have found out these things and then shared them and an exceptional one would have told us if there are subsequent policies of the DHS that have changed the BWC procedure. And they could perhaps explain why the DHS cannot simply change the policy instead of fighting in court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com