comScore

Legislators pass on reasonable changes to Minnesota's body camera law

Politicians passed on even basic changes, like having police explain why their cameras weren't on.

Politicians passed on even basic changes, like having police explain why their cameras weren't on.

Reader Luke McDonald responds to Minnesota passes body cam bill, but you won't be seeing much footage:

There was an amendment voted down that assumed that if an officer didn't have their camera on during an incident, they were in violation of policy. The amendment stated that the officer would have to explain why the camera was not on.

Another amendment was voted down that would require law enforcement to explain why a video was not released to the public if it was not "suitable for public viewing" (I forget the exact wording). All the amendment would do is require a reason.

One reason given to vote this down was too much paperwork. Another amendment was voted down that would require law enforcement not to lie if someone asked if they are being recorded, unless the law enforcement officer thought anyone's life was at risk.

Do these amendments not seem like common sense if we are going to have body cameras? I'm open to any arguments explaining why the above amendments are bad ideas.