124th Morrison Congress

2nd Session

H.R. 124-070
Title of the Bill:

Body Camera Enforcement Act

Main Author(s):

Rep. Lauren Baker (D-NJ)

Co-Sponsor(s):
BE IT ENACTED BY THE MORRISON CONGRESS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

SECTION 1: Findings
Congress makes the following findings:
1) While body cameras are only required by some states in America, even
those law enforcement officers who are required to wear them often do not
turn their body cameras on. (5)
2) The Supreme Court ruled in T
ennessee

v. Garner (1985) that a police officer

cannot use lethal force on a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable
cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or
serious physical injury to the officer or others. (1)
3) In July, a Chicago police officer shot an unarmed 18 year old man, Paul
ONeal, and killed him. ONeal had stolen a car and after crashing that car
into a police vehicle, he ran away. Two officers followed him and the officer
who shot ONeal had on a body camera, but it was not turned on. Based on
the facts of ONeals crimes, there was no reason for the police officers to
shoot at his back and kill him because he was completely unarmed and was
not posing a threat to the officers. (1)
4) Many state police departments own guidelines state that proper procedure
involves the use of pepper spray, canines, stun guns, etc., and in dealing
with unarmed fleeing suspects, the use of a gun or firearm is not one of
them. (1)
5) In Rialto California, after body cameras were implemented they saw a 60%
reduction in use of force instances and an 88% reduction in officer
complaints. (2)
6) With police body cameras, the video footage helps show a much clearer
picture of what happened and using the footage in court can ensure a fairer
trial, as well as clearing up uncertainty. (6)
7) Police cameras are very unobtrusive and are not bulky, heavy, nor large in
size. Both the camera and battery pack combined weigh less than a quarter
of a pound. Some body cameras are even as small as a tube of lipstick and
do not hinder policemen from performing their duties. (6)

SECTION 2: Purpose
The purpose of the bill is make body cameras for police officers mandatory in all
states, and require that the body cameras be turned on and functioning properly
throughout the entire shift of the police officer.

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

SECTION 3: General Provisions

This Act will require all state police departments to give mandatory body cameras to
each law enforcement officer. This body camera must be turned on at all times
during the officers working hours. With body cameras, this will aid in providing more
substantial evidence in court and make sure the police officer has followed proper
protocol. Cameras protect citizens from unjustified force at the hands of officers, and
protect officers who are doing their job properly.

SECTION 4: Definitions
Tennessee v. Garner: a 1985 Supreme Court case that h
eld that, under the Fourth
Amendment (prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures), when a law
enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly
force to prevent escape unless "the officer has p
robable cause to believe that the
suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or
others."

Works Cited:
1) http://www.newsweek.com/when-cops-who-kill-leave-their-body-cameras-turned-486
978?scrlybrkr=f160bb2b#
2) http://thefreethoughtproject.com/good-body-cameras-cop-turn-shove-flashlight-woma
ns-throat/
3) http://www.ibtimes.com/what-happens-when-police-turn-their-body-cameras-2050118
?scrlybrkr=cb70053a
4) http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/bodycams/
5) http://apps.urban.org/features/body-camera/
6) http://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/justice-studies/blog/pros-and-cons-of-police-body
-cameras/