Time to Demand that All Law Enforcement in Mason County wears a Body Camera!

[John Doe Jr]

Police Accountability by Making Effective Recording Available Act of 2015 or the Police CAMERA Act.

Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs to make grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribes to purchase or lease body-worn cameras for use by law enforcement officers, and for expenses related to the implementation of a body-worn camera program, in order to deter excessive force, improve accountability and transparency of use of force by law enforcement officers, assist in responding to complaints against officers, and improve evidence collection.

Requires a grantee to: (1) develop, with community input, policies for the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras, for the secure storage, handling, and destruction of data collected, for protecting the privacy rights of any individual who may be recorded, and for the release of any data collected in accordance with the open records laws of the state; and (2) conduct periodic evaluations of the security of the storage and handling of the body-worn camera data.

Requires a grantee to adopt data collection and retention protocols that:

• require an officer wearing a camera to provide an explanation if an activity that is required to be recorded is not recorded and to obtain a crime victim's or witness's consent to be recorded before interviewing him or her;
• minimize the collection of data unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement purpose;
• require the system used to store collected data to log all viewing, modification, or deletion of such data and to prevent its unauthorized access or disclosure;
• prohibit any law enforcement officer from accessing the stored data without an authorized purpose;
• require the law enforcement agency to collect and report data on incidences of use of force, the number of complaints filed against officers, the disposition of such complaints, and the number of times camera footage is used for evidence collection in investigations of crimes; and
• allow an individual to file a complaint with a law enforcement agency relating to the improper use of such cameras.

Allows data collected by a grantee to be used only in internal and external investigations of misconduct by a law enforcement agency or officer, if there is reasonable suspicion that a recording contains evidence of a crime, or for limited training purposes. Prohibits a grantee from transferring any collected data to another law enforcement or intelligence agency, with specified exceptions for investigations of crimes and civil rights violations.

Directs the Assistant Attorney General to study and report to Congress on the efficacy of body-worn cameras.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Police.pdf

https://www.change.org/p/congress-pass-the-police-camera-act

Make Law Enforcement accountable and transparent!

[shinblind]

Open Challenge to Kim Cole

Hey Cole in Scottville the other night at the town meeting you alluded to having another $30K in your budget to spend. Rather than piss away that money on getting a submarine device that might be used once a year then sit on the shelf. Or even getting the officers trained on snowmobile patrol. 

For that same $30K you could purchase 40 of the highest priced body cameras on the market. Think of it Kim, you could outfit all 13 road officers with 2 body cameras, and you would have 14 additional cameras sitting on the shelf. Put them in the space you were saving for your submarine.

Why 2 cameras for each officer? So we don't have to listen to any limp dick excuses that the cameras weren"t working. Th

[shinblind]

Open Challenge to Kim Cole

Hey Cole in Scottville the other night at the town meeting you alluded to having another $30K in your budget to spend. Rather than piss away that money on getting a submarine device that might be used once a year then sit on the shelf. Or even getting the officers trained on snowmobile patrol, for that $30K you could purchase 40 of the highest priced body cameras on the market. Think of it Kim, you could outfit all 13 road officers with 2 body cameras, and you would have 14 additional cameras sitting on the shelf. Put them in the shelf spot you were saving for your submarine.

Why 2 cameras for each officer? So we don't have to listen to any limp dick excuses that the cameras weren't working, or failed at a crucial time. The odds of 2 cameras failing at the same time would be beyond the laws of probability. Rather than spending funds like you did, on unused jail riot gear, you could outfit your crew with something that would save time, money, and protect the rights of both your patrol persons and the public.

How about it Kim, for once you do something that you were hired to do, instead of stonewalling investigations or buying a symbolic sexy new toy for the department, you could do something great that would benefit everyone in Mason County.

[XLFD]

Kim Cole being transparent?  Guess again.

I include a file of a recent FOIA response I received from the MCSO sent originally to Kim about an investigation made and closed 15 years ago involving... well, take a look and see for yourself whether you can read anything through all the redacted material to see whether you can figure out what happened and who may have been involved.   Almost everything is gone.

Note at the top of the reply, they only claim two exemptions, the standard personal nature info that exempts addresses, social security numbers, phone numbers, etc. that are almost exclusively on the first page of an incident report, and then health/counseling information, but only to the point where the identity of the person could be ascertained if such was released.  There is a lot more missing than that.

[John Doe Jr]

Time to place his awards up for mortgage.

[XLFD]

In the sheriff's defense, however, he is advised on such matters by the county prosecutor, whose FOIA violations are impressive and extensive.

[Jasper]

Seriously this is what you received?  Unbelievable!!!! I believe I know of this case!  

Why was this case closed?  Jody Hartley was a detective at the time, but now currently serves as under-sheriff for Mason County!   

[Jasper]

Curious as to why this case cannot be opened as a "cold case?"  Other Counties in the State have re-opened cases with successful results in the perp(s) being sentenced for their crimes being committed years ago.

[XLFD]

Jasper, send me a message if you believe you know what this is about, if you don't necessarily wish to reveal it on the forum. 

[Willy]

[John Doe Jr]

He can save a baby from death with a Peanut butter cup, but can't wear a body camera?

[John Doe Jr]

[Jasper]

Okay, so law enforcement are required to wear camera's.  But, who is responsible for the info collected on the camera's?? Would it be much different then the police investigating themselves.  The camera's imho would need to be viewed by an independent source not related to a police agency.  Citizen's recording the police are still the best avenue!