• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB 1936, Disclosure of Police Video Camera Files, passes Senate 30-0

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
My e-mail to my state senator.
Sir,

HB 1936, after reading the bill, will enable LE and the courts to further infringe upon the right of the people to hold their government accountable.

A public school (K thru college?) is a nonpublic location? Anyone who has legitimate business with the "school" may be admitted to the school. Is a school hallway, playground, or quad a setting where a citizen now has a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Will the definition for dwelling listed in RSMo 563.011 be the definition applied to 610.100? That now places a great many settings as nonpublic locations.

Every child or adult that is depicted or heard on a police video has a right under the law to obtain a "complete, unaltered, and unedited copy" of the police video. Under the new language a judge would be allowed to close the "record" to all citizens, even those who are depicted or heard on the video. This baffles me to no end.

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills161/hlrbillspdf/5343S.02C.PDF

Section 2(3) seems to indicate that I may obtain a "complete, unaltered, and unedited copy" if I or any member of my immediate family is depicted or heard in a police video recording.

Sections 5 seems to contradict (could be used to nullify?) section 2(3) entirely, if a judge orders it.

A civil penalty of $1000 or $5000 for a LE agency or officer violating the law? Where is the meaningful criminal penalty for possibly violating RSMo 575.020, 575.030, 575.040, 575.050, 575.060. Not to mention a citizen having to spend more money and time to gain a punitive redress for LE misdeeds?

Breaking even on costs and attorney's fees is not a proper redress of the wrongs.

Your vote in support of HB 1936 was unfortunate.
Holding accountable cops will be very much more difficult. It is now imperative that we record our interactions with LE.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHBCV156029797S

www.ct.gov/foi/lib/foi/hor_2015/05132015/2014_372.pdf



Think that bill is bad ... look at what a court just did in my state ... hiding almost all evidence in cases ^^^

Want to see a pic of an accident scene? No way, the car's evidence.

Want body cam footage? No way, that's evidence.

Regardless if used in court or not ... an no Judge idiot, getting access via FOIA is different than through a court .. with FOIA you can get access for nothing.

Top link to court web page for case where u can DL opinion at bottom ... 2nd link to underlining admin FOIA case (shows what was requested) ...

This judge just made a totally new class of exempt records ... a huge exemption out of thin air.
 
Last edited:
Top