Riecken calls attention to serious problems with current body cams legislation

INDIANAPOLIS - Indiana State Rep. Gail Riecken issued the statement below earlier today (Jan. 28, 2016):

House Bill 1019, the “body-worn camera” bill you may have read or heard about recently, passed out of the Indiana House of Representatives on Tuesday and now moves to the Senate for further legislative action.

I want you to know about the proposals I can support, but also, what I see as the biggest problem with this legislation that I felt I could not support House Bill 1019 on its third-reading vote in the House.

What are the good points?

First and most important, law enforcement, who holds the recordings, must allow all persons involved in the video the recording(s) opportunities to view the recordings. The viewers must have an attorney present and they can see the video(s) at least two times. They cannot copy the video. And, if they are denied access to the video(s) and have to go to court, they can get their attorney fees paid by the public unit of that law enforcement agency.

What does this mean? It means immediate access to the recordings by the persons most affected– something not guaranteed now and a great improvement.

Second, all recordings must be held for a minimum of 180 days. Right now, the standard is 30 days. The recording(s) can be held longer if someone requests that in writing – two years; and, if the recording(s) is to be used in court, it will be held through that entire process. This is an improvement.

So, why did I vote against the bill?

There in one very bad point that caused me to vote against this bill and decide it should not go into effect as is and that provision is this: if law enforcement refuses to allow the people in the recording(s) or the public to see the recording(s) and they have to go to court, the burden is on the public—not law enforcement— to prove why they need to see it. This is wrong on two accounts:

• these folks have not seen what they are to prove in court, and
• if they do get to see the recording(s), the identifying information must be “obscured”.

Recognizing the improvements for the public I brought together a small group of legislators to rewrite House Bill 1019 and to incorporate some critical changes we think are necessary. Here is the link to that amendment: click here. That amendment, offered by Rep. Ed Delaney, was defeated on the House floor as the bill moved through on 2nd reading.

Watch this House Bill 1019 as it moves through the legislative process. Advocate for clarity and sound thinking. We must make sure there is fairness in the process, that there is transparency in the outcome.

At a recent Ethics training for legislators the presenter’s remark is so timely to this situation:

“Necessity is not an excuse for action. In most cases it is a delusion.”