That's why you tie the powers granted to police to the camera. No camera, no extra powers. Ideally, the camrea is simply a built-in part of the badge.
Edge cases and any Hollywood movie-plot contrivance can be easily solved by cheap backup batteries and backup cameras, as this kind of technology is inexpensive. The very-rare and unusual situation where an officer has some legitimate reason for a camera failure, the officer can be given the benefit of the doubt an should not be prosecuted for what was clearly not his fault... if-and-only-if the incentive to cause8 that situation is removed as well: we also mandate that "no camera" means no evidence in court*
To put it another way, we simply place the court's trust in the witness less likely to be in error: the camera. Without that recording, the officer's testimony should be considered hearsay. This will, of course, make it harder to prosecute in a few rare and unusual cases. That difficulty is the entire goal, as an application of the principle that it better to let the guilty go free than prosecute an innocent person.
cops aren't going to agree to having the camera on at all times as a prerequisite for their testimony having special privilege. remember the video about why you shouldn't talk to the cops?
the situation that will emerge is as follows, if the cops cannot subvert or work around the camera tech to their advantage the cameras will be "left behind" and any excuse for that will be accepted.
that is unless one of the cops rats another out but the culture actively prevents that.
The opinion of the cops - our employees - about the requirements of their job is not particularly interesting.
Failure to follow means they should find a new job. If they decide to make a habit of "forgetting" their badge (aka camera), then they have no authority, and are not doing their job. Charge them with [attempted] murder if they shoot [at] anybody.
Compare the camera requirement with any other job's requirements: retail employees are on camera when on the job almost 100% of the time. If a an employee at the US Postal Service decided to regularly "leave behind" mail, they won't keep their job. If "mens rea" can be shown, they might even face charges.
No, the opinion of the cops was not asked for. The people that we would need buy-in from (not counting the usual politicians would need to be included to get anything passed) are the prosecutors and regulators, not the cops. The local prosecutor needs to actually go after the nastier charges whenever they might happen, or they are really just aiding-and-abetting original crime (willingly choosing to not report a felony that you have direct knowledge of is itself a felony).
The cops need to be given a choice. They can:
(1) use the cameras (and the implicit attitude changes that would require)
(2) face charges for acts that require certain additional powers while willfully ignoring the the mandatory requirements of those powers
(3) have fun on the unemployment line and/or explain to the prosecutors why they screwed up their evidence collection
While I would agree that getting the DA to prosecute is currently an issue, even a usually pro-cop DA is going to be very annoyed if all the evidence is regularly thrown out due to improper collection.
They are a law unto themselves and they simply are not going to give that up! Notionally I agree that they are your employees, but practically what your suggestion will not be allowed happen.
Put it to you this way, if I were a cop I would resign sooner than work under those conditions.
The level of resistance the cops will put up to maintain their current status is obvious, with the armed robbery, assault, intimidation, disregard for the law, and general "violent gang"-like behavior. I expect strongly that at least some amount of actual shooting-war will be required to correct this situation.
What I'm suggesting that a necessary step in the basic concept of having a police force. The nature of the job by necessity requires us to grant some extra powers and exceptions in law to the people we hire to enforce it. Unfortunately, history shows that not only can we not trust that those powers will not be abused, we also cannot trust that the usual check against abuses of power will be implemented (or even attempted at all). Various types of regulatory capture, institutional corruption, and far too many people choosing to look the other way have demonstrated very clearly a list of methods that do not work.
The key problem in all of that tends to center around someone being able to abuse their powers freely while retaining a very high level of trust. Tying police powers to the camera separates these issues, and might be the start of a much-larger plan to fix this mess we're in. I don't expect that the people currently benefiting from the situation will like it. In fact, as they are (by definition) violent criminals, I expect the people committing the worst abuses will fight back. Hard.
I suggest we start solving that problem now, regardless of the difficulty. Power accumulates, so this will only be harder in the future. I don't have a miracle solution for how to enact these ideas - that is going to be hard regardless..
Even if that happens, it will be no worse than the status quo of not having cameras. If anything, it will look more suspicious that the camera suddenly failed before a suspect supposedly fell down 3 flights of stairs, whereas today, you're just SOL.
it's a given that footage will only be available when it's to the advantage of powers that be.
in other cases it will not be available, and obviously it will be framed to look as if it wasn't sudden. it won't be thought of as suspicious in the slightest.
i can see footage being faked also but that's probably further into the future than it simply being disappeared, it's all covered under tampering with evidence laws but you don't see those get used very often.
you are too kind in thinking those are honest mistakes. judges will selectively ignore evidence, which might appear to some people as stupid, but i agree with you they aren't - so that's why i said
"selectively so".
here's some more, you give these guys way too much credit.
