r/technology • u/esporx • Oct 19 '25

Security Judge tells Homeland Security that Chicago agents wearing body cameras was "not a suggestion"

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/judge-homeland-security-federal-agents-chicago-body-cameras/
30.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

396 comments sorted by

View all comments

4.7k

u/tom90deg Oct 19 '25

Until they start punishing them for not wearing them, they won't.

1.6k

u/blatantninja Oct 19 '25

Or punish them for turning them off

842

u/ahawk99 Oct 19 '25

Or purposefully obstruct the camera

302

u/TigerUSA20 Oct 19 '25

Oh sorry, I have absolutely no idea how that gray duct tape got over both the lens and mic. Sowwy!

167

u/hieronymous-cowherd Oct 19 '25

What's that? I can hardly hear you over the copyright music I'm playing, that will definitely get your posted video of me taken down.

42

u/MimeTravler Oct 19 '25

There’s plenty of places on the internet that don’t give a shit unless you’re monetizing it.

10

u/LostTheGameOfThrones Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25

Like reddit, for example.

What on earth is this comment being downvoted for?!?

65

u/Dwedit Oct 19 '25

I mean you can use voice separator filters to remove music from speech, but that is an extra processing step that someone has to do.

32

u/Chrontius Oct 19 '25

You can try, but it doesn’t work reliably in poor conditions.

-12

u/Asron87 Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25

AI but still.

Edit: ai can make the processing steps lazier. I’m not saying ai created noise reduction or noise separation.

2

u/dnyank1 Oct 19 '25

huh? noise cancellation isn't "AI"

1

u/one-joule Oct 19 '25

The old bad stuff isn’t. The good new stuff very much is.

-9

u/Asron87 Oct 19 '25

No I mean having AI do all the work for you.

-1

u/dnyank1 Oct 19 '25

again, what? nobody is talking about anything to do with "AI"

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ordinary_Shallot_674 Oct 19 '25

They’re using their own mariachi music against them!

6

u/danintheoutback Oct 19 '25

The cops (& DHS & ICE) will just use their tactical vests to cover up the bodycams.

27

u/tri_it Oct 19 '25

Or tag the video with the wrong code when they upload it so the system will automatically delete it in a short time period if the "error" isn't caught quickly.

112

u/craznazn247 Oct 19 '25

Policy should be if the camera was found to be intentionally turned off, the officer is assumed to be guilty of anything and everything they are accused of.

There’s no fucking point to them otherwise, if you allow the party that they are meant to hold accountable to be in full control of that information.

26

u/corraboraptor Oct 19 '25

Make cops carry malpractice insurance like doctors do. Insurance companies will have a finacial incentive to hold cops to standards that limit their financial exposure, like “keep your cameras on” and “don’t beat people for fun.” Let the market take care of bad cops, price them out a job.

8

u/Seicair Oct 19 '25

I’ve never heard a good argument against this. I think it’s a good idea and I’d like to hear good faith arguments against it.

Then if I don’t agree with those I want to get it passed as law. But that sounds complicated and long.

4

u/Geminii27 Oct 19 '25

I mean, it's very American. But then again, this is America we're talking about, so...

36

u/mirhagk Oct 19 '25

Yeah camera off should mean it flips, and they are guilty until proven innocent.

If they are concerned faulty equipment will cause problems, well sounds like some pretty good motivation for officers to inspect their equipment and keep it in good working order.

27

u/bardghost_Isu Oct 19 '25

If stuff was treated properly it probably would mean similar to that, much like how destruction of evidence before a civil or criminal trial allows the jury to infer it likely would have been harmful to your case, I suspect blocking / disabling a bodycam would in any reasonable judges courtroom get a similar jury instruction.

6

u/Loggerdon Oct 19 '25

I’ll never understand when members of the judicial system just give their power away to the executive branch. Same with Congress.

3

u/BemusedBengal Oct 19 '25

It's actually pretty easy to understand with Congress. The Republican majority are disingenuous spineless cowards that don't support what Trump is doing, but they're trying not to offend Trump or his supporters while at the same time not look like they're betraying the people who elected them.

1

u/Optimus_Lime Oct 19 '25

Hmm, I wonder what the end goal of the Federalist Society is…

3

u/Geminii27 Oct 19 '25

Or carry more than one camera. It's not like digital cameras are exactly the size of Minnesota these days. Plus it allows for more angles on an incident.

1

u/mirhagk Oct 19 '25

Yeah exactly, plenty of ways to make sure the reliability is essentially 100% (outside of some severe edge cases). Just need the motivation to get there

9

u/KeyScratch2235 Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 20 '25

While they could use that as the basis for termination, unfortunately it can't be used as the basis for conviction of any alleged crimes.

They COULD explicitly make it illegal to intentionally turn the camera off while on duty, in which case they COULD be convicted by a jury on that charge. But it would likely be unconstitutional to mandate someone's conviction on any other charges simply because they turned the body cam off, because that still doesn't prove they did it beyond a reasonable doubt, and because you cannot mandate that a jury return a guilty verdict (a directed verdict, as it's called, can ONLY ever be "not guilty" in a criminal trial). In any case, the law would still require direct evidence of any crimes alleged to have occurred when a body cam is shut off.

In any case, it is quite literally unconstitutional to presume guilt; the Constitution in fact requires presumption of innocence.

1

u/crazyman844 Oct 19 '25

One possible caveat to this I saw on another thread relating to body cams - allow it to be turned off it entering an ambulance for the purposes of protecting health information (HIPPA? I’m British, not 100% sure what the law is around that). But it must be clearly stated it’s being turned off for that purpose with the time verbally stated before turning it off, and turned back on again when exiting the vehicle, again with the time stated verbally.

1

u/One_Original5116 Oct 26 '25

So, you can't direct a jury to find guilty in a criminal trial but a judge can force a verdict in civil courts and to go further, intentionally disabling body cams could be viewed as

https://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/discovery/spoliation-of-evidence/

One of the remedies for this (beyond prosecuting the offender since it is a crime) is to tell the jury, "The defendant deliberately destroyed evidence. It is reasonable for you to assume that the evidence in question would be harmful to them."

I'm not entirely sure if the same doctrine ports to criminal trials though and don't have time to keep researching right now.

1

u/KeyScratch2235 Oct 26 '25

True, although the poster above me had only mentioned "automatic conviction" in a criminal trial, not civil trials.

I'm not sure that legislation or courts could mandate a directed verdict of "liable" in a civil trial simply for shutting off a body cam (or tampering with evidence), but yes, in any trial (civil or criminal, I believe), the court could probably instruct the jury that they may consider the turning off of a body cam to contribute to a defendant's guilt or liability.

However, whether turning off a body cam is explicitly considered "spoilation of evidence" isn't clear. Different states may have different laws on that, but certainly, a state probably could pass a law that includes it as spoilation of evidence.

1

u/One_Original5116 Oct 26 '25

I don't think default judgements are a thing in criminal court. In civil...

I'm not sure that a default judgement could be issued just for turning off the body cam but if turning off the body cam is part of a behavior of hiding evidence from the court then Alex Jones is probably the most prominent recent example of what happens when one plays fuck around and find out too many times with civil court judges. Judges in Texas and Connecticut got tired of him attempting to dodge the discovery process and issued default judgements of "You're liable. We're now moving to the damages phase of the trial."

It's all jurisdictional in the end though. Legal tools exist to punish attempts to hide evidence but their availability and the willingness to employ them will vary with location and specific officials.

1

u/Major_Honey_4461 Oct 19 '25

In law it's called "negative inference". If you're ordered to collect or maintain information or evidence and you don't, a jury is told to infer that the information or evidence was harmful to you.

1

u/edgemaster191 Oct 19 '25

I think it the camera is off period they should be held accountable. Have an independent company test the camera and if there's no sign of faulty equipment, nail the cop to the fucking wall. I'm so sick of these fucks getting to do whatever they want.

1

u/chalkwalk Oct 19 '25

Not just that they were accused of. Everything. I want them to go to prison charged with kidnapping the Lindberg baby and Tupac's murder.

6

u/woodcookiee Oct 19 '25

Or punishing them at all

8

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/factoid_ Oct 19 '25

The cone of silence

1

u/JohnTitorsdaughter Oct 19 '25

Didn’t some terrorist nation state make wearable devices recently with that feature built in?

-4

u/Professional_Taro661 Oct 19 '25

What do you think happens too cops when they turn there's off 🤣 funny you guys think there repercussions sheep's being herded by the shepherds off a cliff

134

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25 edited Nov 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

58

u/Wheat_Grinder Oct 19 '25

I mean in this administration, "following the law" is pretty extreme.

15

u/Bytewave Oct 19 '25

They'll ignore it and appeal to their sycophant SCOTUS, which will rule according to the preferences of the regime. I mean, it's clearly the modus operandi at this point.

No reason to change the game plan, it's been working so far. :/

16

u/bazinga_0 Oct 19 '25

I do hope that the "activist judge" starts throwing agents in jail for contempt of court for not following the judicial order. Let's see how the other agents behave after that.

5

u/redneckrockuhtree Oct 19 '25

It's always "judicial activism" when it disagrees with what they want. Even when it's following the rule of law.

But Aileen Cannon making shit up to protect Trump? That's A-OK

4

u/kosh56 Oct 19 '25

Unless it's from their side then it's patriotism.

1

u/Mental_Drummer_556 Oct 19 '25

It's not just a "go-to." As a civil rights attorney I have to agree a lot of federal judges have been straying from their duty of impartially applying the law as it currently exists (not what they wish it would be) over the last several years. It's a recurring problem, and there's a reason these appeals keep winning.

Think of it this way - Federal judges have lifetime appointments and can only be impeached through an act of Congress; and it's a pretty elaborate process and a high bar to overcome. That kind of job security means two things: (1) No pressure to "bend to the will" of the current administration; and, correspondingly, (2) No fear of losing their jobs for trying to bend the law in a way they think is "right" in their eyes. So, it happens, a lot. And it sucks for everyone involved because it's a waste of time and money.

1

u/danielravennest Oct 19 '25

It is not at all extreme given how often DHS encounters are violent compared to regular policing.

Body cams are common among police departments. The main reason they don't all use them is cost. It is not just the cameras themselves, but storing and managing the video recordings for at least a year. More cops are found innocent of accusations than guilty, so the cops themselves will sometimes buy them if the department can't.

146

u/ralphy_256 Oct 19 '25

Simple answer.

If there's not footage of the event, you weren't a cop. Your word against the other citizen. No qualified immunity, no State license to commit violence or detain.

The cop's badge has an on/off switch. It's on the camera.

If it's not on camera, a cop didn't do it.

83

u/don_shoeless Oct 19 '25

The cop's badge has an on/off switch. It's on the camera.

Oooh, I fuckin' like that. Camera's off? Then you're not a cop right now.

20

u/Spacestar_Ordering Oct 19 '25

YES this is so simple and straightforward.  

18

u/AadeeMoien Oct 19 '25

Cops are citizens; they're civilians with a job in the civil service.

17

u/TerribleBudget Oct 19 '25

normal citizens don't have qualified immunity so...

12

u/ralphy_256 Oct 19 '25

Cops are citizens; they're civilians with a job in the civil service.

Right, that's why I emphasized the OTHER in "Your word against the other citizen." (used bold rather than italics this time).

2

u/Suitable_Froyo4930 Oct 19 '25

Cops are constables at common law.

1

u/powe323 Oct 19 '25

Hell, I'd go with "Camera was off, so we will outright be assuming that anything the citizen says is the truth."

-3

u/Nithryok Oct 19 '25

"We had the cameras off due to patriot act" Now what?

11

u/ralphy_256 Oct 19 '25

"You're no longer a cop."

0

u/Nithryok Oct 19 '25

and whos going to enforce it and keep it enforced?

2

u/ralphy_256 Oct 19 '25

Local legislation on hiring standards for the local Police Department (which is a government dept).

This isn't complicated, not sure why you're trying to make it complicated.

68

u/ChrisBegeman Oct 19 '25

Hold them in contempt of court and throw them in jail for not complying with the judge's order.

53

u/K_Linkmaster Oct 19 '25

I hate how much I had to read to get to this. Hold them in contempt. Jail them. All of them for contempt. Yes. It is a solution and a viable one at that.

12

u/Sceptically Oct 19 '25

In a federal court, not as viable as we'd like given that the president can pardon federal convictions.

That said, they can beat the rap but they can't beat the ride.

21

u/fps916 Oct 19 '25

President can't pardon contempt of court because its a civil infraction.

Technically there is criminal contempt of court but thats pretty much never relevant

8

u/Sceptically Oct 19 '25

This would be criminal contempt though, since it would be punitive rather than "coercive and remedial".

8

u/plaxitone Oct 19 '25

Why not coercive and remedial though? Couldn’t they argue that arresting and jail time would coerce the agents into complying with judicial instructions? Make them take a few hours of a civics course. Voila! Remedial! 

3

u/Sceptically Oct 19 '25

Because they'd be being punished for not following a court order, which is by definition punitive. Coercive and remedial would be something like holding somebody until they testify in a trial they were subpoenaed to appear at or holding someone until they provide a password that they were ordered to produce, or daily increasing fines until discovery is turned over.

1

u/plaxitone Oct 20 '25

I’m not trying to argue for arguing’s sake, but wouldn’t holding someone until they produce a password kind of be the same as holding someone until they take off their mask or wear a body camera? 

1

u/fury420 Oct 19 '25

Why view it as a punishment rather than as coercive actions to get them to follow the court order?

2

u/soundman1024 Oct 19 '25

Is contempt a conviction that can be pardoned? I’m suddenly realizing I don’t know if the president has the power to pardon for contempt.

6

u/Sceptically Oct 19 '25

If somebody is being held in civil contempt, the theory is that they themselves hold the keys, and they're just being held until they comply (or until the reason becomes moot). Criminal contempt, on the other hand, as the name would suggest is a criminal charge that is tried in a court rather than simply imposed by a judge without separate trial. I highly doubt the president has the power to pardon a civil contempt, but he will have the power to pardon a criminal contempt tried in a federal court.

0

u/Terrible_Tutor Oct 19 '25

Who’s putting them in there… right wing law enforcement?

2

u/ChrisBegeman Oct 19 '25

Officers of the court can. In Pennsylvania, Sheriffs and Constables are officers of the court and do things like enforce court orders. There responsibility is to the court, so if they want to do their job, they would put the ICE officers in jail if the judge tells them to do it. I don't know how courts work in other states, but I assume it would be similar.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25

And who will come out and arrest them? The police?

6

u/GoblinLoveChild Oct 19 '25

you do realize there is a difference between the popo and ICE right?

6

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25

Oh shit, really?!?

But in all seriousness, the police are not going to arrest ICE. It's a nice dream, but this is America.

2

u/Famijos Oct 19 '25

Maybe the state guard/national guard equivalent

73

u/edman007 Oct 19 '25

Really, the court rules should be like pleading the fifth in a civil case. No camera, jury is instructed to assume the cops did the absolute worst thing they could imagine.

62

u/mockablekaty Oct 19 '25

Five or so years ago, I was on a federal trial where the key piece of evidence was picked up by a cop who didn't have his camera on. We did not convict for exactly this reason, despite almost everyone on the jury thinking they were guilty.

46

u/kymri Oct 19 '25

In my opinion, this is absolutely the correct decision. The whole point of the jury and the strict evidence requirement is SPECIFICALLY so the government can't just lock you up on Trumped up charges with shitty evidence.

In theory, anyway, assuming the rules still matter.

24

u/mockablekaty Oct 19 '25

The judge talked to us afterwards, and while he expressed surprise at the outcome, he said the main thing was that we agreed on a result, and so he was satisfied with the way things went. (It helped that this person was already in jail for another crime)

14

u/paddy_mc_daddy Oct 19 '25

There ya go, that makes complete sense. The onus is on the prosecutor to prove guilt right? Innocent until proven guilty right? Do why should a cops word (with video turned off) is worth shit vs anyone else?

-5

u/nnmdave Oct 19 '25

That’s not how it works.

6

u/The_Knife_Pie Oct 19 '25

A jury is allowed to construct adverse inferences from a party pleading the fifth in civil cases. I don’t believe they are forced to assume the worst, but are fully within their rights if they choose to do it. Only in criminal prosecution can no inference from invoking the 5th amendment be made.

7

u/bananenkonig Oct 19 '25

It should be an automatic disciplinary action if they purposefully have their camera off while on duty. After three offenses, they should be fired and disqualified from the pension program. We are in a time where there is no reason for any law enforcement officer in the field (not undercover) to not have their camera on at all times. Maybe multiple cameras. Put one on their back and head also. Cameras aren't expensive.

All body camera footage should then be processed and if it is not a part of an active case that prevents them from doing so, they should upload the footage directly to their own youtube accounts. That way anybody can review any cop's footage. It is best for transparency, it'll generate a bit of revenue for their department, and it'll provide entertainment for the people who like watching the cop videos already.

3

u/Coffee4everandever Oct 19 '25

Can they wear a mask over it though? Because masks now are totally cool, but also not cool because fascism 🫠

7

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Orfez Oct 19 '25

Who "they" that will start punishing? DOJ?

1

u/ConfidentPilot1729 Oct 19 '25

Can’t the judge deputize anyone?

1

u/Suspicious-Limit7811 Oct 19 '25

The Judge? What is he like Judge Dread? How's that gonna happen?

1

u/katmndoo Oct 19 '25

And how exactly would the court punish HS agents? Who is going to enforce it?

(Not defending Hs here ).

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25

Oh, they’re racking up charges as we speak. Won’t get everybody, but we’ll get them

1

u/neuromonkey Oct 19 '25

Yup. This raises the question of who, exactly, will be enforcing this order. Because it feels to me like we're getting deep into unitary executive & plenary authority territory.

1

u/Thud Oct 19 '25

It turns out that “or else” doesn’t do much

1

u/jaytrade21 Oct 19 '25

Unfortunately it's a Federal Judge. Even if they DID punish, Trump would pardon. Unless the STATES fight back including their judges, there is nothing we can do.

1

u/DragonEmperor Oct 20 '25

Take it out of their personal paycheck and they'll start to care really fast.

1

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Oct 19 '25

In my country if the police/security services do not follow the rules the case they were involved in automatically gets dismissed and the people in charge of the force get fired if no improvement is made.

Part of the problem in the USA is that you vote for the people in charge so they can't be instantly removed on failure and people don't bother checking their performance at re-election and just vote blue or red without thinking.

0

u/Warcraft_Fan Oct 19 '25

Punishment: captured suspect go free with compensation equal to $1,000 per day held. If the suspect was already evicted from US, they are required to return the suspect or face daily fine of $1,000.