• 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.

Police Body Cameras SB628, SB962 and SB1061

OC for ME

Regular Member
Jan 6, 2010
White Oak Plantation
Dr. Onder,

Sir, only five "cities" would be impacted, qualify under SB628. this bill will fall far short of providing all Missouri law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to properly and lawfully perform their duties. It would seem not apply to county law enforcement agencies (police and sheriff departments) nor would it seem to apply to the Missouri State Police.

There are other concerns I have with SB628, SB962, and SB1061.

There is no penalty provision listed in any of the above bills. Nor is there a reference to a existing RSMo penalty if a law enforcement officer is found to have intentionally deactivated, not activated, or tampered with the camera equipment, or recorded data. http://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/28/chicago-police-dashcams-report/

Categorizing a law enforcement officers intentional actions to a mere policy violation is unacceptable when the act is intentional. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/us/officer-dashcam-video-excessive-force-lawsuit/

The willful tampering with camera equipment is prima facie evidence of a law enforcement officer's intent to tamper with data and equipment. See RSMo RSMo 569.095, 575.060, 575.080 and RSMo 575.100, 575.110, 575.205.

The 60 day requirement in SB962 should be changed to be consistent with the two year requirement listed in SB628.

SB1061 does not contain any penalty provision if the data is not provided as is required under the statute. If there is no incentive for government to comply with the law then government will not comply with the law in a timely manner.

HB1516, HB2344, and HB2354 are companion bills in the House and contain similar inconsistencies and omissions.

Yours Respectfully ...
Maybe we can fix some of the omissions that our elected reps build into the laws.