Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:The author has shown a complete lack of desire to improve their proposal, but we feel the need to point this out anyway:a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;
Is not a good definition. Forget not needing to turn the camera on, it is perfectly within the text of the resolution to not even have a device that results in a video. The use of "or" to create the list means one can, with a straight face, comply by simply issuing all police officers a low resolution black and white digital camera they can attach to their collar that uses a manual control to take pictures only when the officer wants. Or simply add a "record audio" feature to the standard police radio that is also user-activated. Perhaps our national policy can be officers should only take pictures of themselves helping the elderly cross the road and saving fuzzy kittens. When this proposal inevitably either: fails to meet quorum (desirable), fails at vote (schadenfreude), or gets insta-repealed, perhaps the author might come up with a definition of the devices that actually mandates they be useful/usable for observing police misconduct.
OOC: Again, this is not an error, this is entirely intentional. I have absolutely no issue with the scenario you are describing. What I care about is the access to these devices, not how they are used. A "recording" isn't necessarily a video and plenty of devices police make use of in real life, including undercover officers, do not result in video. Many are audio only. The broad definition allows for the use of a huge variety of devices, accounting for possible variations in the role of the device, needs for inconspicuousness, technology level, and so forth.