Illinois police sue town, claim body cameras record nonstop
Source: Associated Press
Illinois police sue town, claim body cameras record nonstop
Updated 2:16 pm, Saturday, June 25, 2016
ROUND LAKE PARK, Ill. (AP) Ten police officers in a Chicago suburb are suing the town, claiming the body cameras they wore never turned off and recorded them using the restroom and changing clothes.
The lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court says one of the officers in Round Lake Park, Dominick Izzo, discovered the problem while reviewing video from his camera in May.
According to the Chicago Tribune (http://trib.in/292Lgff ), the lawsuit says the cameras recorded thousands of "highly offensive and voyeuristic intrusions," including video that showed officers' genitals. The videos dated to at least February, according to the lawsuit.
The officers were "humiliated, embarrassed and greatly upset," according to the lawsuit. The officers are seeking $100,000 each.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Illinois-police-sue-town-claim-body-cameras-8324870.php
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,527 posts)and think of that in how they treat people they deal with.
If they're going to change clothes, all they have to do is temporarily put a post it over the camera, or point the camera out of the way, or throw a towel over the camera until they're done.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I don't care who you are. I hope they win this. The cameras need improved to not tape those two events period.
PatSeg
(47,397 posts)The fact that no one informed them that the cameras wouldn't go off is highly disturbing.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)when using the restroom and changing clothes i just dont buy that they were clueless enough not to know that the cameras were on and thus I dont believe this is so much as them being filmed rather I think this is more about them trying to resist their being used at all.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)and you dont realize that means it records "everything"? I just dont buy that they were that clueless.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)(I'm sure they are familiar with that line of argument)
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Doesn't mean you would want that to be recorded.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Jeb Bartlet
(141 posts)website they are using the Wolfcom police body cameras which have the ability for the officer to turn the unit on and off. No clue why they would be suing when they are in control of when it's on and when it's off unless this is not about them being photographed peeing but about trying to get rid of bodycams recording them committing crimes.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)The cameras are sold by Enforcement Video, LLC, of Allen, Texas. Company spokeswoman Jaime Carlin said the cameras are always recording unless disabled, something the company says it trains police how to do.
They should have or have been trained in how to turn them off.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Cameras were recording even in off position.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)LisaL
(44,973 posts)But most people don't feel that way.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Sounds like a bug.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)In order to stop recording, cameras would have to be "disabled" whatever that means.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)What is the difference between "off" and "on"?
midnight
(26,624 posts)However the police were not able to turn them off ever? Hopefully this will be addressed in this lawsuit.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Good fucking grief. I'm glad they can't cut them off to commit crimes like they've been doing.