Illinois Democrats Push Higher Traffic Fines to Pay for Police Body Cameras, Dash Cams

Tripp/Foter.com

Events in Ferguson, Missouri, last month have led some legislators to finally acknowledge the necessity of cameras for cops—both body cameras and dash cameras, neither of which are yet ubiquitous. Unlike the "free" military gear from the feds, cameras for cops cost, and Democrats in Illinois want those cameras paid for through higher fines.  Via the Associated Press:

State Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth, a Peoria Democrat, introduced a bill allowing police departments to apply for grants to purchase either body cameras or video recording equipment for squad cars. She told reporters in Springfield the proposal would be funded by an additional $6 surcharge on fines for criminal or traffic offense convictions, which she estimates would bring in $4 million to $6 million annually.

Gordon-Booth and other backers of the bill may have found it impossible to avoid all the news coming out of Ferguson, but they did manage to avoid the parts that threaten their bread and butter, like Radley Balko's expose at The Washington Post, which revealed how law enforcement agencies in the St. Louis area use petty law enforcement and the fines associated with it to run their own "fiefdoms."

Body cameras and dash cams are important tools for policing—they protect residents from police abuse and police officers from false accusations. But as police departments enjoy military gear, cutting edge tech, and all kinds of generous benefits and privileges, local and state governments need to find money for police cameras in already existing budgets, not look to put the squeeze even further on poor and marginalized communities to pay for them.

At least one Illinois legislator gets it. Jim Durkin, the republican leader in the Illinois House, supports body cameras but told the AP he was concerned about using a fee increase to pay for them.

h/t Mark Sletten

Comments

[Idle Hands]

hahahaha.

[UnCivilServant]

No - Unfunded mandate - the cops have to pay for it out of pocket - and are fired if it malfunctions.

[anon]

Aahhahahahaha

fire a cop

Good one.

[Overt]

Not happy about this, but unlike many, many, many, many expenditures, this is actually government money well spent.

[Idle Hands]

Nothing left to cut. Except for spending on cameras.

[Knarf Yenrab!]

Say, why don't we just cut the state rep's salaries and benefits instead?

[Fist of Etiquette]

They will pay for themselves in the necessity for fewer court settlements.

[DontShootMe]

Why don't they just use civil asset forfeiture, like everybody else?

[John]

How about they fund it with a tax on their retirements? It is for their benefit. So why shouldn't they have to pay for it.

[Knarf Yenrab!]

Alternatively, police departments could sell their milsurp superhero bullshit at public auction. I'd kind of like to have some shitty, decades-old gear if the price were right.

[Idle Hands]

I guarantee you they will have a by line in the tickets to that says this additional fee is for cameras, they will not go quietly into the night.

[John]

Or mysteriously be turned off whenever they might have recorded something useful.

[Idle Hands]

If they raise ticket prices and fees I would make sure that no officer could go into the field without a functioning one or the sup and the officer would be fired was included in the proposed bill.

[mad.casual]

Or mysteriously be turned off whenever they might have recorded something useful.

Nope. Law of unintended consequences; undercover cops will now be* the (dirty)work horses of the PD. SWAT teams will go the way of the dodo and the police will serve (more) no-knock warrants in two-man, dressed-down, teams using weapons acquired from the same guy they bought crystal meth off of.

*Or once again depending on your age/perception.

[The Last American Hero]

Maybe they could wear black leather trench coats with something to identify their status. An armband, perhaps...

[gaoxiaen]

Something by Hugo Boss?

[sarcasmic]

Like the money will be used for cameras anyway. They'll just use it to fund their budget shortfall, and keep on keeping on.

[Idle Hands]

exactly it's all bullshit and as we all know there is no decreasing the taxes once they are passed.

[anon]

I'm surprised anyone still lives in Illinois. Can't we just pretend it doesn't exist?

[BuSab Agent]

I already do.

[Monsieur Maillard]

List of states I would not want to live in: California, New Jersey, Virginia, Illinois.

Feel free to add to the list.

[Trollificus]

Vermont. Where, by straight-faced testimony of a Nutrition Administrator "We're ahead of the curve here. Our kids like kale. I've never seen one of them eat a desert or a brownie."

I'd avoid the state, not because their schools are, by regulation, brownie-free, but because female education administrative personnel with giant brass balls scare me.