![]() ![]() As evident from the study conducted by the in 2017 3, body-worn camera use, by itself, has not lead to any measurable improvements in police-community relations or in how officers conduct themselves 4. Nearly five years later, and with a $5.7 million annual cost 2, the District’s body-worn camera program has fallen far short of achieving its intended purpose of greater transparency and accountability of MPD’s police practices. ![]() Council passed the “Body-Worn Camera Program Amendment Act of 2015” to establish rules for MPD’s use and retention of BWC footage with the stated intent of “promot accountability and transparency, foster improved police-community relations, and ensur the safety of both officers and the public.” 1 ![]() In 2014, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) began outfitting its officers with body-worn cameras. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the District’s Body-Worn Camera program. The ACLU-DC is committed to working to reverse the tide of overincarceration, safeguard fundamental liberties, eliminate racial disparities, and advocate for sensible, evidence-based criminal justice reforms. I present the following testimony on behalf of our more than 14,000 members who live and vote in the District. My name is Nassim Moshiree, and I am the Policy Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia (ACLU-DC). Good morning, Councilmember Allen and members of the Committee. Public Oversight Roundtable on “Five Years of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Body-Worn Camera Program: Reflections and Next Steps” Council Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbiaĭ.C. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |