Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Britain Raises Threat Level, Anticipates More Attacks

British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the terror threat level in the country to its highest level yesterday evening, after ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in Manchester on Monday night. In a speech late last night, May declared that the government anticipates more attacks. She said the move to raise the threat level was based on “not only that an attack remains highly likely, but that a further attack may be imminent.” The heightened threat level, set to the maximum for the first time in 10 years, means as many as 5,000 troops could be soon patrolling the streets. Military personnel will assist police officers in “guarding duties at key fixed locations.”

UK prime minister says threat level has been raised from “severe to critical”; another attack “may be imminent.” https://t.co/A8P88DB3nl pic.twitter.com/0TgcSxkVzm

— ABC News (@ABC) May 24, 2017

May also said that the police are investigating whether the bomber, Salman Abedi, was acting alone. “The work undertaken throughout the day has revealed that it is a possibility that we cannot ignore, that there is a wider group of individuals linked to this attack,” she said. Some of the victims have now been identified, and one of them was only eight years old.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Will the Government Have to Shut Down?

Saturday will mark President Donald Trump’s 100th day in office, and reviews of his performance so far have not been that great. So naturally, Trump responded to media reports with an angry tweet, calling the first 100 days a “ridiculous standard.”

No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 21, 2017

But to add to his headache, the 100-day milestone will coincide with the deadline to pass a funding bill. Right now it looks like the government could be headed for a shutdown, as the White House and Congress can’t seem to forge an agreement–Trump wants the bill to include funding for the debated border wall, while Democrats want to make sure contested Obamacare subsidy payments are funded. Senators come back from a two-week recess this evening; the House is back tomorrow. This means they only have three days to reach a compromise.

House Speaker Paul Ryan tells GOP members House will focus on avoiding a government shutdown, not health care vote https://t.co/8LqFqttDdP pic.twitter.com/YLHN2cg0ye

— CBS News (@CBSNews) April 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Teacher and Student Dead After San Bernardino School Shooting

Yesterday, a teacher and an eight-year-old student at a San Bernardino elementary school died. They were murdered by the teacher’s estranged husband, who shot her before killing himself. Another student was seriously injured. The children are believed to have been caught in the crossfire, as Cedric Anderson’s target was his estranged wife, Karen Elaine Smith. This tragedy happened just a little over a year after a radicalized Muslim couple shot and killed 14 people at San Bernardino’s Inland Regional Center.

Smith’s son described Anderson as “paranoid and possessive.” He managed to enter the school after telling staff he was just going to drop something off for Smith. San Bernardino schools increased security after the 2015 terrorist attack, but it’s hard to believe they could have stopped Anderson. “[It] is not uncommon for a spouse to be able to gain access to a school campus to meet with their other spouse,” said Police Chief Jarrod Burguan.

Police are investigating San Bernardino shooting as domestic violence incident. There’s much more that can be done to keep guns from abusers pic.twitter.com/aT6v0kj7Ds

— CAP Action Guns (@CAPActionGuns) April 10, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

When life hands Beyoncé lemons, she makes “Lemonade.” So how will she handle a $20 million lawsuit?

The singer is being sued by the family of a late rapper, comedian, and Youtube personality for allegedly sampling him without permission in “Formation,” a chart-topping single from her most recent album, “Lemonade.”

The song features the voice of Anthony Barré, better known by his stage name Messy Mya. Barré’s humor made him a local celebrity in New Orleans, where he lived, but he would also use his platform to discuss the short life expectancies of young black men in the city. In 2010, at 22 years old, he was shot and killed.

Recordings of his voice, pulled from a handful of his videos, can be heard at the beginning of “Formation” and in between verses. Some saw Beyoncé’s inclusion of Barré on the track as a both a tribute to New Orleans culture and commentary on the city’s violence.

But the internet sensation’s sister, Angel Barré, is seeking royalties as well as proper attribution to her brother, who is allegedly not listed in the song’s credits. Anthony Barré’s estate said they had reached out to Beyoncé before filing the suit, but she was unresponsive.

The copyright case, which was filed in Louisiana District Court, also names Sony Music and Beyoncé’s company Parkwood Entertainment as defendants. According to MTV News, the lawyers representing Barré’s estate wrote in a statement:

The Estate of Anthony Barré alleges that Beyoncé Knowles Carter, Parkwood Entertainment, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment and others produced, distributed, publicly performed, used and otherwise exploited the voice, words and performance of the late Anthony Barré, also known as Messy Mya, without authorization in the extremely popular ‘Formation’ recording. Barré was a well-known performance comedian, music artist and MC in New Orleans. He is very closely associated with the Bounce music phenomenon in New Orleans. There are more than a hundred videos documenting his performance, statements, comedic routines, etc.

According to Forbes, the popstar could potentially use the fair use doctrine, which allows certain uses of copyrighted material without permission from the owners, as a defense, because of the political statements included in “Formation.” Under the 1976 Copyright Act, reproducing work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” This argument, however, may not hold up given how much she has profited from the song.

In September, a New York judge dismissed a separate copyright suit regarding “Lemonade,” in which a filmmaker claimed that Beyoncé had replicated scenes from one of his films in the album’s trailer and music videos.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Beyoncé Being Sued for $20 Million? appeared first on Law Street.

Late Saturday, former New Orleans Saints defensive end Will Smith was pronounced dead after suffering multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. Smith, 34, was driving his Mercedes SUV with his wife Raquel in tow, when a minor auto accident led to an altercation that left Smith dead and his wife with 2 non-fatal gunshot wounds to her legs.

While the incident originally appeared to be a random act of road rage, details emerged throughout the week that provided a clearer picture of what happened that night. Cardell Hayes, 28, who was charged with second-degree murder in the incident, was a prep-school football star who dreamed of playing for the New Orleans Saints, according to The Daily Beast. He also reportedly had worked as a security guard for the Saints at the same time that Smith was a player. On the night of the incident, Hayes’ Hummer was rear-ended by Smith’s vehicle. The exact details of what followed are still fuzzy, but the accident allegedly led to an exchange of words between the two men that ended with Hayes shooting Smith.

Smith played for the Saints from 2004 to 2013, and played an important role in helping the team win the 2010 Super Bowl. His former teammates have expressed grief over the loss, including quarterback Drew Brees who spoke up on the high rates of gun violence and homicides in the city as a major factor.

Hayes has claimed no wrongdoing in the event; his lawyer told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that his client was “not the aggressor” in the situation. He also claimed that toxicology reports should be conducted, as they would “shed light on the behavior of some of the participants,” insinuating that Smith was possibly under the influence at the time of the alleged incident.

Hayes also claims that their prior dealings were just coincidental and had nothing to do with the killing; he allegedly didn’t even know who the victim was until the next morning.

On Wednesday, the lawyer for Hayes’ passenger, Kevin O’Neal, stated that Smith was armed that night and that Hayes’s actions “may have saved both of their lives.”  She referred to the incident as “justifiable homicide.” Police have stated that while they did find a loaded gun in Smith’s car, there was “no evidence” that it had been fired. Smith’s attorney also responded to these claims, saying that Smith did not threaten Hayes and had a license to carry a concealed weapon.

In another strange coincidence, Smith had dinner earlier that day with William Ceravolo, a police officer who had a history with Hayes. In 2005, a dispute in a Walgreens involving Haye’s father, Anthony, led to an altercation with the police that ended in officers shooting Anthony dead; Caravolo was one of the six officers involved. Hayes sued the New Orleans Police Department for his father’s death, but the officers were not charged. There is no indication at the moment that this was related to Smith’s death at all.

Photo:
Will Smith 1-hour before being shot & killed, w/Pierre Thomas & former NOPD commander Billy Ceravolo.
So sad. pic.twitter.com/PMFpRm3vOl

— Fletcher Mackel (@FletcherMackel) April 10, 2016

Until more details emerge it won’t be clear what exactly transpired that night, but this is clearly a tragic situation all around.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What Led to the Shooting Death of NFL Star Will Smith? appeared first on Law Street.

The American police have taken on a new level of stereotypical behavior–the kind that they have been notoriously alleged to partake in, yet vehemently refuse to admit. However, they do not have to admit it this time–their words, followed by their request for action will provide ample evidence to show that they are working hard to further discriminate against the black population. Their new adversary? Beyonce. Yes, Queen B is being targeted by a number of police unions as an individual unworthy of protection due to her blanketed and generalizing depiction of law enforcement and her advocacy for the #BlackLivesMatter social movement. Sounding ironic? It should be.

Before addressing Beyonce’s advocacy and creative interpretation, I would like to make the following observations: John Lennon worked tirelessly to develop a peaceful revolution through song, performance, and lyric. Paul McCartney continued that very public and non-discreet political picture. U2 and Bono have been devoted, active, and outspoken pioneers for Africa in the fight against HIV-AIDS and promoting education, often times criticizing the lavish lifestyles of the rich and famous and taking a stark political stance. Bruce Springsteen has had a longstanding devotion to his outspoken political views, dedicating songs to his beliefs and publicly providing support for various political candidates. And who could forget the Dixie Chicks’ controversial stance against the War in Iraq?

These megastars represent a short list of artists and performers who have taken a political stance, used performance and creativity to depict political ideologies, or issued a statement based on a personal view or belief. However, none of those artists have suffered the same level of scrutiny and extreme backlash like the Queen B.

On Saturday, February 6, the diva released a video for her first new song since 2014, entitled “Formation.” The video instigated rapid fire responses about Beyonce’s exploitation of a marginalized and traumatized black New Orleans’ community, particularly post Hurricane Katrina, her open representation of southern blackness, more specifically that of a southern black woman, and resistance practices exercised by black individuals and communities.

The next day, she followed up the release of her video with a live Halftime Show performance of the song during Super Bowl 50.

Beyonce’s 2-day delivery was calculated and intense. Her message was important–that formation and organization are necessary to combat racial-based violence and embark on a path of social movement. Yet, her delivery was controversial–utilizing the black tragedy within New Orleans and exploiting the voiceless and marginalized community as her backdrop without ever giving the appropriate credit to those, like Messy Mya–a “household NOLA name” who was shot and killed at the age of 22, that provided Beyonce with the tools to tell a story that she portrayed as her own and solely for the “paper” that she sings so freely about. Whether one agrees with Queen B’s message or her in-your-face delivery, it is quite blatantly open for discussion and debate.

However, what is not readily open for discussion is the number of various police unions that are calling for an outright boycott of law enforcement for Beyonce’s upcoming world tour. While the police state that they would respond should Beyonce need help at any time, they are calling for a boycott that “would involve officers refusing to work paid off-duty security for the event, not refusing to perform regular law enforcement duties.” So why are privately-hired individuals who have the right to turn down a job boycotting under the entity of a police union that is, by law, required to defend and serve? Do they not realize that by boycotting the performance they are also refusing to protect all of the thousands of individuals in attendance? Is this a public entity’s agenda presented within the vehicle of a private sector approach? Is a police union an appropriate outlet for boycott under the circumstances? And more so, what kind of message are the police sending?

Arguably, one could inquire about Beyonce’s message and what she is trying to convey to the American people. Like Rudy Giuliani, we could be critical of her approach and view it as a vicious and very public attack on law enforcement. However, that would be blatantly ignoring the fact that Beyonce is an entertainer protected by the ideologies and legal complexities of free speech who does not possess any kind of duty to the public. She is free to say, create, depict, and perform as she pleases so long as she stays within the confines of legality–which she did.

The police, however, live by a different standard than the pop star. Furthermore, as private individuals hired for a private event to serve as security detail, they can absolutely boycott and not take the job. But is it fair to accuse Beyonce of being a cop-hater and spreading anti-police rhetoric? Does advocacy of the #BlackLivesMatter movement automatically associate one with an anti-law enforcement campaign? Are the two mutually exclusive or can we support the #BlackLivesMatter movement while also appreciating the danger and difficulty with which officers do their jobs?

The Miami Fraternal Order of the Police, the Sergeants Benevolent Association in New York City, as well as the Tamp and Nashville police unions seem to find the two mutually exclusive and have urged their respective associations and organizations to boycott the tour. Other police organizations, such as the Raleigh police, are choosing not to boycott the concert held by Beyonce in their respective state.

Like Giuliani stated, we have “to respect the uniform, not to make it appear as if they are the enemy.” Well, I think that applies to all people, not just “the uniform.” Even celebrities have a right to speak out against issues such as police brutality, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the delivery of their messages.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Officers Boycotting Beyonce: Isn’t this a Little Ironic? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy year, with a lot of technology developments, scandals, and big stories. Read on to check out the top 15 tech stories of 2014.

1. New York Court OKs Revenge Porn; Will the Legislature Act?

Revenge porn was one of the hottest legal topics of 2014. “Revenge porn” most frequently occurs when a person posts nude photographs of an ex-lover on the internet as a way to embarrass or degrade the ex. The photographs are often exchanged willingly, but after the relationship goes sour, a jilted ex may post the pictures in a public forum. The practice disproportionately targets women, and can truly damage someone’s life. In March, a New York court dismissed a revenge porn case, signaling that it may have been time for the legislature to step in.

2. The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water

Snapchat, the messaging service that claims data instantly disappears upon receipt, found itself in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) based on violations of the company’s own privacy and security policies in May. The FTC complaint mainly focused on accusations that Snapchat misled their customers by promising certain security and privacy features. Snapchat eventually settled the FTC case, but remains on probation and will require monitoring.

3. Technology and the Bullying Epidemic: The Case of Yik Yak

Between laptops, cellphones, tablets, and iPads, students have more access to technology than ever before. This comes with numerous benefits — but it also comes with a lot of responsibility. One app that took the college and high school technology scene by storm this year was Yik Yak, which allows users to post anonymously to a regional “virtual bulletin board.” While the app was invented in presumably good fun, there are concerns that the anonymity enables cyberbullies.

4. New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras

The Department of Justice investigation into the New Orleans Police Department following Hurricane Katrina resulted in sweeping reforms of the department, including the requirement that patrol officers wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust of the citizens. They hope to guarantee police accountability, as well as provide a resource for officers when they write their reports and testify. While how exactly to deal with implementing police cameras remains a question, it will be interesting to see what happens in New Orleans as a result.

5. Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web

Another hot tech topic this year was the concept of “net neutrality.” There’s been a lot of back and forth, and each major player–the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and our politicians, such as President Barack Obama, have their own takes. The legality of fast lanes is a tricky question–one that the FCC had to contend with this year.

6. Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach

Late this summer, a major leak of female celebrities’ nude photos hit the web. It was dubbed the “Fappening”–a form of crude wordplay. It included superstars such as Jennifer Lawrence, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, and Kate Upton. While some celebrities denied the validity of the photos and others embarked on conversations with the public, the whole scandal said a lot about the potentially false security of the internet, as well as the degrading way in which women are often treated on the web.

7. The Alibaba IPO: What Does Going Public Mean?

Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba decided to go public this fall, and had the largest Initial Public Offering (IPO) in history. Alibaba’s success raised a lot of questions about what IPOs are, how they work, and what the various advantages and disadvantages are for companies. Alibaba’s extreme success is a sign that the stock market remained strong in 2014.

8. #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, feminist cultural critic and video game developer, respectively, are two among a community of feminist gaming figures. They spoke out against misogyny and sexism in the gaming industry, and received threats, hatred, and truly vile responses. Sarkeesian had to cancel speaking appearances, and Wu was actually forced out of her home when her personal address was revealed. Sarkeesian and Wu were just a few of the players attacked in the #GamerGate trend that raged on late this fall.

9. AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. There was a big debate this year in San Francisco, Airbnb’s home, over whether or not to pass a bill that would legalize the room-sharing network, with some caveats. It eventually passed, meaning that Airbnb will continue to operate in San Fran.

10. Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal 

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. However, whether or not Snowden’s actions were legal is a completely different question.

11. Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive

Ridesharing rivals Lyft and Uber are going at in the courtroom as Lyft sues a former employee, now a current Uber exec, for stealing proprietary information. As the two leading companies in ridesharing–although Uber is quite a bit ahead of Lyft–there’s plenty of reason for the two to be competitive. The case in question regarded proprietary information that former Lyft executive Tyler VanderZaden may have taken with him when he moved from Lyft to Uber.

12. Bitcoin: What’s Next?

Bitcoin has grown into a major player in techno-currency, but what’s up next for the digital coin? Bitcoin is still trying to drag itself away from the perception that it’s used exclusively for criminal activities, and firmly establish a role in the mainstream. Regulations are also slowly starting to be put in place–it will be interesting to see Bitcoin’s future.

13. KKK vs. Anonymous: Cyberwar Declared over Ferguson Protests

The group of unnamed “hacktivists” Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan have engaged in an apparent all-out cyber war over the events in Ferguson, Missouri. Anonymous was trying to prevent the KKK’s involvement in Ferguson-inspired protests, and took over many of the KKK’s social media accounts. The KKK responded with threats, and tensions continued to run high in Ferguson.

14. Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy

Aereo, once hailed as a game-changer in the cable industry,  filed for bankruptcy. Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright. Despite high hopes for the innovative idea, Aereo is now essentially dead in the water.

15. Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

You know that Facebook copyright declaration you just posted? It’s useless. Seriously, it’s time to stop posting it. Every so often Facebook changes their terms and policies, and a bunch of people post a weird, incorrect disclaimer stating that they have copyright over their own content. The problem is that the notice does nothing, except confuse your Facebook friends who see it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 15 Technology Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Gonk via WikiMedia Commons]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Environmental and Energy Law: #7 Tulane University Law School appeared first on Law Street.

When New Orleans Superintendent of Police Ronal Serpas took office four years ago, he was faced with high crime rates, a depressingly low department approval rate, and a long history of police corruption and brutality. While lowering crime rates and rebuilding trust take time, his solution to corruption allegations and brutality has been relatively simple — require patrol officers to wear body cameras.

The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) has been through several scandals, but none as severe as the Danziger Bridge incident, in which police officers shot, killed, and maimed innocent, unarmed citizens then tried to cover it up. The incident took place just six days after Hurricane Katrina and took the lives of a mentally impaired man as well as a 19 year old. It also spurred a Department of Justice investigation that resulted in a long-awaited consent decree, which imposed sweeping reforms on the NOPD.

One product of the consent decree is the requirement of patrol officers to wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust and ensure transparency and accountability in the future. Hailing this as the next step in American policing, Serpas has high hopes that the cameras will be well worth the $1.45 million investment. He believes that they are the best way to eliminate the “he-said-she-said” problem once and for all.

The 420 cameras purchased by the NOPD are required to be used by patrol officers whenever they are attending a “business-related event,” including traffic stops and responding to calls. The officers are encouraged to consult their videos before preparing a report and must attend a three-hour training session to learn how to use the devices.

The New Orleans Police Department is not alone in its use of body cameras; more and more police departments across the nation are beginning to require officers to wear cameras on duty. Police Foundation Executive Fellow Chief Tony Farrar recently completed a year-long study evaluating the effect that body cameras have on police use-of-force. He found the cameras to be associated with “dramatic reductions in use-of-force and complaints against officers.”

These cameras are especially appealing to troubled police departments such as the NOPD, currently facing federal scrutiny. Although Superintendent Serpas claims the cameras are a “win-win” for all parties involved due to the creation of an irrefutable record of what happened, there is the fear that the videos may just be for the benefit for the police.

Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, cautions against the practice of letting officers watch their own videos before writing reports. He argues that if an officer is planning to lie, the videos serve as a “good guide” to what he can get away with.

Another issue is the matter of who gets to view the videos and whether or not they are a matter of public record. While Serpas told NPR that he will hire whatever additional staff is necessary to handle public requests for the videos, he concedes that public record laws have “exceptions to releasing information, and there are directions about which information to release.”

A police department monopoly of the videos does little to curb the problem of false or misleading reports. If the public does not have access to the videos then, short of legal action, they still have little more than blind faith to ensure that officers are being truthful when they state that something was or was not recorded on the tapes.

Conspiracy theories aside, the NOPD seems to genuinely want the public to be aware of the cameras, going as far as having officers demonstrate the technology to random citizens. The point behind installing the cameras is to foster public trust, something that the department can only do by proving to the community that they have turned a new leaf.

The cameras fit over the officers’ ears and therefore allow the viewer to see everything that the police officer sees. This is naturally meant to inspire trust by deterring officers from filing false reports – what is the point of lying if you know that what you have done is caught on film? – but ironically enough it seems that the cameras may be doing more to curb the behavior of the people being filmed rather than the officers themselves.

For example, Lt. Travis St. Pierre told NPR that “they always have this one individual that they would go on calls and service for that likes to be disruptive, curse at the police, fight with the police, and when they got out and turned the camera on and informed her she was being recorded, she immediately said, ‘Ah. OK,’ and was not a problem at all. We’re seeing a lot of that kind of stuff.”

More polite citizens aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but stifling complaints or disagreements is not necessarily good either. As the NOPD’s bleak track record has shown, the police are not always right and they do not always act with citizens’ best interests in mind. Being able to freely voice your opinions and complaints — no matter how disruptive they may be — is just as important as officers not falsifying reports. As the use of cameras continues to expand in New Orleans and several other jurisdictions, it will be interesting to see how effective it is, and who actually benefits from the tactic.

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Thomas Hawk via Flickr]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras appeared first on Law Street.