In occasional meetings in Topeka ahead of the January session, legislators are reopening debate over requiring body cameras for Kansas law enforcement officers, the Associated Press reported.
The Ferguson, Mo., incident, in which an unarmed 18-year-old was killed by a white officer, pushed body cameras to everyone’s front burner. Legislation was proposed in both Kansas chambers to require cities and counties to embrace the technology, but proposals failed to clear committees.
Iola and Allen County are ahead of the game. Officers on both forces have cameras that show what occurs when an officer engages the public. Video has proved valuable, in prosecution and also in documenting what an officer did and said.
As sheriff, Tom Williams was responsible for outfitting his officers with cameras attached to head gear. An early example of their value, he noted, was an instance of a father questioning his son’s arrest. After viewing the video, the man apologized.
Several chiefs of police, including Ed Klumpp, former Topeka chief and now a lobbyist for law enforcement agencies, think legislators should leave decisions on cameras to local governing bodies, rather than mandate the technology and then, with Kansas on the cusp of another budget crisis, very likely not provide sufficient funding.
Purchasing hardware and managing what is recorded doesn’t come on the cheap. Wichita council members decided in June to spend $2.2 million over four years on body cameras and record storage.
The better approach is to leave decisions, and funding, to cities and counties. “In three years, almost every officer is going to be wearing them anyway,” Klumpp told the AP.
Legislators have their hands full — as last session amply showed — without delving into what should be responsibilities of local government.
— Bob Johnson
Let local, not state, powers decide on use of body cameras
