Las Vegas Union Pushes Through Deal That Bars Mandatory Use Of Body Cameras

123px-Las_Vegas,_NV_Metropolitan_PoliceBody cameras have been credited with not only uncovering police abuse but generally improving the conduct of officers in relation to the public. Recently in Las Vegas, controversial shootings have led to the demand of such tiny cameras. However, the Protective Association representing Las Vegas police has announced that it pushed through an agreement with Sheriff Doug Gillespie to make the wearing of such cameras optional for officers — an option unlikely to be taken by most police officers.


We have been following the continuing abuse of citizens who are detained or arrested for filming police in public. (For prior columns, click here and here). Despite consistent rulings upholding the right of citizens to film police in public, these abuses continue.

While courts have ruled against these arrests, police unions appear to be moving to prevent the use of new technology that creates a verifiable record of police and citizen conduct alike. Such cameras can help clear police officers in such controversies, but they are clearly viewed as a threat by many officers and union officials.

There is no reason why such public reforms should be blocked in union agreements. Indeed, with the right of public filming established over police opposition, such films offer a closer and often more accurate record of controversial arrests.

30 thoughts on “Las Vegas Union Pushes Through Deal That Bars Mandatory Use Of Body Cameras”

  1. New ideas and direction come to us each and every day of our
    lives. Over the last 15 months Empower Network has literally exploded.
    But in many cases, their mentor has no bigger talents or wisdom than themselves.

  2. Such cameras can help clear police officers in such controversies, but they are clearly viewed as a threat by many officers

    There ya go….pretty obvious….why else would they consider it a threat?

  3. JH,

    I know a judge that anytime someone invoked the 5th he’d inform the jury that the person has that right…. But that they should, not could infer that they are hiding something and that there testimony should be given as much weight…..

    It’s the same judge in the Michigan DHS case……

  4. i can see Darren’s point about officer privacy concerns, but if they can just turn them off before administering a contempt of cop citation, what’s the point.

  5. wrxdave, nicely said.

    With a nod to Darren’s concerns: Turn them off at break and lunch and get the itchingbay about management done then. That’s when I had to do it 🙂

  6. Fred and RobinH, ….why should there be management in civil service?
    The workers know their duties and responsibilities.
    ……Yes this is tongue in cheek. My point is, there needs to be oversight on both sides. You would not give carte blanche to all employees, I would not give carte blanche to all management. There are shirkers and petty humans on both sides of this fence.

Comments are closed.