About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


85 Fordham L. Rev. 1725 (2016-2017)
Big Budget Productions with Limited Release: Video Retention Issues with Body-Worn Cameras

handle is hein.journals/flr85 and id is 1757 raw text is: NOTES BIG BUDGET PRODUCTIONS WITH LIMITED RELEASE: VIDEO RETENTION ISSUES WITH BODY-WORN CAMERAS Bradley X Barbour* Since 2013, there has been growing support for police body-worn cameras in the wake of several high-profile and controversial encounters between citizens and law enforcement. The federal government has justified budgetary measures funding body-worn camera programs as a means to facilitate trust between law enforcement and the public through the objectivity of video footage-a sentiment supported by many lawmakers advocating for implementation of this technology. These policy goals, however, are stymied by a deficiency of police department policies and state statutes regulating the retention of footage and close adherence of states to the precedent of Arizona v. Youngblood, which holds that the destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence by the government not committed in bad faith does not violate due process. This Note analyzes the current landscape of body-worn camera video retention and argues for reform at the judicial and statutory level on how footage is preserved. It argues that courts should interpret Youngblood as allowing judges to impose the sanction of missing-evidence instructions-even in the absence of bad faith-as a remedy against the destruction of body-worn camera footage that occurs because of police policies and practices that limit protection of such footage. This Note also argues that states should move quickly to create statutes regulating the time periods in which body-worn camera footage must be retained while also balancing the logistical burden that high-volume video storage imposes on police departments. * J.D. Candidate, 2017, Fordham University School of Law; B.A., 2013, American University. Thank you to Professor Deborah Denno for your wisdom and infinite patience. Thank you to two generations of Fordham Law Review editors: Hopi, Brandon, Max, and Josh, who truly helped make this Note possible. Thank you to Mom and Dad for caring about me and the completion of this project more than I could ask for. And thank you to Kelsey for your love, support, seltzer, and constant sense of optimism about the Note; I could not have done it without you. 1725