bruder? >> in south carolina we are currently working through state legislation to implement body worn cameras. one of the moves that we've done there is to basically make body worn camera footage exempt or actually not even subject to the freedom of information act. it's not considered a public document. in doing that we make sure that the individual victims of those crimes they're not -- their identity is not shared, their incident is not shared. those types of things can only be achieved through the discovery process in court and that's one of the biggest concerns we had there as well as making sure people were not victimized for long-term periods based on that. >> mr. weir? >> senator thank you. thank you for the attention on victims. i think this is something that's very important in this discussion. the victims certainly have the right to be protected and they have the privacy rights associated with that. any policies that have to be crafted have got to be done thoughtfully and in some

bruder raised. south carolina has deemed data recorded by a body-worn camera not to be a public document, thus the data is not subject to freedom of information act disclosure. he goes on to say in his testimony, doing so will ensure that a single moment of indiscretion does not provide a lifetime of embarrassment, ensures that one's guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law and not a court of public opinion. in your testimony, you noted the fact that footage from body-worn cameras can be a valuable source of evidence to help protect both officers and the public. public needs access to that information if it's going to protect them, does it not? >> well, senator durbin, thank you for the question. the answer is, yes, i do think the public needs access to that information. now i would say in every instance where there has been a use of force by the police department in a particular encounter with the public, that information should be made available and accessible and relatively quickly in t

bruder. i realize not every jurisdiction has mandatory recording of interrogations and how would you compare body cameras to other types of interrogations? what are some of the issues that you don't have with the interrogations that you have with the body cameras? >> thank you, senator, for the question. as you know, there are other recording devices that are more widespread right now such as dashboard cameras used by law enforcement in stops. those have been proven to be very effective law enforcement tools for many of the reasons that you articulated. oftentimes it shows the officer acting in absolute conformity with the best practices that you would expect from police and sheriff's officers and state troopers. it is also great evidence of what actually happens on scene. >> it's also a good training thing, actually, i think for officers and they're able to watch each other and see what's good and what's bad and make sure it's really -- it is a very good way i think for people to learn when

bruder raised.south carolina has deemed data recorded by a body-worn camera not to be a public document, thus the data is not subject to freedom of information act disclosure. he goes on to say in his testimony, doing so will ensure that a single moment of indiscretion does not provide a lifetime of embarrassment, ensures that one's guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law and not a court of public opinion. in your testimony, you noted the fact that footage from body-worn cameras can be a valuable source of evidence to help protect both officers and the public. public needs access to that information if it's going to protect them, does it not? >> well senator durbin thank you for the question. the answer is, yes, i do think the public needs access to that information. now i would say in every instance where there has been a use of force by the police department in a particular encounter with the public that information should be made available and accessible and relatively quickly in the a

bruder. i realize not every jurisdiction has mandatory recording of interrogations and how would you compare body cameras to other types of interrogations? what are some of the issues that you don't have with the interrogations that you have with the body cameras? >> thank you, senator, for the question. as you know, there are other recording devices that are more widespread right now such as dashboard cameras used by law enforcement in stops. those have been proven to be very effective law enforcement tools for many of the reasons that you articulated. oftentimes it shows the officer acting in absolute conformity with the best practices that you would expect from police and sheriff's officers and state troopers. it is also great evidence of what actually happens on scene. >> it's also a good training thing, actually, i think for officers and they're able to watch each other and see what's good and what's bad and make sure it's really -- it is a very good way i think for people to learn when

bruder would that be okay with you? >> yes, sir, absolutely. i'll take the opportunity just to point out that in the current grant funding i'm not sure data retention is covered. as we pointed out today, obviously that's the most important part. >> you wouldn't want to spend money on a program that wasn't sound. so having conditions on the ground makes sense. >> yes, sir. >> does that make sense to you, mr. weir? >> it certainly does, senator. >> miss miller? >> yes, sir, it does. >> so a block grant is probably not the way to go here. have some conditions attached to it. >> yes. >> thank you all very much. i've learned a lot. and the hearing will be adjourned -- we'll leave the record open for one week for further questions and any information you want to provide for the committee. you've really done the country a great service. thank you all. >>> we're taking your comments about the hearing on twitter at c-span and on facebook ask something should police be required to wear body cameras. ken says yes. to paraphrase an old conservative saying,