Most of these provisions are already existing law and introducing a bill with these things doesn't do anything to address socioeconomic issues which is the heart of most of these issues. Just a feel good bill to make people think that the government actually did something.
Require all uniformed federal police officers to wear body cameras - Nothing wrong here, helps good cops show that some complaints on them are bs and makes sure that bad cops are dealt with swiftly.
Most departments already mandate the usage of body cams. For departments that don't have them, they tend to be less funded. But democratic mayors are openly calling for police departments to be defunded so I'm not sure how you can force all departments to adopt body cams if you aren't willing to pay them. The NYPD budget is allocated and some ungodly percentage, like 95% (similar numbers for LAPD), go to paying out salaries. You're talking single digit percentages being used for buying department equipment.
Create a National Registry to track police misconduct and use of force - Sounds fine with me, not sure who is going to be able to see this (the public, internal government watchdog, etc) but it sounds fine from an accountability standpoint.
Every single use of force is documented by any department. This includes mace/tasers to officer involved shootings. You can ask cops, all they do is write reports all day. Maybe there might be some merit to creating a national database for collective statistics but seems a bit pointless imo. Departments that operate in Baltimore are different than departments in affluent neighborhoods in suburban California. You can't nationally lump together all police departments.
Make it easier to prosecute police misconduct - Yet again, sounds fine, not sure on what the actually legalese ill be for this -- but on the surface it is fine.
This is rather vague which confirms this bill is nothing but a place holder so democrats can reference this bill claiming they actually tried to solve the issue of police brutality. Police already open themselves to immense liability any time they answer a call and it's not difficult to charge them. They
might be referencing qualified immunity here but I'd argue that police need qualified immunity otherwise they risk being sued any time they attempt to stop a crime.
I think a major roadblock that we're going to see here is that state and local governments have most of the control when it comes to the law enforcement officials that are typically scrutinized, mostly b/c of the fact that these are the officers that most people are going to interact with at some point. They could use federal funds to incentivize change, though I'm not sure if the constitution allows for the government to mandate the use of bodycams.
I don't think mandating body cams would be a constitutional issue, and most cops like bodycams regardless. It makes civil complaints go down because both the officer and the civilian know their entire interaction is being recorded. It's most likely a budget issue. Bodycams are expensive and it's expensive to store all that data.
