Judge Says Body Cameras for Chicago Officers "was Not a Suggestion"

Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago

01-_-

56 points

27 comments

cbsnews.comOtherstory

heatedmixed

Debate

70/100

Body CamerasLaw EnforcementChicago

Key topics

Body Cameras

Law Enforcement

Chicago

A judge has ruled that federal agents in Chicago must wear body cameras during immigration enforcement operations, sparking discussion about the existing laws and regulations surrounding body cameras in law enforcement.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Moderate engagement

First comment

15m

Peak period

0-1h

Avg / period

Comment distribution7 data points

Loading chart...

Based on 7 loaded comments

Key moments

01Story posted
Oct 19, 2025 at 12:15 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01
02First comment
Oct 19, 2025 at 12:30 PM EDT
15m after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
7 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
Oct 19, 2025 at 12:59 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (27 comments)

Showing 7 comments of 27

mikebonnell

3 months ago

2 replies

The SAFE-T act of 2021 requires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE-T_Act "all law enforcement agencies to use body cameras by 2025". This is alongside research that indicates it is beneficial and cost-effective https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20533586-cl_bwc-stud...

The judge's insistence may come from other times that a judge's order has been ignored https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-ignores-judges-order-b...

brendang_sd

3 months ago

2 replies

Except a state law does and cannot force federal law enforcement to do anything, no matter how good of an idea body cameras may be.

mikebonnell

3 months ago

1 reply

But is a federal judge ruling on federal agents, and in the case of the national guard seems to be under control of the state? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406

brendang_sd

3 months ago

I wasn't addressing the ruling by the judge, only the poster commenting on a state law, suggesting it's applicability here.

epwr

3 months ago

That is not true. State laws cannot interfere with the work of federal law enforcement, but can require certain behaviours.

Eg. States set speed limits. A federal LEO can break these when required for their duties (eg. chasing a suspect), but only when required (eg. if they are late for a meeting, they still have to obey traffic laws).

Body cameras do not seem to directly interfere with an LEO’s duty, unless “avoiding accountability” is literally their duty.

SilverElfin

3 months ago

The act you’re referring to is Illinois statute and doesn’t apply to federal agents.

renewiltord

3 months ago

As usual most journalists are garbage LLM rewriters of other text by some source journalists who have also only heard it from someone else. You can tell because they cannot link the case or anything.

It must be related to this recent case

It is further ORDERED that all Federal Agents who are conducting immigration enforcement operations in the Northern District of Illinois, excepting those who do not wear a uniform or other distinguishing clothing or equipment in the regular performance of their official duties or are engaged in undercover operations in the regular performance of their official duties, that are currently equipped and trained with body-worn cameras (“BWCs”) shall activate them when engaged in enforcement activity unless exempted by CBP, ICE, or DHS policy.

a. The definitions of “body worn cameras” shall be as defined in DHS Policy Statement: Body Worn Camera: Audio/video/digital recording equipment combined into a single unit and typically worn on clothing or otherwise secured to a person, e.g., affixed to the outside of the carrier/tactical vest facing forward. DHS Policy Statement 045-07

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559589/66/chicago-hea...

And here’s the policy statement https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/23_0522_opa_...

A good journalist would have found out these things and then shared them and an exceptional one would have told us if there are subsequent policies of the DHS that have changed the BWC procedure. And they could perhaps explain why the DHS cannot simply change the policy instead of fighting in court.

20 more comments available on Hacker News

View full discussion on Hacker News

ID: 45635336Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 8:42:02 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.

Open link View on HN