Idea: Ballot Initiatives to ban Police from seizing witness cameras

[Anansi1171]

Given the recent and increasing reports of police officers seizing cell-phone cameras from eye-witnesses, in many cases violently, how about ballot initiatives that make such seizures a felony or require an alternate chain of custody for video evidence that is independent of the officers and does not allow suppression of the videotape.

I am a Californian and have no experience in getting such an initiative on the ballots, but any ideas of wording, and whether or not it would be effective or even legal, as well as any organizations that may support or advocate for this sort of thing would be greatly appreciated.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. As an alternative to making such seizures a felony (and giving prosecutors, judges, and juries the

option to let the LEOs who do this not be convicted), you might want to push for the adoption of a law which would treat an illegal seizure of a camera by an LEO as being equivalent to giving notice of a irrevocable resignation.

To understand the procedure for getting an initiative on the ballot, you might want to look at previous ballot initiatives and contact whatever organization was involved with one or more of them.

[Anansi1171]

3. Thanks, and that is a very clever idea, and you are right as to a felony may be harsh, no?-NT

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. Too harsh? Not in my world.

But
* prosecutors (who have to work with the police) can decide to not prosecute
* judges can decide to dismiss cases
* jurors can generally decide to convict, but it only takes one hold-out to prevent a conviction.

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. Check out the Initiative and Referendum Institute for more info.

Also I think there is a Wikipedia ballotpedia page.

California initiatives cost big bucks, maybe a million just to get enough signatures to make the ballot, then several million more for end-state advertising.

[Anansi1171]

4. I will check that out, Thanks.

But I would hope that post-Dorner, port-Kern County, etc. that there would be a groundswell and some donations to help get signatures. Police unions would oppose, of course. But that's not my problem. The tools of the surveillance state are neutral; they should work for the citizen and not against.

[BainsBane]

5. I'm pretty sure it's already illegal

Isn't it theft? If they want your camera, they need to get a court order. I realize they don't do this, but I don't think a ballot initiative is necessary. Someone whose camera was taken needs to sue a police department.