Law Commons^™

Chilling: The Constitutional Implications Of Body-Worn Cameras And Facial Recognition Technology At Public Protests, Julian R. Murphy

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In recent years body-worn cameras have been championed by community groups, scholars, and the courts as a potential check on police misconduct. Such has been the enthusiasm for body-worn cameras that, in a relatively short time, they have been rolled out to police departments across the country. Perhaps because of the optimism surrounding these devices there has been little consideration of the Fourth Amendment issues they pose, especially when they are coupled with facial recognition technology (FRT). There is one particular context in which police use of FRT equipped body-worn cameras is especially concerning: public protests. This Comment constitutes the …

The Monster In The Courtroom, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. Despite continued pressure from the press, Congress, and the public to allow cameras into oral arguments, the Justices have steadfastly refused.

The policy arguments for allowing cameras in the courtroom focus on cameras as a means to increased transparency of judicial work. Yet these arguments tend to gloss over a significant point about the Court — it is not secretive. The Court allows several avenues of access to its oral arguments including the presence of the public and the press in the audience, …