Judge says body cameras for Chicago officers "was not a suggestion"
22 comments
·October 19, 2025mikebonnell
SilverElfin
The act you’re referring to is Illinois statute and doesn’t apply to federal agents.
brendang_sd
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.
epwr
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.
mikebonnell
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
I wasn't addressing the ruling by the judge, only the poster commenting on a state law, suggesting it's applicability here.
renewiltord
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.
SilverElfin
It does seem like judicial activism. I’m not sure what in the law permits the judge to arbitrarily decide that. But the tone of what she said (“it’s not a hint” etc) is aggressive and unprofessional, which makes me think it is judicial activism like the DHS alleges. Also the same judge said they can’t use riot control techniques like tear gas, even though the agents are clearly facing violence and riots in some situations, which again seems arbitrary.
R_D_Olivaw
Oh dear NO. The poor wittle federal agents surely cannot handle hearing (reading) such AGGRESSIVE language as the word "must" as they drag human beings from their homes as citizens protest.
What an absolute travesty and dereliction of duty!
drawfloat
Requiring police to wear and use body cameras is judicial activism to achieve...?
SilverElfin
They aren’t police. They’re federal agents. Where in the law, specifically, are they required to wear body cameras? What’s the legal argument, apart from the judge arbitrarily deciding this, for them to wear body cameras?
estearum
Judges can order all sorts of things they deem are reasonably necessary to enforce their rulings or the law. Injunctive relief can take a huge variety of things so long as it's narrow and directly applicable to the case before them.
You'd be hard pressed to find "wear bodycameras" to be an out of scope form of relief for a case about police brutality, dishonesty in court, and lack of accountability.
You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
bigyabai
> They’re federal agents
It's a federal judge. If those agents don't want to listen, then they don't deserve the honor of serving America's people.
tokai
Ofc the tone is aggressive. You want a judge to just say 'oh well' when their orders are not followed?
SilverElfin
A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job. And also, their earlier order didn’t include that. Which is why she literally edited the formal written order now.
nekusar
Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances.
I find that bringing all the details in the light is a great way to root out corruption. And it's quite telling of your attack of anti-corruption technology and orders. Tells me what I need to know about you.
mcphage
> A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job.
If you applied that standard, the entire current administration would be gone.
jcranmer
The judge is angry here because the US government indicated it agreed to these conditions during the oral hearing on the order, and is now arguing that it doesn't need to abide by what it orally agreed to because it's not in the written order.
Other episodes like that, not to mention the pattern of the US government outright fabricating stuff in its legal writings, make it clear that the Trump administration is openly contemptuous of the court's authority, and the DoJ by extension has that its primary policy now. The government's lawyers are finally being treated with the respect normally accorded to those contemptuous of the court's authority.
general1465
Police and politicians often says that if I am doing nothing wrong, I should not be afraid of being watched. But when police is watched, it is suddenly a big problem...
bigyabai
It's harmless and enforces accountability.
62
[dead]
AfterHIA
[flagged]
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...