The DEA Is Abandoning Its Use of Body Cams
This story was originally published by ProPublica.
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
The Drug Enforcement Administration has quietly ended its body camera program barely four years after it began, according to an internal email obtained by ProPublica.
On April 2, DEA headquarters emailed employees announcing that the program had been terminated effective the day before. The DEA has not publicly announced the policy change, but by early April, links to pages about body camera policies on the DEA's website were broken.
The email said the agency made the change to be 'consistent' with a Trump executive order rescinding the 2022 requirement that all federal law enforcement agents use body cameras.
But at least two other federal law enforcement agencies within the Justice Department — the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — are still requiring body cameras, according to their spokespeople. The FBI referred questions about its body camera policy to the Justice Department, which declined to comment.
The DEA did not respond to questions about its decision to stop using the cameras, saying that the agency 'does not comment on tools and techniques.' Reuters reported on the change as part of a story about budget cuts for law enforcement offices.
One former federal prosecutor expressed concern that the change would make life more difficult for DEA agents.
'The vast majority of times I viewed body camera footage is based on allegations from a defense attorney about what a cop did,' said David DeVillers, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. 'And I would say 95% of the time it absolves the cop of wrongdoing.'
The Justice Department started requiring that its federal agents wear the devices in 2021 in the wake of the protests over George Floyd's death the previous summer.
'We welcome the addition of body worn cameras and appreciate the enhanced transparency and assurance they provide to the public and to law enforcement officers working hard to keep our communities safe and healthy,' then-DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a Sept. 1, 2021, press release announcing the use of the cameras.
In May 2022, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order expanding the use of body cameras to all federal law enforcement officers.
In January, the incoming Trump administration rescinded that order, along with almost 100 others it considered 'harmful.'
In early February, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, was one of the first agencies to get rid of its body cameras. Subsequent videos show plainclothes immigration agents making arrests with no visible body cameras.
The DOJ wrote in a 2022 Office of Inspector General management report that the cameras were a 'means of enhancing police accountability and the public's trust in law enforcement.' Studies have consistently shown that departments that use body cameras experience a drop in complaints against officers, according to the nonprofit Police Executive Research Forum, though it's not clear if the drop is due to improvements in officer behavior or to a decrease in frivolous complaints.
'Eliminating these videos is really taking away a tool that we've seen be of benefit to law enforcement practices,' said Cameron McEllhiney, executive director of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. 'It's also a great teaching tool, besides keeping community members safe from the potential misconduct that could occur.'
The DOJ put a lot of money into the body camera initiative. In August of 2021, it awarded Axon, the company that dominates the body camera market, a $30.4 million contract for cameras and the software to handle the evidence they created. The contract, according to Axon, remains active. But only about one-sixth of it has been paid out, according to federal contracting data.
The most recent publicly available version of the DEA's body camera policy dates to December 2022. It only required agents to wear the devices when they were conducting preplanned arrests or searches and seizures that required a warrant. It also only required DEA officers to wear their body cameras when they were working within the United States.
Agents had 72 hours after the end of an operation to upload their video evidence, unless there was a shooting, in which case they were instructed to upload the video evidence as soon as possible. The policy laid out in detail how and by whom evidence from the cameras should be handled in the event officers used force, and it authorized the DEA to use the video evidence when investigating its own officers.
The DEA had planned to implement the policy in phases so that eventually its officers nationwide would be wearing the devices when serving warrants or carrying out planned arrests. In its 2025 fiscal year budget request to Congress, the agency asked for $15.8 million and 69 full time employees, including five attorneys, 'to enable the DEA's phased implementation plan of nationwide use of Body Worn Cameras.'
Records obtained via Freedom of Information Act request by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington show that the Biden-era DOJ had an ambitious plan to capture agencywide metrics and data about the efficiency and use of body cameras by its law enforcement officers.
Laura Iheanachor, senior counsel at CREW, said that before federal law enforcement started wearing body cameras, several local police agencies had declined to participate in federal task forces because doing so would have forced their officers to remove their cameras.
'It's a protective measure for officers, for the public,' Iheanachor said. 'And it allows state and federal law enforcement to work together in harmony.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Local legislators introduce bill intended to help people get help faster during severe storms
When debilitating storms moved through Aspinwall on April 29, many felt unprepared, including some state representatives. On Wednesday, three of them introduced legislation that aims to improve communication when natural disasters strike. 'I told my out-of-town people, 'get out,' my employees 'get out as fast as you can,' because it turned out to be a lot worse than we imagined,' Debbie McManus said. McManus has owned and operated an Aspinwall business for 37 years. She and others have seen storms and flooding throughout that time, but nothing quite like this spring. 'We had three major issues with high tension wires on the ground for 10 days and nothing was done,' Aspinwall Mayor Joe Noro said. Mayor Noro says getting information during that time was extremely difficult. 'If you can't get information from Allegheny emergency management, that's a problem,' he said. State Rep. Abigail Salisbury (D-34) agrees, which is why she's joined forces with State Reps. Mandy Steele (D-33) and Valerie Gaydos (R-44) to take action. 'I just want to create a system where it's easier for the state reps to help our constituents and to relay that information directly to PEMA,' Salisbury said. On Wednesday, she introduced a bill which would require PEMA to share weather emergency alerts with state legislative offices, creating a direct channel of communication before, during and after natural disasters strike. 'That would enable us to better prepare to be able to deploy and help people in the community,' she said. Salisbury says the bill already has bipartisan support. There are several steps before this bill goes to the governor. Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Republicans draft competing budget as Senate nears deal with Hobbs
Photo by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy | Arizona Mirror Arizona lawmakers are at odds again, but this time it's the Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate who can't agree on how to forge the state budget. Creating the state budget — deciding how much to allocate to departments, projects and initiatives or whether to fund them at all — is the most important job that legislators do each year, and the only thing they are constitutionally required to complete. Before the group of bills that will become the state budget becomes law, it must be approved by a majority in both the Arizona Senate and House — which are both controlled by Republicans — and garner a signature from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. In recent history, budget negotiations in Arizona have occurred behind closed doors among the governor and legislative leaders in the House and Senate. But this year is different, with Hobbs and Republican leaders in the Senate nearing a deal after weeks of negotiations. GOP leaders in the House, who haven't been involved in those talks, have responded by drafting their own budget, which was introduced late Wednesday afternoon. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'This is a sound, disciplined budget that delivers safe communities, strong families, and a government that lives within its means,' House Speaker Steve Montenegro said in a Wednesday evening statement. 'We're raising pay for our state law enforcement officers, reducing tuition at public universities, fully funding school choice, fixing critical infrastructure and roads, and protecting taxpayers. Our budget reins in government and puts it back to work for the people it serves.' But the spending package, which is chock-full of proposals that are unlikely to pass muster with Hobbs, will never become law. Instead, it is better viewed as a way for House Republicans to lay down a marker in order to force Hobbs and the Senate to move closer to the House's proposal. Republican political consultant Barrett Marson said House GOP leaders are hoping to demonstrate that the chamber can pass a spending plan in order to get leverage in the negotiations. 'Sometimes there's just gotta be movement to unstick a sticky situation,' he said. 'The House has an equal voice. And unlike previous years when one or both chambers had a go-it-alone ethos, the House isn't looking to be draconian or anything. They want something more responsible.' Marson said a major point of contention between the House and Senate is what to do with the budget surplus. While the Senate and Hobbs have settled on copying the novel process from 2023, in which each lawmaker was given a pot of money from the surplus that was used to fund whatever initiatives they wanted, the House wants to negotiate all of those details and not surrender control of that money to individual legislators. During a House Rules Committee meeting earlier Wednesday afternoon, House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, of Laveen, said he was disappointed in the way the budgeting process was happening this year. 'We should not be moving forward with a House Republican-only budget that is destined to fail,' he said. 'This will not get signed by the governor. I don't even think it's going to pass out of the Senate.' De Los Santos even questioned whether the proposal would get enough votes to pass through the House, where Republicans hold 33 of the chamber's 60 seats. 'What we do know is that this is not a negotiated, bipartisan deal in good faith,' he said. 'House Democrats are at the table negotiating in a bipartisan way with the executive, with our (Senate) counterparts across the courtyard. That is the way to get things done in shared government.' But Republican Rep. Neal Carter, of San Tan Valley, replied that the work of governing should be done transparently, instead of in private — and that it should allow for input from the public. 'As a Republican, I stand for full transparency and not for back-room deals or negotiated budgets with parties that are somehow outside of this public process,' Carter said. The House Republican budget, introduced by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Livingston, proposes significant changes in how federal money allocated to the state, but not restricted to specific uses, is controlled. The billions in unrestricted federal funds, currently controlled by the governor, would shift to legislative control and could only be spent on essential government services. The House GOP's budget proposal would also place new restrictions and monitoring requirements on entitlement programs, like the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System — the state's Medicaid program — and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps. Both programs would be monitored on at least a quarterly basis for participants who don't qualify, to be kicked off. And any participants who win $3,000 or more through gambling or playing the state lottery and don't report those winnings would become ineligible. It would also give the Arizona Department of Economic Security the authority to screen recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for illegal drug use and would ban anyone who tests positive for drugs not prescribed to them from the cash assistance program for a year. House Republicans also intend to increase the percentage of money spent in K-12 classrooms, as opposed to on administration; to decrease tuition for students attending the state's three public universities; and to ban those universities from using public or private money to give scholarships to students without legal immigration status. Hobbs introduced her budget proposal, which includes a much different list of priorities, back in January. Shortly after that, Livingston and Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, panned her proposal for leaving out projected cost increases for programs like AHCCCS. Hobbs spokesman Christian Slater told the Arizona Mirror on Wednesday that Livingston and Gress were to blame for the House's lack of collaboration on the budget. 'This is DDD all over again,' Slater said via email, referring to a fight earlier this year over funding for the Department of Developmental Disabilities. 'It's another circus led by the Speaker, David Livingston, and Matt Gress where they have refused to participate with any caucuses, including their Republican counterparts in the Senate, in a meaningful manner and are once again just trying to score some political points even though they know their plan is going absolutely nowhere.' Livingston and Gress, a former budget director for Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, were both key players in the fight over an extra $122 million in emergency funding for DDD that put vital services for the developmentally disabled in jeopardy. 'Rather than being productive, the House Republican leadership continues to show they are in over their head and unserious about governing,' Slater said. The House Appropriations Committee is set to discuss the proposal Thursday morning. The Senate Republicans have not introduced their budget proposal. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio man indicted by Erie federal grand jury for child sexual exploitation
(WJET/WFXP)– An Ohio man has been accused by a federal grand jury in Erie of traveling across state lines to meet up with an underage victim to produce child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The six-count indictment against 26-year-old Robert A. Pepus of Garrettsville, Ohio, of travelling across state lines to meet up with a minor to engage in sexual activity, creating and possessing CSAM between September and October 2024. Erie, Chautauqua emergency crews searching for reported missing kayaker Should he be convicted, Pepus faces up to life in prison plus 130 years, a maximum fine of $1.5 million, or both, though the actual sentence would be based on the seriousness of the charge and any prior criminal history. Pepus' case was investigated by the FBI and Pennsylvania State Police. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
