Sen. Baker's bill expanding use of body cameras approved by Judicary Committee
Apr. 2—WILKES-BARRE — Sen. Lisa Baker on Wednesday said a body camera provides essential protection for officers and agents entering potentially risky encounters in isolated areas.
"It also ensures that individuals being questioned are afforded their rights," said Baker, R-Lehman Township. "The body camera can help prevent misunderstandings that escalate and provides a record when someone's account changes later."
The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Baker, approved legislation to expand the use of body-worn cameras to additional law enforcement agencies across the Commonwealth.
Baker is the bill's sponsor.
Baker said Senate Bill 520 expands authorization for body camera use to include agents from the Office of Attorney General, rangers with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and officers and deputies with the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Fish and Boat Commission.
"Each of these entities has demonstrated both a need for body-worn cameras and a capacity to implement a responsible program," Baker said.
The bill also consolidates existing laws regarding body camera authorization into a unified framework under the Wiretap Act. By doing so, Baker said it clarifies that all authorized agencies operate under the same statutory guidelines, enhancing consistency in law enforcement procedures.
Sen Baker said it updates the definition of "law enforcement officer" under the Wiretap Act — ensuring that authorized agencies are covered under the same regulations that govern audio and video recordings.
"This bill reflects a commonsense approach to modern policing," Baker said. "By expanding access to body cameras, we are strengthening transparency and accountability while ensuring officers have the tools they need to safely and effectively perform their duties."
Senate Bill 520 moves to the Senate for consideration.
Reach Bill O'Boyle at 570-991-6118 or on Twitter @TLBillOBoyle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Michigan Senate Democrats advance bump stock ban, ghost gun serialization bills from committee
Attendees cheer at a gun safety rally at the state Capitol Building on April 22, 2025 | Photo: Anna Liz Nichols Several firearm safety and control bills addressing a ban on bump stocks, serializing ghost guns and codifying the Michigan Capitol's concealed and open carry ban into law were advanced to the Michigan Senate on Thursday. The bills were moved forward by the Senate Judiciary Committee following additional testimony on the reintroduced package – but not before the panel heard emotional testimony from gun violence prevention and safety advocates and gun rights groups, the latter of whom opposed the bills. Senate Bill 224 would ban bump stocks, devices that let users essentially convert their semi-automatic weapons into rapid firing weapons. A bump stock was one of the primary tools used in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, the deadliest in American history. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2024 struck down federal rules created after the shooting that defined a semi-automatic weapon equipped with a bump stock as an automatic weapon, which was already banned under law. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The federal high court's decision, however, has not deterred Michigan Democrats from seeking ways to ban them at the state level. Michigan would join 17 others in adopting a similar policy. Sponsored by Sen. Dayna Polehanki (D-Livonia), Senate Bill 224 would add bump stocks to a list of disallowed firearms equipment in Michigan. 'Destructive weapons of war should never have a place in our communities, yet devices that allow individuals to convert a rifle into a functioning machine gun remain legal in our state,' Polehanki said. 'And let me be clear: these are not tools for sport or self-defense. Bump stocks are used to inflict maximum harm in seconds, and their continued availability puts every one of our communities at risk. That's unacceptable, and it's time for a change.' Senate Bills 331 and 332, both sponsored by Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak), would prohibit the purchase, possession and distribution of firearms without valid serial numbers, which are commonly referred as ghost guns because they are untraceable in federal and state firearms registries. McMorrow's bill would make a first offense a misdemeanor with a penalty up to a $5,000 fine and one year in prison. Successive offenses would be considered felonies with up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. A member of McMorrow's staff delivered testimony on Thursday, but in a statement issued following the committee hearing, the senator said ghost guns were designed to deliberately evade accountability, requiring no background checks, no serial numbers and no way to trace them if used to commit a crime. 'As we see law enforcement officers recovering these untraceable firearms at an alarming rate, Michigan can't afford to wait,' McMorrow said. 'Just as rapidly as new weapon production methods emerge and evolve, so too must our laws and public safety efforts. Our communities deserve nothing less.' Polenaki also sponsored Senate Bills 225 and 226 along with Sen. Rosemary Bayer (D-West Bloomfield). The bills would make the Michigan Capitol Commission's open and concealed carry bans law, and would also apply to the Anderson House Office Building and the Binsfeld Senate Office Building. At least 26 other states have a similar ban in place to maintain the safety of their Capitol grounds. Bayer during testimony on Thursday recounted the fear she felt when armed protesters stormed Michigan's Capitol and remained in the Senate chamber's gallery, which several senators said made them feel intimidated as they voted on important legislation. 'Those types of threats and intimidation have no place in any work environment, especially not one where the work of the people is being done,' Bayer said. 'Every day, we have students and teachers, parents and public servants walk the halls of our Capitol. It's our responsibility to make sure they feel safe doing so, and this legislation will help ensure all people feel safe freely participating in our state's democracy.' Members of Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action and various other gun safety groups, like Brady and Giffords, testified Thursday in support of the measures, hoping they would keep firearms out of the Capitol and keep ghost guns and bump stocks out of the hands of future mass shooters. Linda Danders with Moms Demand Action said from the very first time armed extremists showed up at the Capitol to intimidate lawmakers, her group knew there was a real and imminent threat to the safety of Michiganders and the state's democracy. 'That's why we've been urging Michigan lawmakers to prohibit guns in the Capitol,' Danders said. 'Thanks to the efforts of many in this room, open carry of firearms in the Capitol Building is now prohibited, but there is still a dangerous loophole left for individuals to carry concealed, loaded handguns into and on Capitol grounds, including in this building.' Tom Lambert, legislative director for Michigan Open Carry, said he was opposed to the package, calling it another episode in the continuing series of 'people who hate guns, don't know what they're talking about and they don't care,' referring to Senate Democrats' push for greater gun control. 'You have serious Second Amendment issues, you also have serious Fifth Amendment issues. Not only are you taking lawfully possessed property that people acquire lawfully and possess lawfully today and you're prohibiting it, you're in the alternative requiring them to deface these items that, again, lawfully, do not have a serial number on them,' Lambert said of the ghost guns bill. 'If you put one of these federally regulated serial numbers on them, you will decrease the value of those items, some of which are worth a significant amount, which constitutes a Fifth Amendment taking.' Lambert insinuated that could lead to legal consequences for the state that could cost a lot. 'I hope we put [that] in the budget to pay for all that stuff,' he said. In response to emotional testimony from a student, Sen. Sue Shink (D-Northland Township) said no young person should have to worry about the threat of gun violence. 'Quite frankly, at my age, it's not something I should have to worry about either,' Shink said. 'And I'll just tell you, and also so that the people who are from those gun organizations know that, yeah, it's scary to know that they're out there pushing violence and pushing fear on people who just want to live in peace, who just want to be left alone to pursue their life, liberty and happiness. It's bullshit. You shouldn't have to put up with it.'
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000.
Years after a SWAT team in Texas destroyed an innocent woman's home while trying to apprehend a fugitive, the local government will have to pay her $60,000 in damages plus interest, a federal judge ruled Thursday. That decision may sound like common sense. But the ending was far from guaranteed in a legal odyssey that saw Vicki Baker of McKinney, Texas, left with a dilapidated house—and the bill for the damages—even though she was never suspected of wrongdoing. "I've lost everything," she told Reason in 2021. "I've lost my chance to sell my house. I've lost my chance to retire without fear of how I'm going to make my regular bills." In July 2020, law enforcement detonated about 30 tear gas grenades inside Baker's home, blew off the garage entryway with explosives, and careened a BearCat armored vehicle through her backyard fence. They smashed the windows and drove through her front door. (Baker's daughter, Deanna Cook, had given them a garage door opener and the code to enter the home.) Police were in search of Wesley Little, who was on the run after kidnapping a teenage girl. Upon arriving at Baker's home, Little—who had formerly worked for Baker as a handyman—encountered Cook, who called law enforcement. Little released the girl unharmed but refused to exit himself, prompting the SWAT team to destroy the home. He was ultimately found dead from suicide. "The tear gas was everywhere," Baker, who is now in her 80s, said. "It was on the walls. It was on the floors. It was on the furniture. It was everywhere." Her daughter's dog was rendered deaf and blind. Baker told Reason she has "a very high regard for the police," and she did not challenge that they acted in the best interest of the community that day. But not long after they ravaged her home, things began to fall apart even more, metaphorically speaking. Her home insurance would not cover the damages, citing a clause that protects them from having to reimburse people for damages caused by the government. But the government would not help either, telling Baker she did not meet its definition of a victim. That general excuse often works—as this is not the first such story. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment promises the government cannot take private property without "just compensation." But some governments have managed to evade that pledge by claiming there is an exception to that rule if the property was destroyed via police power. Judge Amos Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 2021 ruled Baker could sue, ultimately calling that interpretation of the law "untenable." In June 2022, a jury awarded her $59,656.59 in damages. Yet that victory would be short-lived. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that judgment in 2023, ruling she was foreclosed from relief under federal law because police acted out of "necessity during an active emergency." The Supreme Court declined to hear the case last year. So Baker pivoted back to the Texas Constitution. Attorneys for McKinney argued that Baker's state law claim died with her federal one, an argument Mazzant rejected in his opinion published Thursday. "The [5th Circuit] specifically noted in its Summary Judgment Order that 'the Texas Constitution's Takings Clause differs from the Takings Clause set forth in the United States Constitution,'" writes Mazzant. "It is entirely possible for a defendant to violate the Texas Takings Clause—a clause more protective than its federal analog—without violating the Fifth Amendment." "Regarding future victims, this should help in Texas," says Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented Baker. "As far as we can tell, municipalities in Texas have just been ignoring this binding decision from the Texas Supreme Court about SWAT damage, but hopefully some publicity around the result will spur change." At the federal level, however, the issue remains an open question. "Whether any such exception exists (and how the Takings Clause applies when the government destroys property pursuant to its police power)," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a statement after the Supreme Court denied Baker's case, "is an important and complex question that would benefit from further percolation in the lower courts prior to this Court's intervention." While some municipalities opt to pay innocent property owners in such cases, many treat victims like McKinney treated Baker. It doesn't have to be that way. "Paying these kinds of claims is not going to bankrupt cities," says Redfern. "Raids like this aren't an everyday occurrence in most jurisdictions, and the damage is usually in the five figures. Ruinous for many property owners, but an easy check to cut for municipalities." The post Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000. appeared first on
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sidney man charged with vehicle arson
DELHI, N.Y. (WIVT/WBGH) – A Sidney man was arraigned in Delaware County Court on a sealed indictment on Wednesday. District Attorney Shawn Smith announced that when the indictment was unsealed, Steven Baker, 43, was charged with Arson in the Third Degree, a Class C Felony. According to the indictment, on or about May 19, Baker and another individual stole a motor vehicle in the Town of Sidney and proceeded to intentionally set fire to it, causing the vehicle to be destroyed. Baker pleaded not guilty. The Honorable John Hubbard remanded Baker to the Delaware County Jail in lieu of $50,000 cash bail. Two minors charged for incident with Waverly School Resource Officer Sidney man charged with vehicle arson Attorney General releases body camera footage of trooper-involved shooting in Malta Truth Pharm to unveil mural during First Friday event Scattered showers and storms continue heading into the weekend Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
