In today’s day in age, technology has found its role as the driving force behind innovative procedures aimed to deter crime. From surveillance cameras to dash-mounted video cameras, technological innovation has continually shaped law enforcement policies and procedures. Body-worn camera (BWC) systems serve as the most recent technological innovation with the capacity to reshape policing. BWCs can serve as a tool to aid in the reduction of exposure to litigation and unwarranted citizens’ complaints by promoting transparency and accountability. Both law enforcement and local communities stand to benefit from the deployment of BWCs. This article examines recent publications pertaining to BWCs, the existing usage of BWCs, and recent events pointing to the necessity of immediate BWC employment. Ultimately, this article supports the implementation and deployment of BWCs by police departments by emphasizing the benefits of recording interactions with police, while remaining neutral, yet aware of the downfalls.
Over the course of the past 40 years, public sentiment surrounding marijuana legalization has grown tremendously. While it took almost fifty years for marijuana proponents to go from being in the minority to the majority, the past decade and a half has been perhaps the most important. Between 2010 and 2013, public support rose a staggering eleven percent. Accompanying the change in perception are state and local laws that reflect a growing tolerance for the drug—especially in the medicinal realm.
The right to engage in the free exchange of ideas and speak one’s mind free from government interference is a fundamental right granted by the First Amendment. However, this right is not absolute. There are certain categories of speech that the government is free to regulate. The focus of this Note will examine the true threat doctrine exception and its codification under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which criminalizes the act of sending threatening messages through interstate commerce. This Note will also examine the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Elonis v. United States, and discuss the two important questions that still remain. First, whether section 875(c) can be satisfied with a showing of recklessness, and second, whether Congress intended to include a requirement for the speaker to intend to threaten.