Dexter Police Chief Sammy Stone said he believes it is important for a department to be as transparent as possible, and that is one reason why he ordered body cameras for his department in July last year.
But, Sen. Doug Libla, of Poplar Bluff, along with Sen. Galen Higdon, of St. Joseph, is proposing that police camera footage not be a part of the public record.
Libla's bill goes a step further and would prevent the state from requiring police to wear cameras, a mandate he said could create a financial burden for some communities.
"I agree with not making it mandatory for officers to not wear the cameras, primarily because of the cost issues. Some departments are really strapped financially," Stone remarked. "But, do I think the body cameras are a good tool for law enforcement? I sure do."
Several bills filed this session would require Missouri police to wear those cameras, a response to the fact there are no videos of what transpired between Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson and Brown.
Protesters have called for body cameras to increase police accountability, especially in cases of alleged police brutality.
Libla said guidelines on body cameras need to be in place to protect privacy as more and more municipalities consider adopting them. Libla said it's "hard to predict everything that could be a problem" with full disclosure of videos, but cited potential misuse of police video of expensive items in someone's home.
According to Stone, all of Dexter's patrol officers wear body cameras now, and the department has a thorough standard operating procedure for the cameras' use.
"We had to get a few small things ironed out with them; but, we've got all that under control now," Stone remarked. "I've not heard any negative feedback from the community or any of my officers concerning the cameras."
In addition to body cameras, the Dexter Police Department also has a camera in every vehicle.
"I would say that nine times out of 10, the cameras are useful and actually help save an officer and possibly an officer's career," Stone commented. "I think it's a very good thing."
Stone explained that there are other costs involved in addition to the cost of purchasing and maintaining the equipment.
"I would say if someone comes in here, wanting to see some video, it would take anywhere from one to two hours to get what they're looking for," Stone explained. "It costs us in time and materials."
Stone went on to explain that whenever someone confronts him with a complaint about one of his officers, he listens closely and takes notes.
"After they finish with their complaint, I inform them that we have video and audio of their encounter," Stone explained. "A lot of times, they won't pursue their complaint any further after that; but, if they want to see the video, we'll do that, too."
Currently, if police video is part of an investigation, it can't be released to the media or anyone else in the public.
"I don't know if the public demanding to see police video is a big problem in larger cities. It might be," Stone commented. "But, for this area, I just can't see that as being much of an issue at all."
If passed, Libla's bill would mean police video could only be accessed through a court order.
"I guess it would be fair to say that I'm neutral on the whole issue," Stone remarked. "I can see both sides of the issue, and I think both sides have good points. But, what we're doing here is working, and I'm happy with it."