John Cabello has a pending legal suit over constitutional rights under the COVID-19 emergency in Illinois. Here is another “great idea” from the Republican representative.
Bernard Schoenburg: Cabello opposes ‘police state’ order, but wants all public officials to wear body cams
MOST POPULAR
Columnist Bernard Schoenburg. [Rich Saal/The State Journal-Register]
Rich Saal
By Bernard Schoenburg
The State Journal-Register
Posted Apr 30, 2020 at 6:54 PM
I did a short interview with state Rep. John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, more than a year ago, asking about legislation that even he said was likely to go nowhere in a legislature dominated by the other political party.
But he said he was serious about the proposal.
The legislation would require public officials to wear body cameras and turn them on “at all times when the public official is engaged in his or her official duties.” The bill defined “public official” as “any person who is elected or appointed to public office.”
I’ve been thinking about that bill as I’ve watched Cabello, a Rockford police detective and former county and township board member, take a prominent role in opposition to the latest extension by Gov. JB Pritzker of the stay-at-home order designed to stop the spread of COVID-19.
He says he is worried about the state imposing itself on people’s lives but doesn’t that conflict with a law that would put cameras on thousands of people in Illinois?
Cabello filed a lawsuit Wednesday, alleging the extension of the order through May amounted to the governor taking “complete control of the free movement of every citizen within the state of Illinois, which for all intents and purposes has created a police state.” Cabello filed the action on behalf of himself and all people of Illinois. That differs from the lawsuit brought earlier by GOP Rep. Darren Bailey of Xenia in southern Illinois, whose action affected only his own compliance with the order. A Clay County judge ruled in Bailey’s favor – setting a precedent that could be followed in other cases – and the state is appealing.
Given that Illinois has about 7,000 units of government, the body cam legislation could affect a whole lot of people – many who I’m guessing like individual rights as much as Cabello.
“Every bill that I file is, I believe, serious,” Cabello said in February 2019. “Whether it has a chance of passing or not, or even getting called in a committee is a different story.”
Cabello’s House Bill 3447, filed Feb. 15, 2019, and House Bill 4065, through which he reintroduced the idea on Jan. 10, each ended up in the House Rules Committee, which is often where legislation dies.
I asked Cabello if members of city councils would be included in the body cam requirement.
“Absolutely,” he said. “I mean, we see what’s going on in the city of Chicago right now.” In November 2018, for example, federal agents raided the office of Chicago Ald. Ed Burke. Burke has pleaded innocent to charges that followed.
Would body cams be worn by members of the Springfield City Council?
“I believe so,” Cabello said. “Not even just at the meeting, but any time you’re ... doing the work of the people. It’ll cut down on anybody thinking that, oh, it’s just another backroom deal. ... How many times have you heard, ‘Ah, it’s a politician. I don’t trust them.’ We’ve got to get away from that.
“One of the reasons why I ran for this spot is I thought it was a pretty honorable position to have. I’m finding that it’s not. We’ve lost the trust of the people.”
I asked Cabello if township officials would be subject to his legislation.
“Anybody that’s elected in the state of Illinois,” he said.
There was no social distancing going on a year ago, and I asked Cabello if a public official approached by a constituent in a grocery store about an issue should turn on the body cam.
“I think so,” he said.
I wondered if that was a bit totalitarian.
“Not in the situation that we live in right now. Not with the corrupt politicians that we have,” he said at the time.
Under the legislation, the video recordings could not be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, but would have to be kept for 90 days for potential use in any administrative, judicial, legislative or disciplinary proceeding.
On Thursday, I asked a couple members of the Springfield City Council – both Republicans on the officially nonpartisan body – what they thought of the body cam idea.
“That’s quite a bit of an overreach,” said Ward 1 Ald. Chuck Redpath, who was in military and other law enforcement jobs for 37 years. “It’s ridiculous to think that we need to put body cams on any elected officials.” While he said Chicago “is probably the most corrupt city in the country, if not the darn world,” he also said “I still think most politicians, especially downstate, are very ethical.”
Ward 10 Ald. Ralph Hanauer called the idea “absolutely ridiculous. Just because you’re a public official doesn’t mean you’re automatically corrupt. ... It’s way out of bounds. You have a hard enough time getting good people to run for public office. This is just going to prevent more people from doing it.”
He also questioned how he would manage wearing a body cam while working out, and said he does regularly have people talk policy when he goes to a store.
“I work 24/7,” Hanauer said. “At what point do you turn it on, turn it off? ... It’s a grandstand idea.”
Hanauer, who retired from the state after more than three decades working in information technology, also said such a law would be expensive to governments, given the need for computer storage space.
Cabello said with law enforcement officers already using body cams, he didn’t see a storage problem.
Cabello’s lawsuit challenging the stay-at-home order says that Pritzker’s action has been an effort to “rip the sacred responsibility of the health and lives of the people away from where the legislature placed it, being local control of county health departments. ...”
Both Hanauer and Redpath say they favor regional solutions and common-sense changes to the stay-at-home order.
“You’ve got to look at the safety of people,” Hanauer said, and he understands strong restrictions in the “hot spot” of Chicago. Still, he said, “I just think you’ve got to start looking at opening up some things. ... You’ve got to look region.”
Redpath said he doesn’t agree with Pritzker’s extension of the order through May, and thinks it is hurting the economy badly. But he also doesn’t question the Democratic governor’s motives.
“I don’t always agree with everything that Governor Pritzker does,” Redpath said. “I think he’s doing a great job on handling this situation with the coronavirus. ... I just think he’s actually taking this tough, tough situation, he’s taking the bull by the horns and is trying his best to do the right thing.”
And Redpath said going to local courts in Illinois is not the way he would attack the extension. He said he expects a national solution to come soon, possibly through action of U.S. Attorney General William Barr. Barr has told U.S. attorneys to take action if governors’ actions against coronavirus infringe on civil rights.
Cabello says that he doesn’t want a government official having so much sweeping control of people’s lives. But before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, a year ago – I asked him if his body cam idea was an imposition on privacy and if people would think it went “way beyond what people want out of personal interactions,” even with their elected officials.
“Not the people in my district,” Cabello said at the time. “They’re looking for making sure the people are doing what they say they’re going to do.”
Cabello could not immediately be reached on Thursday.
Contact Bernard Schoenburg: Bernard.schoenburg@sj-r.com, 788-1540, twitter.com/bschoenburg
Above is from: https://www.sj-r.com/news/20200430/bernard-schoenburg-cabello-opposes--police-state-order-but-wants-all-public-officials-to-wear-body-cams?rssfeed=true
