A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

 

RIAG and DPS announce virtual meeting to gather public input on body-worn camera policies

 

Members of the public are invited to attend a virtual meeting via Zoom on Tuesday, October 12 to provide public comment during the initial body-worn camera policy-making process

 

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – The Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Public Safety will hold a virtual meeting on Tuesday, October 12 from 5:00 – 7:00 p.m. to gather public input on the recently enacted Statewide Body-Worn Camera Program.

How to Join the Meeting: 

Members of the public can join the Zoom meeting using the following:

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81435985717

+1-646-558-8656 

 

Individuals who wish to provide public comment at the meeting can sign up here: https://form.jotform.com/212714866644058

 

Public comments will be heard in the order of when individuals sign up. Comments will be limited to five minutes each.

 

On August 31, Attorney General Peter F. Neronha and Colonel James M. Manni, Superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police and Director of Public Safety, announced the start of a months-long public process for establishing a statewide policy for the use and operation of police body-worn cameras.

 

In June 2021, Rhode Island enacted a statewide program that aims to equip every frontline police officer and supervisor with body-worn cameras. As part of the program, the Attorney General and Director of the Department of Public Safety, in consultation with the Rhode Island Police Chiefs’ Association, are tasked with promulgating rules and regulations to create a statewide policy for the use and operation of body-worn cameras that participating departments will be required to adopt.

 

Following the initial gathering of public input, the Attorney General and the Director of the Department of Public Safety will promulgate draft rules establishing the policy, at which point the public process will continue and include additional opportunities for public input. 

 

Donald Trump is back in a Manhattan courtroom this morning for his criminal hush money trial. Jurors will hear more testimony from former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who explained this week how he protected Trump from negative stories. Trump's lawyers will also be in Washington, DC to try to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the former president shouldn't face charges for his alleged election interference.        The head of the FBI says the bureau is working with colleges to warn of antisemitic threats of violence. Thousands of students have been protesting across the U.S. over Israel's bombing of the Gaza Strip. FBI Director Christopher Wray told NBC News on Wednesday that the bureau doesn't directly track university protests, but is giving schools information on potential threats.        Arizona's House of Representatives has voted to repeal a Civil War-era abortion law. State Democrats on Wednesday successfully pushed through a bill that repeals the 1864 law that banned nearly all abortions. The bill now heads to the state Senate where it is expected to be passed early next month.       Parts of the Central U.S. are bracing for severe weather today. Large hail, heavy downpours and isolated tornadoes are possible today from the Texas Panhandle to southern Nebraska, with wind gusts reaching 85 miles per hour. More dangerous weather is forecast on Friday and Saturday from Oklahoma to Iowa.        Shares of Facebook company Meta dropped Wednesday in after-hours trading after an underwhelming first quarter earnings report. While the report beat expectations, the company's capital expenditure outlook for the year was increased. Stock fell 15-percent after market close, after rising 39-percent so far this year.       Tupac Shakur's estate is threatening legal action against Drake after he used the late rapper's AI-generated vocals in a new Kendrick Lamar diss track. Billboard obtained a copy of a cease-and-desist letter that was sent to Drake on Wednesday. The letter claims that neither the family nor Tupac himself would ever approve of the track.