KEY CASES FOR TRANSPARENCY
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)— This Supreme Court case addressed whether journalists could be compelled to testify before grand juries and reveal confidential sources. The Court ruled that requiring reporters to disclose information did not violate the First Amendment:
Irizarry v. Yehia (2022)– A case from the Tenth Circuit involving a YouTube journalist who was obstructed by a police officer while filming a DUI stop. The court ruled that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity, recognizing a First Amendment right to record police officers in public:
Riley v. California (2014) – A landmark Supreme Court case that ruled warrantless searches of cell phones during an arrest violate the Fourth Amendment. The decision reinforced digital privacy protections:
OBSTRUCTED BY DESIGN
Body cameras on police officers represented a significant step toward improving transparency and accountability in law enforcement. However, many police departments and government officials have actively resisted this transparency by restricting access to footage.
In some jurisdictions, like Texas, local and state authorities frequently deny requests to release body camera recordings to the public, undermining the potential for meaningful oversight. In fact, under governor abbott's leadership, Texas has recently eliminated public access to body camera footage by removing the entire section of occupational code that previously governed police body camera footage and public access rights.“Police have undermined the promise of body cameras" — ProPublica
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-police-undermined-promise-body-cameras
Absolute immunity shields public servants and government officials, creating a fundamental transparency failure. The only solution is to abolish immunity entirely.
"Qualified Immunity: A Legal, Practical, and Moral Failure." — Cato Institute [link]
“In the four decades since, qualified immunity has barred lawsuits against federal, state, and local government officials unless plaintiffs can show that officials violated a clearly established constitutional right. And in practice the bar for being clearly established can be high: Courts often interpret clearly established strictly, meaning plaintiffs must show that either the Supreme Court or the federal appellate court in the same jurisdiction has already held that the same conduct in the same circumstances is unconstitutional.“—IJ
Absolute immunity ensures they protect their own, from top to bottom. It’s not just policy—it’s a concealed system of self-preservation. If accountability existed, they’d be more equal to us—and they can’t allow that. It would tarnish their aristocracy.