As our society evolves, so too the needs and concerns related to individual privacy and public safety shift. In the fulcrum of these often competing interests stand the Supreme Court, a guardian of constitutional rights in a rapidly evolving technological landscape, and the Police, who are charged with maintaining public safety while also honoring citizen's privacy. A modern manifestation of this ongoing evolution is the use of Police Body Cameras (PBCs). This technology promises an unbiased witness in contentious situations, but its use also raises important questions relating to privacy and due process rights.

The Supreme Court, as of yet, has not made any definitive ruling on PBCs. However, an understanding of the use of PBCs can be inferred from existing legislation and the court's rulings on related technologies, such as GPS monitoring, aerial surveillance, and phone tapping. It's from these related cases and laws that we may find glimpses into the court's potential viewpoint on PBCs.

Back in 2012, in the case of United States v Jones, the Supreme Court ruled against warrantless GPS monitoring by law enforcement, arguing that it constituted an unreasonable search. This ruling has since become a cornerstone for privacy rights in the technological age. However, its application to PBCs is less clear, given that PBCs generally record public encounters rather than tracking an individual's movements.

In another case, Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court held that without a warrant, police cannot search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual during an arrest. The reasoning behind this decision emphasized the vast amount of personal data stored on modern cell phones, significantly more than can be physically carried, constituting a far greater intrusion on privacy.

Like cell phones, PBCs also record and store substantial amounts of data, this time in the form of visual and audio recordings. One could argue that, similar to cell phone searches, accessing and viewing these vast amount of recordings could constitute an unreasonable search. Yet, unlike cell phones, PBC recordings usually take place in public areas, which traditionally are granted less privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment.

There are already state-level laws regulating the use and access of PBC recordings. For instance, North Carolina law makes such recordings not public records, limiting accessibility. Critics argue that this lack of transparency undermines the entire purpose of PBCs〞to hold police accountable.

In contrast, Washington State＊s law makes PBC recordings public but administers intricate regulations to balance transparency with privacy. For instance, footage is redacted or obscured when it depicts a place where one would expect privacy, such as a person's home.

Looking at these cases and state laws collectively, one can infer that the Supreme Court would likely consider PBCs through a similar lens of balancing public safety with privacy. The specifics of the balance〞when PBCs can be used, who gets access to the footage, how long we retain the footage〞will likely be highly debated topics if and when such a case ascends to this level.

The use of PBC's must also tread lightly in other constitutional areas. The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants the right ※to be confronted with the witnesses against him§. If PBC footage is introduced as evidence, does the individual on camera become a 'witness'? And how does the court handle the propensity of video to be seen as infallible evidence, when it's susceptible to manipulation through selective editing or potential equipment failure?

Looking forward, the Supreme Court＊s view on PBCs will be paramount in shaping policy and laws, and will drive the dialogue on privacy versus public safety. Indeed, the Court must navigate such innovation. Until then, we can only speculate and argue.

Interpreting the court's potential stance on the use of PBCs from its rulings on related issues is like trying to piece together a jigsaw puzzle based on a handful of scattered pieces. It is an exercise in attempting to understand how constitutional values and principles might adapt to emerging realities. How these pieces fit together will have far-reaching implications for both public safety and privacy.