“Turn Off the Truth”: Rhode Island’s Assistant AG and the Body Cam Blunder That Shouldn’t Be Forgotten
Editorial By Staff Writer David R
In a state that prides itself on quaint coastal charm and colonial heritage, Rhode Island just served up a masterclass in institutional gaslighting. The scene? A courtroom hallway. The players? Local police officers wearing body cameras, and an Assistant Attorney General who—without blinking—demanded they turn those cameras off. Her justification? A legal interpretation so flimsy it could’ve been printed on tissue paper.
This isn’t just a story about one official’s overreach. It’s a case study in how power manipulates perception, how legalese becomes a smokescreen, and how public accountability gets bulldozed by bureaucratic ego. Welcome to the latest installment of “Misleading in Plain Sight.”
The Incident: Lights, Camera… Shut It Down
Let’s rewind. In early 2024, officers in Rhode Island were equipped with body cameras—part of a statewide push for transparency and trust. These devices, hailed as tools for truth, were meant to protect both civilians and law enforcement by documenting interactions in real time.
But during a routine court appearance, something bizarre happened. An Assistant AG—whose name we won’t glorify but whose actions demand scrutiny—approached officers and insisted they deactivate their cameras. Her rationale? That filming in a courthouse hallway violated privacy laws and judicial decorum.
“Except… it didn’t .Rhode Island’s own body cam policy allows for recording in public spaces unless explicitly prohibited. Courtroom interiors? Sure, those are off-limits. But hallways? They’re fair game. The AG’s interpretation wasn’t just legally dubious—it was misleading by design.”
Legal Gymnastics or Legal Fiction? Let’s dissect the logic—or lack thereof.
The Assistant AG cited a vague “expectation of privacy” in courthouse hallways. But here’s the rub: courthouse hallways are public access zones. They’re where defendants, attorneys, journalists, and the public mingle. If there’s an expectation of privacy there, then we might as well ban security cameras from airports and city halls.
Legal experts across the spectrum have called the AG’s justification “unfounded,” “misleading,” and “a dangerous precedent.” One former judge even remarked, “This isn’t about privacy. It’s about control.”
And that’s the heart of it. The demand to shut off cameras wasn’t rooted in law—it was rooted in discomfort. Discomfort with being recorded. Discomfort with accountability. Discomfort with the idea that the public might see something they weren’t supposed to.
What Was She Trying to Hide?
Let’s ask the uncomfortable question: Why would a state official want the cameras off?
- Was there a sensitive conversation happening?
- Was someone about to say something incriminating?
- Was there a fear that the footage could be used in court—or worse, in the court of public opinion?
We may never know. But the optics are damning. When a public servant demands secrecy in a space designed for justice, it raises red flags. And when that demand is backed by shaky legal claims, it becomes a scandal.
This wasn’t a momentary lapse. It was a deliberate act of obfuscation. And it deserves to be called out.
Misleading by Design: A Pattern of Evasion
This isn’t the first time Rhode Island’s legal apparatus has flirted with opacity. Over the past five years, the state has seen:
- Prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence
- Judges sealing records without clear justification
- Police departments resisting FOIA requests
The Assistant AG’s body cam demand fits neatly into this pattern. It’s part of a broader culture where transparency is treated as a threat, not a virtue.
And it’s not just Rhode Island. Across the country, officials are finding new ways to dodge scrutiny—from banning recordings in public meetings to redacting documents into oblivion. The message is clear: “We’ll tell you what you need to know. And nothing more.”
The Public Backlash: “We Saw What You Did There”
When news of the incident broke, Rhode Islanders didn’t stay silent. Civil rights groups, legal watchdogs, and everyday citizens took to social media, demanding answers.
One viral tweet read:
Another post from a local activist asked:
The backlash wasn’t just digital. Several advocacy groups filed formal complaints, and one state representative called for an independent review of the AG’s conduct.
Misleading.com’s Take: This Is Why We Exist
At Misleading.com, we believe in radical transparency. We believe that public servants should serve the public—not their own reputations. And we believe that when someone tries to shut off the truth, it’s our job to turn the volume up.
This incident is a textbook example of misleading behavior:
- A false legal claim used to suppress documentation
- A misuse of authority to control narrative
- A betrayal of the public’s right to know
It’s not just inappropriate. It’s unacceptable.
What Needs to Change
If Rhode Island—and the nation—wants to restore trust, here’s what needs to happen:
- Clear Body Cam Protocols
Policies must explicitly state where and when cameras can be used. No ambiguity. No loopholes. - Independent Oversight
Officials who interfere with transparency tech should face independent review. Internal investigations aren’t enough. - Public Access to Footage
Body cam footage should be accessible to the public, with minimal redaction. If it’s recorded, it should be seen. - Legal Accountability
Misusing legal interpretations to suppress evidence should carry consequences. Not just reprimands—real accountability.
The Bigger Picture: When Officials Fear the Light
The Assistant AG’s actions reveal a deeper truth: some officials fear transparency because it threatens their control. They fear being recorded, being questioned, being exposed.
But that fear isn’t a justification. It’s a warning sign.
In a democracy, discomfort with accountability isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. It’s what keeps power in check. It’s what ensures justice isn’t just performed, but seen.
And when someone tries to turn off the cameras, they’re not protecting privacy. They’re protecting themselves.
Final Thoughts: Don’t Let This Slide
This story isn’t just about Rhode Island. It’s about every courtroom, every hallway, every moment where truth hangs in the balance.
The Assistant AG’s demand to shut off body cams was misleading, manipulative, and morally bankrupt. It was a betrayal of public trust. And it must not be forgotten.
So let’s keep the cameras rolling. Let’s keep asking questions. Let’s keep exposing the misleading narratives—one frame at a time.
Because when the truth is inconvenient, that’s when it matters most.
Thank you for checking out our article, we absolutely want to hear from you. I want to leave you with these final words
The Assistant AG’s antics aren’t just theatrical—they expose a deeper rot, where those in power expect immunity from the standards they enforce on others.
