Many police departments, although sometimes reluctantly, have embraced body cameras on officers. Video of encounters with citizens both provides evidence of crimes and restrains police officers from potential abuses of their authority.

A 12-month University of South Florida study released last year found that cameras “are an effective tool to reduce response-to-resistance incidents and serious external complaints.”

Unfortunately, last week the California Assembly passed, 59-1, Assembly Bill 2533, by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles. The bill’s legislative summary says it would require “a public safety officer to be provided a minimum of three business days’ notice before a public safety department or other public agency releases on the Internet any audio or video of the officer recorded by the officer.”

The bill was proposed by the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which says it represents “more than 66,000 public safety members and is the largest law enforcement organization in California.”

According to a statement by PORAC, the delay in releasing the videos is needed because often “officers involved in critical incidents face real and tangible threats from criminals or angry members of the public.”

However, in such cases, police already can obtain a court order to block release of videos. That’s not good enough, according to Santiago, who explained in the legislation’s analysis, “If the officer is receiving threats, this process can create a state of panic as the officer scrambles to find an attorney, complete all the necessary paperwork and obtain a restraining order before (the video) is released.”

Yet, nowadays, most people have smartphones and other cameras that capture video of interactions with police. And, like it or not, those videos will be uploaded to the Internet within minutes. That’s the world of surveillance all of us — including police — now live in. It is the new normal. It is far better to have the police body camera footage available at the same time, especially if it offers a broader context to the events at hand.

The sole vote against AB 2533 was by Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Riverbank, whose stated rationale was that more transparency is needed in such matters if government hopes to encourage more civic engagement and enhance public trust.

And not all police brass are on board with the bill. “We believe this decision is best left with departmental management,” California Police Chiefs Association President David Bejarano and lobbyist Jonathan Feldman wrote to the Legislature, as reported by The Associated Press.

With the instances of police abuse that have occurred across the country in recent years, we believe this bill should be defeated in the state Senate. “Who watches the watchmen?” as a Roman poet asked. Nowadays, everybody can, and should.