Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hammond council votes to ask Louisiana attorney general to review Feb. 10 police incident; public demands transparency
Summary
The Hammond City Council voted to refer its February 10 incident involving Bobby Ray McCaskey to the Louisiana attorney general’s office after public commenters and some council members urged outside review and greater transparency about body‑camera footage and investigation status.
The Hammond City Council voted to request a review by the Louisiana attorney general’s office of the Feb. 10 incident involving Bobby Ray McCaskey, a move proponents said aims to bring outside scrutiny and answers to the community.
Councilman Andre Andrews introduced the referral during the April 8 meeting, saying the request was meant to press for information and accountability. “This is not personal. This is business,” Andrews said, arguing the council must answer constituents’ questions.
Supporters at the meeting asked for greater transparency, including release or review of body‑worn camera footage. Stanley Campbell, a District 1 resident and frequent commenter, said the matter had been allowed to “fade away” and urged continued public attention. Several speakers said they had tried to obtain records and were frustrated by how long the inquiry had taken.
City Attorney Andre (last name not specified in the record) explained the council’s powers under the city charter, saying the executive branch, led by the mayor, supervises and directs city employees and that the council’s authority is limited. He noted, however, that the charter allows the council, by a two‑thirds vote of its authorized membership, to investigate city affairs and to subpoena witnesses.
The council discussed the legal limits to releasing body‑camera footage while criminal matters are pending. A council member noted that footage sent to the district attorney grand jury or used in an active prosecution is generally not releasable under public‑records procedures while those proceedings are ongoing.
The resolution as adopted asks the attorney general’s office to review the incident and determine any further steps. The motion passed with recorded votes: Councilman DeVaterio — Aye; Councilwoman Gonzales — No; Councilman Andrews — Aye; Councilman Wells — Aye; Councilman Leon — Abstain. The resolution does not itself compel release of evidence; several speakers requested that the administration provide additional public briefings and make camera feeds available for council review as part of the follow‑up.
Why it matters: The referral formalizes a call from residents and some council members for an outside review of a police‑involved event that has generated sustained public concern. It also highlighted limits on the council’s authority and the interaction between criminal prosecutions, grand jury procedures and public‑records access.
The council did not adopt any new rules about body‑camera release at the meeting; council members and members of the public sought further briefings and suggested the council staff arrange a viewing of current camera feeds with IT and the police chief before the next meeting.
Outlook: The attorney general’s office has discretion whether to accept or open an independent review. Council members asked staff to pursue ways to give the council direct access to camera feeds for oversight purposes while respecting ongoing criminal processes.
