I was actually thinking of it as an extension of the presumption of innocence on behalf of the citizenry and keeping the burden of proof on the government as a check against it's powers. Cops are citizens too but there is some level of surrender of your individual rights e.g., when you join the military. It'd be similar to that.

Another thought is the panopticon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon . You don't necessarily need to stream and record every cop's cam, just randomize it without indicating to the cops who's getting recorded or when.

Given there aren't a lot of citizens randomly stopping officers to accuse them of crimes... I don't see a problem. The ISSUE right now is exactly what you've described - officers accusing citizens of crimes they didn't commit without proof beyond "their word".

As someone who has been falsely accused by an officer (fortunately a minor traffic violation that I was able to make go away by paying a small fine), I've lost any faith that officers are there to serve their constituents.

I've also been a victim of this. The police even held a mock-trial for me, with one acting as judge while his fellow officer and I both presented our sides of the story. I won't make assumptions about the likelihood of them ever actually telling another fellow officer they agree with a defendant, but it definitely did not happen in my case. Added insult to injury and a bit of a resentment towards the whole process for me and not much else.

Ive heard there are a lot of suspects accusing officers but body cams reduce the average amount of those accusations.

You are misapplying the right. That principle was devised explicitly to protect citizens from powerful entities.

That principle is not in contradiction with the principle that power must be held accountable.

Historically, that's why public figures are called "public" in opposition to "private".

Police need to be held to a higher standard than citizens. Currently, they're held to a ludicrously lower one. That has obvious, demonstrable consequences.

Not really, there isn't a presumption of guilt because first you must establish spoliation. Once it has been established that the video record is incomplete, it must be the duty of the police to provide evidence of the technical failing that allowed it to happen to clear them of wrongdoing. After all, the evidence was in their care. Even if it was simply negligence and not malice.

A much more feasible option would be to directly make it a law that camera footage must be producible on request, much like tax receipts, driver's insurance, transit passes and other such documents.

There would still be lots of details to get right, but at least it wouldn't violate the basic underlying principles of our legal system.

If the police are given any sort of beneficial presumption, either formally or informally, at least that presumption should be discarded in cases in which body cam footage turns up missing.

Take away their immunity if they can't produce the videos and try them as citizens. I can't recall the specific immunity but it's something like special immunity or classified immunity for police officers when on patrol.

Yeah, dropping "the assumption of regularity" is probably better.

But then this comes down to a jury, and most Americans still seem to trust their police officers. Just saying..

Then it sounds like there is a strong incentive to keep that camera on!

When cops' word weighs more than yours in a court of law, this requires an equivalent check against that power by only making it weigh that much when there is corroborating evidence (i.e., video proof).

While you are completely correct, it would force any rational being to make sure not only that they are wearing a camera, but that it is working too.