Having police officers wear body cameras generally is a good idea. It’s an official recording of what transpires during an incident, which can be invaluable when an officer’s actions are called into question and evidence is needed.

However, recently introduced legislation regarding body cameras might not be the way to oversee the use of these devices.

The bill, introduced by state Rep. Rose Mary Robinson, D-Detroit, would require judges and juries to accept a defendant’s version of events when a recording is lost or not made.

Under duress, even the most acute observers might not recall an incident correctly, so a defendant’s take on the matter could be a little, or worse, very inaccurate.

That, in itself, raises questions on whether the legislation is the right way to go.

However, there are other reasons the legislation has potential flaws.

As Chocolay Township Police Chief Greg Zyburt said, there always is the possibility of a technical malfunction on the body camera. The battery could go dead or the memory could be used up, for example.

Even the Michigan State Police have expressed similar views. Sgt. Amy Dehner said MSP’s current cameras have low resolution and batteries that don’t last through the entire 12-shifts of most troopers. Also, they don’t record in the dark, which is when many crimes occur.

Zyburt acknowledges body cameras make officers more aware of their actions because they know they are being recorded. That improves officers’ performance.

Should that trump the implications should cameras fail and defendants’ memory of the events are the default evidence? We don’t think so. The legislation might have good intentions but it is rife with problems.

Perhaps the most efficient means to regulate police use of body cameras is to let each department create its own policy.

There still would be oversight, but the departments typically are best suited to deciding what works best for them.