[brief] As testified to by [...], the Search Warrant entered in this case allowed law enforcement officers to enter the premises only after knocking and announcing their presence.  However, despite such direction, and that several officers had body worn cameras on their persons, every single officer failed to timely put their body worn cameras on.  Defendant argued that due to the blatant failure of law enforcement timely activate their body worn camera, there was not sufficient credible evidence that the officers did in fact properly knock and announce their presence, and as such, the State was unable to meet its burden in establishing that the effectuation of the search warrant was in fact constitutional.  Further, Defendant argued that Defendant’s constitutional rights were in fact violated, thereby warranting a suppression of the search warrant and all the evidence yielded from such search.  Additionally, the defendant argued because of Law enforcement’s failure to timely initiate their body worn camera before executing the search warrant, the court should take a negative inference as to the testimony from [...].  The trial court failed to address this argument at all in its decision, and as such warrants a reversal back to the trial court to address this argument by the Defendant.  It is submitted that had the court adopted a negative inference, the State could not have been able to meet its burden and the court should have granted defendant’s suppression motion.  Notwithstanding the above error by the trial court, the trial court found that there was no evidence that the knock and announce requirement was not complied with, as there was credible testimony from [...] that he witnessed [...] knock and announce the presence of law enforcement.  (Da24).  The trial court further found that “the officer’s failure to activate their body camera’s is not a constitutional violation” and that “evidence of criminality discovered pursuant to a valid warrant is a remedy saved for constitutional violations. ” (Da26).  Accordingly, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion.  It is respectfully submitted that the trial court erred in its decision.  Firstly, as is evidenced by both the ever-expanding utilization and policy surrounding law enforcement use of body worn cameras, the justice system is evolving in regard to transparency, and utilization of body worn cameras.  Indeed, this change in policy warrants a change in the law as to what the recourse is for failure to properly utilize body worn cameras, especially in critical stages of a case, wherein law enforcement is infringing on someone’s residence to commencing a search and seizure of same.  Lastly, without requiring suppression, or at a minimum requiring a negative inference to be found, any actual consequence for the failure of law enforcement to utilize their body worn camera, especially at the most critical stage of a case, specifically when executing a search warrant on the residence of an individual, which goes to the very essence of someone’s 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, there is absolutely nothing to deter law enforcement to properly follow police procedure and activate their body worn cameras.  Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s suppression motion and the matter should be remanded back to the trial court for more findings to be made.