Opinions on Police audio/video footage

[CaseAgainstFaith]

Would you support a law that states when video/audio footage from a police officer encounter is "lost" that the testimony of the officer becomes inadmissible in court?

No police bashing please

If I remember correctly, most officers wear a wire on them and have a dashboard vehicle video camera.  I believe if these things had to be on at all times during a arrest/confrontation that if that evidence does go up "missing/lost" to hide maybe something the officer did that would also get him in trouble because of the way he conducted the arrest/confrontation that it should be inadmissible in court to maybe some degree.  I think it would have to be more on a case by case basis of it being "lost" to decide a yes it is inadmissible or no it is not inadmissible in court.  So I think in a case by case basis I would be for it.   

Your thoughts?

[GLaDOS]

I would agree with this, as it prevents the kind of claims that "recording a police officer is against the law." I knew someone who was arrested for taping the police breaking into a house without a warrant with his phone. The story is as follows:
He was walking home when he saw three police officers breaking the window of a house. Intrigued, he began filming it. An officer noticed him doing this and asked him politely to put it away, but another officer told the first one he would take care of this. He tackled him to the grass and handcuffed him, the he asked: "Do you understand you are under arrest? then shut the fuck up!" and shoved him in the car. At the court hearing, that officer later claimed that "[he] was holding a metal object menacingly over my head!" luckily, they still had the video, and he was cleared of any wrongdoing. this is why laws like that are needed.

[Distind]

I'd want some kind of differentiation between 'Lost' it poofed out of existence in lockup, and actually lost because of substantial damage to the equipment. Along with requirements for the preservation of any and all such material for a period of years, assuming they don't already exist. Why? Because if ISPs can do it, so can cops.

That said, something like this is roughly the same as saying "Well, we don't actually trust any of you cops at all, sooo...". Which is why I'd lean toward simply archiving the lot of it than not allowing a cop to do their job unless they're on camera.

[StallChaser]

I would agree with this kind of law.  I'm very supportive of police being recorded in their public duty, because a camera doesn't lie.  Dirty cops can't get away with harming innocent people, and criminals who start shit can't cloud the issue by claiming police brutality.  I don't see why any cop would be against recording if they were honest, because camera footage would only strengthen their testimony.

In the case of the equipment being broken, there should be footage leading up to the device being broken that would show who was at fault.  I also think recording devices should be set up to stream footage in real time to a neutral party, so there's no chance of it being tampered with.

[one-shot]

I would agree with a law like this.  But it does have it's issues.  For one, not everything a cop does is caught on camera, whether it's his dashcam or some other source.  And I've seen videos where a cop has, seemingly on purpose, taken a suspect out of the way of the dashcam, and the brutality ensued.  The second problem, is that cops are becoming more and more power-hungry criminals than people who are to "serve and protect" the communities they work in.  And it's greatly on the rise.  For what reason, is anybodies guess.  There needs to be laws implemented where we start to see a decrease in police brutality, because it's getting out of hand.  And, generally, unless it's caught on tape (which is why I think that idea that people video taping police action is against the law is bullshit), the cop generally gets away scott-free. 

[Lt. Fred]

An officer noticed him doing this and asked him politely to put it away, but another officer told the first one he would take care of this. He tackled him to the grass and handcuffed him, the he asked: "Do you understand you are under arrest? then shut the fuck up!" and shoved him in the car. At the court hearing, that officer later claimed that "[he] was holding a metal object menacingly over my head!" luckily, they still had the video, and he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

And the police officer got away with outright perjury and criminal assault. Of course.

The problem is not that police lie. People lie. The problem is that, when police are found to have clearly committed crimes, they are never prosecuted, not ever. This is not so much a legislative problem as a executive one. Here's why:

You've dealt with police destroying evidence of their own crimes. But how do you deal with deliberately faked lab evidence used to frame innocent people? That's a reasonably common practice.

Meaningful oversight, I think, is required. Every police force should be overseen by a ranking non-police organisation similar to Victoria's Office of Police Integrity, responsible to, run by and staffed entirely by non-police officers, given sweeping legal powers to investigate police behaviour and provided with the funds to do fully-random spot checks, without warning, on certain stations or, indeed, certain police. In particularly pervasive areas (Russia, China and so on), they might even consider planting 'Stool Pidgeons' to report from the inside on the endemic police corruption there. In any case, reporting and combating police corruption should be the Office's sole job.

Also, any police officer found guilty of any reasonably serious offence to do with their employment should be immediately and permanently fired. Any sentence for a crime associated with their authority should be doubled, at the very least. At the very least the appearance of justice would be maintained. Perhaps some corrupt cops would even be deterred.

This is obviously not required for places where the police are not outrageously corrupt.

But I do think it's a matter for the courts and for the executive, more than the legislature. But I guess new legislation can't hurt.

[one-shot]

An officer noticed him doing this and asked him politely to put it away, but another officer told the first one he would take care of this. He tackled him to the grass and handcuffed him, the he asked: "Do you understand you are under arrest? then shut the fuck up!" and shoved him in the car. At the court hearing, that officer later claimed that "[he] was holding a metal object menacingly over my head!" luckily, they still had the video, and he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

And the police officer got away with outright perjury and criminal assault. Of course.

The problem is not that police lie. People lie. The problem is that, when police are found to have clearly committed crimes, they are never prosecuted, not ever. This is not so much a legislative problem as a executive one. Here's why:

You've dealt with police destroying evidence of their own crimes. But how do you deal with deliberately faked lab evidence used to frame innocent people? That's a reasonably common practice.

Meaningful oversight, I think, is required. Every police force should be overseen by a ranking non-police organisation similar to Victoria's Office of Police Integrity, responsible to, run by and staffed entirely by non-police officers, given sweeping legal powers to investigate police behaviour and provided with the funds to do fully-random spot checks, without warning, on certain stations or, indeed, certain police. In particularly pervasive areas (Russia, China and so on), they might even consider planting 'Stool Pidgeons' to report from the inside on the endemic police corruption there. In any case, reporting and combating police corruption should be the Office's sole job.

Also, any police officer found guilty of any reasonably serious offence to do with their employment should be immediately and permanently fired. Any sentence for a crime associated with their authority should be doubled, at the very least. At the very least the appearance of justice would be maintained. Perhaps some corrupt cops would even be deterred.

This is obviously not required for places where the police are not outrageously corrupt.

But I do think it's a matter for the courts and for the executive, more than the legislature. But I guess new legislation can't hurt.

I couldn't find a clapping smiley, but yeah, this, exactly. 

[DasFuchs]

An officer noticed him doing this and asked him politely to put it away, but another officer told the first one he would take care of this. He tackled him to the grass and handcuffed him, the he asked: "Do you understand you are under arrest? then shut the fuck up!" and shoved him in the car. At the court hearing, that officer later claimed that "[he] was holding a metal object menacingly over my head!" luckily, they still had the video, and he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

And the police officer got away with outright perjury and criminal assault. Of course.

The problem is not that police lie. People lie. The problem is that, when police are found to have clearly committed crimes, they are never prosecuted, not ever. This is not so much a legislative problem as a executive one. Here's why:

You've dealt with police destroying evidence of their own crimes. But how do you deal with deliberately faked lab evidence used to frame innocent people? That's a reasonably common practice.

Meaningful oversight, I think, is required. Every police force should be overseen by a ranking non-police organisation similar to Victoria's Office of Police Integrity, responsible to, run by and staffed entirely by non-police officers, given sweeping legal powers to investigate police behaviour and provided with the funds to do fully-random spot checks, without warning, on certain stations or, indeed, certain police. In particularly pervasive areas (Russia, China and so on), they might even consider planting 'Stool Pidgeons' to report from the inside on the endemic police corruption there. In any case, reporting and combating police corruption should be the Office's sole job.

Also, any police officer found guilty of any reasonably serious offence to do with their employment should be immediately and permanently fired. Any sentence for a crime associated with their authority should be doubled, at the very least. At the very least the appearance of justice would be maintained. Perhaps some corrupt cops would even be deterred.

This is obviously not required for places where the police are not outrageously corrupt.

But I do think it's a matter for the courts and for the executive, more than the legislature. But I guess new legislation can't hurt.

And yet we have multiple cases where cops are found guilty, fired and/or serve prison time.
But hey, what's a broad brush between forum users.

I'm with Distind on this. I agree to it if "lost" could be defined properly.

[Ranger_Joe]

I'm with Distind on this one as well. Define "Lost" and we'll talk.

On the subject of police being shady, I was driving the other day and was pulled over. I drive a 2008 Honda Fit and I only have two rugby magnets on my car. The police officer said that I was swerving and that because my eyes looked "suspicious" that he had to search the vehicle.

Now, I knew full well I had nothing in the car and I didn't want to give this guy any more reason to give me shit, so I consented. In regards to the swerving, Frederick, MD was being assaulted with ::very:: high winds. My little car was getting tossed all over the place. I had to drive with both hands on the wheel at 11 and 2 and it actually took some muscle to keep the car in a straight line.

Now, I smoke pot and cigarettes. There are empty packs in the back seat of my car. The cop was searching and he produced a piece of cellophane that had, and I kid you not, a small rock and a spent match stick in it. The rock was very tiny and the cop said he found a seed and a stem wrapped in a cellophane.

To be clear, it was a rock and a match stick. He tried to hold it up and then put it aside, but I asked to see it more closely. He was hesitant, but showed it to me and I called out his ridiculousness. I asked him if he had put in the mandatory hours on drug awareness classes like they are supposed to. He got cranky and said, "Of course I have. What are you suggesting, son?" I said, "Well, Officer, I was curious because if you are honestly trying to tell me a match stick and a rock that you put in a cellophane is marijuana, you seriously need to pay more attention in class."

He said he could arrest me for posession and I told him that if he did, my lawyer would beat us to the police station and I'd be out before I even had time to be processed and that I would be suing the officer directly. I memorized his name and badge number and placed a call into the police station on Monday. I told the Captain what had happened and he said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I assure you this will be addressed immediately and I'm sorry for the inconvienience you expereinced at the hands of one of our officers."

This is the first time I've had an encounter with a cop where they deliberately tried some shady shit since I was around 14 years old. The entire situation just blew my mind.

Amusingly enough....When I do travel and have marijuana on me, I certainly don't open the container in the car and I definitely don't drive any more than I have to in order to get home.

What I don't get, is why the cop would really try to pin something like that on me or anyone else. Having a stain on your record, especially a drug possession charge, can really have negative effects on someone's life. Why would you try to force a charge like that through? I wasn't thinking about it at the time, but the entire time I was standing in the range of the car cameras, so the Captain may be able to see what happened.

In regards to the thread, I think it would be better for cops to have cameras on their uniforms, so that their POV can be recorded and everything they do is also on tape. This would prevent, or at least reduce, the planting of material or making false claims against people. I think that would be much better. They put cameras on Special Ops/Special Forces Operators on certain missions so that the command center can see what they see.

[Lt. Fred]

I'm with Distind on this. I agree to it if "lost" could be defined properly.

Put the burden of proof on police to prove the evidence was lost. If they can't, assume the rest of their testimony is similar in quality.

[DasFuchs]

I'm with Distind on this. I agree to it if "lost" could be defined properly.

Put the burden of proof on police to prove the evidence was lost. If they can't, assume the rest of their testimony is similar in quality.

Guilty till proven innocent, that's a fair way to handle things.

[one-shot]

I have a story.  This was around 1999.  At the time, it had been a while since I had smoked weed, and I never did so in my vehicle.  I drove a 1985, baby blue Ford F-150 Explorer pick-up truck.  No one else in town had one that looked quite like it.  At the time, I was into Wicca and the occult, and I had a bumper sticker on my truck to that effect, that said something like "sorry I missed church, I was busy practicing witchcraft and being a pagan" and it had a pentacle on it.  I should have known that something like that would cause a stir in a small town in the Bible belt.  Anyway, it was around 10 pm, and I had went to pick my brother up from work at Burger King.  I was about 300 ft. from my house.  And then I seen the lights in my rearview.  The police offers told me they were pulling me over because they got a report that I had thrown a bottle out of my window at someone else's car.  I asked where this took place, and when they told me, I just laughed, because I was nowhere near that spot.  He asked what I was doing out at that time of night, I pointed to my brother, who was still in his uniform, and told him I was picking up my brother from work.  He asked if he could search my truck, and I said sure.  He patted us down, and then proceeded to search my truck.  He found sesame seeds on the passenger side of the truck, and tried to convince me they were marijuana seeds.  My brother pointed out his ridiculousness.  The other officer then searched, and found a piece of gravel from my driveway, and tried to convince us that it was coke/crack, or something to that effect.  So I pointed out that it was just a piece of gravel from my driveway, and if he didn't believe me, he could follow me home to compare with the other rocks from the driveway.  They eventually let us go, but not before telling us they could take us in on drug possession.  Which I found incredibly hilarious. 

[MaybeNever]

I'm with Distind on this. I agree to it if "lost" could be defined properly.

Put the burden of proof on police to prove the evidence was lost. If they can't, assume the rest of their testimony is similar in quality.

Guilty till proven innocent, that's a fair way to handle things.

Quite the opposite. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to defendants, against whom the state has brought charges.  The burden is pretty much always on the state to make its case. Messing up the evidentiary process - say, losing evidence - properly gets the evidence thrown out, because the deck is meant to be stacked in such a way as to minimize wrongful convictions.

[Lt. Fred]

I'm with Distind on this. I agree to it if "lost" could be defined properly.

Put the burden of proof on police to prove the evidence was lost. If they can't, assume the rest of their testimony is similar in quality.

Guilty till proven innocent, that's a fair way to handle things.

The burden of proof is always on the claimant. If you claim to have killed someone in self-defence, you must prove that you were acting in self defence. In some twisted way, that's 'guilty till proven innocent', except it's really not.

[DasFuchs]

I'm with Distind on this. I agree to it if "lost" could be defined properly.

Put the burden of proof on police to prove the evidence was lost. If they can't, assume the rest of their testimony is similar in quality.

Guilty till proven innocent, that's a fair way to handle things.

Quite the opposite. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to defendants, against whom the state has brought charges.  The burden is pretty much always on the state to make its case. Messing up the evidentiary process - say, losing evidence - properly gets the evidence thrown out, because the deck is meant to be stacked in such a way as to minimize wrongful convictions.

Yes, but to toss out an officer's testimony because video was lost is stupid, especially when it's the officer on trial. It should be left to stack up against the remaining evidence and the opposing side's testimony. If his version doesn't mesh with the evidence and opposing side's witness(es) then you can declare it false.

The burden of proof is always on the claimant. If you claim to have killed someone in self-defence, you must prove that you were acting in self defence. In some twisted way, that's 'guilty till proven innocent', except it's really not.

Not really, you're being asked to defend yourself in a neutral court. Now if your testimony is considered false just because video of the incident was lost, well that's a different story.