• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hmm should cops wear cameras? Might stop them from lying in prosecutions

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
That was me. In my defense, I wasn't used to being made a victim, and I didn't know better. I suppose it was lucky I had a recorder at all.

Next time I'd file the complaint, at the very least. I'd probably contact an attorney, just for kicks.

+1

Yep I used to not file a complaint either now I make it a point too.

It's also fun to ask for a foi later and see how much stuff is missing and how the officer obvioulsy doesn't write a "report" until its requested. (or the real report is hidden)
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
+1

Yep I used to not file a complaint either now I make it a point too.

It's also fun to ask for a foi later and see how much stuff is missing and how the officer obvioulsy doesn't write a "report" until its requested. (or the real report is hidden)

The misconduct of public employees is a matter of public concern and records relating to this are not exempt under the FOIA Act in my state ... here's a recent decision in my state:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=7442055
issued 4-7-14
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The misconduct of public employees is a matter of public concern and records relating to this are not exempt under the FOIA Act in my state ... here's a recent decision in my state:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=7442055
issued 4-7-14


Not in mine too, but had the local exprosecutor (who told me he doesn't see himself ever prosecuting a cop) who is now the records keeper, pretty much admit they shred the complaint forms.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I think that many more would simply stop making stupid traffic stops to begin with ... I think that 0.1 MPH would be silly (due to accuracy of equipment) but looking at 2-5 MPH violations? Sure, they could do that and they would just be enforcing the law. And people would be outraged and force a change in the law (maybe)...maybe by making a 5 MPH over charge to carry no court fees and a 2 dollar fine with no points on license and insurance companies cannot take not if such an infraction. Its happened in states, I recall in Montana after 55 MPH was enacted, the state made something like 20 MPH on an interstate to be like a 5 dollar fine.

More than that. A radar which was once used to measure the speed of my vehicle had a 2mph margin of error. Assuming that applies to a single radar, and the officer was using so-called "rolling radar" which actually uses 2 separate radars, your margin of error just doubled. That 4mph margin of error assumes optimal calibration, recent calibration, optimal weather conditions, lack of interference, optimal angle, proper maintenance, lack of need for repair, etc. etc. etc.

If you get pulled over for 5mph over, you're being trolled. The likelihood of the officers equipment being accurate enough to confidently detect a 5mph speeding infraction is slim to none.

Yes, I think that more police wearing cameras would be a good thing. I also think that more citizens wearing cameras would likewise be a good thing.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
More than that. A radar which was once used to measure the speed of my vehicle had a 2mph margin of error. Assuming that applies to a single radar, and the officer was using so-called "rolling radar" which actually uses 2 separate radars, your margin of error just doubled. That 4mph margin of error assumes optimal calibration, recent calibration, optimal weather conditions, lack of interference, optimal angle, proper maintenance, lack of need for repair, etc. etc. etc.

If you get pulled over for 5mph over, you're being trolled. The likelihood of the officers equipment being accurate enough to confidently detect a 5mph speeding infraction is slim to none.

Yes, I think that more police wearing cameras would be a good thing. I also think that more citizens wearing cameras would likewise be a good thing.

There is machine error, operator error, and operator to operator error. The operator to operator error is the largest and is unknown for any specific radar unit. Why is it unknown? Because they don't want to know lol. My guess is that its 10 -20 MPH. The operator to operator error is the error that should be used in court.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
There is machine error, operator error, and operator to operator error. The operator to operator error is the largest and is unknown for any specific radar unit. Why is it unknown? Because they don't want to know lol. My guess is that its 10 -20 MPH. The operator to operator error is the error that should be used in court.

Hmm could you elaborate on the operator to operator error? I am not sure what you're referring to but I am intrigued.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Hmm could you elaborate on the operator to operator error? I am not sure what you're referring to but I am intrigued.

http://scholars.indstate.edu/bitstream/10484/5388/1/Stamm, Scott.pdf

Read away ... anyone who writes a test method should understand the erroors contained within the method; if not, its not too useful.

One should note, that the Frye examination that a court would reply upon would need to be re-examined as great deference is given to a Frye exam. A big issue I have with radar/lidar units being OKed by the court is that the method by which they automatically toss out values measured is unknown and the courts did not care. The programs that puke out values have algorithms that toss out actual measurements just toss them out for no other reason than that the numbers obtained are outside the expected range. But that's not science. If you take a measurement and get a value, for one to just toss it aside requires more than "its out of 2 std dev. from the avg value obtained" is needed.

For example, with LIDAR measurements; the machine/program just uses 1 constant value for the speed of light. But the speed of light is not constant. In fact the definition of refractive index is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum divided by the speed of light in the medium it travels through. For water its about 1.33 ... so the speed of light in water is drastically slower than the machine assumes. So if its raining hard and 10% of the flight-path of the light/laser is water .. there is a 3% error right there ... just from the speed of light changing. Never looked into how much of a flightpath is actually water but I have argued the point asking the prosecution witness how much .. when they say "duh, I don't know.." then they cannot argue what the error is anymore either.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
If it is raining you won't normally get a LIDAR reading a good operator realize this and doesn't use the equipment in weather that is not proper for good operation.

Can a individual officer fake and lie about the speed if he is dishonest sure.

One could very easy clock a vehicle at a certain speed leave that reading on all day and write citations.

But there is really no need to their are plenty of legitimate violators out there.

As with any device it is up to the operator to make sure it is operating and functioning properly.

As with any device if the operator doesn't care or is careless yes false reading can come into play.
 

matcauthon137

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3
Location
Albuquerque
hello, i here am new ;) your planet, welcome.

i just thought i would chime in on this one with my opinion (ive been reading anon for a while, considering joining, lots of good info)

the APD used a lapel cam from the officers in the boyd case where they illegally shot and killed a homeless man who was non-threatening. for those who havent heard, the DOJ came in and filed a whole report on APD and ruled that shooting as well as others as unjustified.

had the cops been able to supress video, i am sure they would have hidden that one as much as possible.

just my 2 cents.


Dovie'andi se tovya sagain. (It's time to toss the dice.)
-Spoken by: Matrim Cauthon
In the book series: The Wheel of Time
Author: Robert Jordan
 

matcauthon137

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3
Location
Albuquerque
LOL James O. Rigney...sported an electric blue fedora and great coat and a cane.

I can actually picture him like that, lol


Dovie'andi se tovya sagain. (It's time to toss the dice.)
-Spoken by: Matrim Cauthon
In the book series: The Wheel of Time
Author: Robert Jordan
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
I know a few good lawyers who could have lots of fun with ample video evidence of an intentional pattern of "petty and vindictive" behavior. FOIA and all that.

Plus, officers might even be held personally liable for that sort of pattern.

In short, empty threats from the peanut gallery who know damn well their license to abuse would be curtailed by this reform.

He didn't say he was going to give out citations for going 0.1 mph over the limit, i assume he'd do this just to use it as an excuse to pull absolutely everyone and their brother over for further examination and intrusion into their lives.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
He didn't say he was going to give out citations for going 0.1 mph over the limit, i assume he'd do this just to use it as an excuse to pull absolutely everyone and their brother over for further examination and intrusion into their lives.

Doesn't change much. Cops have to have some valid reason to pull you over. And, unless they find something criminal, they're going to have to tell you what it was.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
In Missouri:

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: Nope.
Cop: You were speeding.
Me: Nope.
Cop: I estimated your speed as XX.1, which is over the posted speed limit.
Me: Well, go ahead and write that down on a official document and I'll see you in court.
Cop: :uhoh:
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
In Missouri:

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: Nope.
Cop: You were speeding.
Me: Nope.
Cop: I estimated your speed as XX.1, which is over the posted speed limit.
Me: Well, go ahead and write that down on a official document and I'll see you in court.
Cop: :uhoh:

To continue that interaction...

Cop: Step out of the vehicle. Put your hands on the hood. (pat down for weapons, then cuffs go on) Now sit on the curb.

15 minutes later, sitting alone in freezing weather-

Cop: Now... I am going to search your car... for my own safety you understand... ok?

If you say anything in the affirmative, you just consented to a search. If you say no, they will probably search anyhow. If they don't find anything to get you on, you get released and sent on your way with a warning about speeding ( does not require a speed amount written down). Now it's your word against his if you put in a complaint or lawsuit unless you had the whole thing recorded... and the court always believes the cop..

And in Indiana the court will still believe the cop even with video evidence that doesn't outright and blatantly disprove the cop.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
Right. Now what was this thread about again? :confused:

About the lack of accountability of cops when video evidence doesn't exist when it should have? We just had a story of LA cops with over half their vehicles recording devices had their antennas ripped of... not from the outside, but antennas on devices inside the vehicle only the cops could get access to. It not like joe shmoe citizen is breaking into cop cars ( and leaving no evidence of a break in) and the only thing he does is break off the antenna on the recording device...

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
About the lack of accountability of cops when video evidence doesn't exist when it should have? We just had a story of LA cops with over half their vehicles recording devices had their antennas ripped of... not from the outside, but antennas on devices inside the vehicle only the cops could get access to. It not like joe shmoe citizen is breaking into cop cars ( and leaving no evidence of a break in) and the only thing he does is break off the antenna on the recording device...

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Well, they did start having them sign an inspection sheet at the beginning and end of their shifts noting that the antennas were still on.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
About the lack of accountability of cops when video evidence doesn't exist when it should have?

Uh, no. It's quite clearly about "should cops wear cameras?" I don't see anything about "should cops be able to skirt wearing cameras, by effectively disabling them?"

It's fairly implied that a requirement for cops to "wear" cameras is also a requirement to, you know, provide video documentation. Whether that's the case today is irrelevant, as that's precisely what this thread is about changing.

And, what, citizens can't record, themselves? They left their smart phones at home today?
 
Top