• 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

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...olice-officers-five-officers-chicago-police/2

As part of his rebuttal case after the officers completed their testimony, Goldman surprised prosecutors and the officers by producing the video taken from the Glenview sergeant's squad car at the scene that day. Goldman had subpoenaed the video from the Glenview Police Department.



This is why the deference of cop's testimony that they are impartial is simply not true ~ making arrests that don't lead to convictions play a part in their career advancement ~ they have more reason to lie than anyone in a courtroom.

Glad this judge took appropriate remedies for the defendant.

I laughed at the re-visit of another case where the judge read the cop his Miranda rights while he was on the stand ...
 
Last edited:

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
Yes police should wear cameras but I have a lot of experience with cops videos disappearing or never being produced.

That's why all citizens should record instead. Our videos are better quality anyway.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The production of police videos or lack thereof will only be relevant in civil litigation.

In criminal litigation the police/defendants are not compelled to produce evidence that will incriminate themselves.. They can plead the 5th as well as anyone and or lose evidence.. However in civil matters their losing of such evidence may in fact be enough for a plaintiff to win a suit.

In criminal issues, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. In civil issues the burden of proof is more in the defendants lap.

My .02

Regards

CCJ
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I don't expect police-recorded videos to be used against police.

What I would require is that the acquisition of any and all evidence by "law enforcement" be recorded in (at least) triplicate, and evidence obtained without such documentation be considered "fruit of the poisoned tree" and admissible.

In a sane world I might allow limited exemptions for exigency, but as far as I am concerned police have abused that concept to the point of deserving its outright loss for a decade or two.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
With smaller and smaller cameras with more and more storage or direct transmission of data.

I believe that every officer well be wearing a personal camera with in 10 years.

Good bad or other wise that remains to be seen.
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
Yes police should wear cameras but I have a lot of experience with cops videos disappearing or never being produced.

That's why all citizens should record instead. Our videos are better quality anyway.

Or like in LA where they found more than half the in car recording devices had been tampered with to prevent the capture of audio/video.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
I have yet to envision a scenario where every cop being required to film every interaction of consequence is a "bad" thing.

There were a few cops on policeone that said they'd be petty and vindictive if they are forced to wear a camera.

Going 0.1 MPH over the speed limit? Pulled over. Move over within your lane to avoid a pothole? Pulled over for 'swerving'...

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
There were a few cops on policeone that said they'd be petty and vindictive if they are forced to wear a camera.

Going 0.1 MPH over the speed limit? Pulled over. Move over within your lane to avoid a pothole? Pulled over for 'swerving'...

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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.

Yep otherwise they wouldn't whine about it. They will often publicly state how recordings will exonerate them most of the time but then they privately do this.......https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/police_disablin.html
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
The production of police videos or lack thereof will only be relevant in civil litigation.

In criminal litigation the police/defendants are not compelled to produce evidence that will incriminate themselves.. They can plead the 5th as well as anyone and or lose evidence.. However in civil matters their losing of such evidence may in fact be enough for a plaintiff to win a suit.

In criminal issues, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. In civil issues the burden of proof is more in the defendants lap.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

Incorrect. Police departments don't have rights, individual officers do. The video is the property of the dept, not the individual officers. In fact, the police are required to turn all excalpatory evidence over to the prosecutor.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The production of police videos or lack thereof will only be relevant in civil litigation.

In criminal litigation the police/defendants are not compelled to produce evidence that will incriminate themselves.. They can plead the 5th as well as anyone and or lose evidence.. However in civil matters their losing of such evidence may in fact be enough for a plaintiff to win a suit.

In criminal issues, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. In civil issues the burden of proof is more in the defendants lap.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

I think that you are looking at this from hindsight. At the time the record (vid) was requested the cops did not violate a law YET.

So the video was produced. Then they violated the law by lying on the stand.

They cannot say "well, our guys are going to lie on the stand so this video cannot be compelled to be produced". How far would that argument get them? Back to the Stone Age.

Now if a vid showed a cop shooting a guy to death and they charged another regular Joe with the murder then I think that even this video would have to be disclosed to Joe because its not the COP'S video, its the city's. Now if the cop made a video on his own, then this property would also belong to the city, not the cop and would be required to be disclosed. One cannot put the city on a criminal trial for murder. Now if the cop's wife made a video of the murder then this may be withheld due to spousal privilege (in some cases and states).

So these videos would likely all be required to be provided in a criminal case.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
There were a few cops on policeone that said they'd be petty and vindictive if they are forced to wear a camera.

Going 0.1 MPH over the speed limit? Pulled over. Move over within your lane to avoid a pothole? Pulled over for 'swerving'...

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

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.
 

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
One of the biggest "tools" police use to make arrests is forced consent. This is where the police have no probable cause for a search but they lie, threaten and bully subjects into consenting to a search.

Many times subjects flat out refuse but if there is no video or audio then jurors and judges will always take the word of the police and convict.

This is why police absolutely hate video and audio cameras.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
One of the biggest "tools" police use to make arrests is forced consent. This is where the police have no probable cause for a search but they lie, threaten and bully subjects into consenting to a search.

Many times subjects flat out refuse but if there is no video or audio then jurors and judges will always take the word of the police and convict.

This is why police absolutely hate video and audio cameras.

That's correct...and is why I recommend folks NOT open their doors to police at them. Make them break it down, leaving evidence of a forced entry.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Many times subjects flat out refuse but if there is no video or audio then jurors and judges will always take the word of the police and convict.

This is why police absolutely hate video and audio cameras.

Happened to me. I still have the recording somewhere.

If they had found anything illegal, or detained me much longer than they did, the Petaluma police would have had a first hand taste of that. As it was, I walked away with standing to do little more than file a complaint.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Happened to me. I still have the recording somewhere.

If they had found anything illegal, or detained me much longer than they did, the Petaluma police would have had a first hand taste of that. As it was, I walked away with standing to do little more than file a complaint.


Too many people just feel lucky to have been able to walk away and don't follow through with the complaint.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Too many people just feel lucky to have been able to walk away and don't follow through with the complaint.

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.
 
Top