Prosecutors And Head Of FOP Defend Arrests Of People Filming Cops

[Fargo]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Except that confessions don't stand alone, do they? LEOs are given the presumption of truth when they go into court. If the LEO says it, it takes some form of proof (like audio/video recording) to contradict them and have what they've said thrown out.

You are missing the point of the rule.

The Corpus Delecti rule, in a nutshell is as follows:

A confession by itself, whether witnessed by an LEO, or even if taped or written out and signed cannot be the basis for a conviction. There must be additional independant evidence supporting the confession.

It has nothing to do with whether a LEO or someone else is testifying about it.

Best,


Joe

[downzero]

Originally Posted by E5RANGER375

ever heard of hipaa? even the news agency cant film a persons face that is being given medical care.

Even assuming that this is true (which is far from well-established), how would it be enforced?

The news media has an interest, and a constitutional right, to record and publish this information. How would a law enforcement officer determine whether the face was recorded during this?

If some privacy right exists that prevents publishing of the image of the face, that is a different inquiry. Saying that the face cannot be shown in a news broadcast is not the same as saying that it cannot be recorded at all.

A privacy law that prohibited the latter would likely be unconstitutional. Whether the former was or wasn't would depend on how broadly such a statute was written.

When "privacy" statutes implicate and constrain our constitutional rights, we should all be skeptical as citizens. No statute should be allowed to infringe on our fundamental rights.

I find it very hard to believe that any prosecution based on these statutes would be successful, if they are written in the manner in which you describe.

[dross]

Originally Posted by E5RANGER375

ever heard of hipaa? even the news agency cant film a persons face that is being given medical care. we already have laws on the books for what you mention. cops are public servants just like politicians. if they dont like being filmed then get another job like the rest of the world. I know plenty of people who are filmed at work and never asked permission. this is no different.

HIPAA doesn't regulate the average citizen, only medical providers, insurance companies, and medical billing clearinghouses. A private citizen may film or reveal anthing he wishes about anything medical (assuming he's not breaking some other law) and it has nothing to do with HIPAA.

[mrjarrell]

Radley Balko has a new piece up that highlights the ineffectiveness of police videos (and the desperate need for citizen cameras). Too many police videos go missing, have gaps or have been erased. The numbers speak to a problem with the custody chain where police videos are concerned.

When Police Videos Go Missing | The Agitator

[dross]

Originally Posted by mrjarrell

Radley Balko has a new piece up that highlights the ineffectiveness of police videos (and the desperate need for citizen cameras). Too many police videos go missing, have gaps or have been erased. The numbers speak to a problem with the custody chain where police videos are concerned.

When Police Videos Go Missing | The Agitator

C'mon, accidents happen.

I play competitive amateur tennis. We call our own lines. A few (a very few) people cheat. I've had or heard this conversation many times:

A: That guy makes bad calls.
B: I think his eyes are kinda' bad.
A: He only makes bad calls in his favor. Apparently his vision is just fine.

[Kirk Freeman]

Too many police videos go missing, have gaps or have been erased.

True, I think the solution to police tampering of video is the issuance of strong sanctions from the bench. The courts now use the out of finding that the police did not intentionally tamper with the evidence.

If the police "lose" an OWI video or interview, intentionally or accidently, then the case is dismissed.

If judges would hold the police accountable when they tamper with evidence, it would speed justice and ensure future cases are not tampered with.

[Fargo]

Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman

True, I think the solution to police tampering of video is the issuance of strong sanctions from the bench. The courts now use the out of finding that the police did not intentionally tamper with the evidence.

If the police "lose" an OWI video or interview, intentionally or accidently, then the case is dismissed.

If judges would hold the police accountable when they tamper with evidence, it would speed justice and ensure future cases are not tampered with.

For my own edification, what legal mechanism could the court use to force a dismissal under such circumstances?

I'm curious what trial/criminal rule or statute would be the basis for the defense motion. I've always been of the impression that the court's contempt power would be the likely remedy.

Thanks,


Joe

[downzero]

Originally Posted by Fargo

I've always been of the impression that the court's contempt power would be the likely remedy.

I suspect that'd be insufficient to gain the level of deterrence that society demands.

You'd probably have better insight than me, though.

[Fargo]

Originally Posted by downzero

I suspect that'd be insufficient to gain the level of deterrence that society demands.

You'd probably have better insight than me, though.

Oh, I'm not arguing that is how it should be. I am just wondering what other mechanism Kirk is referring to as I am unaware of dismissal being a direct remedy for losing a tape. I can think of a few ways the court could basically force the state to move to dismiss via evidentiary rulings based upon such a thing happening, but know of no direct way to do it.

Contempt is nothing to laugh about. Incarceration and fines are on the table with little appellate rights.

Also, if it can be proven that evidence was tampered with or destroyed intentionally, that is a felony called obstruction of justice.

Best,

Joe

[JetGirl]

Originally Posted by mrjarrell

Indiana's own Radley Balko at Reason interviewed two prosecutors involved in the cases of people who were arrested for videoing cops during their encounters with them.

"Police Officers Don't Check Their Civil Rights at the Station House Door" - Reason Magazine

I love how Cassilly offers up so many hypothetical situations during which he thinks it would be a bad idea to record a cop (i.e., while collecting info from a witness at a crime scene, or talking to a victim of domestic violence, etc.), BUT, when asked about whether it would be acceptable to record an officer in an unpopulated or close range area when there's misconduct involved on the part of the officer, Cassilly says, "I’m not going to respond to any hypothetical scenarios." Isn't that exactly what he was initiating in the first place??