Prosecutors And Head Of FOP Defend Arrests Of People Filming Cops

[Kirk Freeman]

It won't be long before all cops have small clip on cameras that will be required to be turned on at the start of shift, and turned off at the end of shift

Instapundit had something on video camera sunglasses.

However, I think helmet cams like in Aliens would be a great idea.

I want to see the highly unreliable chemical tests they use in the field go away.

Which highly unreliable chemical test?

The PBT? It is inadmissible.

The D-L? I always ask for further testing on those, these are really bad on residue.

 

[Fargo]

This is because my clients deserve this presumption and my government deserves no such presumption.

You weren't talking about the government, you were talking about particular prosecuting attorneys who disagree with 617. Now, as noted ad nauseum, I am a fan of 617. I just don't think that anyone who opposes it is automatically on the same level as someone who wants to lock a citizen up for taping the cops.

Why is it that you think that anyone who works for the government, whether cop or prosecutor or apparently the janitor, is immediately fair game for your broad brush of scumbaggery?

I can support what I can get and the admission on 617 is a major victory. However, yes, I would like to see 617 expanded to photo line up identifications and the monkey shine that happens on those, field sobriety tests, chemical tests, misdemeanor interviews and the expansion beyond the place of detention.

It will take time but we shall overcome!

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the composition of line ups already discoverable and excludable if improperly performed. Or are you saying you want the viewing itself to be taped?

Like I said above, I'm all for video evidence; it removes issues of perception and memory as well as removes temptation. I just don't think that anyone who disagrees with me on mandatory taping is automatically acting with evil intent.

Joe

ETA: I'm kind of amused by this entire exchange. My first post was:

Cops who have trouble with having their actions in a position of authority recorded are IMO inherently untrustworthy and have no business as police officers.

Prosecutors who don't want video evidence have drank the kool-aid and sold out on their oath to pursue justice.

The head of the FOP is bathing in the kool-aid and might possibly die if he ever gets out of it if he thinks there are only 10 cases a year where video catches a cop lying or misbehaving.

Dross says it well. It is too bad the voters in these states seem to embrace tyranny.

Best,


Joe

Kirk was apparently so appalled by the idea that we agree on something, that he had to bring in a whole new scenario to highlight that he is not like me:

How about the prosecutors that fought tooth and nail against IRE 617?

Are they untrustworthy? Do they have business as prosecutors?

Now, we have gone on for several pages because I won't concede that it is IMPOSSIBLE to oppose 617 without selling one's soul to the devil in an irrevocable contract satisfying the statute of frauds with as much boilerplate as possible inserted on the demon's side.

Nevermind that I like 617, support 617, and am as much a fan of video evidence (if not more so) than Kirk.

I give up.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You weren't talking about the government, you were talking about particular prosecuting attorneys who disagree with 617.

Are not prosecuting attorneys members of the government? In fact, isn't it true that they are the chief law enforcement officers of each county?

I was talking about the government.

Kirk was apparently so appalled by the idea that we agree on something,

No I'm not! Oh . . . wait.

No, I'm not appalled we agree.

What I am appalled was that IPAC tried to stop 617 and MCPA was able to delay its implementation because the broke bums in Indianapolis just cannot afford cameras while counties like Fountain or Warren, who carpet their courthouses in $100 bills could afford cameras. Outrageous!

I have a list of other outrages, but I'll have to start a new thread.

 

[downzero]

Maybe your privacy, or the privacy of your friends and family. Here is a situation where the issue of filming cops has side effects that go beyond the recording of the officers. A man had a heart attack. He is unresponsive and cops and/or medics are doing CPR on the person. In these situations, you get tons of civilian rubber necks, wanting to catch the action. Is it OK to film the person who is hurt, detained by cops, whatever, in these situations? If you go with the "public realm" argument, I should be allowed to video tape a female with exposed breasts who is receiving CPR. The incident is happening in the public, so it should be viewed as no different than filming the cops.

Are there any situations, in public areas, where video taping shouldn't be allowed? Should civilians be treated different than cops? What if they are in a state of nudity due to whatever (ie: Drunk, having CPR performed on them, etc.)? Where do we draw the line, if we even draw a line? Is it wrong to female an unconscious female who has her shirt removed due to medical reasons if the cops aren't there, but if cops are there trying to help, then it should be OK to film, because well, we have cops present?

In the case I know of, it was an older male who was passed out and getting CPR preformed on him. An officer that was there said he was telling the voyeurs to keep moving. Deciding to play devil's advocate, I told the group we were talking with that I wouldn't order anyone away. Someone, maybe even me, threw out the topic: "What if someone decided to whip out a camera or phone and start filming or taking photos?" Comments were from allow the filming to continue to telling the person to stop to one person saying such an action would really tick them off and they could see some folks grabbing the phone and breaking it. Where do you folks stand? Would it make a difference if the man's wife was present? Should it make a difference if it was a female with exposed breasts, or a male or female exposed from the waist down?

Fact is, cops are humans. You point a camera at any random person, cop or not, and you will always get various reactions. Some good, some bad, some funny, and some a combination of all three. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule in these sort of cases.

There is no expectation of privacy on the public street.

I'm pretty sure most of us here have seen a woman's breasts before and might see them again before we die. I find your argument that we should abandon our claim of right against the government of recording the events of public officials on a public street to be unpersuasive.

If I saw a woman getting CPR on the street with her body exposed and I wanted to tape it, and some government official tried to stop me, I'd welcome him to take me to jail. That kind of behavior is precisely what we're arguing against, because freedom from restraint by government officials is far more important than some ridiculous claim of "privacy."

I suggest that anyone who wants privacy to figure out how to never put themselves out in the public sphere at all. Barring that, get over it. There's no such thing as privacy when you're in the street. That you're drunk, DOA, crashed your head into the ground, bleeding, naked, undergoing medical treatment, etc., is irrelevant. The public street is just that--public.

 

[Eddie]

Maybe your privacy, or the privacy of your friends and family. Here is a situation where the issue of filming cops has side effects that go beyond the recording of the officers. A man had a heart attack. He is unresponsive and cops and/or medics are doing CPR on the person. In these situations, you get tons of civilian rubber necks, wanting to catch the action. Is it OK to film the person who is hurt, detained by cops, whatever, in these situations? If you go with the "public realm" argument, I should be allowed to video tape a female with exposed breasts who is receiving CPR. The incident is happening in the public, so it should be viewed as no different than filming the cops.

Are there any situations, in public areas, where video taping shouldn't be allowed? Should civilians be treated different than cops? What if they are in a state of nudity due to whatever (ie: Drunk, having CPR performed on them, etc.)? Where do we draw the line, if we even draw a line? Is it wrong to female an unconscious female who has her shirt removed due to medical reasons if the cops aren't there, but if cops are there trying to help, then it should be OK to film, because well, we have cops present?

In the case I know of, it was an older male who was passed out and getting CPR preformed on him. An officer that was there said he was telling the voyeurs to keep moving. Deciding to play devil's advocate, I told the group we were talking with that I wouldn't order anyone away. Someone, maybe even me, threw out the topic: "What if someone decided to whip out a camera or phone and start filming or taking photos?" Comments were from allow the filming to continue to telling the person to stop to one person saying such an action would really tick them off and they could see some folks grabbing the phone and breaking it. Where do you folks stand? Would it make a difference if the man's wife was present? Should it make a difference if it was a female with exposed breasts, or a male or female exposed from the waist down?

Fact is, cops are humans. You point a camera at any random person, cop or not, and you will always get various reactions. Some good, some bad, some funny, and some a combination of all three. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule in these sort of cases.

I don't think that anyone likes to be filmed when they consider that the film may later become the basis of a civil or criminal complaint against them, but how is being filmed worse than being subject to the vageries of memory or outsight lies.

As far as your examples of situations where the police are performing CPR, what if the unconscious man later claims that someone stole his wallet? What if the woman with exposed breasts claims that she was sexually assaulted? (And before you laugh we currently have a case winding its way through the court system where a woman being transported by ambulance claims the EMT sexually assaulted her.)

Yes, recordings can also be biased depending on whether or not the recording is edited and whether or not it shows the whole event, but at least a recording shows what it shows and can go a long way towards shedding light on what really happened.

 

[dross]

I don't think that anyone likes to be filmed when they consider that the film may later become the basis of a civil or criminal complaint against them, but how is being filmed worse than being subject to the vageries of memory or outsight lies.

.

Umm, if you're in a position where your word carries more weight due to the status society affords you. Also, if your compatriots will cover for you. If you're in that position, I'd think that the accuracy of video would be far worse for you than the vageries of memory or outright lies.

I'm sure it's stressful to perform difficult work under such scrutiny, and video only adds to that scrutiny. Too bad.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Corpus Delecti rule exists precisely so that what you allege cannot happen. You know full well a confession standing alone is never enough....

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.

...
This is because my clients deserve this presumption and my government deserves no such presumption.
...

And as I said above, it seems the reverse is the case.

...
It won't be long before all cops have small clip on cameras that will be required to be turned on at the start of shift, and turned off at the end of shift.

...

I bought one almost exactly like this. Cost me 17 bucks, and 15+ of that was shipping from Hong Kong. Only downside is that the battery is only good for 2 hrs max.

This threat should have been met with a two word reply.

Um...
"Bring it"?
"No way"?
"Private Property"?


Blessings,
Bill

 

[Indy317]

I bought one almost exactly like this. Cost me 17 bucks, and 15+ of that was shipping from Hong Kong. Only downside is that the battery is only good for 2 hrs max.l

I think they are doing this on purpose. The ones being advertised in police magazines and such claim the same 2 hour max window, though I don't know if it is due to battery power and/or data capacity. I believe this is just another case of starting off small, then within a few years we will see these recorders that can go for 15+ hours.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Maybe your privacy, or the privacy of your friends and family. Here is a situation where the issue of filming cops has side effects that go beyond the recording of the officers. A man had a heart attack. He is unresponsive and cops and/or medics are doing CPR on the person. In these situations, you get tons of civilian rubber necks, wanting to catch the action. Is it OK to film the person who is hurt, detained by cops, whatever, in these situations? If you go with the "public realm" argument, I should be allowed to video tape a female with exposed breasts who is receiving CPR. The incident is happening in the public, so it should be viewed as no different than filming the cops.

Are there any situations, in public areas, where video taping shouldn't be allowed? Should civilians be treated different than cops? What if they are in a state of nudity due to whatever (ie: Drunk, having CPR performed on them, etc.)? Where do we draw the line, if we even draw a line? Is it wrong to female an unconscious female who has her shirt removed due to medical reasons if the cops aren't there, but if cops are there trying to help, then it should be OK to film, because well, we have cops present?

In the case I know of, it was an older male who was passed out and getting CPR preformed on him. An officer that was there said he was telling the voyeurs to keep moving. Deciding to play devil's advocate, I told the group we were talking with that I wouldn't order anyone away. Someone, maybe even me, threw out the topic: "What if someone decided to whip out a camera or phone and start filming or taking photos?" Comments were from allow the filming to continue to telling the person to stop to one person saying such an action would really tick them off and they could see some folks grabbing the phone and breaking it. Where do you folks stand? Would it make a difference if the man's wife was present? Should it make a difference if it was a female with exposed breasts, or a male or female exposed from the waist down?

Fact is, cops are humans. You point a camera at any random person, cop or not, and you will always get various reactions. Some good, some bad, some funny, and some a combination of all three. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule in these sort of cases.

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.

 

[dross]

I think they are doing this on purpose. The ones being advertised in police magazines and such claim the same 2 hour max window, though I don't know if it is due to battery power and/or data capacity. I believe this is just another case of starting off small, then within a few years we will see these recorders that can go for 15+ hours.

We can only hope.

 

[Fargo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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??