Don McCollor says in Comments:
Now that body/car cams are so common, it keeps police honest too. A cameras 'off' or video "missing" should be grounds for dismissal of all charges...
Yeah, let's talk about that.
When I left my last agency in 2019, less than half the officers wore cameras. And, there is good reason for that. Storing video is expensive. It takes a lot of memory space, and it requires a substantial investment of equipment. And, by far, the least expensive portion is the cameras themselves. Storage of hours of boring video is part of the equation. Probably the biggest expense, even higher than server space, is the personnel needed to catalog the video and maintain the equipment. If you have 200 cameras running 12 hours per day, the investment necessary to store and catalog 2400 hours of video every day is staggering.
And, the huge majority of arrests are quite routine. Which is why we tell officers to not become complacent when making an arrest. In my 37 year career, I arrested (conservatively) a thousand people. And, I can only recall a half-dozen or so that went bad on me. I never killed anyone, (thank God), but I was awfully close on two occasions.
The vast majority of arrests are stunningly routine. The suspect complies, we administer the cuffs and take him or her to jail. Probably 95 percent, or higher, fall into that category. Probably one percent or less is a resistive arrest, where the suspect actively resists. That other percentage is an arrest that comes after an investigation. Generally for a felony offense where the suspect was not apprehended at the scene. In this case, the investigators have done their homework, identified a suspect, built a file, obtained warrants, and gone our to arrest the suspect.
Citizens make complaints for a variety of reasons, and in many such situations, there is no basis for the complaint. I can recall two such complaints in my career where a citizen made a complaint against me, personally, by name. I was able to show, in both cases, that not only was I not at the scene of the complaint, but that at the time in question, I was not even in the parish (county) at the time of the alleged complaint. One was a case of mistaken identity, where the citizen thought they recognized me at the scene, the other still baffles me.
So, to answer Don's question, should lack of body camera footage be grounds for dismissal of charges? No, not as a blanket policy. There is only a tiny percentage of cases where body camera footage calls the conduct of the officer into question.
4 comments:
Not to mention dashcam memory getting full and the logistics aren't there to download them in time for several shifts. Same for body cams. I've known times when all recording devices cratered at the same time including a personal digital recorder which recorded about 20 seconds. There were also times when things happened where the last thing worried about was if the recorder was on, until afterwards. Or a bodycam was turned on (as was thought) and wasn't or just didn't work. Since they are used during the report writing process to check for memory lapses, or actual conversations, it's not good when the stupid thing didn't record. But there you are. There isn't anything magic about them. Just technology with all the attendant problems and blessings.
During my 39 yr career in a medium sized (550 officers roughly) city police department, we went from no cameras, to a few on a trial basis, to every patrol officer and sergeant wearing one. There are always problems with that much electronics being worn and used twenty four hours a day in all weather.
I hated the idea at first (lots of extra work for a patrol sergeant and some officers just can't adjust), then I saw an incident that turned me around.
A DWI specialist stopped a car for speeding one night. The driver was a 17 yr old girl who was intoxicated. She failed each field sobriety test ( finger to nose, walk and turn, ABC recital, and Horizontal eye gaze Nystagmus) and had an open container and a strong odor of intoxicants.
She was cooperative until told she was under arrest. At that point she began to curse the officer and threaten consequences from her father, a well known local attorney. She went instantly from well mannered school girl to a screeching, foul mouthed wretch .org at home in a Navy Liberty port.
The officer decided to call for backup so there would be a witness. When the second officer arrived, the girl went from shrieking harpy to scared scared little girl needing rescue. She told the second officer that she had been sexually assaulted by the first officer including digital penetration. In our state, that constitutes Rape.
A supervisor was called and an investigation opened. Everyone went to the Detective offices and the girls father called. When he arrived she again began the scared little girl routine and Dad, understandably, exploded with rage. Several Detectives and Supervisors noted that prior to Dad's arrival she did not display any of mannerisms we would expect of a sexual assault victim.
We took a statement from her as a sexual assault victim with the first officer as the suspect. The officer was relieved of duty as charges were about to be filed. We made an appointment with Dad for him and his daughter to return Monday morning at 0900 to meet with Internal Affairs investigators to file an I/A complaints and Dad and daughter left.
As we began the charging process (in my department, criminal charges are a result of a separate investigation from an administrative investigation (I/A) which can result in discipline up to termination of employment) we realized that his car was equipped with a dashcamera and a body worn microphone. This was a test case for our department and was the first shift it was deployed.
Immediately we retrieved the tape (which was still running) from the police car and reviewed it. Turns out, the officer and alleged victim were never off camera, and shockingly, none of the alleged sexual assault occurred! Dad and daughter were already gone so the "Come to Jesus" would have to wait. We sent the officer home without being charged and forwarded a copy of the tape and file to Internal Affairs.
On Monday, Dad and daughter showed at Internal Affairs ready to light the fire to burn the officer at the stake. When the investigator told Daughter in fro n of attorney Dad that he wanted to give Daughter a chance to recant her statement and come clean. Dad, or course, blew up. However, he knew the investigator and agreed to hear him out. Daughter reiterated her claim of rape.
The investigator then played the tape for them. The minutes into the tape, Dad asked that the tape be turned off and for all allegations against the officer to be withdrawn.
Without that tape, the officer (a fine man with no questionable history ) would have had his life destroyed, career gone, marriage shattered, and possibly gone to prison.
Sorry about the length but I thought the details were important.
Retired Cop
(Don McCollor)...My thanks PawPaw for your kind reply and those of the commenters...
Unfortunately, in our society many people can't be trusted and video can protect both sides.
I don't know how many problem encounters there are with cops, but I know from personal experience it is MUCH higher than reported. I personally have gotten 2 traffic tickets that had no basis from rude arrogant officers. The local courts assume the officer is correct and they know that, so they get away with atrocious behavior.
Post a Comment