In places where you must inform that other party, get two recorders, one visible and one not. Inform them that they're being recorded. If they bitch, turn off the visible one and do not affirm that they are not being recorded. A simple statement or "I turned off the recorder." would probably suffice. Play their game...
All Police Should Be Required By Law To Wear Personal Recorders
- Thread starter damien
- Start date
- Status
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
Jselvy
That is one of the best quotes I have heard in weeks!
That is one of the best quotes I have heard in weeks!
sacp81170a
Member
So far, every LEO that's chimed in on this thread welcomes the idea of video recording devices worn while on duty. Does that burst any bubbles?
The big problem with making it a law is that it's an unfunded mandate. So far, smaller departments like mine have a hard time keeping up with the technological innovations that are routine in some of the larger departments. We have a hard time keeping all our recorders working and replacing older, worn out units when they are no longer usable. It's not a conspiracy of silence, it's budget constraints. With the price of fuel going up, it's put an uncomfortable crimp in our ability to maintain our equipment and the frequency of our training has suffered. Couple that with an area that's growing rapidly, and I see bad things in our future.
The big problem with making it a law is that it's an unfunded mandate. So far, smaller departments like mine have a hard time keeping up with the technological innovations that are routine in some of the larger departments. We have a hard time keeping all our recorders working and replacing older, worn out units when they are no longer usable. It's not a conspiracy of silence, it's budget constraints. With the price of fuel going up, it's put an uncomfortable crimp in our ability to maintain our equipment and the frequency of our training has suffered. Couple that with an area that's growing rapidly, and I see bad things in our future.
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
The big problem with not making it a law is that it continues the practice of courts taking the side of LEO instead of citizens over claims of veracity. Whether it is an unfunded mandate or not. Based on the fact that the technology is out and it is cheap.
This brings about the "Equal Justice under the law" concept. Historically judges almost always sided with cops of described versions of events because they had no other choice. With video, there is a final true arbiter of truth.
I really like the idea personally of all LEO having to carry video and audio recording equipment.
This brings about the "Equal Justice under the law" concept. Historically judges almost always sided with cops of described versions of events because they had no other choice. With video, there is a final true arbiter of truth.
I really like the idea personally of all LEO having to carry video and audio recording equipment.
sacp81170a
Member
Cheap technology doesn't mean it's durable. You wouldn't believe how much you have to pay for "cheap" technology that stands up to the daily wear and that military and police equipment has to. Price out a "ruggedized" laptop vs. a standard model and you'll see what I mean. Also, "cheap" may be descriptive when you're buying *one* unit for occasional use, but when you're buying twenty or so at a time and having to provide for maintenance and "up time" (it's "the law", remember?) it gets beyond "cheap" very quickly.
Also, if it's "the law" does that mean I can't go on duty if I have a malfunction in my video equipment, or that I have to stop what I'm doing and get it fixed immediately? What sort of penalty should apply if I don't for some reason, like being in pursuit of a fleeing felon? Would that case be automatically thrown out because "the law" says I have to have it on video or I can't be believed? Earth to brerrabbit..., come in, brerrabbit...
I like the idea of the video (we already carry the audio, and yes, sometimes it malfunctions and doesn't work), but making it a matter of legislation goes too far.
sacp81170a
Member
This is a whole 'nuther subject, so I'm addressing it in a different post. Why do judges side more often with "cops described version of events"? One reason is the little legal concept of "cui bono" (literally, "who benefits?") Put another way, a person who is facing fines and jail time is far less likely to give an impartial description of events than a police officer who has nothing to gain or lose. What does the officer have to gain if he lies? Unless he's really corrupt, nothing. He also runs the risk that, if caught in a lie, his word will always be suspect in court thereafter. Police go to court as a matter of routine, and I can tell you that losing a judge's respect for his credibility is far more severe to him than you would imagine. He has a lot to lose if he lies. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but from the judge's perspective, he has an officer who he knows will have to be before him time and time again versus a defendant who has something to gain or lose only in this one instance.
Yes, there is a bias, and yes, it exists for good and logical reasons.
(Masculine pronouns used for convenience. I know there are female officers and judges out there, too.)
ebd10
Member
No one is asking him to wear the recorder when he's off duty. Plus, when you represent the power of the state, it is a good idea to have as much evidence as possible in order to prevent dishonesty or misunderstanding.
Besides, as I've heard it stated before in regards to other laws and law enforcement policies; if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Right?
Horrible idea. I already have a body mic for when I need it. If I'm talking to a CI I don't need it transmitted. If I'm talking to my GF and the things I'm going to do to her later I don't need it transmitted. If I'm taking a dump I don't need it transmitted. I have a body mic I can control if I need it but I'm not going to have someone listening in on me my whole shift. What if I'm talking to someone reference internal affaris and corruption? I don't want that transmitted. Body mics are great but having them on the whole shift is a retarded idea. Courts will then start requiring mics and if it should ever fail than bye bye case or hello civil suit. I will say it one more time... RETARDED IDEA.
With more and more programs allowing individual departments to profit by the seizure of private property during the case, the reasons for lying to gain a conviction become more and more apparent.
It is also my understanding that performance bonuses and promotions are affected by their arrest to convict ratio. Thus is a reason to adjust the record of events.
Personal prejudices can come into play as well. The best known examples of the are the apocryphal accounts of LEO's in places like Macon Georgia during the first half of the 20th century.
Jefferson
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
Sacp8117a
You are against the use of recording equipment for officers but still demand that their word should carry more weight than anyone else. Someone may be in orbit and it is not me.
If you feel the need to talk about inapropriate subjects by all means turn off the recording equipment. But on the other hand, if this type of law passes, if you turn it off or disapear a recording of a traffic stop that goes to court, your ability to tell the truth will be in question, not someone elses.
The technology was very expensive and bulky starting out. Remember beepers and cell phones? I can remember the beepers we used at work costing around $400, now they are more reliable and only cost about 15 in quantity.
I have already seen some systems that can run for a full shift, are cheap enough to throw away if damaged and small enough not to get into the way. They are only going to get smaller and cheaper. Hardening the recorder itself or its holder would not be much of a job, it would just provide another pretty black leather gadget holder for your belt.
It all comes down to the classic one the LEO's love to pose. If you aint doing nothing wrong ,,,
You are against the use of recording equipment for officers but still demand that their word should carry more weight than anyone else. Someone may be in orbit and it is not me.
If you feel the need to talk about inapropriate subjects by all means turn off the recording equipment. But on the other hand, if this type of law passes, if you turn it off or disapear a recording of a traffic stop that goes to court, your ability to tell the truth will be in question, not someone elses.
The technology was very expensive and bulky starting out. Remember beepers and cell phones? I can remember the beepers we used at work costing around $400, now they are more reliable and only cost about 15 in quantity.
I have already seen some systems that can run for a full shift, are cheap enough to throw away if damaged and small enough not to get into the way. They are only going to get smaller and cheaper. Hardening the recorder itself or its holder would not be much of a job, it would just provide another pretty black leather gadget holder for your belt.
It all comes down to the classic one the LEO's love to pose. If you aint doing nothing wrong ,,,
sacp81170a
Member
Uhhh, if you'll reread every single one of my posts, you'll see that's *not* what I said. I don't *demand* that my word carry more weight. Go back and follow the logic in my previous post. You're willfully misrepresenting what I said. You may or may not like it, but it is reasonable and logical.
The recording equipment is on whenever we make contact with the public in a matter that may come before a court later. Are you telling me that you never say anything while you're working for your employer that doesn't have to do strictly with your job? What do you have to hide? Are you cheating him, goofing off maybe? I think *you* should wear a recorder all day to ensure that you're actually working while you get paid. Otherwise, you're guilty of fraud, right?
How many times do I have to say it? Dash cams and body mics are our best friend when it comes to court. Why would I want to turn it off? Also, tapes are inventoried(chain of evidence and all that) and you would quickly find yourself without a job if your dash cam was turned off for no good reason. I guess you get your info on the daily operations of police departments from Hollywood and TV too?
The direction that this is headed is that no matter what I say, you've already made up your mind that no LEO is to be trusted. I'm glad I don't live in your world.
sacp81170a
Member
In case you haven't noticed, civil forfeiture is not an issue in DUI and domestic abuse cases. You're thinking of things like the guys on the drug task forces. The majority of police officers have nothing to do with civil forfeiture cases. We're not all Crockett and Tubbs.
Powderman
Member
Where did you get THIS crock of crap from?!
For heaven's sake!
First, to keep this on topic, I WANT to be video recorded. I WANT to be audio recorded--each and every time I contact the public!
When I do ANYTHING on duty, it happens in front of my unit, with the camera rolling. When I transport a prisoner, the camera gets turned around to face the prisoner--every time!
Now as for the statement quoted....
Bonuses for "arrest to convict ratio"? What game are you playing, that puts such garbage in your head?
What PoliSci class are you in? Good grief, man!
That has to be one of the most uninformed and assinine statements I have heard from ANYONE. Dude, this is not a flame--but your statement is fraught with paranoia.
YOU DON'T LIVE IN COMMUNIST CHINA, OR COLD-WAR ERA RUSSIA. Get over it, will you? Sheesh!!! :banghead:
And, once again, I am moved to change my sig line.
Powderman,
Sorry that was arrest to conviction ratio, a misspelling on my part.
This data is gleaned from conversations with currently serving officers of the Bellingham WA Police.
Do you really expect me to believe that promotions are not performance based?
Please.
Is it still paranoia when you are always treated as if they are out to get you?
Jefferson
Sorry that was arrest to conviction ratio, a misspelling on my part.
This data is gleaned from conversations with currently serving officers of the Bellingham WA Police.
Do you really expect me to believe that promotions are not performance based?
Please.
Is it still paranoia when you are always treated as if they are out to get you?
Jefferson
Powderman
Member
Bellingham? WARSHINGTON??!!
Dude, the type of stuff you are describing does NOT happen in Washington State--even less so in WESTERN Washington State.
I know that questionable law enforcement practices take place everywhere--but in this state, they will have your head on a stick if you even HINT at a quota or arrest requirement. It doesn't exist here, I'm afraid.
Yours,
Powderman
(your friendly neighborhood Tribal cop--in Puyallup/Tacoma)
Dude, the type of stuff you are describing does NOT happen in Washington State--even less so in WESTERN Washington State.
I know that questionable law enforcement practices take place everywhere--but in this state, they will have your head on a stick if you even HINT at a quota or arrest requirement. It doesn't exist here, I'm afraid.
Yours,
Powderman
(your friendly neighborhood Tribal cop--in Puyallup/Tacoma)
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
sacp81170a
We have already established your POV on the subject, now all we are doing is figuring price. You are arguing that a cops word must be taken as truth but arguing against a means of proving it. This sounds like elitism to me.
Most of the old reasons a LEO's word were given more weight than a civilians were because there was no alternative. Technology has changed that.
You keep a gun on your belt. Why? because you need it for your job. That recorder on your waist will see at least ten times more use once we get you fitted for it because it will be a required part of your job also.
You are right. It is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of an LEO's word holding more weight than mine without any supporting evidence. As I have been inspired by this post, I am writing my local representative about how cops carrying personal recorders is a good idea.
If you want to understand a bit more about my reasoning, the local community is renowned for how corrupt the local government is. We are currently in the process of cleaning house and putting the guilty in jail. There is no reason an LEO making 35K a year can afford a half a million dollar house. I could make an entire thread about how we pulled in the feds to clean out the dirt in this AO.
We have already established your POV on the subject, now all we are doing is figuring price. You are arguing that a cops word must be taken as truth but arguing against a means of proving it. This sounds like elitism to me.
Most of the old reasons a LEO's word were given more weight than a civilians were because there was no alternative. Technology has changed that.
You keep a gun on your belt. Why? because you need it for your job. That recorder on your waist will see at least ten times more use once we get you fitted for it because it will be a required part of your job also.
You are right. It is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of an LEO's word holding more weight than mine without any supporting evidence. As I have been inspired by this post, I am writing my local representative about how cops carrying personal recorders is a good idea.
If you want to understand a bit more about my reasoning, the local community is renowned for how corrupt the local government is. We are currently in the process of cleaning house and putting the guilty in jail. There is no reason an LEO making 35K a year can afford a half a million dollar house. I could make an entire thread about how we pulled in the feds to clean out the dirt in this AO.
FieroCDSP
Member
I don't think it would be that difficult to make something like that. Thinner than an iPod, because you don't need a screen, or buttons even. It'd be better to not have any buttons, including a power button. It turns on when you insert the mem-card, slips into the shirt pocket and the camera and mic are on a hinged flap (as suggested) that has a hole in it for the pocket's button to go through so it can be fastened shut. At the end of the shift, the officer drops it off at the proper place and the next day, they pick up a fresh card. The cards are processed by a person into a comp. Waterproofing is not a problem on anything so thin. You can use a slip on sleeve that covers 2/3 of the unit and locks onto the top section with a rubber gasket. The mem card would be at the bottom of the unit.
The Camera is on for the duration of the shift, is held in place by the buttoned flap, so it can't move, and the thing is likely only a few ounces. It'll have b/w day and green low-light capability. It always faces forward. The only concern I would have with it's operation would be that in a shirt pocket, it'll be obstructed in the event of a shooting when the officer's arms extend, but would give clear evidence leadin up to it.
On the whole, I think it's a win-win. So long as they don't force all of us citizens to wear one.
The Camera is on for the duration of the shift, is held in place by the buttoned flap, so it can't move, and the thing is likely only a few ounces. It'll have b/w day and green low-light capability. It always faces forward. The only concern I would have with it's operation would be that in a shirt pocket, it'll be obstructed in the event of a shooting when the officer's arms extend, but would give clear evidence leadin up to it.
On the whole, I think it's a win-win. So long as they don't force all of us citizens to wear one.
Flyboy
Member
Except, as noted, performance-based bonuses and promotions, and also he avoids being reprimanded in cases of "marginal" arrests, searches, etc.
Y'know, I might have believed you before the investigation into the Kathryn Johnstone shooting, but since the FBI investigation revealed that Atlanta cops routinely lied to obtain warrants--in fact, "Eighteen months before Atlanta narcotics officers killed Kathryn Johnston in a bogus drug raid, police investigated six of the same officers for allegedly inappropriate conduct in the search of a southwest Atlanta home" (http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/06/02/0603metops.html). Of course, it's not just Atlanta: Chicago has great record in this area (Google for Alvin Weems, who lied despite the video evidence, and of course LAPD and the airman who was shot while on his knees, complying with the cop. But this goes beyond those extreme cases. The cop who got permission for the search, but the suspect denies it? The cop who says the beating victim started the fight, or the suspect who says the cop beat the confession out of him (both of these were recently revealed to be fabrications, after audio and video evidence surfaced)? Or, on the other side, the dirtbag who falsely accuses the cop of brutality, the hooker who says he copped a feel, the crook who says he wasn't Mirandized? Accurate recordings protect the innocent, whomever he may be.
No, he may have something to lose, if he gets caught lying, which he rarely does.
TheFederalistWeasel
member
By that logic you are supporting one of the very fears constantly tossed about here on THR by all the nutjobs that all cops suspect everyone of criminal conduct because they caught a one or two for the same thing.
painting all cops as liars because of one encounter you had will win you no friends, unless you are one of those who somehow has the misfortune of getting lied to by all cops you seem to encounter...
stevelyn
Member
Most of us already carry and use digital recorders when we make anything more than a casual contact with the public. It helps build our cases and keeps our bacon out of the fire.
I picked up a nice looking gold and silver Xonix watch on a clearance sale. It's a pretty thick watch and looks a little strange on close examination. However, it looks good when wearing it and I've never had anybody ask about it.
It took about 20 minutes to figure out how to make it work. It's been a valuable tool for me and has earned it keep 100 times over.
Sometimes it's good to have an actual recording because peoples' memories are rarely 100% accurate and are usually slanted, to varying degrees, by their own bias.
I have a phone that is capable of recording but it's just not as convenient and easy as the watch.
The watch is a good tool but it's not legal to record conversations without informing the other party in some states so check out your state law.
LawBot5000
Member
We should have as much recording equipment as is humanly possible to install. If there is some problem with cost, start with the patrol vehicles and work up to officer-cams. If there is a problem with reliability, have redundancy.
The only police being hurt by this are the crooked minority who give the rest a bad name. The vast majority of officers are helped by this because it kills bogus lawsuits quicker, makes proving probable cause easier and it gives the prosecutors something to go over with a fine toothed comb after the dust has settled. The camera is impartial and it has a much better memory that any police officer.
Examples:
I remember being very pleased when dashboard cam showed a guy running around a parking lot, pointing a gun at police officers before he got shot. After he got shot, it was revealed he only had a silver cell phone that he was holding like a gun. Without the video it would have been a very difficult to prove this convincingly.
I also remember a case about a police officer who shot a man multiple times during a traffic stop and then lied about the man "rushing at him." But the LEO was a bad seed and the video revealed he was lying.
The only police being hurt by this are the crooked minority who give the rest a bad name. The vast majority of officers are helped by this because it kills bogus lawsuits quicker, makes proving probable cause easier and it gives the prosecutors something to go over with a fine toothed comb after the dust has settled. The camera is impartial and it has a much better memory that any police officer.
Examples:
I remember being very pleased when dashboard cam showed a guy running around a parking lot, pointing a gun at police officers before he got shot. After he got shot, it was revealed he only had a silver cell phone that he was holding like a gun. Without the video it would have been a very difficult to prove this convincingly.
I also remember a case about a police officer who shot a man multiple times during a traffic stop and then lied about the man "rushing at him." But the LEO was a bad seed and the video revealed he was lying.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked