Police dash cams

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crosshair, are you for real? Think somebody will notice the time stamps on the tape will show it has gaps in the tape? And do you really believe there is a cop on earth that wants the county to seize a car so bad that he:
1) Finds drugs somewhere, which means taking it off someone or buying it.
2) Plant the drugs on somebody and possibly send them to prison, unjustly, just to seize the vehicle?

Loosen the tinfoil hat dude, there is not a cop on earth that wants to seize a car that bad.

But, I know, a "friend" had it happen to them right?:rolleyes:
 
The way I see it is that a dash-cam works well for traffic stops and public incidents that an officer responds to. The idea that a dash-cam comes on when the officer activates his warning lights is a good one. Additional switch to allow him to turn on the camera anytime he wants to is also a good idea.

The policy should be that once the camera is activated, it remains in use until the contact is finished. If the camera is activated for some incident on someone's front lawn (and all you really get is the audio), it should remain running until the officer completes the contact or until the parties leave.

There's no need to record the private conversations of officers while eating lunch or recording the echoing sounds of their bowel movements in a bathroom. Nor do I want to eavesdrop on his half of a cell phone conversation with his wife, kids, broker or insurance agent. It simply is not required, nor necessary and it's a gross invasion of his personal privacy.

Some people are rather strange. I know a woman who lives near me to whom I showed a video of a traffic stop. The one in Montana where the perp's .41 Mag doesn't fire at first. She had no objection to the officer firing 12 rounds, but she says she would have at least disciplined him for exclaiming "oh S--t!" when the gun didn't fire. :confused: But to her, swearing is something that cops shouldn't do. :rolleyes:

Since video is time-stamped to the 1/100th of a second and usually carries sequence numbers for each frame, officers who switch off equipment or try to tamper with the recordings are going to get caught. At the very least, on/off/on actions are suspicious.

But let's also be fair. If dash-cams are allowed to "gather evidence" and/or to "monitor officer performance", then the citizen stopped by police should also be able to record the contact, overtly or covertly and for the same reasons.
 
But lets be fair. If dash cams ar allowed to "gather evidence" and or "monitor officer performance", then the citizen stopped by police should also be able to record the contact...
Click to expand...

There's currently an ongoing court case involving a place of employment where(much to everyone's suprise), through court proceedings and questioning of litigants/witness's, it was found out camera's had been inst'd in the business's parking lot and throughout the building. Also business phone lines tapped. No warnings to employee's. This is allowed due to the business/grounds being private property.
Surveillance camera's at your residence/business are allowed and if LEO comes to a residence/business with these camera's they get taped.
What's the difference in your car? It's considered private property:confused:.

I've been a public servant(not LEO) for quite some time. I can recall more than a few disciplinary hearings where the public has filmed a non uniformed public servant doing something they weren't supposed to be doing or being somewhere they weren't supposed to be .
A local att'y and his secretary were driving down the highway and a city vehicle passed them like they were sitting still. The att'y sped up,got behind vehicle and secretary filmed said vehicle at 92mph. Sent film to mayor's office along with a nice letter stating he would be following up on mayor's reaction to the incident. Employee was justifiably disciplined.
I don't recall any LE going to the atty's house and conducting a raid.(referring to the ongoing thread: 'Man faces jail time for video taping gun-waving cop'):rolleyes:.

I can recall a few times when tapes have been used as evidence and ultimately cost the employee their job. An LEO is a public servant and unless his/her identity can't be known to public (IE. person works undercover) they should have no more or less protection of being filmed than a public servant thats say a street maintenance worker or refuse collector.
 
Last edited:
Prior to our installing VICS (Video Incident Capture System), we were sued constantly, and the City always settled out of court. They said it was cheaper than going to court, but the shadow of doubt about the officer's actions always remained.

When we did install them in the early 90's, our guys hated them. Supervisory training on them specifically discouraged brass from reviewing tapes just to snoop. The bozo we had for a chief at the time missed the message and spent hours each day reviewing tapes looking for every little thing he could find, especially those from officers he personally disliked. (Departmental SOP at the time required the VICS to be active for the entire shift.) He chewed people for stepping out of a cruiser without putting on their hats and even chewed one guy for singing along with a Beatles song while driving down the road :rolleyes:.

Times change and the old chief retired. Now, our guys won't voluntarily leave the station without a functioning VICS, and there hasn't been one successful lawsuit against our department since their installation.

The systems are pricey, but pretty much tamper-proof. The tapes (or hard drives, we went digital a few years back) are installed in a locked recorder in the trunk by a supervisor at the beginning of the shift, and removed at end of shift the same way. Only the supervisor has a key, and the officers have no access.

The tapes are locked up and treated as evidence, and a chain of evidence is established for each tape. Unless needed for an investigation, they're kept under lock & key for 6 months, at which time they're wiped and re-used.

As stated, the system automatically becomes active when the e-lights are turned on, or when the officer turns on his remote mic.

Officers are required to activate the system with every citizen contact, and must remain on with the camera turned to record the "cage" whenever a prisoner is present. Those who fail to do so face progressive disciplinary measures.

Tapes are only reviewed by supervisors under certain circumstances:

1. As evidence in a criminal case.
2. As evidence in an Internal Affairs investigation
3. Supervisory review of all vehicle pursuits
4. Supervisory review of any use of force
5. Critical incident debriefing with an officer (closed door interview)
6. Training sessions (in a positive way. There may be constructive criticism, but the officer involved is never belittled or ridiculed.)

Any questions? ;) :D
 
Is it or should it be illegal for a citizen to also tape a routine traffic stop?
Click to expand...

Nope, at least not here. I personally have no problem with it. Everybody has a camera these days, and LE in action naturally draws people's attention. As long as I'm doing it right, I don't sweat it.

I do, however, have one concern: We can't edit or alter our tapes, but any other guy with a camcorder can ;).
 
Here is a defense view.

The camera systems are a wonderful tool and assist in the resolution of disputed cases. They protect good cops, (the vast majority) and they shorten the careers of those who abuse their positions of trust.

SOP in the area I live in is for all citizen interactions to be recorded. The camera comes on when the light bar does, or when activated by the officer and stays on till for the ride to the jail or when the contact has ended.

I have seen them save people from police errors of judgement or opinion and I have seen them save officers from trumped up complaints.

I do not believe they should be on 24/7 but i do strongly believe they should be on when citizens are confronted.

When I have a client who tells me something that surprises me, the first thing I do is get a copy of the video. Sometimes, just by telling a client that their entire interaction with the police is recorded, their story changes. Sometimes when I tell the DA why I need a copy of the video, I get a phone call a few days later and am told the case has been dismissed.

In my view they assist in getting a proper disposition of cases, reduce the chance of innocents getting convicted and protect cops from bogus complaints. It really is a win/win.

btw, the newer digital systems are really cool. Good picture, good audio and an ability to pull up what you want quickly. Our newest systems have a feature called video capture that saves a certain amount of recording before the lights are turned on. The camera is really constantly recording but not saving, with the capture feature enabled, it saves some of the video prior to the lights or switch being activated.

Some of the tapes I watch are hilarious, especially the DWI's

.02
 
There's currently an ongoing court case involving a place of employment where(much to everyone's suprise), through court proceedings and questioning of litigants/witness's, it was found out camera's had been inst'd in the business's parking lot and throughout the building. Also business phone lines tapped. No warnings to employee's. This is allowed due to the business/grounds being private property.
Surveillance camera's at your residence/business are allowed and if LEO comes to a residence/business with these camera's they get taped.

What's the difference in your car? It's considered private property
Click to expand...

You are in Ohio. The biker stopped by the "gun waving officer" was in Maryland. I live in California. State laws vary. Both Maryland and California have statutes that limit your ability to record. In MD & CA, both parties must consent to the recording of voice and/or images as a general rule. Activities conducted in public can be recorded freely -- unless one party objects, then you must stop recording them.

In states like MD & CA, if you install a video camera on your front porch that covers the porch, lawn out to the sidewalk or street and your driveway that's fine as long as the material is not recorded. If you record it, then you must either have consent from every person on the recording -- or you must post signs that meet statutory requirements that say "This area monitored by video survelliance" or some such. At least, if you want to use the video for anything legally.

One gentleman's home security system recorded a confrontation between police and himself. He denied that his errant son was home and officers wanted to look inside, but he refused. Words were exchanged about his right to refuse and they threatened to arrest him if they were forced to get a warrant. When the video was turned over the CLEO to support disciplinary actions, the PD charged him under "wiretapping" statutes because no signs were posted warning of video survelliance. :confused: Even on his own property!

In California, officers have been known to charge under "wiretapping" statutues if they see your cellphone camera is active and recording. The irony of one case was that police used the dash-cam and audio to show the officer had asked the motorist to turn off his cell camera three times because the officer objected to being recorded. ***? He's already being recorded by his own cruiser. Apparently there are exceptions for LEOs to record traffic encounters, but not civilians.

These rules need to change.

The courts have started to deal with the problem of edited media already. There are already ways experts can determine if something has been modified¹ and some software companies are including some kinds of "tags".

There are ballpoint pen audio recorders available that will record 30-60 minutes worth of audio. A boon to college students during lectures to be sure. But also worth having if your local PD has a tendency to be heavy handed. Even versions with tiny cameras can be had now (if you have the money).


¹ The recent Mel Gibson audio rant recording released by his girlfriend is of questionable origin, according to several experts who have listened to distributed copies. An inspection of the original would be even more enlightening.
 
I have been a cop for 9 years now. In Australia not USA. I always carry a digital voice recorder with me on duty.

This is to protect me from my collegues more than the public. It is a very sad state of affairs....................but I know I am covered from vendictive complaints. I would recommend to any person to record the police and if youy are a cop - do the same. My department will not put cameras in our vehicles (cost too much).:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top