Pixiq

I think that this is a super idea. The answer to misleading videos of police-citizen interactions is more cameras, not less.

I understand that the Taser camera service is more than just a head-mounted camera, but it also features a wireless connection to a central server beyond the control of the police. Presumably data in the server could be subpoenaed in a legal action by either party, and not subject to the “editing” or “accidental erasing” so frequent in police recordings.

I bought a pen camera on ebay for $25.00 which records in HD, a little better video than my MSN webcam. It writes great and looks nice too, I forget it’s in pocket sometimes.

So we can have mini cams too.

I live in California, which is a 2 party consent state, so this is what I think about cops in CA recording me in public, while doing their job. Good!

I think it will help to highlight the wiretapping BS thing that cops love to pull on us in public situations. Eventually, a cop that is wearing and taping a public encounter will hassle a private citizen for doing the same thing.

Uh Oh! What happens then? “You are under arrest for filming me without my consent and I will use my own camera that taped YOU without YOUR consent to prove it in court.”

I think the first time this glaring contradiction comes out in a court of law will shine a sun-bright spotlight on how cops are misinterpreting the law when they are filmed, yet “ignoring” the law when they are doing the filming.

On that note, I’d encourage photographers that see cops IN PUBLIC with these cameras to start filming them and see what happens. Some of us may have to take one for the team, but it would be a small price to pay.
Rob recently posted..Technomania Circus Time Travel Show

I think CA Wiretapping Law is just creating job opportunity for lawyers. CA citizens are trapped!

I think this is a very good idea. All officers should be required to have one and have it running whenever he is working with the data av able to all involved. At the end of shift the content would be down loaded and held for an extended time.

125$ is way over priced as we all know.
I want to see a law requiring video of all interactions with the public. I think the video should be publicly available (website probably) with no subpoena required.

Also if an officer dose not have his name number and video camera visible and running they are not an officer and are guilty of impersonating an officer and there should be a reward payed by the cop not the tax payers.

To me this would salve 99% of the problems i have with the cops.

Excellent idea, after all it’s the cop beating up an innocent citizen, not the tax payers.

I like it. Belling the cat.

Believe it or not, alot of folks actually make false complaints against the police. So, yeah, the police need to protect themselves. I’ve had it happen and it is a real pain in the ass. Once there was a nearby security camera that caught the incident. I was cleared and the guy was filed on for filing a false report. The second one didn’t have any video so it took a while to complete the investigation and I was cleared. However the guy wasn’t filed and I was told they only do that when the incident is recorded and it totally contradicts the complaint.

I think video is a good thing as long as folks try to educate themselves about police tactics and understand that police sometimes have to use force and it isn’t always pretty. It is worrisome when a video is shown of an officer using force and everyone freaks out even though the force was totally justified based on the totality of the situation. Maybe more video would help educate the public?

Yes, this is part of the problem, at least 75% of the time a complaint against an officer is false. It is a common tactic on the part of criminals and lawyers to try confuse, to possibly create doubt and through a case. This where a video/audio recorder is of great use, it can show the truth, no mater what.

I am sure that officers get a large number of false complaints against them, which doesn’t help when someone files a valid complaint without video/audio evidence. I am all for LEO’s recording their interactions with the public and suspects. But, if the video evidence suddenly goes “Missing” I would be in favor of ruling for the complaining party as a matter of law.

” I get complaints that come across my desk about one of our officers maybe having a bad day,” says Murphy.”

If that’s not sugar coating it, I don’t know what is… lol… Of course it sounds better than “I get complaints that come across my desk about one of our officers beating the holy fuck out of Joe Citizen”

At least it will make cops think twice about abusing their authority. I think the cameras are a good idea for everyone involved, including the officers.

These cameras can be turned on and off at the cop’s discretion. So they won’t do any good with cops’ bad behavior, they just turn them off when they get ready to rape your daughter. Nice try “chief” Schultz, you’ve proven that you “Know NOOOTHING!” I’m glad I live outside the city limits.

Yes, education would be good, but like I’ve said before, there’s very little effort on the part of law enforcement to do so. There’s much more effort made to harass people taking photographs or videos of cops.

This is a good idea all around though, it will protect citizens and cops alike. And that’s a win for everyone. The only caveat I have is that the videos should not be deletable/editable by the police departments themselves. They should be archived off-site, so that both the good and the bad is in there. If something looks improper to citizens then the police should explain why it isn’t, and you know, maybe the whole discussion will lead to better alternatives even. At the least it’ll serve to educate the public like JL keeps saying needs to be done. (Note I don’t disagree with this stance, I just don’t think most law enforcement _really_ cares about it, they prefer the easier method of not allowing citizens to monitor them.)

It is understood that the camera goes on at the start off shift and stays on through out. Nothing can be erased or altered, and it is downloaded and filed at shift end. Any failure to record or attempt to edit is a firring offense.

Well,

Shit cops can cover the camera lens with a tiny piece black tape, then commit illegal acts. Then the chief will come out with ………… oh my god, it was a technical problem!

Shit cops are always shit cops. Citizens should protect themselves with camera.

Roger: I’ll believe that when the first gets fired for it. And I mean Fired, not transferred a county over.

They’ve already proven they can get away with blanking recording devices. In the most blatant way when in an interrogation, the cop walked up to the camera, and turned it off. In the few minutes it was off, the suspect became subject to a gravity field stronger than Jupiter’s, hit her face on the table repeatedly, then fell onto the floor. No charges were filed, all he got was a slap on the wrist.

No one or thing is perfect and yes, the brass has to back it, but it is a start.

When there is damning tape, the cops camera magically “malfunctions”. This is tantamount to destruction of evidence. What JL doesn’t understand or accept is that it is a two way street. The videos need to be public for both party’s protection, not just the cop. It is when they have a video and refuse to release it that upsets the public and makes them want to record incidents on their own. If every single cop/citizen interaction was recorded and made public, everyone would be better off. If you have a problem with the public’s reaction to how the police are perceived in those videos JL, then take it up with the public, but don’t blame the guy video taping. He is not responsible for your public image.

On the upside, sometimes police body cameras serve to prove the case against them:

http://www.kccn.tv/

Wet to StuntCams and looked at the specs/features of the Scorpion:

“Automatically start recording when it senses a noise that is at least 65 decibels” … “Built-in Li rechargeable battery lasting for 1.5 hours” … “Includes a 2GB micro SD card” (which equals 1.5 hours of memory and is the same as total as battery time).

A decibel (loudness) comparison chart shows that normal conversation at 3′-5′ is 60-70db. I can see loopholes in the situation already.. so let’s play devils advocate here for a second.

Cop places the Scorpion next to their Motorola speaker/mike so that every time the system breakes carrier squelch it automatically records. Seeing they drive their squad/unit to work they use (let’s say) 15 – 20 minutes or so of wasted video time.

Now they get to station and before roll call they talk shop with the guys. During that time 20 or so more minutes is wasted B.S. of the automatic video recording.

Now comes roll call.. and afterwords the shift commander asks them about something that happened in their sector during their last shift. Between the two situations, there’s another 10, 15, 20 minutes of wasted automatic video recording.

Now we’re between 45 minutes to 1 hour or so of wasted (how to cover your butt by using up memory and battery time) video recording.

If they think about it (and do it right) they can make sure most of their recording memory and battery time is all used up before they even start off their shift.

That doesn’t take into account how are they going to recharge the1.5 hour internal battery while on duty.. are they going to have to carry several memory cards and replace them as each one fills up per shift.. what’s to prevent a memory card or two from conveniently being lost at the appropriate moment (or what’s to say it isn’t replaced with one they supplied)?

I could bring up many more questions.. but at least this should start one thinking.

Rail Car Fan

It’s either a first amendment right or it’s not. If it is, then the police get to do it too. If it’s not then… well this whole site would be kind of pointless.

The “head-mounted cameras” link is a 404 right now.

and it even has a kickass name… The Scorpion!

“at least 75% of the time a complaint against an officer is false”

I’d like to see some data substantiating this statistic.

A lot of you guys are mixing these cheap cameras up with the expensive Taser ones. Yes, the Taser models do have extensive tamper resistant design and nearly impossible for a cop to hack. The cheap ones can be turned on and off at will, use micro SD cards, and can be hacked easily. That’s why they are cheap, you get what you pay for.

One problem is, most of the cops are the same bullies and jerks we went to high school with. Twelve weeks of “academy” and now we have bozos with badges. The German Poliezi have a lot more discretionary power but their academy is three years… most of the numbnut cops here wouldn’t make it through a program like that.

Carlos

Keep fighting the good fight.

I have no problem with police officers recording every second of their activities / stops/ investigations, because I think it would cut down on false arrests and bring a bit more sunshine to the process of prosecuting criminals.

Police officers do a thankless and dangerous job, however, that should not give them unfettered discretion to bother citizens who believe in “transparency” in our criminal justice system.

The only drawback I see is that many prosecutors’ cases will collapse during discovery or at trial, so the conviction rates will be lower. In a numbers driven system (how many convictions the prosecutor’s office gets) this does not bode well for re-election. But maybe, just maybe, cop cams will force state attorneys like Satz in Broward to stop arresting and prosecuting innocent men and women.

Taser has a product that it is marketing to police agencies, called the Axon. It’s a camera-recording device that uploads it’s data into a server for later review by administrators, attorneys and even jurors, if necessary. http://taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERAXON.aspx

Move SF Bay Area coverage for local police equipping themselves with video cameras:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/27/MNGI1EID8S.DTL