home

Squad Car Cameras Revisited

By TChris, Section Misconduct
Posted on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 06:52:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Apropos of the rhetorical question asked in this post -- "why isn't every squad car in America equipped with a dashboard video camera?" -- here is a possible answer:

Two Peoria police officers have been arrested in connection with the 2008 beating of a man who claims he was pepper sprayed, kicked, punched and shocked with a stun gun following a police chase that was videotaped by a squad car camera. ... Peoria County State's Attorney Kevin Lyons, who decided to pursue the case after seeing the videotape, said the recording shows Bryce Scott stopped running and cooperated before the officers allegedly beat him.

The officers apparently forgot that the squad car video camera was still operating.

< No Federal Death Trial for Brian Nichols | An Inflation Threat? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Squad Car Cameras Revisited | 9 comments (9 topical)
    On a related subject (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 07:48:38 AM EST
     In this day and age there should be a requirement that most statements by an accused be recorded and preserved in order to be admissible. Only if the prosecution could show compelling exigencies (e.g. a statement blurted out by a suspect when physically apprehended after a foot chase) should statements be admitted in court if the there is not a recording of the statement verifying what was said and the circumstances in which the statement was made.

    i wouldn't go betting the (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    I have no doubt, had they been able to actually watch what happened, the outcome would have been much different.

    rent money on that. after all, had they found him guilty, no doubt every cop in denver would have resigned that very instant, and the city wouldn't have been able to hire anyone for the job. at least, that's what we're constantly threatened with, by the police unions.

    not only should every police car have a video camera installed, if it isn't turned on whenever that officer stops someone, there should be an automatic presumption of innocence, and the case summarily dismissed. if not, i guarantee those cams will be constantly suffering from "technical" malfunctions.

    same goes for videoing police interrogations: no film, no evidence.

    it's the only way to be sure.

    I will bet.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 11:34:43 AM EST
    ...that the civil trial goes differently and the taxpayers of Denver are stuck with yet another multi-million dollar settlement to pay.  

    Meanwhile this "public servant" remains on the streets.  

    These two officers, both of whom were at the scene, looked the jurors in the eyes and swore under oath that Porter jumped up and down on the boy's back, turning his insides to virtual mush.

    "Officer Porter grabs hold of the fence with both hands," Officer Luis Rivera, who was partnered with Porter that night, testified. "He jumps up, raises his knees and lands with both feet on the kid's back."

    He then demonstrated the jumping to the jury, the loud thud of each jump reverberating through the courtroom.

    Back in their squad car, Rivera said he questioned Porter as to why he jumped on the kid. "Officer Porter said, 'I don't know why I do that. It's just something I do lately. I guess I just like the way they sound.' "



    Parent
    the column (none / 0) (#9)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 11:45:22 AM EST
     says the city already settled the civil claims for $1 million. I don't know about Colorado but where I practice that represents the policy limits per party carried by municipalities. It sounds as if the city was eager to settle in exchange for a release from liability over and above coverage.

    Parent
    And? (none / 0) (#10)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    The fact remains that the city is out a million bucks (plus administrative costs) that it can ill afford and this preditor is still out on the streets.

    Parent
    I wasn't (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 01:11:04 PM EST
     attempting to imply anything beyond that the city's lawyer were likely very eager to settle the case.

    Parent
    Let's not get carried away (none / 0) (#8)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 11:36:37 AM EST
      Cruiser-cams are not a panacea. A lot of the action doesn't take place conveniently in front of the windshield of a police car.

      Recording interrogations is an entirely different situation because it usually takes place in a controlled setting of the choice of the police.

      The cars should be equipped and using some stimulus money to help budget strapped jurisdictions pay for them is a fine idea, but conditioning admissibility testimony relating to  events on the availability of a video record is anworkanble idea.

    Parent

    Most of the police I know (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    would be willing to do so, cpvina.

    Because most are decent folks, trying to do a job.

    Sure wish there would have been... (none / 0) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    ...a squad car camera to capture this no doubt highly disturbing event:

    Cop walks as child wronged

    Pretty sad that the jury overlooked the testimony of two of this animals fellow officers and let him get off.  I have no doubt, had they been able to actually watch what happened, the outcome would have been much different.

    Squad Car Cameras Revisited | 9 comments (9 topical)