The Great Police Work Thread

[Cotton]

It amazes me that some police officers still have this mindset that they should be allowed to go unchecked, and that body cams are bad thing. I just had a short debate/discussion with a co-worker who's a full time cop and reservist in the military about this topic.

His arguments were that the body cams interfere with their ability to do tactical debriefs, the 30 second delays, and how the cams change your normal behavior because you know you're being recorded.

I brought up the several instances where cops were caught falsifying reports and planting evidence thanks to body cam footage. I also pointed out how if not for that video footage it would be a case of "he said, she said", and we all know that the average citizen is not getting the benefit of the doubt in those situations.

Scary how some of them have this mindset that their personal comfort should trump accountability.

Body cams are the answer. If you don't want to wear one, you are most likely part of the issue.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Body cams are the answer. If you don't want to wear one, you are most likely part of the issue.

Reminds me of this whole thing going on in St. Louis right now.

County police officers cover surveillance cameras at MetroLink security office

Jul 22, 2017 (4)
The Post-Dispatch obtained this surveillance video from the security office at the North Hanley MetroLink station through an open-records request from Bi-State Development. It shows St. Louis County Police officers covering a security camera on July 4 and July 5. Metro Department of Public Safety Chief Richard Zott says he's aware of at least 8 such incidents in the North Hanley office.

 

[Cotton]

Reminds me of this whole thing going on in St. Louis right now.

County police officers cover surveillance cameras at MetroLink security office

Jul 22, 2017 (4)
The Post-Dispatch obtained this surveillance video from the security office at the North Hanley MetroLink station through an open-records request from Bi-State Development. It shows St. Louis County Police officers covering a security camera on July 4 and July 5. Metro Department of Public Safety Chief Richard Zott says he's aware of at least 8 such incidents in the North Hanley office.

Wow. That's not okay.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Wow. That's not okay.

The only reason to not want cameras around is because you're about to do something wrong.

 

[Cotton]

The only reason to not want cameras around is because you're about to do something wrong.

Yep. I'm a big proponent of body cams. So that we know exactly what happens instead of hearsay, as much as anything.

 

[peplaw06]

The only reason to not want cameras around is because you're about to do something wrong.

For police officers... yes. For your average joe citizen... no.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Yep. I'm a big proponent of body cams. So that we know exactly what happens instead of hearsay, as much as anything.

The great part is it goes both ways to help the officers as well. The video footage of people trying to claim police abuse of power when nothing is actually happening is great to watch as well.

 

[Cotton]

The great part is it goes both ways to help the officers as well. The video footage of people trying to claim police abuse of power when nothing is actually happening is great to watch as well.

Exactly my point. Which is why all cops that are already doing the right thing would want them in the worst way.

 

[Cotton]

For police officers... yes. For your average joe citizen... no.

I'm not following, I guess.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

For police officers... yes. For your average joe citizen... no.

Well yeah, everyone has a right to privacy in their personal life.

 

[peplaw06]

Exactly my point. Which is why all cops that are already doing the right thing would want them in the worst way.

I haven't heard any law enforcement group or lobby that has complained publicly about body cams. Everyone I've heard address the topic says they want the protection that the cameras provide them.

Some of them obviously say one thing and do another.... turning them off, of "forgetting" to turn them on. But I haven't seen any legit excuse for not wearing them.

 

[Cotton]

I haven't heard any law enforcement group or lobby that has complained publicly about body cams. Everyone I've heard address the topic says they want the protection that the cameras provide them.

Some of them obviously say one thing and do another.... turning them off, of "forgetting" to turn them on. But I haven't seen any legit excuse for not wearing them.

Yeah, you won't see a cop publicly say they don't want them. You might as well admit you're crooked. Agree that there are no legit excuses for not wearing them. If I were a cop, I damn sure would want one.

 

[townsend]

There needs to be strong consequences for officers disabling their cameras. Every second a cop's on duty there should be recording of, and if they come back with less than that, then they should be written up, if they come back with missing footage from a use of force, then they should be prosecuted for destroying evidence.

 

[Cotton]

There needs to be strong consequences for officers disabling their cameras. Every second a cop's on duty there should be recording of, and if they come back with less than that, then they should be written up, if they come back with missing footage from a use of force, then they should be prosecuted for destroying evidence.

Agreed.

 

[townsend]

Agreed.

 

[townsend]

Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said Wednesday there was “no doubt” that illegal drugs were legitimately recovered in two criminal cases that were dropped by prosecutors amid questions surrounding officer body-camera footage.

Defense attorneys in both cases have alleged that the footage showed officers planting drugs.


Davis, who called a news conference Wednesday to discuss the cases, said it is the job of defense attorneys to raise doubt. But he warned that accusing officers of fabricating evidence is “a heavy allegation to make” and “irresponsible” before investigations into the footage are complete — even if the footage looks “ugly” on first impression.

“It would be premature of me to stand in front of you and reach a conclusion as to exactly what happened,” he said. “But I do know that it’s not healthy to jump to a conclusion that police officers did something criminal.


“In both of these cases, it’s no doubt that drugs were recovered and the recovery of those drugs were captured on body-worn cameras. There’s no doubt that that took place in either case. There’s no doubt that probable cause existed for arrest.”


“Let’s wait to see all the evidence before charging someone with felonies that carry 20 years in prison,” Levi said. “What is the excuse for them rushing to judgment, and then looking backward and dropping charges seven months later?”

In the first video, recorded in January and released by the public defender’s office last month, a police officer can be seen placing a bag of alleged drugs in a debris-strewn back yard, walking to the street, activating his body camera — which automatically saved footage of the 30 seconds prior to activation — and then walking back into the alley and recovering the bag.

The public defender’s office said the video showed the officer planting the bag of drugs.

The second video, released Tuesday, shows officers conducting a search of a vehicle and finding nothing in the front driver’s side area of the car. Then, about 30 minutes later, it shows an officer leaning down into the same area of the vehicle and back up with a bag of alleged drugs.

The public defender’s office and Josh Insley, a private attorney for a woman arrested in that incident, said the video showed officers manipulating evidence. Shamere Collins, the woman who was arrested, said the drugs were planted in her vehicle by police.

Prosecutors dropped the charges against Collins Monday. She has said she will pursue her legal options against the Police Department.

Insley on Wednesday said he and his client “understand that there is an internal affairs investigation going on” and are “content to let the investigation play out.”

The Police Department has launched investigations into both incidents. Officials said they have suspended one officer and placed two others on administrative duty pending the outcome in the first case. No officers have had their status changed in relation to the second.

The police union has cautioned against reaching conclusions in the cases before the investigations are complete.

Police have said they are investigating whether the officers were “re-enacting” a legitimate discovery of drugs that had been made when their cameras were not activated as they should have been. On Tuesday, Davis issued a memo reminding all officers to keep their body cameras on at all times at a crime scene or conducting an investigation, and warning that “under no circumstances” should they “attempt to recreate the recovery of evidence.”

Levi, the public defender, said Davis should simply admit the officers’ actions in the videos are unacceptable no matter what the explanation, rather than pretending to be neutral in the discussion while offering a theory that they weren’t planting evidence but re-creating its discovery.

“Is he not jumping to conclusions by inserting this ‘re-creation of evidence’ language?” she asked.

Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby has begun dropping criminal cases against dozens of defendants whose prosecutions hinged on the testimony of the officers in the videos.

Mosby’s office said it has dropped or will drop 41 felony drug and gun cases against defendants that rely on the testimony of the officers in the first video. She said 55 cases remain under review, and 27 will move forward on the strength of independent, corroborative evidence.

Mosby’s office has dropped five cases that rely on the testimony of the officers featured in the second video, and sought postponements in two others.

Her office did not respond to questions on Wednesday.

Davis stopped short of criticizing Mosby for dropping the cases.

“In her opinion, the best of interest of justice compelled her to make the decision that she made, and I completely respect that decision,” Davis said.

But he acknowledged that he hates “when a criminal case has to be dropped because of real or perceived concerns about a police officer’s credibility,” in part because he believes some of the people whose cases have been dropped will likely return to the street to commit additional crimes.

“God forbid that they hurt somebody,” Davis said. “That’s what I worry about.”

The pace of violence in the city this year is breaking records. Two hundred and six people had been killed in Baltimore in 2017, the most ever recorded at this point in the year.

Since spring 2016, when the Police Department began rolling out body cameras, officers have recorded 121,000 hours of footage, Davis said. The cameras are part of a broader reform effort mandated by a consent decree between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice. The sides negotiated the decree after Justice Department investigators found widespread unconstitutional and discriminatory policing in the city — and particularly in its poor, predominantly black neighborhoods.

Police have sustained 14 administrative misconduct cases against officers based on body-camera footage, Davis said. One officer was indicted on criminal assault charges based on body-camera footage, he said.

Another 62 officers have received administrative reprimandeds based on lesser infractions revealed by body-camera footage, he said.

Much other body-camera footage has shown officers acting bravely and for the benefit of the community, he said. Still other footage shows officers simply getting used to the new technology.

“We just have to have a frank conversation with the community that we are still in the midst of growing pains,” he said.

 

[fortsbest]

There needs to be strong consequences for officers disabling their cameras. Every second a cop's on duty there should be recording of, and if they come back with less than that, then they should be written up, if they come back with missing footage from a use of force, then they should be prosecuted for destroying evidence.

No, every second should not be recorded. Every second on call or dealing with the public, I could agree with. Just as you wouldn't want every second of every day you worked recorded either.

 

[townsend]

No, every second should not be recorded. Every second on call or dealing with the public, I could agree with. Just as you wouldn't want every second of every day you worked recorded either.

I'll claim a little hyperbole. I don't expect them to record doing paperwork or take a trip to the toilet. Maybe while they're patroling, and aren't on break. I'm not well enough versed in the police work schedule to dictate. My concern is footage of an altercation being lost because someone doesn't have their camera on.

So if there was an easy way to say you should have a certain number of minutes of footage, and be able to check that without someone having to watch all of it. That way there's a simple system of accountablity.

I think the goal is for it not to be acceptable to "forget" to record an interaction. Like losing your gun levels of unacceptable. No one wants decent cops to be punished for making simple human mistakes, so an accountability system is the best way to make the people intentionally turning off their cameras stand out.

 

[fortsbest]

latest technology in cameras has numerous triggering events that will initiate recording automatically, not only from an individual officer's cam, but from those within a certain distance as well. It's coming, but not here yet. I counsel my officers that it's best just to turn the camera on as soon as you get out of the car to deal with someone because if the stuff starts flying, you won't have time, or remember to do it. So it's getting to the point that every single contact will be recorded, but it isn't there yet.
events like, getting out of the car, pulling the taser, pulling the gun etc.

 

[townsend]

latest technology in cameras has numerous triggering events that will initiate recording automatically, not only from an individual officer's cam, but from those within a certain distance as well. It's coming, but not here yet. I counsel my officers that it's best just to turn the camera on as soon as you get out of the car to deal with someone because if the stuff starts flying, you won't have time, or remember to do it. So it's getting to the point that every single contact will be recorded, but it isn't there yet.
events like, getting out of the car, pulling the taser, pulling the gun etc.

That's really cool. I know we disagree a lot on politics, but I have no doubt that you do your job very well.