Police dash cams

[BerettaCougar]

So here are a few questions my coworkers and I went back and forth on all day.

1) Should police officers be forced by judicial mandate to wear a functional audio recording device on them while doing standard enforcement duties. The entire officers shift excluding breaks and lunch will be recorded. (excluding certain roles. Such as undercover work)

2) Should police officers not have the option to disable their dash cams?

3) Should police officers not have the option to disable audio recording devices in their patrol vehicles separate from the ones they carry on their body.

This video is what sparked the debate.

LiveLeak

Warning, some of the stuff in the video is kind of graphic.

[Brian Pfleuger]

In the litigious society which we "enjoy" today, the police should WANT to be recorded during the performance of their duties. The only ones that are going to be hurt by it, normally, are the bad cops.

[ScottRiqui]

While such constant surveillance would make it easier to identify and prosecute wrongdoing on the part of the officers, not everything that makes internal affairs' or the district attorney's jobs easier is necessarily a good idea.

After all, think how much easier it would be to investigate crime if we had 24/7 audio/video surveillance in all public areas?

I would answer "no" to the first question. For the second question, I could support a requirement to keep the dash cam running during traffic stops or during other interactions with the public.

For the third question, I would allow the officers to turn off the in-car recording devices while they're just driving around, not interacting with the public.

Remember, cops are civilians (and citizens), too.

[Conn. Trooper]

My camera has done nothing but saved me headaches. Courts love it, juries love it, I don't worry about false claims. I am all for cameras.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

My camera has done nothing but saved me headaches. Courts love it, juries love it, I don't worry about false claims. I am all for cameras.

Thank you, Sir. That immediately puts you over in the "good cop" column in my book.

And, to be honest, as a Texan who spent a lot of time in Connecticut and whose brother lives just a few miles from one of your barracks (in a house that previously belonged to a trooper, no less), it is rare for me to think of any Connecticut State Trooper as a good cop. Aside from the one who gave a newly-returned Vietnam veteran a break in 1968 and gave me a warning when I deserved a speeding ticket, almost every Connecticut State Trooper I have ever encountered has had a severe attitude problem. (My interactions have been administrative, a result of work. I am very much a straight arrow, not a wise guy, so when a trooper starts pulling attitude on me, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong ... and it ain't on my end.)

[Conn. Trooper]

Honestly, I think it's a matter of perception sometimes. Example, I stop a car for suspended registration. No insurance, plates are suspended. One of my favorite things to look for, person with no insurance hits you, you could be out a vehicle and medical bills if your insurance doesn't cover you. People in the car call their mother to come get them, wrecker comes for the car. Mom gets there and stops behind my car on the off ramp. I get out and tell her "Ma'am, please don't stop there, pull around in front of the wrecker so you are not blocking my lights." Not another word was said between her and I. Turns out she lives next door to my Sgt. She complains to him that I was rude to her. he asks me what happened and I explain the situation and we watch the tape from my camera. The camera faces forward but the audio is clear. Between us we couldn't figure out where she got the rude from. I said all of 8 words to her, didn't yell or curse at her, yet she honestly believed I was rude. Sgt. spoke to her the next night and asked what she thought was rude, she couldn't explain it, just said I was rude. And she was dead serious, not lying, not able to explain it, she thought I was rude. That may be her only contact with the State Police and she may now assume that we are all rude.

Later on in the week I stop for a disabled car. guy is on the cell phone. I tell him he needs to get off the highway, stopping is not allowed on state highways. Because I was outside with the cars and trucks wizzing past, I spoke loud enough for him to hear me. He is inside the car, drivers window up and he thought I was yelling at him. I explained that because I am outside where it is loud, I naturally speak louder so he can hear me over the traffic (kinda like I have noticed deaf people always speak loud because they can't hear themselves). He nods and says he understands, just seemed like I was yelling at him.

Just those two examples can explain that perceptions are not always reality. Are there guys on the job that should be painting houses or shearing sheep? Yes, but in my experience they are few and far between.

[dnr1128]

It has been my experience most of the time state troopers are professional and courteous. Both where I grew up, Ohio, and where I currently live, Mississippi, the state patrol troopers are well-trained and conduct themselves in a very professional fashion.

Now local cops are a total different story... if you're driving with our-of-state tags, you're more than likely gonna get stopped and quizzed about your recent life history.

LEOs are like every other profession; the vast majority are guys who do what they do because they love it and have chosen to stay in that job. Unfortunately, mixed in with them are a few jerks who get a power trip out of having a badge.

Having a dash cam is protection, not only for the officer, but I think it would also afford a measure of protection for the citizen as well, since it could be subpoenaed and used in court as evidence of misconduct on the part of the officer just as easily as it can be used against the citizen.

[KyJim]

My camera has done nothing but saved me headaches. Courts love it, juries love it, I don't worry about false claims. I am all for cameras.

I think cameras are great when making stops, performing arrests, etc. However, do you really want a video and audio recording of you the entire time you are on duty except for official breaks? Can you imagine having your every word and action recorded?

A couple of years ago in my state, a husband used the open records act to obtain every email between his wife and a boyfriend, even though the wife obviously never believed they would be public. I don't know if there were any salacious conversations, maybe just "meet you at noon" emails.

Frankly, I would not work for an employer where EVERYTHING was recorded. Too Orwellian for me.

[Edward429451]

In the digital age, memory is no big deal so it should be on 24/7 while the officer is in the vehicle on duty. It will work to protect the honorable officers, and work against the bad officers. If it was on 24/7 corruption on duty would be discouraged somewhat.

[Conn. Trooper]

My camera is over 10 years old and uses VHS tapes. I can't possibly use it all day every day. Since I take the car home and use it off duty I would go through 1000 tapes a year, and bankrupt the state. The camera goes on with my lights and I can switch it on if I need it. Thats he way I like it to work. 99% of the time I know I need it in plenty of time to turn it on.

They don't need a recording of me in the john, eating lunch, or talking to the wife on the phone. Nobodu wants to hear some of that anyway.

[ZCORR Jay]

An old room mate of mine was a Rochester city cop here i NY. Rochester can be a nasty violent little place where our boys in blue unfortunately cant do a simple traffic stop with out at least one other car with them. Use of force is common on a day to day basis but that's where these camera's pay off. You get some of societies finest making claims of excessive force but way more often than not the dash cams show that the force was justified.

[Edward429451]

Bankrupt the State LOL!! That's very funny. Maybe they could put in a digital unit to stave off the bankruptcy? Or are they too expensive too?

Nah 24/7, you might be ambushed as you come out of the can, plus we want to be sure you don't get into trouble with it off.

[rugerdawg]

I know for a fact that I would not want somebody scrutinizing every little thing I did at work or anywhere else for that matter. Talk about BIG BROTHER. Be real...turn it on when you need it...turn it off when you don't.

[maestro pistolero]

I know for a fact that I would not want somebody scrutinizing every little thing I did at work or anywhere else for that matter. Talk about BIG BROTHER. Be real...turn it on when you need it...turn it off when you don't.

WHAT? If BIG BROTHER has a presence on the ground, it IS law enforcement. I cannot imagine a profession where 24/7 video monitoring is more warranted than law enforcement.

[A/C Guy]

Are there guys on the job that should be painting houses or shearing sheep?

You owe an apology to sheep shearers everywhere.

[TheGoldenState]

1)No
2)No
3)No

[Nnobby45]

WHAT? If BIG BROTHER has a presence on the ground, it IS law enforcement. I cannot imagine a profession where 24/7 video monitoring is more warranted than law enforcement.

Bunk! If you want to bring up big brother, then monitoring law makers, judges, and elected politicians serving the people would be more appropriate. And why not all government employess as well? And, of course, you can't leave out the Big Brother military while serving in combat. And of course eyes should constantly be on Firemen to make sure they aren't enjoying themselves in the firehouse and we should also include...............ah jeez, the list is endless.

Civics lesson #1. The Police aren't BIG BROTHER. Those who'd monitor them, and eventually you and me, are BIG BROTHER.

Let's just turn it all into reality TV, where playing to the cameras has removed the "reality".

Anyone notice that when this subject comes up (which thankfully isn't oftern) it's always those on the socialist left, or who otherwise have a personal axe to grind with the Police who would restrict their actions beyond their capacity to do their jobs?

No, I'm not a cop and never have been. I just want them concentrating on their jobs, not a camera or microphone.

[Glenn Dee]

I think that police dash cam's are a good idea... that may need some adjustment. Of course I wouldnt want the dash-cam rolling as I went about normal business. But I would have liked the option to employ it when I need it. I also think it would be a good idea of the Camera activated upon activating the light bar. Then stayed on for 20 minutes after it was turned off.

Fully 75% of all police work is at the discretion of the individual officer. No police officer deserves to be watched, and recorded during the normal course of patrol. IMO 99 9/10th's % of all officers are honest, and truely mean well to all people. Sometimes these officers may use imaginative ways of controlling, or defusing as situation. Being recorded will certainly cause the officers to at least second guess themselves. I believe it would be unfair, and unproductive to hamstring these officers.

We have to be able to trust the police for this system to work. The alternative of police we can trust is a police state.

Glenn Dee

[Crosshair]

I know for a fact that I would not want somebody scrutinizing every little thing I did at work or anywhere else for that matter. Talk about BIG BROTHER. Be real...turn it on when you need it...turn it off when you don't.

Turn it on when you pull the person over, turn it off when you plant the drugs in their car. Turn it back on and "find" the drugs. One more car seized for the county auction.

The reason police need it is because of the power their wield,the power to arrest, the power to steal, and the power to kill. Their have special status in the courtroom and that power is abused often enough that anyone looking on soberly would see the need. No, I'm not saying all cops are bad, but enough are and there are also enough ban people out there who file false claims against cops that such a setup would be beneficial.

The office I work at has cameras in most of the offices. I'm moving around a lot so it helps the boss see where I am so he can get in touch with me. (Of course it's also there in case someone breaks into the office after hours or tries to get into our trucks outside. This isn't big brother. I'm on his time, not my own.

The worst thing my boss would find me doing with a camera on me while working is that I sometimes pre-date or post-date my lunch breaks, I tend to use a lot of electrical tape when pulling wire, and I sing along to Flogging Molly when driving to a job site.

Then look at the worst things cops have been discovered doing. I do cameras in jails and sometimes the staff is NOT happy about a camera getting put in a particular location. Most are very happy about having these obvious blind spots covered by cameras because it makes it all the easier when inmates pull stuff, but a few are not happy about this even though they should be. It makes you stop and wonder what goes on sometimes.

[RETG]

Wish I had on in the vehicle, but then, I don't pull people over and give them tickets, so unless I carried a button cam, it would be worthless.

But, I believe in this day-and-age, all marked police vehicles should have a cam and a wireless remote microphone to feed the digital video. Protects the police and the citizen.

[Conn. Trooper]

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?

[BillCA]

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. But to her, swearing is something that cops shouldn't do.

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.

[shortwave]

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...

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.

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').

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.

[Capt. Charlie]

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 .

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?

[shortwave]

Thank You Capt Charlie for that EXTRAORDINARY explanation of proper VICS operation.

Any questions?

Just one.
Is it or should it be illegal for a citizen to also tape a routine traffic stop?.