Slashdot Mirror


LA Police Officers Suspected of Tampering With Their Monitoring Systems

An anonymous reader writes "An internal audit conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in March revealed that 'dozens of the [voice] transmitters worn by officers in Southeast Division were missing or damaged.' In the summer of 2013, this same division was found to have mysteriously lost 45% of the antennae placed on their cars to pick up the signals sent by their voice transmitters. The Southeast Division of the LAPD covers an area that has 'historically been marred by mistrust and claims of officer abuse.' For decades, the LAPD had been closely monitored by the U.S. Department of Justice, but a federal judge in 2013 decided to end that practice after being assured by the LAPD and city officials that the LAPD sufficiently monitors itself via dash-cams and voice transmitters. A formal investigation is currently being conducted to determine whether or not police officers intentionally subverted mandatory efforts to monitor and record their patrols."

15 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For any officer found with damaged or missing recording equipment, suspend without pay or confine to desk jockey. Unacceptable to claim equipment is broken or doesn't work so the policy goes to the wayside.

    1. Re:Easy fix by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just deduct the repair bill from their pay. They'll soon start working.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Easy fix by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For any officer found with damaged or missing recording equipment, suspend without pay or confine to desk jockey. Unacceptable to claim equipment is broken or doesn't work so the policy goes to the wayside.

      I'd throw tampering and obstruction charges in on the second offense.

      If anything, cops need to be held to the letter of the law more strictly than those of us who are not tasked with enforcing it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Easy fix by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just deduct the repair bill from their pay. They'll soon start working.

      Seems like it would be more effective if judges held police responsible for proper functioning of their recording devices, and gave the benefit of the doubt to those that accuse the police of wrongdoing when the mandated surveillance equipment that could prove the allegations was mysteriously "out of order".

    4. Re:Easy fix by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While I would normally agree here, we are talking about the people who sign up and take an oath to uphold the law....laws which they are clearly breaking by damaging public property. Worst, they are doing so with the intention of obstructing their own job of collecting evidence of crimes to present to the court. So in fact, they are obstructing justice, destroying property, and possibly breaking several other statutes at the same time.

      This is nothing other people wouldn't be charged with for destroying police equipment willfully. I garauntee you if I took one of these devices and damaged it so it didn't work, I would be charged with all that and more.

      So the reality is...in NOT charging them, the law is being applied differently.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  2. Convenient malfunctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone remember the police beating case in Maryland where the dash cams of ALL SEVEN police cars on the scene simultaneously malfunctioned? Accountability is not a thing many officers appreciate.

    1. Re:Convenient malfunctions by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anyone remember the police beating case in Maryland where the dash cams of ALL SEVEN police cars on the scene simultaneously malfunctioned?

      No ... and a Google search turns up nothing. Can you provide a reference?

      Here's a reference:

      http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&s...

      Seven cars responded, all required to have dashcams, yet somehow no dashcam footage of the incident was available.

      And here's an article with links to other cases where police video disappeared:

      http://www.theagitator.com/201...

      And I found it with my first Google search for

  3. Data mining to find the culprits? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if the damage was reported and tracked over time, and if you could correlate this with who was assigned the equipment immediately prior? The results would probably paint a good heat map against the list of officers as to what subset was behind the damage.

  4. Re:Nobody should be constantly monitored by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody should be constantly monitored. Be that at work or in private.

    That's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a totalitarian state or the US.

    Society allows police officers to use violence against members of society. They are supposed to only use that privilege under certain circumstances, but many officers have already demonstrated poor judgement and used violence when they should not of used it. The point of these cameras is to provide a control against people who can legally assault the public (police officers) as well as give officers a defense if they are ever accused of using violence inappropriately. This monitoring is necessary because police have already shown themselves to be irresponsible. Any police officer that is intentionally interfering with the recordings should be charged with destruction of evidence.

  5. Re:How would you like it? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How would you like to have your every move and word recorded and transmitted by your employer every second of every working day?

    Nothing about my day job provides for use of force, arrest, and charging people with criminal acts which could lead to their incarceration.

    Given the history of abuses from the LAPD (and lots of other PDs) ... the stakes are much higher, and we've passed the point where we can just assume all police are honest.

    So, you'll forgive me if I don't go all "boo hoo" about the level of tracking being applied to them. We see plenty enough stories which indicate cops can often have very little regard (or understanding) of the law.

    Quite frankly, I don't believe there's enough tracking of police officers.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Re:The simple solution is make them document it by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is possible people are vandalizing the cars

    Sure, but... "new rules were put in place requiring officers to document that both antennas were in place at the beginning and end of each shift. To guard against officers removing the antennas during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks on cars."

    "Since the new protocols went into place, only one antenna has been found missing,"

    As soon as it became likely that the vandalism be caught, the vandalism suddenly dropped to almost zero despite the fact that only the officers knew of the change.

    So no... it's not possible that the public is vandalizing the cars.

  7. Re:Asinine by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't do my job "under the color of authority". If you have special legal privileges that the common man does not, additional oversight becomes appropriate, where it wouldn't be for the common man. Corruption matters more.
     

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  8. Re:Asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?

    1) Lots of people do already. For instance, call center employees.
    2) While not necessarily at the 'recording every word' level, many more jobs have constant surveillance. Cashiers, for example, almost always have a camera pointed at them. Perhaps it's video only, but not always.
    3) The police have the power to arrest you, injure you (if they claim it was necessary), even KILL you. What were the words of Uncle Ben? "With great power comes great responsibility". We need to hold the police greatly responsible for their actions.

  9. Re:Asinine by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Its not every word that is recorded. The recorder activates when they engage the sirens. They are only recorded in the process of doing their jobs.

  10. It's a job, not private life by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't surveillance of a private individual; this is monitoring the performance of someone doing their job; a job they are paid to do, a job they can opt out of, a job they have incurred obligations with regard to. It's perfectly legitimate.

    Further, these people are given extraordinary power over citizens; the saw "with great power comes great responsibility" pretty much covers why monitoring them makes good sense from the citizen's POV. Even if we didn't know these particular officers have demonstrated that their cadre is well supplied with lawbreakers, and that more generally, they all are dishonest enough to observe the "thin blue line", it would still make sense to monitor them, just for their own assurance that specious claims against them could trivially be refuted. The fact that these idiots are intentionally killing that benefit by incapacitating the monitoring capability is a strong indicator as to why they're doing it: Almost certainly, something else is going on they are afraid will be seen -- add their known history of malfeasance, and we've got good reason to insist those cameras and audio recorders run though the entire shift, on every individual.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.