Slashdot Mirror
Cop Fakes Body Cam Footage, Prosecutors Drop Drug Charges (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Prosecutors in Pueblo, Colorado are dropping felony drug and weapon-possession charges after an officer involved in the case said he staged body cam footage so he could walk "the courts through" the vehicle search that led to the arrest. The development means that defendant Joseph Cajar, 36, won't be prosecuted on allegations of heroin possession and of unlawful possession of a handgun. The evidence of the contraband was allegedly found during a search of Cajar's vehicle, which was towed after he couldn't provide an officer registration or insurance during a traffic stop. Officer Seth Jensen said he found about seven grams of heroin and a .357 Magnum in the vehicle at the tow yard. But the actual footage of the search that he produced in court was a reenactment of the search, the officer told prosecutors.
This bent copper is going to the clink for attempting to pervert the course of justice, right?
Lol :(
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If the court knew it was a reenactment then that's one thing, but if the officer attempted to pass-off the footage as legitimate then he needs to be found in-contempt.
Has making false statements to police ever been used against the police? Seems that it should qualify if an officer lies about the circumstances in official reports.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Overreaching courts again making it difficult for our brave heroes to do their job. Sad! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
#DeleteChrome
Has making false statements to police ever been used against the police? Seems that it should qualify if an officer lies about the circumstances in official reports.
Fuck the reports, isn't it an outright felony to lie under oath in court? I know that it is for a Senate inquiry, what is the exact charge for this in a federal court? Perjury? Evidence tampering?
If I was a judge and anyone (defense, prosecution, cops) tried this sort of shit in my court, I would go medieval on their ass...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
So, the cop offered the "fake" video to a judge to get an arrest warrant but when it came to trial it became clear the video was a "re-enactment" of the original event? I think that is what the article is trying to tell me.
While this seems to be a dirty trick on the judge to get the arrest warrant it does not seem the officer actually lied during the trial. Seems to me that the officer tried to let everyone assume the video was what happened in real time but when actually cornered and asked about it he was honest about the re-enactment.
Perhaps what the officer said was true, that there was a firearm and drugs in the car, but failing to have the camera on when conducting the search created enough of a doubt that the footage was inadmissible. It seems to me that the only person that knows if this is planted evidence or not is the officer. Had the technology not existed to record the event as it happened the suspects would likely be in jail right now. Since the ability to record video in real time existed, and the cop did something suspicious with the technology, the suspects are now free.
I'm not sure this meets the test of "news for nerds" since the technological aspect is pretty small, IMHO. It's just another case of a cop not handling evidence by the book so the suspects are off the hook. Sounds a lot like when I was in college and read an article about an officer that put the wrong date on all the parking tickets he wrote that day so all of them were considered invalid. The scale of the offense is different of course, this was a case of multiple felonies and not something that would be punished with "$50 fine and time served" but even little mistakes can mean people walk away.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Why would the body camera be turned off in the first place? If they're used for accountability, then the officer should not have the ability to turn it off short of a hammer.
This story typifies what is wrong with policing in the US.
1) The cop did not plan on doing anything wrong, criminal, evil or stupid. He did what he did with the best of intentions (as evidence by the fact that he told the truth when questioned about it.)
2) The cop was so ignorant, so arrogant, so focused on getting the arrest, that he did not know it was wrong, why it was wrong, and probably still does not understand the principle (but I bet he knows not to do that exact same thing again.)
3) No real change will happen. They won't teach that cop, or other cops that "your job is NOT to get a conviction, but aid civilans, and honestly report what happened." They won't change the culture of being "in charge" rather than "of service". They will continue using the Dirty Harry (mean, angry, takes no crap, there to kill the bad guy) stereotype rather than the Columbo stereotype (self effacing, polite, there to ask questions)
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Officer said he searched car, then turned on body cam to recreate it for "the courts."
What I want to hear is the explanation for why he turned it off in the first place. I'm sure it's total bullshit but I still want to hear the lie.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
That's why the cameras should be on at all times during the cops shift - including breaks. Turning it off should be a criminal offense subject to immediate dismissal.
And when that hapoens unicorns will fly out if my ass.
It was all proceeding so well, until they saw the actor Bryan Cranston acting the role of the suspect
except to deceive the jury. Any defense attorney, no matter how green will know that and get the video tossed. The point of a "reenactment" isn't to be illustrative, it's to paint a certain emotional picture to swing the jury to your side despite the evidence.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Police routinely verbally reenact, in the court, what happened.
Cops do NOT remember what happened, they use their written report to replay events in their mind and then testify. Since the report itself is usually a police centered view (ie, what makes the suspect look bad) so the verbal testimony is two steps away from the literal truth. That's why cops hate video, it exposes the lies in police reports and keeps them from fluffing up the truth even more when testifying.
If you don't think cops lie about what they claim they saw or did, it just takes one experience with a lying cop to realize you were mistaken. Cops fabricate what happened, no cop should be permitted to testify based on a written report. If a cop only remembers what was in the written report, their testimony should be chucked.
Video/audio but no more of the "He was resisting because I say so" BS.
I all for getting the bad hombres off the streets but if you have to lie to do it become a politician not a cop.
The first (and biggest) question is why did the officer feel the need to reenact the search of the vehicle in the first place if he was wearing a body cam at the time of the original search. To me it sounds like he performed the original search with the camera not rolling (which is a big problem if body cams are standard issue in that department), and then went "whoops, I had my camera off when I found that great evidence, and it would have looked SOOO good in court against this guy, that I must now re-do my search, but with the camera rolling...".
The body cam should have been recording during the original search. If police want to have body cams to exonerate themselves, and to use as evidence in court as "testimony", then they need to be rolling during the original encounter, otherwise juries are only getting an edited and redacted version of events.
What's next, is he going to ask that a suspect help him reenact the chase and resisting arrest event after the fact if he forgets to record the original too? "now mr. bad guy, if I remember correctly, you ran, and I tackled you, then you resisted, and I beat the crap out of you until half a dozen other officers came and joined in... ready? Lights! Camera! ACTION!".
I'd be happy with the following setup:
If the police vehicle has a dash cam, then while in the vehicle, the body cam is off. When the officer exits the vehicle, the body cam automatically turns on. Use RFID or something to detect if they're in the vehicle or not.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
I understand that nobody can read any more. But you have to show them a video because they don't understand "First, I opened the right front door and looked under the seat. Then I opened the glove box and I found ..."?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Neither possession should be a crime anyway... Free citizens of a free country ought to be able to poison themselves with whatever substances they please. And the gun? Hello? The Bill of Rights?
If these things are illegal in the first place — without anybody protesting loudly — protesting minute details (like the original search vs. reenactment) seems kinda silly... If the government is allowed to violate the Second Amendment — with about 50% of the populace enthusiastically cheering it on — why is there such outrage, when the Fourth is violated?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Is there anything in the body cam video that can be used to authenticate it?
Reminds me of "Strange Brew"...
For the benefit of the court, would you please explain 'time code'?
> That's why the cameras should be on at all times during the cops shift - including breaks
NO NO NO. They should NOT be run in the bathroom!
The officer should not have the option of turning the body cam on and off. To prevent (or at least make it more complicated to pull off successfully) things like this.
Jensen replied back, saying, "For the search, the body cam shows different than the report because it was. Prior to turning my body cam on I conducted the search. Once I planted the evidence, I stepped back, called (a fellow officer), then activated my body cam and walked the courts through it."
... news at 11.
The big thing there is the 2.5 hours of recording time. You have any device that you have to have hanging around you all day and ready at a moment's notice, you aren't going to risk getting too close to running out of power at a critical point.
The battery pack, if the department even springs for it, will be inconvenient, and thus forgotten in moments of stress or preoccupation, and thus useless.
This leaves turning the thing on and off at regular intervals, occasionally having it in the wrong state at the wrong time, possibly having run out of juice because of that.
Add: the impound yard is not a place you'd expect to have to be recording. And if there was nothing in the car, you'd be wasting the battery (and the time to sort through the footage) if there was nothing in the car.
Perfect conditions for "oh, shit, I should have had the camera running" moments.
I hate to excuse cops for not having their camera on when they should, ... but I can understand the mechanics behind it.
The problem, as with other cop shows of the 70s...
through 80s, is that most people didn't pay attention to when the 'good cops' followed the law, at what points they went 'off the book' (usually during a controversial case where people higher up the law enforcement/political food chain were perverting the law and had something procedural that would usually be considered minor, but was enough for disiplinary action, or was a false accusation by another 'trusted' but corrupt member of law enforcement.) Additionally as others stated, in Dirty Harry's case specificially, he always followed the law. Where things got questionable was that he often got involved in sudden and violent confrontations (sometimes part of the case he was following, other times just coincidence of time and location) with people who couldn't be reasoned with. Much of the flak he got from higher ups in the movies could in fact have been proven correct given body cams (as a movie we had his justification on tape, however the actual oversight bodies within the fictional framework did not. For them even if it was justified they had no proof to conclusively derive that he had acted justly. And excessive force doesn't look very different from subjective force without omniscient oversight.)
Having said that, the 90s through today have put a lot more 'movie cops' into moralistic grey areas, and justified means of illegal action to beat/catch/convict the bad guys. Usually only because we *KNOW* they were bad guys, but a result of this is the same mentality becoming justified more often by regular cops as the partial eye of public opinion shines light into the injustices common, uncommon, and mundane that happen by way of law enforcement on a daily basis. Some may be in service of the community, but many are mercurial, punitive, or personal in nature.
I'm not sure. If the camera footage is encrypted and can only be decrypted by a court order then I think the cameras could be left on from the start of the shift to the end.
Did the cop watch the Minority report movie?
Some may be in service of the community, but many are mercurial, punitive, or personal in nature.
We need to git them out. This is a rational clear case of subversion of the system. We have a vesta interest in preventing it with great veracity. That it continues is bazaar.
My wife and I once lived in Pueblo, Colorado. This was a decade and a half ago, but I suspect the police department has not ethically improved. We actually left the town because we decided living there would be too much of a legal risk. Basically, the cops lie. They say whatever they feel would make their case, and people go the jail frequently for fake charges.
We were victims of the police to a (legally) minor degree. We only suffered misdemeanors, but we could see how the same policing technique could be used for felonies.
OTOH, it's a super nice town. Apart from the cops, the people are honest and very friendly.
(||) Nehmo (||)
This officer was just presenting Alternative Facts, Ok?
In fact he was *helping* the court by showing an example of a vehicle search. It could have been the same vehicle the suspect was driving. All vehicle searches look the same anyway, so what does it matter?
This officer is being unfairly treated by the Crooked Media !
If it's truly a matter of battery-life or recording capacity then there is a technological update that needs to be made. Purpose built hardware like this should be able to record 24 hours of video without interruption.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Under the contract, these are safety assessments not searches, and estoppel or seizure is abbreviated to the same because that has nothing todo with public right of (public) vehicular travel.
The statute brings into focus carriers that dont own their load or property being transported, and differentiates the driver or trafcker as someone who may be a servant, yet it paves the.way for regulators later. The DMV regulations dispense a driver license so a person may introduce theirself in any dispute as a federally employed person in Service transporting cargo or passengers fore hire or compensation or profit: the regulations proposture everobe holding that sealed legal document from the DMV as a regulated common carrier.
I did all the legal study for you. Rights are not privileges. Rights supplementes by the State or any of it's agencies, are conditioned into privilege Servile manners of conduct. A certificate of title distances itself as a deed and not a muniment like a receipt or sale bill. Vehicles registered means they are bwing used for privileged purposes (commerce) on the public road.
Key search "all roads are open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel." Converting a right into a privilege is a crime, is an arrestable offense, but nobody cares just like Sandy Hook never happened and Pizzagate and Epstein Island dont exist.
Just in case the officer accidentally drops 10k in cash out of his pocket when searching the car, he doesn't want to have to prove that it wasn't his already.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Hanging around the impound lot may not be somewhere that you'd expect to want keep records, but conducting a search that you may expect to present in court should seem important enough to record.
Anyway, if fixing the 2.5 hour record time is infeasible for whatever silly reason, then the cop cars and the stations need to have readily available chargers so that they're not limited to 2.5 hours of recordings per shift. Record the search, then plug the camera in while you drive away from the impound lot.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.