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.

Comments

so this bent copper

[serviscope_minor]

This bent copper is going to the clink for attempting to pervert the course of justice, right?

Lol :(

Re:so this bent copper

[mwvdlee]

He's probably getting promoted to "Senior Body Cam Educator".

Once again; power corrupts.

Re:so this bent copper

[XXongo]

I have to wonder what probable cause to search the vehicle came to his attention after towing it from the orginal scene. Did he have a warrant? It wasn't in any sort of moment.

That's already been through the courts. They can search your car if they impound it. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/can-the-police-legitimately-search-my-vehicle-without-a-warrant.html

Did the court know it was a reenactment?

[TWX]

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.

Re:Did the court know it was a reenactment?

[UnknowingFool]

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.

From the the source article it seems that the prosecutor did not know at first. It came out only after a prosecutor noticed some discrepancies between the body cam footage and the report and asked the officer to clarify.

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 found the (expletive referring to evidence), I stepped back, called (a fellow officer), then activated my body cam and walked the courts through it."

Mayer then replied back, “Was that in the report? If not you’ve got to write a supplement explaining that your body cam was off during the search and that the body cam that does exist is a reenactment.”

Now I have to give props to the prosecutor for alerting the defense and the court about it. They could have buried it.

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.

There is now an investigation and we'll see. Most likely no. The problem is that since it was "re-enacted" without disclosing the fact gives the appearance that it could have been planted. If the officer had turned on his body cam right after and merely declared "I found this gun here a minute ago. . ." most people would have given the officer the benefit of a doubt.

Re:Did the court know it was a reenactment?

[Leuf]

In the video he apparently acts surprised when he finds the gun. He doesn't tell anyone it's a "reenactment" until his statement and the video don't quite line up with each other and the prosecutor asks him about it.

Re:Did the court know it was a reenactment?

[Scutter]

Now I have to give props to the prosecutor for alerting the defense and the court about it. They could have buried it.

This is where we are now? Where we have to give "props" to our officers of the court for not committing criminal professional misconduct by suppressing evidence that the defense is legally entitled to? No wonder the cop was comfortable turning off his camera and then faking evidence when he "remembered" that it needed to be on.

Re:Did the court know it was a reenactment?

[networkBoy]

There is now an investigation and we'll see. Most likely no. The problem is that since it was "re-enacted" without disclosing the fact gives the appearance that it could have been planted. If the officer had turned on his body cam right after and merely declared "I found this gun here a minute ago. . ." most people would have given the officer the benefit of a doubt.

*this*

I guarantee you if I was a juror and something is presented as evidence and *later* is claimed to be a reenactment then I will assume "hand in the cookie jar" and will then (given the general climate of distrust of blue in the country right now) likely presume that to equate to an attempt to fabricate evidence. Once I get that in my head then *all* the testimony from that cop and his co-workers in support of his testimony becomes hearsay at best and lies at worst... eg. I become a defense attorney's favorite juror.

Remember we have a presumption of innocence. The moment that there is doubt (very reasonably so in this case) on the evidence of guilt then not guilty becomes a mandatory verdict.

Is it likely that the guy is actually guilty in this case? Honestly no idea, but lets stipulate "Yes". I still rather he go free, because what if I'm in a similar situation, but because I've been on a date with a cop's ex-wife I'm not liked much by my local PD. This would be an easy thing to do to put me away.

Re:Did the court know it was a reenactment?

[fahrbot-bot]

Prior to turning my body cam on I conducted the search. Once I found the (expletive referring to evidence), I stepped back, called (a fellow officer), then activated my body cam and walked the courts through it."

Okay. Why wasn't his (expletive deleted) body camera already on, like, from the start of the incident? The cameras are to document things and/or prevent bad behavior (by all parties). As such, it should be on all the time during an incident, not just when convenient or beneficial for the Police.

Re: Did the court know it was a reenactment?

[kqs]

No, police have to write up detailed reports about any arrest. If that report did not include the fact that the search happened twice, and that the video was a reenactment, then the reasonable assumption is that the officer tried to pull a fast one.

It may not have been truly malicious or intended to deceive; we humans are really good at justifying our actions to ourselves. But it was illegal and unethical and (I believe) should result in punishment, or else we erode trust in the police.

I sense a Tweet coming...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Overreaching courts again making it difficult for our brave heroes to do their job. Sad! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Typical

[gurps_npc]

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)

Re:Typical

[Ogive17]

Assuming it was just a procedural mistake.

Before body cameras, what this cop did was probably protocol. Once he found something, he called for additional units and tried his best to document it, the body camera made a very nice tool for documenting the scene.

However procedural errors get suspected criminals released. That is due process at work.

I think it's a learning opportunity. Body cams are still in their infancy. Police need to learn how to properly use them to 1) provide transparency and 2) document irrefutable evidence.

Wait a second... why did he turn off the camera?

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Re:The article is a mess

[mrbester]

"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."

Even though he came clean when pressed, that is an attempt to pervert the course of justice and to mislead the court. Try doing that as a civilian and see how quickly you get contempt issued against you.

It should not even be a crime

[mi]

allegations of heroin possession and of unlawful possession of a handgun

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?

Putrid Pueblo Police

[Nehmo]

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.

Valiant officer providing alternative facts

[golodh]

Bent? Uhh ... we don't like that term. That's sooo ,,, fake news,

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 !