Albuquerque police accused of altering body camera footage

[johndoe3]

http://www.guns.com/2016/11/21/albuquer ... affidavit/

The Records Supervisor for the Albuquerque police was fired after he brought up problems with the police department in cooperation with the Prosecutors, altering or deleting body camera recordings in high profile cases. Additionally, officers were told to wait to write up reports until after they had reviewed camera footage so that they could write reports around what was on camera.

Serious charges of corruption.

Personally, I'd like to see the body camera and cruiser camera issues resolved because they can be beneficial both to the officer involved as well as the public. I'm guessing it's because in Albuquerque the camera footage can be accessed by many people and there is some collusion (accusations) going on to change the record to protect the police department. The problem for the public is that these things can slant justice.

My condolences to all involved where police assassinations took place in San Antonio(1 killed), Missouri(1 wounded), and Florida(1 wounded) on Sunday and Monday.

[poikilotrm]

They could fix this easily. Simply have two depository drives, one for the cops, and one the cops can't touch.

If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, right?

[Fulmen]

If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, right?

Careful, that's the argument for warrant-less searches.

I think the police has a right to some "privacy", if every second of your day is up for scrutiny you will probably be too afraid to do a mistake to do your job effectively. My solution would be to encrypt the data so that only a court can unseal them.

[RJT]

If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, right?

Careful, that's the argument for warrant-less searches.

I think the police has a right to some "privacy", if every second of your day is up for scrutiny you will probably be too afraid to do a mistake to do your job effectively. My solution would be to encrypt the data so that only a court can unseal them.

This should play out in a most interesting fashion.

[johndoe3]

The more important issue is justice and fair play. Colorado has an 'open meetings' law requiring government at all levels to meet in public and not in back rooms where shady things historically took place.

The Colorado Sunshine Law for open meetings informs of the methods by which public meetings are conducted. The law was first passed in 1972 and then modified in 1996. The law states that all meetings of two or more members of any state public body where any public business is discussed must be open to the public.

The above Sunshine Law was passed because elected officials misbehaved and made secret deals which screwed the public. City/Town Councils and County Commissions can no longer pass secret things that benefit them and their friends without the public knowing it.

The issue of police body cameras and cruiser cameras is in the same vein, where we don't want backroom shenanigans taking place by police and prosecutors. Poikilotrm's solution is one good possible solution.

It seems to me that police supervisors need access to camera recordings to investigate complaints against officers and also to gain confidence that what the officer claims is in fact what happened. Therefore, having a dual recording where one is accessible by police supervisors and prosecutors is necessary; and also having a duplicate recording without access for manipulation will work to lessen backroom shenanigans.

[Hasdrubal]

If you're honest, video won't make you do much different. If you're not, you will find ways to work around any system put in place to monitor your actions. If the article is true, then I'm glad someone went public with it, but hopefully at least some of this was by email instead of just verbal in the hallway.

One of the minor points they bring up, that guys were told to review video before writing reports, can be either a good or a bad thing. If these guys were trying to trump up false charges or manufacture evidence, and they were using the video to tailor their work into the spaces where there was no footage, then it's pretty bad. On the other hand, human perception is inherently flawed. If someone is honest about their recollection but turns out to be mistaken in fact, then the video can make them look like they're lying, because most people don't really know anything about the psychology of stress and combat.

If someone has a gun pointed at them, and they say it looked like the muzzle was the size of their fist, we all know it really wasn't, but we understand that the fear changed their perception. I was in a shooting with a few other guys once (hope it never happens again), and one of them estimated the range to the suspect at 75 yards. He was being honest, that's what he really saw, but I was standing a few feet away from him and thought it was 35. That's a huge difference, and when they actually measured it, the number was 37 yards.

Now, if there was video, it makes him look less competent because of the 100% error in his estimate. But what if it was an error the other direction? What if we were farther, and I thought the guy was right up close to us? That could make it look like I was lying to justify shooting someone as a more serious threat than they were. If used to make reports more accurate, reviewing video can potentially be a good thing.