LEOs be careful out there.

[Big_McLargehuge]

Oh yes! right Rick! you have nothing that's personal ur a open book guy. I would encourage you to let the states camera into your home. Rick you haven't given this much thought have you?

Right, because having accountability for the armed agents of the state while they're on the job is the exact same as invasion of personal privacy.

The major problem is that in this litigious society, every word spoken and recorded by an officer would be twisted against them. How would you like every private word between you and a coworker or passerby to be used to paint you as a monster?
There is a lot of gallows humor and such to relieve pressure which the public would not understand.

And this has proven a problem in which precinct that currently utilizes body cameras?

 

[RickN]

Oh yes! right Rick! you have nothing that's personal ur a open book guy. I would encourage you to let the states camera into your home. Rick you haven't given this much thought have you?

I have given it plenty of thought, I am just not paranoid to the extreme like some here. I will say again, "Uniformed patrol officers should be wearing them and it should be part of the chain of evidence whenever that officer is involved in any type dispute."

It does not have to be kept if there is no dispute involving the officer. No fight, no shooting, etc, keep it for 6 months just in case something does come up then erase. It should not be available to the press unless there is a dispute and then only after a judge rules it can be released.

Some of you guys see everything as evil and probably will give yourself hypertension if you have not already. Yes there are bad cops, political types and government employees. They are outnumbered by the good and are in no higher numbers then bad gun owners or Libertarians.

 

[Roadkill]

Right, because having accountability for the armed agents of the state while they're on the job is the exact same as invasion of personal privacy.

So if I utilize the services of an armed agent of the state and invite them into my home to discuss a legal matter, our private conversation including my personal information and the interior of my home is being recorded and is subject to open records, and that is not an invasion of privacy? Maybe I have misunderstood the definition of privacy.

I don't have a problem with body cams. I think they could be useful. I have a problem with them being open records

 

[pritch]

Yeah, us poor rubes just can't handle it, so our betters need to keep us from hearing it.

'course, when it's the other way 'round, that's another matter. "Anything you say can be used against you" isn't just policy, it's (case) law, at least since Miranda; that is, we've so institutionalized the concept that statements can and will be "twisted against [the accused]" that it has become a required-by-law warning.

Heaven forfend that the Agents of the State be held to the same standard as the rest of us.

Panties twisted much? I'm not opposed to the idea of officers wearing body cameras, I was just pointing out an area of potential concern. Post-Miranda, post-arrest statements by a suspect are hardly the same as every single word uttered by an officer over the course of an entire shift, before an incident, and potentially over the course of several prior shifts via discovery.

Right, because having accountability for the armed agents of the state while they're on the job is the exact same as invasion of personal privacy.

And this has proven a problem in which precinct that currently utilizes body cameras?

You are suggesting an entirely new and incredibly onerous standard of "accountability"
To be applied to police officers. Every word uttered during the course of a day, from flirting with a waitress at Starbucks or answering a cell phone call from his ex-wife should hardly become part of the "official record."

It may be that departments have come up with appropriate ways to address this, but acting like the concern isn't valid a cops have no right to privacy is a tad extreme. I'm inclined to think that if officers have the discretion to turn the camera off whenever they want, the public will be legitimately suspicious. On the other hand, requiring an unbroken recording of a whole shift is unrealistic. Another possibility would be to legislatively limit access to recordings in some fashion.

 

[Dave70968]

Right, because having accountability for the armed agents of the state while they're on the job is the exact same as invasion of personal privacy.

So if I utilize the services of an armed agent of the state and invite them into my home to discuss a legal matter, our private conversation including my personal information and the interior of my home is being recorded and is subject to open records, and that is not an invasion of privacy? Maybe I have misunderstood the definition of privacy.

I don't have a problem with body cams. I think they could be useful. I have a problem with them being open records

If you're using a cop to discuss a legal matter, then you've misunderstood the meaning of "attorney-client privilege."

 

[Roadkill]

I'm sorry, when I say legal matter I meant reporting a crime

 

[twoguns?]

But the catch is ...When they turn them off, When they delete parts of the video

And who is going to pay for them, and the civilians should have one too, to show the actions, facial expressions of the other person.

Some states are trying to make it illegal to video these "civilian" officers.....so?...you just get one side of the story?

 

[Junior Bonner]

I would want the video cam. And I would have one. Whether people like it or not. I have one in my truck right now, and if somebody runs a sign or a light and it comes down to my word against theirs, I've got the camera. Doubting Thomases ought not get one.

 

[Big_McLargehuge]

Right, because having accountability for the armed agents of the state while they're on the job is the exact same as invasion of personal privacy.

So if I utilize the services of an armed agent of the state and invite them into my home to discuss a legal matter, our private conversation including my personal information and the interior of my home is being recorded and is subject to open records, and that is not an invasion of privacy? Maybe I have misunderstood the definition of privacy.

I don't have a problem with body cams. I think they could be useful. I have a problem with them being open records

Your first mistake is inviting the police into your home. Ask any lawyer worth his degree, NEVER invite a cop into your home without a warrant. "Anything can be used against you". Second, you invited the officer with the recording device into your home, you forfeit that privacy even if he didn't have a recording device.

You are suggesting an entirely new and incredibly onerous standard of "accountability"
To be applied to police officers. Every word uttered during the course of a day, from flirting with a waitress at Starbucks or answering a cell phone call from his ex-wife should hardly become part of the "official record."

It may be that departments have come up with appropriate ways to address this, but acting like the concern isn't valid a cops have no right to privacy is a tad extreme. I'm inclined to think that if officers have the discretion to turn the camera off whenever they want, the public will be legitimately suspicious. On the other hand, requiring an unbroken recording of a whole shift is unrealistic. Another possibility would be to legislatively limit access to recordings in some fashion.

I never said the cameras should be on 100% of the time. But, sure, as someone to volunteered to be paid by the public to carry the authority to use lethal force against the citizenry as an agent of the state, they should be under as much scrutiny as possible. Otherwise we are not a free country. Should this include piss breaks? Now we're getting into argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

There was one occasion where a dash cam saved me from being fired. I had responded to a bolo of a drunk driver, found the vehicle and pulled him over and detained him for the agency that had put out the bolo.

The next day, the Chief called me into the office and started threatening suspension pending termination due to a written complaint he had in his hand. The complaint stated that I had stopped the vehicle and jerked the driver out of his truck and slammed him against his truck causing injury.

I told him that it was an out and out lie. He said that it wasn't a lie cause he had a signed written statement from the driver and a witness in his hand. I then told him I could play the video if he wanted to see it. His attitude suddenly changed and said he did. After seeing the video, the complaint went away. Nothing was done after I suggested filing charges for making a false statement.

Anywho.......this thread has gone from "be careful out there" to a legal discussion about privacy and legality of recordings.

Time to move on???