
A Baltimore police officer accidentally recorded himself planting drugs - urahara
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/19/15999806/baltimore-police-body-camera
======
mabbo
> He apparently didn’t realize that body cameras often save the last 30
> seconds of footage before they’re manually activated. So all of that
> preparation for his big faux discovery was caught on tape.

Why do we even allow cops on duty with the camera off? Why do we give them the
choice of when it will be turned on?

Apart from going to the washroom, or going off duty to eat lunch, I say the
cameras should record constantly.

~~~
koolba
> Why do we even allow cops on duty with the camera off? Why do we give them
> the choice of when it will be turned on?

Presumably argued as concern for the privacy of the police themselves. I can
imagine the police unions fighting tooth and nail to maintain the right to
decide when cameras are recording because otherwise there is going to be a lot
of crap like this for them to deal with.

Personally, I think they should always be on, always be recording both audio
and video, and continuously uploading the footage to servers controlled by a
third party agency that is not in the direct or indirect control of the local
police or district attorney's office. Footage would be archived for a preset
amount of time (1 year? 5 years?) and then destroyed (by deleting the crypto
key that's used to encrypt it). During the "active" window either the
prosecutor or the defendant could request access to any or all footage of the
police around the timeline of an incident.

Outside of that, it should require a warrant to view the footage. The goal
isn't to turn this into a fishing expedition to turn over prior dirt on the
police that apprehended you. An investigation like that by internal affairs
would require a warrant as well.

~~~
halostatue
It needs to be a lot longer than 5 years; The Innocence Project[1]’s fairly
regular overturning of convictions that are decades old suggest such
controlled destruction would inevitably destroy evidence. Additionally, unless
there was some guaranteed way to permanently prevent the destruction of video
marked “of interest”, the video could be destroyed simply through delaying
tactics by the force under investigation.

[1] [https://www.innocenceproject.org](https://www.innocenceproject.org)

~~~
koolba
> It needs to be a lot longer than 5 years; The Innocence Project[1]’s fairly
> regular overturning of convictions that are decades old suggest such
> controlled destruction would inevitably destroy evidence.

I'm not sure what the duration answer is, hence the guesses as examples. I
don't think it should be indefinite either. Again, the problem we're solving
is providing evidence of what occurred at a specific incident, not
retroactively creating a Truman Show out of the lives of any involved police.

IMHO, working in law enforcement requires you give up some of your privacy
rights in exchange for a local monopoly on the use of force. It shouldn't mean
you lose all of them permanently.

> Additionally, unless there was some guaranteed way to permanently prevent
> the destruction of video marked “of interest”, the video could be destroyed
> simply through delaying tactics by the force under investigation.

That's why I specifically call out having an entirely separate entity control
the storage and dissemination. The video can't be public by default for a host
of reasons (for starters, the privacy of both the police and non-police that
are recorded) but it also shouldn't be able to be held hostage by the law
enforcement bodies that may be held accountable by it.

~~~
benchaney
> not retroactively creating a Truman Show out of the lives of any involved
> police.

I don't understand this objection. Police officers are generally presumed to
be honest by jurors. If there is evidence that this presumption is
unreasonable, then it is definitely relevant.

~~~
koolba
> I don't understand this objection. Police officers are generally presumed to
> be honest by jurors. If there is evidence that this presumption is
> unreasonable, then it is definitely relevant.

Do you expect every recording, video, audio, and statement made by a police
officer involved in a case, at any point in his service, and unrelated to the
crime at hand, to be provided to the defense?

Going through someone's history to find dirt is the definition of a fishing
expedition. With enough footage, speech, and actions, you could find
incriminating evidence on anybody.

If there's accusations that a police officer is dishonest, lying under oath,
planting evidence, or really anything else illegal, then internal affairs
should be investigating them. They'd require a warrant just like anybody else
to get access to the historical records (and I think they should get it). But
not just any random person that wants to dig dirt on Officer Joe because he
busted him for public urination.

------
GuiA
_> Body cameras don’t always work out as many activists envisioned. Last week,
the officer who shot Justine Damond in Minneapolis and his partner didn’t turn
on their cameras, leaving us in the dark about what exactly happened in the
case. This week, prosecutors in Cincinnati dropped charges against former
University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing after two mistrials — even
though body camera footage clearly showed that the man Tensing shot, Samuel
DuBose, never posed a threat to him._

Cameras work out exactly as advocates said they would - exposing how corrupt
police forces can be. Police officers not turning on their cameras or judges
disregarding clear evidence is what's not working out.

~~~
justadeveloper2
Sometimes, but not often. Cops seem to lose the in-car footage anytime it
reveals something damaging to them. Also, "inadmissable as evidence" happens
to damning footage as well.

Judges and DAs side with the cops because there is no real impartiality. One
protects the other because it's a machine designed for domination of the
citizenry and it works extremely well. Look how many cases get plead out
instead of going to trial.

I don't hate cops or anything, I just see the system for what it is. I don't
know how we do better, but it's tiring to watch. It's the same way I feel
about our Congress--all these establishment politicians doing work for big
donors and working against the interests of the public.

------
thebigspacefuck
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers?

I've heard about drugs being planted before, but I think there was always some
doubt in my mind that it was just an excuse by those being prosecuted. This is
the first time I've seen solid evidence that it's real. That is fucking
terrible! How many times has this happened and put innocent people in prison?
We can't let this continue to happen when the cameras are off. We need these
cameras everywhere and we need them on all the time.

~~~
convolvatron
it happens a lot. i think the misunderstanding is that we the citizenry think
that the police should held to certain standards of objectivity, that each
citizen is presumed innocent, and there is a legal framework that very
carefully evaluates guilt before taking punitive action.

the police think are they fighting a war where people don't wear uniforms and
intermix freely. part of their job is to put on one side of the front or the
other, a citizen or a criminal. once you are determined to be a criminal the
goal is to first and foremost instill fear and compliance. after that as many
bad people as possible should be sent away - cleaning up the streets.

unless this context is changed, extra-legal tactics like planting drugs and
overt police brutality won't go away. and if those things continue to be part
of the job, then obviously cameras aren't acceptable.

unfortunately, as horrified as i am, i'm not sure i can judge this war
perspective as unconditionally wrong.

~~~
dTal
Very interesting to read this comment immediately after this one:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813206)

------
mcbobbington
That cop should get the same punishment that he tried to foist on the innocent
man.

The level of crime we tolerate from "law enforcement" is astonishing. Why do
people no longer care about justice?

~~~
cpncrunch
>tried to foist on the innocent man

I'm not sure if that's the case. The article seems to be saying that they did
actually find the drugs in the alley, and the officer was essentially
recreating the finding of the drugs using his body camera. Obviously that
isn't an acceptable way of using the body camera, and it has the unfortunate
effect of causing the case of a potentially guilty drug-dealer to be dropped.

~~~
calvano915
Why wouldn't the initial search be conducted with the body cam on? This is
falsifying evidence, whether the person was guilty or not.

~~~
cpncrunch
Presumably because he didn't know they were going to find anything. We already
know he didn't know about the 30 second thing. If he did, it wouldn't have
been a problem, he wouldn't have needed to do the recreation at all.

I'm saying it was possibly illegal but not amoral. There is a difference.
Compare to planting drugs to frame someone innocent.

------
shalmanese
The cop who did this is being disciplined right now but not the other two cops
who stood right there and watched him do it.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
What sometime happens in cases like that is that the officer's previous
arrests are gone through, and many of them thrown out as unsafe. Which is
harsh and the police force concerned will absolutely hate. But that's too bad;
if you don't want that outcome then don't plant evidence.

~~~
vorotato
Exactly if cops aren't held accountable they're just another gang.

~~~
thinkfurther
Replace "if" with "as long as".

------
hirundo
While I think the cop in the video deserves discipline and/or dismissal and/or
criminal charges, and the person accused deserves a stronger than usual
presumption of innocence, the video is not hard evidence that the cop planted
drugs. He may have been simply recreating his previous discovery of the drugs.

I've watched lots of youtube videos of rock hunters recreating their
discoveries on camera for the sake of drama and upvotes, often admitting it.
Police are surely affected by similar incentives.

The above argument is brought to you by someone who thinks that all drugs
should be legalized, and that all cops who work to enforce drug laws are
acting immorally.

~~~
Brockenstein
Someone re-enacting a scene for entertainment purposes is one thing. The
police should absolutely not be "recreating" events and passing them off as
the actual occurrence. This is one step away from using reenactments on
Unsolved Mysteries as actual evidence for the crime. Whatever bits the cop
wanted to add in or leave out, if it became acceptable for them to recreate
evidence in this way, how would we ever be able to manage that?

Seems like most people agree that this behavior is bogus, and that cops
shouldn't be fabricating or recreating evidence. And even if some do-gooder
was doing so innocently, they probably shouldn't forget to mention that that
video was a recreation, not actual evidence. That's an oops that cop and his
dept will have to address while they're making excuses for it.

