A Baltimore police officer accidentally recorded himself planting drugs(vox.com)
vox.com
A Baltimore police officer accidentally recorded himself planting drugs
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/19/15999806/baltimore-police-body-camera
47 comments
> 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.
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.
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
[1] https://www.innocenceproject.org
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
"Crypto key" is an interesting point... distribute the crypto keys to several parties that won't collude with each other, and only when they see fit will they allow access to the video. Although then we would have a problem of what if one of them goes rogue or is trying to protect someone who's a golfing buddy...
In theory you could use something a secret sharing algo[1] to distribute the key among a set of people. It doesn't have to unanimous either. If we designate a 7 judge panel to be in charge of deciding who gets access, we could give each a piece of the key and a 4+ majority could unlock the key.
Unfortunately it's wishful thinking / cipherpunk porn to imagine a world where that actually happens.
In reality the videos would probably be stored in plaintext, there wouldn't be viable/tested backups of them, there would be no log of who has access to them (the log would exist but it wouldn't log actual access), an insane number of contractors working for the department of justice would have access to all the videos (though most wouldn't realize it) rather than it being on a need to know basis, and just about every other infosec / PII issue you can imagine would apply as well.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_Secret_Sharing
Unfortunately it's wishful thinking / cipherpunk porn to imagine a world where that actually happens.
In reality the videos would probably be stored in plaintext, there wouldn't be viable/tested backups of them, there would be no log of who has access to them (the log would exist but it wouldn't log actual access), an insane number of contractors working for the department of justice would have access to all the videos (though most wouldn't realize it) rather than it being on a need to know basis, and just about every other infosec / PII issue you can imagine would apply as well.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_Secret_Sharing
> 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?
As a matter of evidence, in many cases if one has a duty to preserve evidence yet fails in that duty, then a Judge may draw an negative inference against the bearer.
In many common law jurisdictions a Judge must draw such an inference, for example with the chain of custody in criminal cases.
A negative inference generally takes the form of a rebuttable presumption. For example, in the case of the chain of custody, if the police lose possession of evidence then the court is entitled (obliged in certain cases) to presume that it was tampered with.
In the case of body cameras, I would argue that a police officer has failed in an analogous duty — namely to employ a device that would create an objective contemporaneous audio/video record of events that does not hinder the ability of a police officer to perform their other duties.
Soon, I would hope and expect, the absence of body camera evidence will draw a negative inference against police.
We may not be there yet, because law is a slow moving — progressed by individual cases that can take years to work through the system of appeals that create persuasive or binding precedents, but this is almost certainly the direction I believe the law properly should take.
In my humble opinion, based on the examples I have seen, the people who benefit the most from this, by far, are good police officers that are naturally inclined to adhere to proper ethical and constructive behaviour of policing (such as those set out in the Peelian principles).
IAAL, but the above is not legal advice.
As a matter of evidence, in many cases if one has a duty to preserve evidence yet fails in that duty, then a Judge may draw an negative inference against the bearer.
In many common law jurisdictions a Judge must draw such an inference, for example with the chain of custody in criminal cases.
A negative inference generally takes the form of a rebuttable presumption. For example, in the case of the chain of custody, if the police lose possession of evidence then the court is entitled (obliged in certain cases) to presume that it was tampered with.
In the case of body cameras, I would argue that a police officer has failed in an analogous duty — namely to employ a device that would create an objective contemporaneous audio/video record of events that does not hinder the ability of a police officer to perform their other duties.
Soon, I would hope and expect, the absence of body camera evidence will draw a negative inference against police.
We may not be there yet, because law is a slow moving — progressed by individual cases that can take years to work through the system of appeals that create persuasive or binding precedents, but this is almost certainly the direction I believe the law properly should take.
In my humble opinion, based on the examples I have seen, the people who benefit the most from this, by far, are good police officers that are naturally inclined to adhere to proper ethical and constructive behaviour of policing (such as those set out in the Peelian principles).
IAAL, but the above is not legal advice.
> Why do we even allow cops on duty with the camera off?
Because nobody in their right mind is going to snitch while obviously on camera. You can call them "informants" or whatever, but cops rely on community sources for what's going on all the time. Those are informal relationships and documenting them on camera erodes trust of the folks giving up info.
Because nobody in their right mind is going to snitch while obviously on camera. You can call them "informants" or whatever, but cops rely on community sources for what's going on all the time. Those are informal relationships and documenting them on camera erodes trust of the folks giving up info.
I suspect that it has a lot to do with the sheer amount of data these cameras generate. I know that a lot of agencies have gotten grants to buy body cameras, but the ever-increasing data storage costs are causing them to have to abandon the cameras.
I think a lot of our problems with police in the US stem from the fact that they are not protectors of the public so much as they are enforcers of government policy. They have strayed from the original mission, in other words. Were we to treat them no differently than regular citizens, instead of giving them elevated status as "King's Men" we might fix the underlying problem instead of using technology as a band-aid to regulate their behavior. It's a hard, sometimes dangerous job, but my answer to that is, if you can't accept that, then don't do it.
I think a lot of our problems with police in the US stem from the fact that they are not protectors of the public so much as they are enforcers of government policy. They have strayed from the original mission, in other words. Were we to treat them no differently than regular citizens, instead of giving them elevated status as "King's Men" we might fix the underlying problem instead of using technology as a band-aid to regulate their behavior. It's a hard, sometimes dangerous job, but my answer to that is, if you can't accept that, then don't do it.
Can't we actually calculate how much space it will consume? I think there are solutions out there as others have pointed out, storing remotely on servers, compression of archived video, etc. Storage costs have come way down and recording technology has advanced a lot in the last 10 years.
Like many others, I think it should be a requirement of the job. If you are on duty, it is recording. You are paid to do the job. No different than an employer recording web traffic IMO, they get to see what you are doing while they are paying you. If questions come up, they can review the evidence. If you don't like it, don't take that job.
Like many others, I think it should be a requirement of the job. If you are on duty, it is recording. You are paid to do the job. No different than an employer recording web traffic IMO, they get to see what you are doing while they are paying you. If questions come up, they can review the evidence. If you don't like it, don't take that job.
I think you answered your own question. "going to the washroom". It seems unlikely that a police officer is going to radio the police station to say, "I gotta go to the bathroom," each time they need to relieve themselves.
Not with that attitude, no. But if that is too much to ask of them, in light of why it's needed, why should they be cops? If it's too much for us to ask it from them, how are we citizens? I'm not American, but it's not like I'm happy with the state of things in my "own" country either, and feel those things, those responsibilities, are rather universal.
If you don't practice singing, and never sing, you're not a singer, and if it was written in your passport that you are anyway that would just show that letters can't help the order they get arranged in. If we put up with this kind of stuff, we're not being citizens in any sense I would find valuable, no matter what else we might do or enjoy.
For every cop planting evidence and being as dumb about it as this one, how many are never found out? How many people rot in jail as we speak or are dead because of that? And does anyone remember Colin Powell's WMD presentation in front of the UN? So they didn't "plant evidence", but really, if this is the top, and if it's accepted by millions of people, what's a cop planting some drugs or killing some incapacitated people in self-defense? I'm not saying one excuses the other, but the fish does stink from the head, too.
If you don't practice singing, and never sing, you're not a singer, and if it was written in your passport that you are anyway that would just show that letters can't help the order they get arranged in. If we put up with this kind of stuff, we're not being citizens in any sense I would find valuable, no matter what else we might do or enjoy.
For every cop planting evidence and being as dumb about it as this one, how many are never found out? How many people rot in jail as we speak or are dead because of that? And does anyone remember Colin Powell's WMD presentation in front of the UN? So they didn't "plant evidence", but really, if this is the top, and if it's accepted by millions of people, what's a cop planting some drugs or killing some incapacitated people in self-defense? I'm not saying one excuses the other, but the fish does stink from the head, too.
Just off the top of my head, it's very easy to see how some tense scenarios could be escalated were a camera recording, or how some individuals would be much less likely to cooperate or provide information to officers where they are being recorded.
I do appreciate that it's complex though - we can ask what the point of cameras is if they're not recording, which is reasonable, but there are also plausible scenarios where they could cause problems.
I do appreciate that it's complex though - we can ask what the point of cameras is if they're not recording, which is reasonable, but there are also plausible scenarios where they could cause problems.
From most police camera trials, people are much less likely to escalate situations when they know they are on police camera. This includes both the cops and the suspects.
Oh, I completely agree generally – don't get me wrong. But I'm also aware I'm not actually in those situations myself, and that this is still a relatively new practice. I'm personally quite in favour of the concept – but still think it's important not be blasé in ignoring any input from actual officers that contradicts my personal assumption.
because then they 'mysteriously' break.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
DAs not prosecuting police officers. Members of the public being biased (pro-rated police, and often anti- some race or culture). Legislators not caring. Police stations hiring officers who had to leave other locations due to being caught (but not prosecuted) doing something illegal.
The system is stacked in favor of police, from top to bottom. It's an endless stream of travesties. It's enough to turn an optimist into a cynic.
The system is stacked in favor of police, from top to bottom. It's an endless stream of travesties. It's enough to turn an optimist into a cynic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very interesting to read this comment immediately after this one:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813206
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813206
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?
The level of crime we tolerate from "law enforcement" is astonishing. Why do people no longer care about justice?
>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.
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.
Another way of saying "recreating the finding of the drugs using his body camera" is "falsifying evidence".
Edit: In the US, people are innocent until proven guilty.
Edit: In the US, people are innocent until proven guilty.
Why wouldn't the initial search be conducted with the body cam on? This is falsifying evidence, whether the person was guilty or not.
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.
I'm saying it was possibly illegal but not amoral. There is a difference. Compare to planting drugs to frame someone innocent.
It was all explained extremely well in "Team America: World Police."
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.
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.
Exactly if cops aren't held accountable they're just another gang.
Replace "if" with "as long as".
How is questioning the evidence presented by a known fraud "harsh"?
It seems like a minimal step if you want to keep even the pretense of justice.
It seems like a minimal step if you want to keep even the pretense of justice.
"harsh" might be the wrong word, but re-opening cases after months or years and maybe overturning convictions is not painless for anyone involved.
It certainly alleviates some of the pain that wrongfully convicted people felt.
If you overturn every single conviction that involves a bent cop, then you will in all likelihood free both the innocent and the guilty. It the principle of ""It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
An "unsafe" conviction is not the same as proof positive of innocence, just no longer meeting the necessary standard of proof. It may be necessary to overturn a number of convictions but isn't easy.
You seem angry, I'm absolutely not trying to apologize for this behaviour. But it is a mess, and the consequences of the mess ought to be severe so that it doesn't happen.
An "unsafe" conviction is not the same as proof positive of innocence, just no longer meeting the necessary standard of proof. It may be necessary to overturn a number of convictions but isn't easy.
You seem angry, I'm absolutely not trying to apologize for this behaviour. But it is a mess, and the consequences of the mess ought to be severe so that it doesn't happen.
Guilty until proven innocent, then...
I saw on Twitter that the public defender who discovered this emailed all the other local criminal defense lawyers and told them to dig on any case that involved testimony from any of these three cops.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That strikes me as a very, very generous assumption. Even assuming this were the case, it still seems to me akin to perjury, that is, instead of being up front about what they are doing "I am recreating how and where I found these" rather than deliberately putting on an act.
I understand that you say you still believe the officer was wrong to do so, but I think this should be sufficient evidence to assume innocence here.
I understand that you say you still believe the officer was wrong to do so, but I think this should be sufficient evidence to assume innocence here.
If cops starts acting to get YouTube popularity, geez, where are we going ????
Of course he didn't. Don't hide your head in the sand.
Of course he didn't. Don't hide your head in the sand.
If you're a cop, and discover evidence and realize later it wasn't captured, that's how you report the events. You don't falsify evidence. The only incentive was to strengthen a guilty verdict by falsifying evidence.
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.