This is more prejudice against the police. Officers are expected to make split second decisions, act and afterwards write a report. All this without been able to view footage from their body cameras. It's a prime example of the "Gotcha" mentality that anti-police types have.

"Body-camera plan for Seattle police stalls over when officers can view video

The city’s rollout plan has been delayed over a dispute about whether officers should be allowed to watch video from their cameras before they write reports on their use of force.

Seattle’s long-awaited plan to equip police officers with body cameras has hit a snag.

The city continues to move toward a major rollout, but it won’t happen until the federal judge overseeing reform efforts in the Police Department resolves a thorny issue: Should officers be allowed to watch video from their cameras before they write reports on their use of force?

The judge’s court-appointed monitor, Merrick Bobb, argues they should not be allowed to do so.

Officers should first write a report based on their perceptions before watching video that might skew their recollections of an entire event, he writes in a memorandum to U.S. District Viewing video would give officers the ability to reconcile their memories of an incident with what is shown on the footage and revise firsthand representations or eliminate observations not captured on the video, the memorandum says.

“In short, officers may get an inappropriate opportunity to ‘get their story straight’ before reporting to the department precisely what occurred in a force incident,” Bobb contends.

Attorneys for the city disagree. They maintain that reviewing the videos promotes accurate reporting, efficient policing and faster discovery of errors that could free someone in custody.

There is no evidence, they write in court filings, that officers have a general tendency to lie or tailor their statements “to conform to what is — regardless of when it is viewed — an objective piece of evidence concerning events unfolding at the scene.”

Letting officers later review the video and supplement their reports — as suggested by the monitor — isn’t practical, the city says.

“This would undercut some of the very benefits” of body-worn cameras, the attorneys write, “which have been found by at least one study to include a decrease in officers’ reporting time (by 22.4 %) and an increase in officers’ time spent on patrol (by 9.2 %).


The Police Department “firmly believes that video is a useful tool for capturing what did happen, or what did not happen, regardless of what an officer may have perceived at the time, and that review of that piece of evidence is useful to allow an officer to ensure that her statement is as factually accurate as it can be at the time it is written,” Brian Maxey, the department’s chief operating officer, writes in a declaration to the court.
Maxey adds that the overwhelming majority of police departments allow video review before reporting any use of force.

What the monitor and city do agree on is that officers shouldn’t be allowed to view video before they write reports on the most serious use-of-force cases investigated by the department’s Force Investigation Team, including officer-involved shootings.

But in acknowledging the importance of acquiring perceptual statements in those instances, the city’s attorneys note “this recognition is based on … ensuring community trust and confidence” and not “a belief that an officer’s statement will become impermissibly tainted by a review of video.”

They have asked Robart to hold a hearing on the dispute, which covers the majority of cases touching on low and moderate uses of force.

Robart must rule on the question before ultimately deciding whether to approve the Police Department’s proposed body-camera policies, which the monitor generally supports.

The judge is presiding over a 2012 consent decree between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the city, mandating Seattle police adopt reforms to address excessive force and biased policing. The decree requires that all use of force be fully, fairly and accurately reported, investigated and reviewed.

Robart and Bobb have both pushed for body cameras, and the city has been committed to equipping patrol officers with them. The goal was to begin the rollout early this year.

Even when approved by Robart, labor negotiations must follow with the police guild, as well as training on use of the cameras. That makes it likely officers won’t be wearing the cameras until the latter half of the year.

Federal attorneys have sided with the city, saying in a brief they have seen no evidence that permitting officers to view footage before making a statement about low-level uses of force would undermine the reporting process.

Until that becomes an issue, “we believe it is appropriate to defer to the operational needs and balancing of interests that SPD has struck” in their proposed body-camera plan, the brief says.

Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole, in a declaration, asks Robart to allow the department to move ahead with its plan, asserting it is “very much consistent with the consensus of agencies around the country.”

The Community Police Commission, a citizen-advocacy body created as part of the consent decree, which has clashed with Bobb on some matters, agrees with him on the video issue.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the advocacy group argues that allowing officers to view video before submitting a statement exposes them to “aspects of the incident that they might not have seen or could not recall,” affecting the ability of investigators to “assess the officer’s contemporaneous appraisal of the circumstances which led him or her to take the actions” under review."
http://www.seattletimes.com/se...cers-can-view-video/

Well, is the suspect allowed to also view the video before making a statement?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Well, is the suspect allowed to also view the video before making a statement?

"The judge’s court-appointed monitor, Merrick Bobb, argues they [the suspects] should not be allowed to do so."

What a bunch of assholes. This has been a problem from the beginning. They just want the cops to mess up in their statements and be hanged.

I've never been involved in a clusterfuck, when I didn't watch the video and see small things I didn't remember.


Oh....and yes, the bad guys get to watch the video. And they don't even have to make a statement.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Well, is the suspect allowed to also view the video before making a statement?

"The judge’s court-appointed monitor, Merrick Bobb, argues they [the suspects] should not be allowed to do so."

"The suspects" being the cops, in that sentence. Same thing to her, though.

quote:

I've never been involved in a clusterfuck, when I didn't watch the video and see small things I didn't remember.

Wouldn't that be the point? A report will memorialize what was actually going inside one's head at the time, as opposed to something noticed after the fact?

I don't see how it would cause cops to "mess up in their statements and be hung". What they recall is what they recall. Unless you're implying that what was written in their reports would be factually different than what is shown on video.

There is a reason that police use the techniques that they do while conducting investigations. Some of those are aimed at getting untainted, uninfluenced statements from those involved. I don't see this as anything different, nor do I see it as setting up the police. They merely want the reports to contain untainted, uninfluenced memories of the events.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
...They just want the cops to mess up in their statements and be hanged...

A thousand times, yes.

This will be used to build the case of, "all cops are racist liars, because their statements never match the video exactly."

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I've never been involved in a clusterfuck, when I didn't watch the video and see small things I didn't remember.

Wouldn't that be the point? A report will memorialize what was actually going inside one's head at the time, as opposed to something noticed after the fact?

I don't see how it would cause cops to "mess up in their statements and be hung". What they recall is what they recall. Unless you're implying that what was written in their reports would be factually different than what is shown on video.

There is a reason that police use the techniques that they do while conducting investigations. Some of those are aimed at getting untainted, uninfluenced statements from those involved. I don't see this as anything different, nor do I see it as setting up the police. They merely want the reports to contain untainted, uninfluenced memories of the events.

Big difference. Huge difference.

If I am asked to provide a statement at work, I absolutely have to, or I'll be fired. Criminal can tell us to F off.

It's simply impossible to remember exactly what you said, or if you kicked with your right leg or left leg and struck them in common perional perfectly or if you got them in the kneecap, if you held them, waiting for backup on the ground for 30 seconds, or 5 minutes...these are details that you just can't recall at will while you're typing a report an hour later.

When you're really in a mess, and being driven by instinct, your heart rate going 200bpm, you don't commit shit to memory like that. And those details are EXACTLY what the internal investigators are going to compare to your video...and the media...frame by frame, sitting in a comfy chair with the A/C running.

And if, after they finish their ice cold Pepsi and watch your and 10 other videos 42 times, they decide your story doesn't match the video close enough...now you've been found to have lied in an internal investigation. Duces.

I see both arguments, but I'd come down on letting cops see the video.

If you think you have police lying in their statements, it seems like there are more efficient ways of dealing with that.

Watch the video, or don't watch the video. It is not the point. The point is that the left, or the criminal element, really has no use for the body cam, except to create "gotcha" moments for the police.

The rest they don't like.

As you notice that this is only discussing use of force. Notice the leftie commie monitor doesn't give a shit if they review the tape prior to writing your burglary report. More proof that some people will fall for any news bite with contrived outrage.

The left doesn't like body cam. It exposes who they are, and further captures their ilk in their natural state. This is a good way to block the body cams from going out into the field, and blame the police.

I don't think the officers should be permitted to view the video. One thing to keep in mind is that body cameras aren't going to capture everything that happens during an incident. They may be obstructed or relevant action may be outside the field of view momentarily. Without viewing the footage, officers will not know what was captured and what wasn't. That's very important. If an officer is unsure whether something made it into the footage, they'll be less likely to intentionally omit it from their report.

For example, in order to protect a fellow officer from disciplinary action, they may choose to not report misconduct if they're sure it wasn't captured on the video.

So it has taken over 5 years for lawyers to disagree on how to deal with body cam video when an officer has milliseconds to make a life or death decision. Makes perfect sense.

I don't know, but I often wished I had video of an incident so that I could write a better, more accurate, report. Being mere humans,I and other officers have been within feet of each other in situations and had differing recollections of details. Hence we documented slightly differing accounts of the incident. This, and now videos, are, and will continue to be,used by defense attorney/s in pre-trial interviews, depositions, and at trial to impeach the officers involved. That is, the officer/s are stupid,lying,covering up,incompetent,etc,etc,etc. As to the suspect being allowed to view video before answering questions, well no criminal suspect ever has to answer any questions. The defense attorney, on Discovery, will be able to acquire every shred of evidence the prosecution intends to use at trial against their client. I mean every written report, any notes, video, evidence gathered of any kind, any and all lab reports, fingerprint analysis, any known witnesses, even identity of any uninvolved officer who may have even seen the officers involved in contact with their client. I mean everything. I'm sure the politicians will ensure that the right thing is done in this issue...........

If I was a Seattle cop and somebody asked me if I wanted chocolate or vanilla, I'd ask what Merrick J. Bobb wanted and I'd do the opposite.

I'm not a cop, but I can and do read and everything I have read about this putz since he came to Seattle from L.A. (if I remember correctly) has been to cement my belief that he is anything but balanced. Every opinion, every move, is somewhere from the fringe to dead center of ant-cop.

On this topic, keep the evidence from the cop: bull. It's a trap. The more serious the contact the more likely the officer will conflate memories or unconsciously try to make sense out of chaos; and that's not him, that's us, it's how we are wired.
Further, he can't change the video all he can do is make context from it.

Jones says this is one way the lefties can keep the cameras off the streets now that they know they aren't working out as planned, That certainly fits my view.

Watch the video, or don't watch the video. It is not the point. The point is that the left, or the criminal element, really has no use for the body cam, except to create "gotcha" moments for the police.

The rest they don't like.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exactly. Note the location is Seattle. Might be part of the issue.

quote:

Exactly. Note the location is Seattle. Might be part of the issue.

Except that this policy exists in many other areas, has notable proponents on both sides of the issue, and in this particular case the city wants the officers to view the tapes. So I don't see Seattle being any part of the issue at all.

What I see as part of the issue is that so many people believe that every single thing that doesn't go along with their views equals a boogie man out to get them.

There are good reasons to let the officers review the footage. There are also good reasons that they shouldn't be allowed to. None of them have anything to do with hate, punishment, or dislike.

If I can't review the video prior to filing my report my narrative will read, "Arrived on scene, exited my cruiser and activated BWC. See BWC for further information."

The only reason we they don't want us to be allowed to view it has been stated. To try and find some BS non-material discrepancy to try and hang us on.

Eyewitness testimony is considered powerful. However, it's been shown that the error rate is at least 1 in 4. The question is why such a high error rate? The reasons apply directly to officer involved shootings. Note the comment about video recorders.

"There are numerous reasons for this: (1) witnesses are subject to high stress or anxiety; (2) the human memory tends to reconstruct incidents because humans do not have the capability to record memories like a video recorder; (3) witnesses often focus on weapons, not the identity of the perpetrator; (4) suggestive eyewitness identification procedures used by police or prosecutorial agencies; and (5) cross-racial eyewitness identifications are known to be incredibly suspect."
https://californiainnocencepro...ness-identification/

The body cam is similar to making notes following an event. The facts are fresh in your mind and small details can be captured.

This also doesn't apply to all footage. They are only restricting this to very specific events, namely use of force incidents. If they were trying to trap officers, and attempting to make them look like liars, and every other motive they have been accused of, wouldn't they simply make it an across the board policy?

How about this policy:

quote:

Officers may view footage while “preparing an incident report, preparing statements, conducting a follow-up investigation, or providing testimony.”

Officers may not view footage in certain instances, including when they are under investigation or involved in a shooting, a criminal matter or an in-custody death.

In such cases, officers “shall be required to provide an initial statement before he or she reviews any audio or video recording. The initial statement by the subject officer shall briefly summarize the actions that the officer was engaged in, the actions that required the use of force, and the officer’s response,” according to the draft policy.

After the initial statement, officers can view the footage and provide a supplemental statement.

That's from a pretty lefty area, and it makes sense to me.

That is absurd to not let an officer review the video before writing a report. During a stressful event facts can easily not be remembered exactly and then it will look like they were misleading in their report, which is probably what they want.