The facts of a use of force encounter don't change. What people report or recall or think they might have seen, may indeed change - but the facts don't.

So what harm is done by allowing the officers to view the footage before writing the report?

Is it going to change the facts?

The camera has no bias, it sees what it sees and the microphone hears what it hears.

I don't see anything this could do, other than make the officers' reports more accurate.

Now who wouldn't want that?

Scum bags, and their scum bag lawyers - that's who.

quote:

So what harm is done by allowing the officers to view the footage before writing the report?

Is it going to change the facts?

The facts may not change, but the report might. Sometimes a story is better told through several separate angles than a single focus.

Let's take a bank robbery as an example. Do you feel it would be a good idea to show all of the witnesses the surveillance footage prior to taking their statements? Or would watching that footage perhaps taint their individual recollections that may have revealed something not shown in the footage? I believe this is also why it is common practice to separate all of the witnesses as opposed to questioning them in front of each other or letting them discuss everything together prior to getting their statements.

Reversing your logic, the officer's report won't change what's on the video, so what harm is done by keeping the two separate?

quote:

I don't see anything this could do, other than make the officers' reports more accurate.

Really? You don't see anything else? I see all sorts of things that it could do besides report accuracy.

And again, this is not a blanket prohibition. Officers are allowed to review the footage in some cases, and not in others.

I believe this is why so many other departments have the same or similar policy.

quote:

Reversing your logic, the officer's report won't change what's on the video, so what harm is done by keeping the two separate?

So we are agreed that my logic changes nothing and harms none, in forward and reverse?

Then the real issue we have here is that I would prefer them to have more facts available when they make their report, and you want something other.

That's cool. But it doesn't change my mind.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
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.

I think that's the CALEA recommend policy or something. It's probably the most popular with the larger agencies.

What it doesn't point out is that if we're suspects in a shooting or in custody death, they can sit and rotate. My lawyer will get the video and we will watch it 1,000 times before I make any statement, written or otherwise, that could be used against me in court.

That's what railroading a innocent few officers gets them. Not my agency, but nation wide.

And You also have the Supervisors who will watch video to hang the Officers on Regulation infractions. Have seen Officers annual evaluations torpedoed by infractions their Sgt or LT gleaned from videos.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I think that's the CALEA recommend policy or something. It's probably the most popular with the larger agencies.

What it doesn't point out is that if we're suspects in a shooting or in custody death, they can sit and rotate. My lawyer will get the video and we will watch it 1,000 times before I make any statement, written or otherwise, that could be used against me in court.

That's what railroading a innocent few officers gets them. Not my agency, but nation wide.

I've been going back and forth on this one and not sure which way I leaned since I could see both sides of this.

This post just solidified my position. If the officer uses force and could be considered a suspect in a potential crime (misusing force) then he/she should have the same protections as any other suspect in a potential crime. That includes the right to remain silent and not potentially incriminate himself by being forced to make a statement on the record.

quote:

Originally posted by FN in MT:
And You also have the Supervisors who will watch video to hang the Officers on Regulation infractions. Have seen Officers annual evaluations torpedoed by infractions their Sgt or LT gleaned from videos.

Yeah, this. An agency close to mine does this exact same thing. I know a guy who is a good cop. He was consoling a family member whose father had been killed in a car wreck. Weeks later, he received a write up because he called a 10 year old boy "Bud" on the scene. He was hugging the boy at the time. What he stated to the crying child was "It's gonna be OK, Bud. It's gonna be ok". Professional standards wrote him up for "non-standard communication" for not calling the grieving 10 year old "sir".

Oh no, the family didn't call in and complain. It was a supervisor doing random checks. And that is one of his full time jobs of jamming people so that the end of year IA stats show that they are really cracking down on cops.

Same agency won't chase anyone in a vehicle. A psycho in a garbage truck started intentionally hitting cars on the interstate head on. They refused to chase it, citing a no chase policy. Two other agencies stepped in and ended it. When the press conference was held, the agency that refused to chase the homicidal maniac took all the credit for saving the day, when in fact they did nothing to stop him.

Same agency called medical for a subject involved in a car accident. The male subject went crazy and began to beat up a female paramedic inside the ambulance. The officers refused to do anything to break up the assault, except they kept repeating "sir, stop that". The female medic finally got the upper hand when two other medics jumped in. When she asked for a report, the agency stated they were refusing, due to if they wrote a report, they would have to charge the medic with assault as well. Another agency picked up the case after they refused. When the court subpoenaed their body cam, the agency made a big production about privacy. Gee, I wonder why.....

Same agency had a guy exit a vehicle and pull a gun on an officer. The officer closed the gap and fought with the suspect instead of shooting him because he was afraid to pull his gun due to how it was going to be viewed on body cam. Their mantra is that it is better to die, than to look bad.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I think that's the CALEA recommend policy or something. It's probably the most popular with the larger agencies.

What it doesn't point out is that if we're suspects in a shooting or in custody death, they can sit and rotate. My lawyer will get the video and we will watch it 1,000 times before I make any statement, written or otherwise, that could be used against me in court.

That's what railroading a innocent few officers gets them. Not my agency, but nation wide.

I've been going back and forth on this one and not sure which way I leaned since I could see both sides of this.

This post just solidified my position. If the officer uses force and could be considered a suspect in a potential crime (misusing force) then he/she should have the same protections as any other suspect in a potential crime. That includes the right to remain silent and not potentially incriminate himself by being forced to make a statement on the record.

Oh, we are still required to give our internal statement. But those aren't supposed to be used in court or shared with the criminal investigators.

Riggght...

Well, they say that for the most serious use of force incidents (deadly shootings etc.), the officer wouldn't get to see it first anyway (and wouldn't be writing initial reports either)....so I don't see the big deal in letting them watch it for the minor stuff.

As to an agency disciplining an officer for consoling a kid calling him "Bud" (and that sort of a working environment), no job is worth putting up with crap like that. (OK, maybe being paid $1m per year to photo bikini models and review the latest military hardware....I'd put up with a boss all up in my bidness for that job).

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
“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.

/sarc on
Horrors! We wouldn't want accurate reports. Heaven forfend! We put those cameras on the police so we can second guess them, not to help them.
/sarc off

Everything including body cams are subject to interpretation. I recall seeing civilians taking part in shoot don't shoot scenarios. The guy not listening to orders from the LEO because he was trying to get out of a car with stinging bees. I remember seeing one where they had civilians putting round after round into a guy who had a cellphone. There are lots of things to consider. As others have stated this has become a political issue. People trying to push their agendas.

Yeah these weren't supposed to be used for disciplinary actions. Well three years later the supervisors are reviewing footage. My first one was you forgot to turn on night vision. My second one was unprofessional comments on video.
The comments were "uh-oh, i better turn on night vision before i get yelled at"

Whatever. 19 years in. It was six to go but they just got rid of pension sponsored health care so I might jump ship and get a private sector job.