In New Orleans, Armand Bennet, 26, was shot in the forehead during a traffic stop by New Orleans police officer Lisa Lewis. However, the police department did not reveal until much later that Lewis turned off her body camera just before shooting Bennett. Bennett survived and has now been charged under prior warrants for his arrest. It also reviewed that Lewis had had a prior run in with Bennet who escaped about a week earlier.
New Orleans Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas called the late disclosures on the shooting simply a “snafu.”
Lewis’ lawyer says that she turned off her camera because she was heading back to the station at the end of her shift and that the shot was fired during a scuffle after the stop. Bennett’s attorney says that there was no scuffle and that Lewis fired a second shot as Bennett ran away.
The two had been in a scuffle a week before and Bennett had gotten away. The NOPD then issued four warrant for Bennet and those warrants were the basis for the stop.
Putting aside the merits of the officers claims, I am still unclear why these body cameras can even be turned off by officers. The point of a body camera should be that it runs from check in to check out. It should not be under the control of the officer to guarantee a record that cannot be challenged by either side. That would avoid the troubling appearance of an officer with a prior run in with a suspect who turns off her camera minutes before shooting the suspect in the head.
Kudos: Michael Blott
Source: Fox8
It didn’t have to be this way. Locked away, the Ferguson police department is hoarding a stock of “body-worn cameras” (BWCs) that could have answered these questions before they ever arose. Only problem? The Ferguson P.D. “have yet to deploy them to officers,” according to a recent article by Chris Mims of the Wall Street Journal. So rather than having an honest reckoning with the events of that tragic afternoon, we’re left to simply wonder, and to wish.
It also goes on to discus civil rights issues with the BWCs on all the time as well.
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/22/make_cops_wear_cameras_a_simple_way_to_hold_the_police_accountable/
paul since law enFORCEment are public servants they should have no time to be doing anything except the job our tax dollars pay for. your logic is exactly the issue with cops now. they are out doing things they have no business doing and no one is in a position to discipline them. when you are at work you are on the bosses time. off work is a different situation but considering how many cases involved off duty cops that may not be a viable option either
shakingmyhead – according to Federal Law LEOs, along with everyone else, get at least 2 15 minute breaks in an eight hour day and a lunch break of at least 1/2 when they are supposed to be off the clock. Since they are supposed to be off the clock, how is it the business of their supervisor’s what they talk about at lunch? Every talk s**t about your boss during lunch or a break? These cops with cameras on all the time would not be able to.
No kidding. All cops should wear cameras with audio and with live feeds going into a tamper proof server. Turning it off or obscuring it in any way should be a felony resulting in jail and or fines and permanent loss of job, with no exceptions.
I’m guessing that the recently-retired Chief Serpas does not know what snafu stands for.
Dang technology….
Is it possible to set these cameras up to auto record when responding to a call. Not a perfect solution but a step in the right direction.
The problem with cameras being on all the time is that they record the cops doing stuff they do not want their supervisors knowing about. Think about yourself. Would you want you entire work day recorded, in this case lunch and breaks would be included? And if the officer cannot turn it off, should the supervisor have an off switch for the camera?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/19/police-cameras-are-important-but-theyre-useless-without-proper-policies-to-ensure-theyre-used-properly/
Max-1 – you have to assume that the shooting in Ferguson is a bad shooting. Ferguson is the home to a major serial killer from awhile back. Tortured, raped and killed about 40 women. Didn’t catch him until he made the mistake of writing a letter to the newspaper, which gave away a little too much information about himself.
There was a guy who used to specialize is escaping for the state prison and finally, like Cool Hand Luke, they shot his a** down. He really did not cause any trouble when he escaped but after the fourth escape they decided to teach him a lesson. Maybe the same sort of lesson was being taught here.
The recordings could be turned directly over to an independent archive and only viewed with a judicial warrant.
Anyone, including police chiefs or internal affairs, would have to fill out an affidavit (risk of perjury) then obtain a judicial warrant from a magistrate judge.
Only if there were a shooting, abuse complaint or other investigation (where a judicial warrant was obtained) would the video ever be viewed.
Wouldn’t address all of the great issues Darren Smith pointed out but would solve most of them. Last week, the TV cop show “Rookie Blue” recently illustrated some other problems with easy access to the tapes.
Reposted from Ferguson thread:
What Happens When Police Officers Wear Body Cameras
Use of force by police officers declined 60% in first year since introduction of cameras in Rialto, Calif.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244
There are reasons why body cameras are not set to record mode all the time. If they were set the following problems, among others will come up.
1) There are settings where the recording of video or audio would be unlawful. Two party consent states only allow recording by police under narrowly defined situations. There are also privileged communications that can be inadvertently recorded.
2) The notion of a confidential informant will come to a halt if the informant knows that everything they say will be recorded and their identity revealed.
3) There will be a bit more reluctance for the public to have casual contact with the police as they might fear such contact that everything is recorded and it somehow might be used against them.
4) Inadvertent recordings can cause the public to be wary that police coming into a situation such as a restaurant can make people uncomfortable in just having the police around. Plus, this violates two party consent laws.
5) When interviewing a suspect, in custody, the suspect has a right to not be recorded. If this right is not granted exclusionary rules can apply and the interview can be thrown out. (at least in my state)
The one issue that people seem to be forgetting the most is that there is much worry and outcry of the public and many forms of discussion on this blog about how America is being turned into a police state by constant recording by government and the police but here on this topic we want the police to continually record everything that happens. It’s a bit inconsistent.
It is for those reasons and others that body cameras do not run full shift.
As far as sanctioning an officer for not recording each and every situation. That is not realistic because sometimes things can happen so fast anyone does not necessarily do everything by the book. That happens with any person including law enforcement officers. Not to be dismissive as this case could be different. I have know of examples where officers have been sanctioned and in one case terminated by testifying to certain events then selectively recording or not recording certain parts of the incident.
What race is Lisa Lewis? I ask this because I am assuming (yes, I know that’s not good) she is black. If she was white, all of the articles I looked up on this would not have left out that fact. So… I’m just curious. Please, someone tell me she was white.
The new law in Louisiana, dictated by the Bishop of New Orleans, will solve the problem (Agnotology: The Surge – 12).
No more pig-human hybrids (The Germ Theory – of Government – 8).
When police behave as if there is something to hide…
… It usually is because they’re trying to hide something.
All parents know this behavior…
WHAT COMBAT VETERANS SEE IN FERGUSON, MISSOURI
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/08/veterans-ferguson-matthew-farwell
“To my eyes the police, whose business is peace, have no business strutting through the streets carrying M-4 carbines with reflexive-fire sights on top, surefire tactical flashlights on barrel-mounted rail systems slung from three-point harnesses, or white zip-tie flex cuffs over black-body armor, their eyes and faces obscured by gas masks and their heads covered with Kevlar helmets[…]
As Fussell writes, “Playing soldiers used to be appropriate only among small boys.”
Many actual solders wish it had stayed that way.
I want it to work, Anonymous. it should be in use for all public servants.