- cross-posted to:
- abq
- cross-posted to:
- abq
Medina offered two puzzling excuses for leaving his camera off. He “cited intermittent conversations with his wife, who was a passenger in his unmarked patrol vehicle at the time of the collision,” Ortiz says. “He claimed there was a right to privileged communication between spouses, which specifically exempted him from mandatory recording requirements.” But the relevant policy “does not provide for nonrecording based on spousal privilege.”
Even more troubling, Medina said he “purposefully did not record because he was invoking his 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate.” Since “he was involved in a traffic collision,” he reasoned, he was “subject to 5th Amendment protections.”
Yep, the on duty part makes his claim irrelevant. Or, rather, it doesn’t count as self incrimination. The entire point of the cameras is to cover on duty activity, and is no different than a cctv in a parking lot at the police station because the patrol vehicle is public property, not his.
It’s more than that. When you accept the responsibility of acting as an agent of the state, your actions are those of the state. And we the people have a right to know what actions the state is taking, especially in policing, where those actions are far too often against us.
Going beyond that, bodycams protect everyone, both the public and the officers. Having spoken to police officers about bodycams, the good ones love them, because if someone decides to make a false complaint against an officer, they have bodycam footage to defend themselves with. One officer told me that the number of complaints went down after the introduction of bodycams, because the department would say, “Okay, we’ll pull the footage” … and a good number of those complaintants would suddenly vanish.
The only cops who don’t want bodycams are the ones who would be incriminated by that footage.