January 27, 2012 in City

Body cameras considered for Spokane police officers

Jonathan Brunt The Spokesman-Review

Tags:Ben StuckartBody camerasDavid CondonMary VernerombudsmanOtto Zehmpolice accountabilitypolice ombudsmanSpokane Police DepartmentSpokane Police Guild

« Prev

Back

Accuracy watch

Liquor superstores scope out Washington sites

64 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

greenlibertarian on January 27 at 12:35 a.m.
Contract expired?
Everything’s on the table then.
nslopeofw on January 27 at 5:22 a.m.
So, lets negotiate. Mandatory pre-hire and annual physical pee tests, as well as randoms drawn from the pool of LEO’s every month. Say 10%.
Body and vehicle camera’s that require a log at the beginning of every shift. Any camera’s logged out before shift ending is automatic discipline up to and including dismissal.
Ombudsman with the power to make recommendations to a citizens committee (headed by the mayor), which has the power to discipline. LEO’s can grieve any discipline through the guild, and an arbitrator decides the outcome.
Remove all military type training except for SWAT team. Mandatory classes on public relations every 3 years.
ETC.
brianrbreen on January 27 at 7:31 a.m.
@nslopefw
If you want some type of citizens’ review, don’t fall for allowing disciplinary grievances to be settled by an arbitrator in secret. The vast majority of the time an arbitrator will side with the employee and it is a one-person review. Let them grieve it through Civil Service so we all can see, and five citizens can decide.
lewis8457 on January 27 at 8:06 a.m.
brian you are right least we forget the rape and the cop being reinstated through arbitrator.
nslopefw i would like to increase the drug test pool to 28% since that is the percentage of cops on the 505 page that support murder by cop.
The cameras if they are turned off for an reason will be like quitting their job right on the spot, i think a central computer with all cameras on should also be implemented to keep the good ol boy club in check inside the 911 system some how, so their will be a second independent record if cam was turned off.
No contract and the guild has the balls to give the citizen all this grief, one of them stating on fb he is GOD? Now or never Mayor you got the power give us independent oversight!
liveinfearoftheSPD on January 27 at 8:44 a.m.
I see a lot of potential problems and abuses with the cameras.
If the guild has no contract it would be a great time to run them out of town on a rail.
UA_Big_Dummy on January 27 at 8:53 a.m.
@lewis:
The mayor doesn’t posess the authority to implement oversight without negotiating with the guild. Once you educate yourself it should become readilt apparent that the process bears quite a fiscal impact on the community.
@breen
Civil service isn’t the panacea so stop portraying it as such. A more responsible approach would to appoint and elect competent individuals to the executive positions of these agencies so terminations are not over turned by third party reviewers. Recall Mastel: termination over turned by the Civil Service Commission.
The_Seer on January 27 at 9:02 a.m.
Let’s take it a step further: Broadcast the feed from each officer on the internet. I can help with the set up for the video server if they’d like and I won’t charge two large just to get out of bed like Brian Breen!
It would be just like having the NFL Sunday ticket from Direct TV, you know, where you have one channel with all the games picture-in-picture and can toggle between them with ease? That way if a traffic stop is getting mundane and routine you can switch over to catch a glimpse of Deruwe’s badonkadonk or perhaps Davida getting slapped around by a north-side tweaker.
Since I’m pretty certain this is the first time someone has had this idea, I demand the broadcast rights and I’ll begin negotiations with the guild and mayor’s office concerning royalty payments.
I’m going to call this web channel “SPD Raw” and once some income starts rolling in I have a few ideas for original programming to expand the brand.
On a weeknight yet to be determined Brian Breen and guild leader Ernie Wutrich will host a show titled “Ernie and Me” where Brian will pose tough questions like “how do you feel about purchasing all those billboards and plastering them with the faces of “heroes” within the department only to have many those poster boys and girls stand and salute Karl the Klubber after his conviction and join a facebook page pledging their undying fealty to a convicted felon who helped kill a citizen they are sworn to protect?” Okay, the question might be a bit long, that’s why we have editors….
Our Sunday night fare (because Sunday nights NOTHING happens crime-wise in Near Nature, Near Perfect) will feature a pseudo-reality show starring newly elected Mayor Condon. It will be titled “What Will You Do To Be Police Chief?” Contestants will face a range of challenges that comprise standards of the reality t.v. genre including eating things that are gross, whoring oneself for questionable gains, negotiating a “Winter Wipeout” style obstacle course strewn with bullet casings, used condoms and needles, and most importantly the boardroom showdown with Spokesman publisher, Stacey Cowles, where he grills the contestants in “The Donald” style before dismissing the weakest link each episode.
valleyman on January 27 at 9:02 a.m.
@nslope: what is this military training that must be removed that isn’t SWAT related? I’m really curious in that one… My guess is you really have no idea, but are repeating a frequently used talking point from people who don’t like the fact that police forces have to ready for a lot these days.
We now have domestic terrorism, heavily armed bank robbers, school & mall mass shootings, and folks with military grade weapons who commit crimes every day in this country, and you want the police to act like Barney Fife when they role up on a scene, armed with nothing more than their trusty pistol and a new fangled body camera?
Departments could all use more training on interactions with an often volatile, rude, disrespectful, aggressive, violent, drunk public. Yes, we should have respectful police but anyone who thinks the police should wait to act until their ambushed, assaulted, shot at etc., is full of crap.
wobble506 on January 27 at 9:19 a.m.
Yeah, and when we start implementing body cameras, and they back up the police statements, we’ll start seeing all the liberal weenies and ACLU complain about how the cameras violated their civll rights when it caught them in the act, or implicated themselves in a crime inadvertantly.
Oh, and don’t forget everyone saying that the bad ol’ policemen are able to digitally alter the tapes to fit their stories. That will be the next fabrication to come out.
Based on how many people scream against red light cameras in this town, what’s the difference? Oh that’s right, we need to keep the LEO’s in line because they are ALWAYS guilty, but traffic violator’s should get away with their crimes? Smells like a double standard to me.
greenlibertarian on January 27 at 9:27 a.m.
Smells like “Cops can NEVER do know wrong” argument to me. Brilliant.
EthicsinLE on January 27 at 9:27 a.m.
I’ll be the first to take one as I totally support body cameras. I do see some hesitation amongst the officers initially, but once you get used to it and the protection they afford you from false complaints, I can almost guarantee you won’t want to work without one. I’ve had incidents where people made false allegations against me. Once the video was shown to them which proved they flat out lied in their complaint, they had no choice but to walk away. They will save a large amount of money in frivolous lawsuits, time / resources investigating IA complaints and give an honest accounting of what occurs. This is one investment that will have a return on it.
@livin in fear - just curious, what problems and abuses to you see with cameras? This is protection for the officers and public, no getting around the video. Funny, first people whine about officers not carrying them, now that the city is exploring it, they find other reasons to whine.

@seer - you can’t broadcast such images. There are privacy and confidentiality issues with the citizen’s / officer’s contact and certain types of calls. This is not for someone’s personal entertainment. If the involved party has an issue with an officer, they can get a copy of the video via PDR, but due to privacy, confidentiality and policy issues, such information cannot be openly broadcast. Would you like it if an officer interviewing your wife or kids about something very personal was broadcast on the web?
@nsloop, you are terribly uneducated about law enforcement training and tactics. What “military” training do they get? You whine about the militiarization of law enforcement. I bet the officers in the North Hollywood bank shooting, Columbine, Norco bank robbery, etc. would have loved some good ballistic protection, tactical equipment and firearms. You need to look at the types of incidents officers encounter and realize the equipment they use is for your and our protection. In 20+ years, I’ve never received any military training. Sorry, this is a changing world, back when I first started, things like officer ambushes, school shootings, active shooters, terrorism, suspects wearing body armor, etc. were virtually unheard of. In today’s society, they are the normal, so we must adapt. An officer’s FIRST job is to go home alive every night.
greenlibertarian on January 27 at 9:28 a.m.
Or Better, Smells like a “Cops can NEVER do anything wrong” argument to me.
After all, might makes right, every time.
wobble506 on January 27 at 9:42 a.m.
I’ve worked with many police officers over the years, and most of them do the right thing, almost all the time. Yes there are bad apples. None of the them are superheroes. But almost all are trying to do what’s right in generally bad situations.
Greenlibertarian - sounds like you from the
“cops can do nothing right, any of the time” camp
brianrbreen on January 27 at 9:46 a.m.
@UABigDummy
I sure do, I also remember that the CSC which was at that time made up of three members instead of five found a way to force his retirement so they did get rid of him, and put him on a year suspension without pay. I also remember that as a result of Mastel the county sought and received legislative change bumping the CSC up to five people. I also remember that Ozzie had the opportunity to appeal it to Superior, and lost. The same way a cop could if he/she lost. I also remember that the County Commissioners got rid of the CSC member who didn’t belong.
I doubt cops would want their dirt laundry aired in public, but by the same token I doubt that LE Administrators would want their dirty laundry aired in public…. Don’t you? As for me I’d just as soon have five citizens decide whether or not the discipline was appropriate and whether the cop screwed up or the administrators screwed up.
I also remember that a Seattle lawyer arbitrator decided in a secret hearing to reinstate Travis Smith even though she acknowledged he committed a crime, and Ozzie had no where to appeal. I bet you that wouldn’t have happened with five citizens reviewing it. Might want to ask Ozzie what he thinks about negotiating for Secret Disciplinary Arbitration now, or I could give you the names of some Police Chiefs that don’t think it is spiffy.
There is no “panacea”, so the only thing one can do is try and find a fair way for everyone involved, including the Community. For some reason the politicians with a lot of input from public employees decided that Civil Service Commissions were the way to go. Have you got a better way for the cops, and the administrators, to be scrutinized by citizens, or is it a matter not wanting all the dirty laundry on both sides to be aired?
I don’t know why the incompetence of executives wouldn’t be brought to light in a public hearing if the cop had a good case, and yes I agree there has been too damn much incompetence and that has and will cost me money, as you know.
de3 on January 27 at 9:49 a.m.
In Washington, it is against the law for the people to record the police officers, though
Read the law yourself
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
Will city staff do like with the Thompson case and only release edited versions that make the PD look good? Or will they do like Seattle PD and claim the recordings cannot be released until after the statue of limitations is up?
Until we have the same rights as the PD to record interactions with the PD, I oppose the city PD using cameras.
greenlibertarian on January 27 at 9:50 a.m.
Greenlibertarian - sounds like you from the
“cops can do nothing right, any of the time” camp
Point to something where I’ve said such. Never mind, you can’t, because you don’t pay attention.
As a taxpayer, I’m sick of bad apple cops getting off or getting multi-million dollar settlements they don’t deserve, and I have to pay for. Or us taxpayers paying for the non-forced errors of lousy cops.
I’ve experienced it since they bungled the Marks case, AND IT’S NEVER STOPPED.
I’ll GLADLY pay big bucks for HONEST POLICING, not paying out settlements for rogue cops, year after year.
liveinfearoftheSPD on January 27 at 9:50 a.m.
Actually I have no problems with officers wearing cameras, But who will control the feed? The Guild? The SPD in-house? And I have stated a few excuses I can see coming down the pike.
If the live feeds are being sent to a citizens review board where no guild or SPD members have access I see it working much better.
If all possible abuses of the system are addressed then put the cameras on them today.
And we all know the Prosecutors office nor the IA dept. can see what is obvious to all when it comes to viewing tapes.
The cameras should have no possible way of being turned off by the officers wearing them.
de3 on January 27 at 9:51 a.m.
Of course, the city’s law authorizing body cameras could itself authorize the recording by citizens of the police so that the two party authorization would be taken care of.
If the city does not do that, then allowing only the PD to record but not letting the people record really stinks bad.
lewis8457 on January 27 at 10:06 a.m.
the gypsies curse lives on…….
brianrbreen on January 27 at 10:07 a.m.
@Ethics
I agree the vast majority of the time it will back the officer, but there will be times when it doesn’t, and when that happens it will make it a heck of a lot easier on IA. What I think people over look is the fact that the cameras also serve as a training tool. Some cops would have to learn how to better interact with the public, and improve there communication skills.
I would assume that the cameras would be limited to patrol division, so to an extent you would still have some accountability issues in the investigative division where in my view cameras would not be practical.
philipgregory on January 27 at 10:07 a.m.
That’s a good idea!
It would protect both the officer and the public.
brianrbreen on January 27 at 10:11 a.m.
@de3
As long as the interaction between the officer and the citizen is public, a traffic stop for example, the case law establishes the right of the citizen to record the interacton.
philipgregory on January 27 at 10:11 a.m.
The problem still lies where the officer may be ‘legally’ justified to shoot to kill by the loose state law that says he only has to ‘believe’ he is in danger from the person.
Almost any aberrant action by a stressed out individual could be justified as ‘perceivably’ potential life-threatening behavior.
The state law needs to allow local interpretation of the justification. And that interpretation should be made by committee of public and private individuals.
brianrbreen on January 27 at 10:30 a.m.
Here are the exceptions to RCW 9.73, which includes the recently amended sections regarding vehicle mounted and body mounted cameras.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.090
de3 on January 27 at 11:10 a.m.
Brian, the law itself says other wise. Could you cite an example of the case law? Right now, the way the law is written, you’ll violate the law if you video record your kids at the zoo and pick up someone else’s voice. Of course, no one has been prosecuted for that, but that’s the way the law reads.
I imagine certain city attorneys would use that law as grounds to sue the public - until 2008, city attorneys sued members of the public for defamation if they filed a complaint against the SPD.
Would be nice to have the city give citizens equal rights in the law.
Shelala on January 27 at 11:13 a.m.
We can’t buy reform with new equipment. The cameras are in theory a good idea and would protect both the officer and the public, but come with its own set of problems. Look at the controversy about the video in Zehm. In essence we are simply trying to force officers to behave appropriately through the use of new monitoring equipment when we should be trying to stem police abuses by hiring professional trained officers with the appropriate mind set.At some point, we need to develop trust in the people we are paying to do their job appropriately. - just as we trust a doctor to perform surgery, a contractor installing a new roof or ordering a burger that doesn’t contain e-coli. In an ideal world, the cameras would be demanded by officers trying defend against citizen complaints instead of the citizens trying to reign in the cops. We aren’t there yet. The biggest assets of any company or organization is its workforce and if the workers are lacking, no amount of new equipment and policy revisions will correct the problems. I would like to live in a community in which my law enforcement have my respect and credibility earned through appropriate behavior, sound decisions and smart judgements. I want to feel they are fellow members of my community tasked with a job to do and not view me as an outsider to be manipulated, abused or bullied. I want to be able to tell my reckless teenage that the cop didn’t lie and if he/she says they were out of line - they were. We are as far away from that utopia as we have ever been and that is because we failed to hire those who reflect those values. Instead of fighting the police guild about equipment, etc.,maybe we should focus on the selection processes and disciplinary actions of SPD towards a common goal of hiring only the best.
EthicsinLE on January 27 at 11:21 a.m.
@Livinginfear, here is the way most agencies operate the cameras. Officers will be required to wear them and turn them on when they exit the car, have a contact, etc.. Unfortunately, you cannot leave them on at all times as battery life and recording times do not allow for this. If an officer fails to turn it on as he should, he can be disciplined. If he turns it off in the middle of a call or some mysterious unaccounted for time is found, he can be disciplined and his actions during that period may be called into question. The time the officer turns off and on the camera is recorded and can be matched with an officer’s activates / call. At the end of the shift, the officer downloads the video to the department computer, where it is stored. The officer may be able to view it, for example, if he needs to recall something to write his report, but there is also a log of who views it and when. He cannot edit it.
If an officer does not abide by the camera usage policy, shame on him and he will get whatever discipline is appropriate. If it captures an incident of an officer violating policy, shame on him as well. But, if a citizen files a false complaint against an officer and that citizen is shown on video lying about that compliant, I believe charges should be filed against the citizen. I have no problems with a citizen filing a legitimate complaint, but far too many are false or vindictive. I believe the cameras will show that the vast majority of time officers act appropiately
Shelala on January 27 at 11:35 a.m.
@Ethics
I understand your description of how the cameras are used in other jurisdictions, but your suggestion that a citizen be charged for making a false complaint is going too far. IMO. Just as you have suggested that Sullivan should suffer monetarily for her failed attempt to oust Tucker, you have again suggested the citizen be penalized for complaining about anything law enforcement or legal. That is ridiculous. The vindictiveness goes both ways at times (recall the seat stabbing and nine citations?). The officer didn’t even pay for the damaged seat. A good faith standard should be applied (I know, that is a can of worms too). As in every other profession, complaints are part of the job.
rosehips on January 27 at 11:41 a.m.
@de3, I think Brian might be correct. What exactly does the law define as “private conversation”? If you are on the side of the road talking to a cop or at the zoo talking to your kids, would your conversation be considered “private”? If you screamed at your kid before you smacked him in a Walmart aisle, would it be an infringement on your rights if someone recorded it? Could it be used as evidence to convict you?
I’d hate to think that we are prohibited from recording others without their consent when in public spaces. I practice citizen journalism and am not an employee of any news group. If I videotape a public event, am I breaking the law? If I see cops at a protest infringing on a person’s rights, can I record the incident without fear of prosecution? I hope so, but I sure don’t feel secure in that right.
??Riddler?? on January 27 at 11:53 a.m.
?? Anyone ??
?? What is the standard duration of a Contract with the Police Guild ??
?? Are there Model Contracts from other jurisdictions, both within and outside Washington State, which contain some of the provisions we are talking about ??
?? If the City and the Guild reach an impasse in Contract negotiations, are there provisions for binding arbitration ??
brianrbreen on January 27 at 12:02 p.m.
@de3
It started in 1992 with State v Flora, to simplify it I’ll link these because they are from the Ninth Circuit and they list a lot of the cases regarding the issue. The right has been established for quite a while. Washington cops have received all kinds of training bulletins regarding the issue and all should be well aware of the citizen’s right. I linked these because I thought it might be easy for you.
I will tell you that it did happen to an SPD officer when I was on the job, and the officer ended up being disciplined.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/388/676/569794/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-710
samvimes on January 27 at 12:12 p.m.
@de3, the Supreme Court has ruled that public officials doing public business in public have no right to any expectation of privacy, i.e. you can film them at will. Of course, the police keep busting people for doing just that under the pretext of “interfering” with their arrest, even though these cases almost always get dismissed out of hand.
The_Seer on January 27 at 12:14 p.m.
rosehips: None of the above are experts in media/broadcast law. The rights of depiction and controlling your image mostly go out the door when you are in public and that includes people doing their jobs, etc. How else could I get away with videotaping city street workers leaning on shovels or the time I set a time lapse camera while away at work knowing a crew was to arrive later that day to patch a 6x6 piece of street they’d recently destroyed fixing a water main. 9 city workers and 8 hours later the 6x6 patch was in place!
ethics: My post was a joke. Duh. In any case, if I were to digitize images so that faces were unrecognizable I could broadcast the images without releases from the “peformers” and brian is correct stating they could be obtained through PDR.
brianrbreen on January 27 at 12:20 p.m.
@rosehips
You should read the exceptions I linked above, there is a journalism exception. RCW 9.73 has a long history and back in the 70s when a lot of us who were working organized crime we tried to get the legislature to give us a wiretap law. It never happened and this is what we ended up with, but we did get the exceptions, back then our side figured the legislatures wouldn’t give it to us because they were afraid they would get tapped, and they were probably right. I don’t remember the Seattle cops name but he was a crooked cop and met this guy in an alley who was going to testify against him. The cop shot and killed him, but the guy secretly recorded the shooting, so that also had an impact.
The issue regarding RCW 9.73 is whether or not the “communication” was private, and people sometimes get hung up on that.
liveinfearoftheSPD on January 27 at 1:36 p.m.
@Ethics
I have an ICD in my chest, battery life is 15 to 20 years. If it can be done for a medical device it surely can be done for a camera.
In today’s digital age it is quite possible to record for the duration of ones shift.
Any abuse, turning off the camera, covering the camera lens, should require immediate dismissal, no pension, no chance of rehire. If the officers are honest and above board this shouldn’t be a problem. No more letters in their jackets, no more slaps on the wrist, no more talking too. First offence or abuse is termination period.
I am guessing by downloading to the department computers you are referring to the SPD computers, again I see a HUGE problem with the police controlling any kind of video evidence. They have already proven to be not so trustworthy in that department.
rosehips on January 27 at 1:45 p.m.
the seer, think that’s bad? Here’s how they waste our taxes in Colville: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-519949
brian, I understand the journalism exception but a recent ruling in some court (not sure which) decided that bloggers or citizen journalists don’t qualify as real journalists.
Loudin on January 27 at 1:56 p.m.
I’d like to see them put a camera on Officer DeRuwe; I could watch that sweet trunk 24/7…might even pay to do so.
Loudin
therailroader on January 27 at 2:35 p.m.
The proper use of this technology does prevent abuses from happening. However, look at the footage of the beating of Otto Zelm ~ the police had the footage firsthand & purposely suppressed it. It’s time to force the police guild to change or else,let the guild quit ~ there are plenty of returning Iraqi vets who could do a better job than what exists today.
brianrbreen on January 27 at 2:59 p.m.
@rosehips
I have no idea how the courts that count view a blogg site Blogger as apposed to a journalist.
There seems to be some difference of opinion right here on this thread as to what constitutes journalism. I bet I could line up 50 cops or more that would say Doug Clark isn’t a “journalist”. I don’t know, would you consider Ron Wright a “journalist”, I think he has a blog. Got me, I don’t know!!!
Spokanewaste on January 27 at 2:59 p.m.
Great! Let’s spend more money we don’t have. I was hopeful my fellow republicans would stay true to their constituents. This is an over reaction to a bad cop. Similar to the vast and expensive TSA force you see at airports. Save the dough.
EthicsinLE on January 27 at 3:21 p.m.
@ liveinfearoftheSPD - Body cameras are new technology. I don’t care if the medical industry, NASA or Santa Claus has the technology to make batteries last for 10-20 years, that technology is not yet made or available for police body cameras. Do the research, you might learn something. Sure, there are systems that can records for 12+ hours, but those are the in car systems with a CD writer and large recorder. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a body camera, but it’s about the size of a pager. If you don’t like what is out there or think they can do better, call the camera manufacturers and tell them – want their phone number? One of the larger manufacturers of body cameras (Vievue), which are used by law enforcement, only has a 4 hour battery time and 4 hour recording time. This is the technology out there currently, but I guess you’ll blame that on the police to. So the notion of keeping it on every minute of your shift is not possible. Do you propose I keep it on when I take my on duty dump? Maybe keep it on when I meet my wife and kids on my lunch break? Maybe keep it on when I fall asleep on duty – trust me, you’d get bored looking at the headliner for 2 hours (joking).
You also suggest officers be fired if they turn it off, cover it, etc.. This is so stupid I won’t even respond. You have to evaluate each incident on its merits. It doesn’t matter what LE does, some of you are never happy and will always find a reason to complain. You are dangerously ignorant of officer safety issues, tactics, law and human nature. How about you take the time to educate yourself about the dangers police face and stop getting your “education” from the SR, News and COPS. I’d suggest you do a ride along with an officer and see what really goes on - but no, that might require effort on your part, it’s much easier to sit at your keyboard and whine. This is a huge step for the PD and community, I hope the Guild does not oppose it. I am confident once the officers get used to them, they will never want to work without one.
@spokanewaste – I agree, we don’t have then money for these cameras. The Sheriff has fought for them for some time now and got rejected by the commissioners. But, as a police officer, I can tell you these will save a large amount of money by no longer paying out some “go away money” over false complaints. Just one lawsuit will pay for the cameras. They will save a lot of money and resources in investigations of false complaints.
Shelala on January 27 at 4:07 p.m.
@Ethics
Yeah right… Us vs them promoted by you .Get rid of the “no one knows my pain” attitude You assume a great deal about what some people may or may not know. Don’t want to listen to anybody but brothers in blue? You are exactly what’s wrong and can never be fixed as long as this attitude prevails. Ride along? I read about a recent ride along on KXLY in which the local SPD found nothing wrong with ceremoniously presenting a snickers bar for doing well in training as a comment on Otto’s death. Sorry I have no need for any ride along. I don’t have to watch a roofer sweat in the hot sun to know there is a leak in the roof.
liveinfearoftheSPD on January 27 at 4:41 p.m.
@NoEthicsinle
Wow, I have concerns and opinions and it is whining? You are some piece of work, you really have no ethics. You are like the trolls that attack people that are not like minded. Sad really that the citizens must place their trust in people such as yourselves.
Your arrogance, along with many of the Spokane LE, knows no bounds.
So you say I will blame the fact that batteries are not made to last more than 4 hours on the police “TOO” What else have I blamed the police for?
It is attitudes such as yours that deepens my mistrust in the SPD as a whole.
brianrbreen on January 27 at 4:44 p.m.
@Ethics
I think it is important to understand the legislators when they added the amendments regarding the vehicle/body recording devices got pretty much the same reaction you are getting here from various groups concerned about altering the data. So they added the second section linked below to the penalty portion of RCW 9.73.
In essence anyone who alters, erases, or wrongfully discloses the data is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
The problem may come from the wording of the amendment itself in that it states:
“ No sound recording device may be intentionally turned off by the law enforcement officer during the recording of an event. Once the event has been captured, the officer may turn off the audio recording and place the system back into “pre-event” mode.”
It is the old “may not be” as opposed to “ shall not be” issue that many people are concerned about, and of course the “intentionally” issue. It might have to be court tested if it ever happens in Washington. So the question isn’t really that ridiculous and it has been brought up before in a number of venues. I realize you might not think an officer would intentionally turn off the recording device, but honestly I think you know there are some that would, and have.
I also don’t think a lot of people understand how difficult it is to alter or erase the data, without the alteration or eraser being identified, there is some very sophisticated technology available to identify just that.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.080
EthicsinLE on January 27 at 4:51 p.m.
@livinfear - so I guess I won’t put you down for a ride along???
liveinfearoftheSPD on January 27 at 5:02 p.m.
@NoEthics
Okay I did a little research, here is one that claims to record for over 21 hours on a single charge. and costs less than $100.00
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/mini-dv-recorder.html
So the technology is out there.
EthicsinLE on January 27 at 5:34 p.m.
@livinfear – nice try, keep up the work. If you took the time to read it, it does not record audio, just poor quality video. That camera is not designed to be worn on the body, but is more of a stationary, nanny type cam. You don’t want to go cheap in such an important item when the evidence it captures is so vital. Maybe you can find one at the dollar store for me? There are very few companies that make actual body cams for law enforcement. They need to be rugged, weather proof, not interfere with radio / radar and other frequencies and capture good, quality images and audio and be tamper proof.
Ron_the_Cop on January 27 at 7:07 p.m.
@Brian and EthicsinLE,
I don’t think there is a problem with the law. The law is behind the development of the technology and this is to be expected. There may be some need for minor leg tweaking. Generally in public places anything is fair game either of the cops and or by the cops. There are cameras everywhere nowadays. What we have is transparent privacy. Every watch that great TV show “Person of Interest”?
BTW I think there is a very recent case out of CA by the 9th that upheld citizens or whoever having the right to video the police. Also the courts generally have recognized citizen bloggers as coming under the umbrella of “journalists” that would require a special master for the purpose of serving search warrants for recorded material to protect confidential sources.
The porn pedaphilla/”Nambla” related folks who claim to be journalists to some degree can claim some preferential treatment for the purpose of search warrants for electronic data files. However if done correctly with special masters appointed by the court, they can be done for child porn trafficing if that’s what they are doing. The same thing I think hold true for filming the police if there was something captured that would go to the truth of an incident like Zehm.
@EthicsinLE we can agree on using cams. From my experience I would sell it to the rank and file as a protection from false or misguided complaints e.g., probably greater than 80%. This would save a lot of staff time up front in IA investigations that there were no grounds for filing or some misunderstanding. BTW I submitted my complaint online re the salute, I was not require to sign anything. I personally delivered my formal complaints re former Chief Kirkpatrick re the Savage case and the Creach OIS investigations to OPO Tim Burns. I was not asked to sign anything. The copy I gave to the SO on the SPD OIS investigation on the Creach case I did sign the standard complaint form. It’s only on the current murder case that I’m representing a client who filed a IA complaint that I did not sign.
Yes I too am aware of the limitations re battery life and storage capacity for body cams. The technology exists it just needs to migrate to LE vendors that can meet the specs necessary for rugged use by LE. The military applications are doing it know its just a matter of bringing this tech to the civilian market. In the meantime it can be done now for the time being with short feeds in a manner that the videos are preserved/archived so they can’t be tampered with.
I would like to see dash cams and or endless loop video/audio loops in the patrol vehicles much like the cockpit airline recorders. This would have been very useful in the Creach OIS case. Instead we are left with Deputy Hirzel’s account nine days later. I’m sorry based on my review of all the reports, forensic evidence et al I’m not satisfied with Hirzel’s explanation of how this went down. AGAIN I”M NOT SAYING this shooting was criminal only that I am not satisfied with Deputy Hirzel’s statements. Such a dash camera/audio loop recorder would have been the tie breaker and saved many man hours of investigation.
Ron_the_Cop on January 27 at 7:11 p.m.
OK for the folks that haven’t figured it out yet there is a previous post for this article when it first went up on the S-R web page without a byline. Some of these comments are related to previous comments posted there:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jan/26/spokane-leaders-outline-proposed-police-reforms/
Shelala on January 27 at 7:42 p.m.
IMO we could have a professional Hollywood camera crew follow the SPD around taping every move, but until they figure out how to interact with the public and not to abuse the authority granted to them by the citizens they serve, things won’t change.
Ron_the_Cop on January 27 at 8:28 p.m.
Shelala,
There is truth in what you say. The solution will be a full court press involving a multi faceted approach. There no one simple solution. The playing field is dynamic.
EthicsinLE on January 27 at 10:23 p.m.
Ron, given the choice between body cameras or dash cameras, I’d go with body cameras. Dash cameras only capture what is directly in front of the police car and have a very narrow field of view. They will not capture what goes on at the side or rear of the car. With body cameras, you can take them inside a house, side of the road, etc.. You see what the officer actually sees. Most of what occurs does not happen in front of the police car. There is no way the departments will go with dash cams and body cams, far too expensive. I’m sure the technology will evolve for continuous loop recording, longer battery life etc., but we have to take what is available now.
greenlibertarian on January 27 at 10:28 p.m.
Ron_the_Cop on January 27 at 8:28 p.m.
Shelala,
There is truth in what you say. The solution will be a full court press involving a multi faceted approach. There no one simple solution. The playing field is dynamic.
Remember that article about Condon’s transition team “coming together” I believe after inauguration?
Something about jargon, business-speak, dilbert language.
Your paragraph above is Exhibit One.
Sorry man.
Tilt @ the windmills enough, that always happens. Pity that.
Shelala on January 27 at 11:39 p.m.
IMO, what is happening is just a visible cosmetic fix by the city to placate SPD detractors and move on. Form committees, buy the police new equipment, throw around some buss words and step up press releases of feel good PD items (beanie baby). Problem solved - until the next incident. Even the current proposals are being watered down as we speak. Wait until the guild gets a hold of them. Some like Brian has some ideas on establishing transparency and discipline (albeit a little cop blue pops out every now and then), but not a peep about that subject from the committees. We are willing to purchase cameras capable of recording police abuses. How about taking action in stemming the abuses in the first place? I’d rather know an officer will not club someone inappropriately because he knows it is wrong, than to have an officer not club a guy out of fear of being caught. Smoke and mirrors.
brianrbreen on January 28 at 6:55 a.m.
@Shelala
It would be pretty hard to convince some cops that “cop blue” ever shows up in me. I realize it does sometimes but hopefully only from the standpoint of being fair.
In reality, I’d be surprised if the body cameras become a reality for a while here. They are obviously a working condition and have to be negotiated. If I were on the Guild negotiating team cameras would be a no, and I suspect that is the position of the Guild at this point, not because I personally oppose them but because it makes sense from a tactical standpoint if the contract goes to binding arbitration. I would figure cameras are one of the first things the City would throw out because of the cost factor. I would however be willing to concede in arbitration to a pilot program with a limited number of officers for a defined period while holding on to final say in a departmental wide requirement. That kind of stuff looks good to an arbitrator and to the public while at the same time accomplish my goal to get the best contract possible.
From a citizen’s standpoint, there are a number of other things ahead of the cameras I would like to see concessions on that would allow for more transparency, accountability, and reputation building.
I’m not sure if that’s more “ cop blue” than “citizen white” but it is at least honest.
Shelala on January 28 at 10:42 a.m.
@Brian
I totally agree. Don’t worry about the cop blue, perhaps it gives a wider perspective in some ways. Even though I detest the police guild and its tactics, etc., I recognize that it is still serves a union function for its members.If I were a cop, I think I’d like an aggressive bulldog backing me, even if I had done something wrong. I don’t look for that to change, but the city has to play equal hardball towards meaningful change.and maybe bring in some expert legal help from the outside better equipped to determine what issues really need to be negotiated and what changes can be made without ineffective squawking. This is no time to roll over. As far as the cameras and superficial crap, I still contend it is smoke and mirrors intended to pacify detractors without addressing core issues which are tremendously difficult to delve into. I know when I am being played or placated. Ideas such as expanding the SPD IA unit to contain a proactive professional responsibility function that searches for trends and patterns in identifying potentially problem officers and nip it in the bud before it become a full blown incident, IMO should be explored.
brianrbreen on January 28 at 10:49 a.m.
@Shelala
I agree the City has to play hardball, the question is will they. Some of this posturing is getting a bit nauseating.
Shelala on January 28 at 11:20 a.m.
@Brian
ALL of this posturing is nauseating and expensive and non productive and self serving. Campaign platforms are always like teflon - difficult to make the promises stick. Every once in a while, voters actually elect someone who is willing to stand by campaign promises and stated goals without watering them down under pressure. Unfortunately, it appears we are stilling waiting to elect one. IMO, now we have committees to share the blame and shield the elected officials from failing to follow through. Everyone speaks of expense and budgets for reform. I am still waiting for the costs to be determined paid by the taxpayers as a result of KT, not to mention others. Apparently, we have moved on or buried the issues of the saluters or obnoxious defenders of KT and other issues relating to recent outrageous LE behavior and are now on to discussing how to use new equipment we might purchase for them to use. wow.
Ron_the_Cop on January 28 at 5:05 p.m.
@Green,
Sorry for being obtuse with buzwords of the day:-) Try this.
SPD and perhaps the SO are in a world of crap.
Previous police leaders were in over their heads and failed to lead. Police leaders at best were clueless if not complicit in covering up serious mistakes by the rank and file. These leaders did not want to take the heat for these mistakes. It would have been much cheaper to US TAXPAYERS in the long run to acknowledge and to apologize that mistakes were made, learn from them, take action to ensure that they don’t happen again. These leaders allowed the barrel of apples to rot allowing a cultural of corruption and denial to flourish.
Elected leaders - the County Prosecutor, the Mayor, the City Council and City Officials buried their heads in the sand and or were shaking in their boots of what the Guild might politically do and also failed to act The Guild circled the wagons and it became “them vs. us [citizens].”
IMO Treppiedi and Deputy Chief Odenthal et al obstructed justice by attempting to cover-up the death of Otto Zehm. Treppiedi blew in Mayor Verner’s ear. Mayor Verner was suckered into believing Thompson did no wrong. Verner did not want to P/O the Guild. Mayor Verner screwed the citizens who voted her into office.
Chief Kirkpartrick was in la la land by trying to separate herself from the Zehm case. Further Chief Kirkpatrick must have been smoking dope when she reviewed the Zehm case and announced publicly that Thompson did nothing wrong as well as saying that the salute by SPD officials in federal court was protected free speech - B R O V O S I E R R A !
The death of Otto Zehm was the tipping point. The feds came in when the others wouldn’t take care of business. The feds played hardball in our bush league, did the investigation aided by a federal grand jury that the locals wouldn’t or couldn’t do, went to trial and got a conviction. I’d be sweating bullets if I were involved in the cover-up of Zehm’s death as I don’t think the feds are done yet.
SPD et al is one big clogged cesspool. First the tank has to be pumped out, then the plumbing and drain field need to be checked for leaks, routed and then blown out, and then fresh chemicals poured in. A time consuming and dirty job:-)
The $64 question is whether Mayor Condon up to this job or will he only do cosmetic changes as Shelala is inclined to believe leaving this toxic waste to fester and to smell even worse?
And lastly don’t forget all of these folks work for WE THE PEOPLE! We don’t have to put up with the BS!
How’s that Green?
greenlibertarian on January 28 at 7:35 p.m.
Much better, quite cogent, thanks Ron.
Shelala on January 28 at 8:18 p.m.
Yay. Ron!
Ron_the_Cop on January 28 at 8:39 p.m.
@Green and Shelala
:-)
therailroader on January 28 at 10:32 p.m.
Nice first move. Most of the SPD are decent people, however, an oversight org needs to weed out the “evil ones” which means firing without benefits or pension. Smart asses like the clown who beat Otto Zelm to death made sure he “divorced” his wife so he couldn’t lose anything!
liveinfearoftheSPD on January 28 at 11:12 p.m.
Nice recap Ron. I take solace in believing there are still many shaking in their boots waiting for the hammer of justice to fall on them. I do believe their days are numbered.