POLICE BODY CAMERAS THREATEN RIGHTS OF BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE

THOSE ARE THE SAME GROUPS DEMANDING THEY WEAR BODY CAMERAS IN THE FIRST PLACE

11-16-2017

BODY CAM

The number of U.S. police departments outfitting their officers with body cameras increases each year, but the cameras can pose a threat to civil rights if the departments fail to set rules that govern when officers review footage from their cameras, according to a new report.

The vast majority of the nation’s biggest police departments allow officers to watch footage from body cameras whenever they want, including before they write their incident reports or make statements, said the report, which was released Tuesday by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

“Unrestricted footage review places civil rights at risk and undermines the goals of transparency and accountability,” said Vanita Gupta, former head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and current head of the Leadership Conference, in the report’s introduction.

Because an officer’s memory of an event may be altered by watching body camera footage, doing so will likely alter what officers write in their reports. That, in turn, can make it more difficult for investigators or courts to assess whether the officer’s actions were reasonable based on what he or she perceived at the time of the incident, states the report, “The Illusion of Accuracy: How Body-Worn Camera Footage Can Distort Evidence.”

Body camera programs are in place at 62 of the 69 largest U.S. police departments, according to a scorecard released Tuesday by the Leadership Conference. Most of those departments—55, or almost 80 percent—allow officers to view their footage whenever they want.

The Leadership Conference report advises that police departments institute a “clean reporting” policy, under which officers write an initial incident report before reviewing any footage. Only afterward would they watch the footage and write a second, supplementary report.

“We make the case that in the interests of consistency, fairness, transparency and accountability, clean reporting should be adopted as a standard practice for all police departments with body-worn camera programs,” writes Gupta in the introduction.

Some policing experts say officers should view the footage before writing a report to make sure the account is correct.

“They want to be as accurate as they can,” Lance LoRusso, an ex-cop and current Atlanta attorney who represents police officers, told the Associated Press. “This specter that every time an officer looks at the video they’re going to lie and adapt their statement just is infuriating because we want the officers to write the most accurate report they can.”

DAWG SAYS:

It is interesting that the same groups that were demanding that officers wear body cams, but now realize that those same body cams are used as evidence against them and want to complain about that. It’s the old saying be careful what you ask for you just may get it.

I related as similar to when they brought in slow motion instant replay to professional sports like baseball, and it showed for the most part how good the umpires and referees were. But it did help tremendously when there were problems and there seemed to be ongoing problems too.

You can’t complain for years about something that you want, or you think you need, to monitor the police and then complain about it when you get it, you need to live with it.


NEW GAS AND CAR FEES TAX GOES IN EFFECT TOMORROW…….

JUST A REMINDER TO BEND OVER AND GRAB YOUR ANKLES…….

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MICKI DEE’S REPLACEMENTS……….

I WAS IN LOS ANGELAS YESTERDAY AND LOOK WHAT I FOUND…….

HOW IS THAT “LIVING WAGE” WORKING OUT?

SACRAMENTO TO PAY GANG MEMBERS TO NOT KILL…….

$1.5 MILLION SET ASIDE IN TIGHT BUDGET TIMES

(EXPECT A NEW TAX NOW)


The city of Sacramento is trying a new tactic regarding gang violence.

Critics claim the council just voted unanimously to pay folks not to commit crimes. So, what’s the deal? The Director of the Mayor’s Gang Prevention and Intervention Task Force was asked just how big a deal is gang violence in Sacramento?

“It’s bigger than we would like it to be and it’s going in the wrong direction,” said Khaalid Muttaqi. “We’ve had an uptick of about 38 percent in the last couple of years in gun-related violence.”

And just this past Sunday, police responded to a deadly shooting in broad daylight.

According to the Sacramento Police Department, the shooting happened around 2:30 p.m. on the 7700 block of 24th St. at Meadow View Park. Officers found one person suffering from gunshot wounds. The unidentified victim was transported to the hospital where they were later pronounced dead.

That set the stage for Tuesday night. The Sacramento City Council voted unanimously to move forward in the negotiation of a contract with a group called Advance Peace.

The city of Sacramento has set aside $1.5 million over three years that would go to the Advance Peace program.

It’s a part of an 18-month program where those involved get job-training and mentoring. If they complete six months successfully, they could also receive up to $1,000 per month for nine months.

The program has been successful in places here in California like Richmond. Some might say the city is putting it’s money where it’s mouth is when it comes to taking on gang violence.

OK FAIR ENOUGH BUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER NINE MONTHS?

HOW IS THE LAW REGARDING STINGRAYS WORKING?

POLICE TRANSPARENCY MAY NOT BE HAPPENING

by Marty Carlson

8-30-2017


During the life of this blog I have done several reports on a cell phone call interceptors device called the Stingray. This device mimics a cell phone tower and intercepts phone calls and text messages without either party in the call or message having any idea that it’s happened.

Sacramento County finally admitted to having a stingray after years of denial. Read HERE and HERE.

It has also caused some agencies to dismiss charges rather than admit its use, read HERE and HERE

a recent article in the Los Angeles times talks about the new legislation involved concerning stingray devices and the notifications that agencies are supposed to serve to the public of their ownership, and rules of usage.

The Times did a review of records from some of the state’s largest police and sheriff’s departments and found some agencies have been slow to follow or have ignored the law. Several these agencies partner with federal agencies to work on cases that are not subject to the laws reporting requirements.

Understand the stingray can be used in a vehicle like a van and be parked around the corner from your house and target your specific handheld device. Many federal agencies have devices and make them available to local law enforcement agencies. Realizing that some investigators with the law enforcement agencies actually “double badge,” meaning they also have FBI authorities and abilities and resources. It is a common practice these days to give them more resources. Those resources include the stingray cell phone intercepting device.

The only times reported that 21 law enforcement agencies were surveyed, and 12 were found to have access or own stingray or similar devices. Nine of those agencies had developed and released online public policies.

Here is a list of the 12 agencies they found:

Department Device Policies
LAPD OWN YES
Long Beach Police OWN YES
L.A. County Sheriff OWN YES
San Diego Police OWN YES
San Jose Police OWN YES
Fresno Police ACCESS** NO
Sacramento Police OWN YES
Sacramento County Sheriff OWN YES
Oakland Police ACCESS** YES
Alameda district attorney’s office OWN YES
Santa Ana Police ACCESS** NO
Anaheim Police OWN YES

**Officers don’t operate the stingray but work with other agencies that may

The Times also reviewed hundreds of documents that he received through public information request regarding purchase orders and memos and grant proposals for the use of stingrays and similar devices are also known as “dirt boxes.”

The devices cost up to $500,000 and are marketed for preventing and responding to terrorist threats. The documents found suggests they are used more frequently in criminal cases such as burglaries murders and kidnappings.

Some of the policies that were posted online by the agencies revealed little about the devices itself except for the fact they were in use. Many agencies took months to post their guidelines online.

The times and found that some of the agencies that own the stingrays bought them between 2006 and 2013, mostly with federal grant money or under programs. Some of those agreements prohibited any type of public disclosure. Local tax dollars were not used in the cities and counties didn’t ask about them in a public forum.

In 2015, California lawmakers passed a sweeping electronic communications privacy act, which prohibited any investigative body in the state from forcing businesses to turn over digital communications without a warrant. In addition, legislation was introduced to compel local law enforcement agencies to disclose more information about the use of stingrays in California.

During one judiciary committee hearing it was stated “that our country has a rich history of democracy and civilian oversight and the stealth use of these devices undercuts that very nature of our government.”

The law which took effect in January 2016, requires cities and counties to create guidelines for how and when officers use the equipment. Any agency wants to buy a device must first receive approval at a public hearing.

OLD VS YOUNG…….

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS…….