Now that phones with video cameras are widespread, anyone can take video of most anything at any time, including police activity.
Some of this video has justified police actions as warranted and proper. Other examples showed officers engaging in misconduct or even criminal behavior.
Rodney King’s case seems so long ago now, in part because at the time it was seen as an anomaly that someone actually had a camera to record Los Angeles police officers beating him.
Today we’re more likely to tune in to caught-on-tape TV shows that use actual police footage showing officers having to put up with belligerent drunks they’ve pulled over or with people high on something in an escalating domestic dispute, or depicting cops chasing down suspects over fences and through vacant lots.
And so it’s not really surprising to learn from a story by the Tribune’s Garin Groff that by April, 50 Mesa police officers will be taking video of officers in action as a response to the proliferation of footage taken by bystanders. Cost to taxpayers: $67,000.
Groff reported that police in Mesa are doing this to reduce meritless allegations made against police officers, in addition to providing video documentation of crime-scene evidence and things suspects do — things I’m sure that would not look good for suspects if played back in a courtroom.
Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead’s view, reported by Groff, is that what bystander video that gets broadcast by news media often fails to tell the whole story of the incident. He has a point; only the most provocative few seconds of an incident often makes it onto television news broadcasts.
We can only hope that cops who take video will avoid what some officers wrongly engage in: telling bystanders with their own cameras, who are standing on public property and a reasonable distance from the action, to stop shooting.
Examples abound locally and nationally of police informing folks, who are admittedly often sympathetic with the people whom officers are trying to detain or disperse, to turn off their cameras.
The reasons such officers often give don’t square with the First Amendment: That somehow posting video of an incident that occurred outdoors in front of several witnesses — that is, a public act — is going to somehow spill the beans on police’s ability to build a case.
More likely is that some officers just don’t like to be scrutinized, especially by some guy with a camera who probably isn’t keeping his mouth shut. But in our society the First Amendment provides the public with a valuable ability to check on the power we give police to arrest and, if the situation warrants, to use deadly force. These are potent denials of personal liberty that need to be checked on by a vigilant citizenry.
While there’s nothing wrong with what the Mesa police force is doing, an important thing to remember for these and other men and women in blue is that video they take is by law deemed to be a public record unless they can show in court that it is entitled to be kept secret.
“This is an ongoing investigation,” a time-honored police explanation for refusal to release information, alone is not enough to keep it from the public, according to a 1993 Arizona Supreme Court decision that involved this newspaper. Only a specific showing of the harm caused by the release of a record would be sufficient to keep it confidential, the state’s high court ruled.
This means that even evidence gathered via video would be and should be accessible as a public record under most circumstances. And so members of the public would be entitled to compare police footage as well as that they themselves take.
Just as police blanch at selected snippets of the public’s video of what they do reaching the news media or the Internet, so must they understand that only through access to all their footage of an incident can the public truly know whether police acted accordingly or justifiably.
A Tribune reader identified as downtownresident put it well in a comment to Groff’s story on eastvalleytribune.com: “This only makes sense if the public is given full access to the recordings. Otherwise, it’s just a propaganda tool for the police to use to make themselves look good. Full disclosure or nothing.”
It should not be far easier to get video from police when it depicts officers acting properly than video that shows that they are not. So long as the right of access by the public can be fully exercised, then the public should have little to fear from the sight of handheld police cameras.
Read Mark J. Scarp’s opinions here on Sundays. Watch his video commentaries on eastvalleytribune.com. Reach him at mscarp1@cox.net.
commonsenseaintcommon posted at 10:01 am on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
There have been numerous incidents where police have claimed that their vidoe cameras in their cars malfunctioned or weren't operative when they want to make the circumstances fit their story. The Mesa chief shoud tell the cops that every minute of every video need to be preserved so the cops can't pick and choose the ones they want anyone to see. A citizen with a video camera is more trustworthy than a cop with one.
Masterrogue666 posted at 12:47 pm on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
Depends on the cop, depends on the citizen....
Arizona Willie posted at 1:11 pm on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
No one is afraid of the cops taking video ... the cops are afraid of citizens taking video.
When cops don't want their actions videoed, there is a strong indication they ( cops ) know they are doing something wrong.
Rich posted at 6:41 pm on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
It's scary to live in a techno world. No photo, no video can really be taken at face value. We have the technology to alter it. In a court of law to change reality in fact. Especially now, we have to do some inventing, before a photo or video is admissible as evidence.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:25 pm on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
Rich, yes photos and videos can be doctored. But technicians can tell when that happens too.
And, in most of the cases where a photo / video shows the cops being ungood ... the people who took it turned it over to the media very quickly and wouldn't have had time to doctor it.
Doctoring photos and videos so it can't be told except by experts in a lab is not easy nor quick and takes some resources and experience.
So when a video surfaces that was taken by some convenience store clerk or bus driver etc. I would doubt they had either.
Now if it was taken by a photographer and not turned in till two days later then you would have a possibility. But in most instances people have ran to a tv station with their cell phone with the video still in the phone.
Brindy posted at 7:23 am on Mon, Mar 5, 2012.
I wonder how often the 'video' will have been erased when a subpoena to produce the records from the cops are served. Has the Mesa PD hired Rosemary Woods yet?
Rich posted at 10:04 am on Mon, Mar 5, 2012.
"Doctoring photos and videos so it can't be told except by experts in a lab is not easy nor quick and takes some resources and experience."
Actually the latest programs do it untraceably in minutes.and anyone can learn if fairly quickly.Most photos are faked the simplest photoshop programs to that.They should never be used a evidence.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:24 am on Tue, Mar 6, 2012.
Rich, how many people have programs to meddle with videos that are on their phone?
How many would have the expertise to run it properly?
Very very very few.
I'm wondering why you are so against videos and pictures of the cops doing wrong?
Can you show me a case of doctored videos / photos being introduced in court?
As I said, in most cases, bystanders who video cops in action that they think is wrong immediately call the local tv station and upload it.
If video was turned in days later then you might have reason to be suspicious.
A great percentage of people have trouble even sending e-mail let alone taking video and then running programs capable of doctoring the video so even experts couldn't tell it had been fiddled with.
I don't believe your claims that it is that easy.
I have Paint Shop Pro and I know it takes a lot of time to even redo a picture let alone to alter a video frame by frame.
I'm not an expert though. But then, neither are the people who just happen to be in position to video police action.
Saying these people doctor the videos they submit just doesn't fly. Really makes me wonder why you would think they do.
I'm all up on the side of the police -- 99.9% of the time --- but there are bad apples and I think it is good when people video police action. They are public employees and it helps to keep them honest. I can understand how tempting it can be to beat the Rush out of some evil doer at times ... but they are supposed to be trained to overcome that temptation.
Rich posted at 12:13 pm on Tue, Mar 6, 2012.
The police could easily have in-house facilities to alter any video they take. And photo radar, the numbers put up by it, seem to make it obvious that some were faked for income. It isn't bystanders with a smartphone that bother me, however, they do not meet the criteria of evidence, not in the modern world, and an institutional force, like the police using them as evidence should not be allowed.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:26 am on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Rich, you seem to be mixing up a couple of different concepts. You started claiming bystander videos could be faked and now you have migrated to talking about police faking THEIR videos.
Sure, it would be possible for the police department to do that. But do you really really believe no one would blow the whistle on an operation like that? Any officer running for police chief could guarantee his election by blowing the whistle on the incumbent.
Just ain't gonna happen my friend.
Then too you wander into photo radar which is an entirely different concept. The police don't need to fake photo radar. All you have to do is go pull over on the 202 on the North side of town and get out of your car and stand there for a half an hour and you would need tranquilizers to stop the shaking. Virtually EVERY car going by is speeding. And 100 mph is not unusual.
People rail against photo radar and claim only uniformed officers should give tickets. Why? Because they want to speed without getting caught. Officers get distracted, get bribed, get conned into not giving tickets etc. etc
Cameras don't care if the young girl speeding shows her charms. Cameras don't care if you keep your license and registration in a folder with a $100 bill folded in with them.
And, most of all, the opponents of cameras know people will not pay the taxes to pay for enough police to have any significant effect on speeding. At any one time the Highway Patrol only has about 10 officers on patrol. Your chances of meeting one are Slim and None and Slim is out of town.
Every study undertaken has proven that the cameras reduce speeding and accidents.
Now on to another concept.
Why do you claim that bystanders video doesn't meet the criteria of evidence? Their videos have been used in court many many times.
It seems the courts don't have a problem with them ---- YOU DO.
Hmmm, I wonder why.
Rich posted at 11:01 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
"Sure, it would be possible for the police department to do that. But do you really really believe no one would blow the whistle on an operation like that?"
Yep, sure do.
"Then too you wander into photo radar which is an entirely different concept. "
Nope, same concept. Blind the truth with technology.
"Every study undertaken has proven that the cameras reduce speeding and accidents."
Again, nope several studies indicate the yellow light interval is more influential, as is the raising of speed limits on interstates as it relieves fatigue. Neither is profitable for government is the problem.
"Why do you claim that bystanders video doesn't meet the criteria of evidence? Their videos have been used in court many many times."
Because nothing produced digitally is necessarily real.
"It seems the courts don't have a problem with them ---- YOU DO.
Hmmm, I wonder why."
Because courts, like the government are corrupt. Too much money and too much power always seems to lead there.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:52 am on Thu, Mar 8, 2012.
Wow Rich ... have to talked to a head shrinker lately? You really really need to.
I hadn't realized you were one of those conspiracy people who believes the government is out to get you.
It's obvious introducing you to facts is a waste of time because you live in your own twisted world.
If I believed in God I would pray for you.
Rich posted at 1:19 pm on Thu, Mar 8, 2012.
"I hadn't realized you were one of those conspiracy people who believes the government is out to get you."
There is no conspiracy. Frankly they aren't smart enough to conspire. Just have too much power and too much money and they're human. Power corrupts, wealth corrupts. Those are about the only relevant facts Willie. I don't believe they are out to get me, but I am, with a certain sadness, facing the reality. Since you like facts, here are some to face.