Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Technology

Cameras On Cops: Coming To a Town Near You 264

Posted by Soulskill
from the for-the-record dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The trend of police officers using body-mounted cameras is going nationwide. As we discussed last month, the NYPD is pondering the cameras, and the LAPD is actively testing them. A town in California (population ~100,000) has tested them with seeming success: incidents involving officers using force have dropped more than half, and citizen complaints have dropped almost 90%. '[C]ops are required to turn on their cameras in any confrontation with a suspect or citizen. The footage is uploaded to computers when they return to the station, and is typically retained for one to three months.' The town's success is even drawing interest from police departments in other countries. The ACLU likes the idea, but has problems with it in practice, so they're opposing the trend (PDF). They worry about privacy abuses, and they want citizens caught on camera to be allowed equal access to the footage."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cameras On Cops: Coming To a Town Near You

Comments Filter:
  • Won't do any good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rahvin112 (446269) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:10PM (#46485125)

    Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse. Either the camera will be off, the video will be "lost" or the recording device will be "broken". They want the video for convictions, but they will make damn sure the video is lost or the camera is off when they go to beat the shit out of some innocent person.

    They should be required to wear camera, the cameras should record while they are on shift and video should be stored by an independent third party. Any missing footage should result in someone being fired.

    • by NotDrWho (3543773) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:17PM (#46485207)

      Yeah, but it's great for when you need admissible footage of some criminal screaming "DICK JONES! I WORK FOR DICK JONES! HE OWNS THE COPS!"

    • by mythosaz (572040) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:22PM (#46485263)

      A lot of the good (from the police perspective) is that people don't act like jerks when they're clearly being filmed. Amazingly you're less likely to be a dick to cops when the camera is on you. In-car cameras turn on and off automatically when they have the lights and sirens on. Pull a guy over, and video gets shot - period. Wearables don't have that yet, but we'll get there.

      I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion, but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...especially in a world where every last person on a planet has their own camera and might catch it. There's obviously a good number of well documented "bad cop" cases, but there's a lot of cops, and bad cop stories make news, because it's a big violation of our trust.

      The ACLU and others will fight for transparency with those videos - and the videos will keep cops and people safer.

      • by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:26PM (#46485311)

        Not only this -- I suspect that a large part of the 90% drop in complaints has to do with the fact that it makes it a lot harder for people to lie about their interaction with a police officer.

        • by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:38PM (#46485471) Homepage Journal
          makes it a lot harder for people to lie about their interaction with a police officer.

          I remember a case where a woman claimed she was beaten in the back of a patrol car by the two responding officers. Too bad for her there was an in-car camera pointed to the back seat which clearly showed her yelling and screaming, telling the cops to stop beating her, and she was the only one in the scene the whole time.
        • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:39PM (#46485477)

          Not only this -- I suspect that a large part of the 90% drop in complaints has to do with the fact that it makes it a lot harder for people to lie about their interaction with a police officer.

          I agree with this, BUT...

          Having been a victim of what I definitely consider to be police abuse... in a situation in which video that was clearly being made somehow later "went missing", I also have to agree that this very much works both ways.

          I agree with the ACLU, to the extent that I agree there should be independent oversight of these videos, and any "missing" video should be a cause for reprimand at the very LEAST.

          Because I also happen to live in an area that has experienced many years of police "incidents" in which innocent people somehow end up injured or dead, but there was no independent investigation, and the internal "investigations" have almost invariably exonerated the policeman, even when no reasonable person looking at the same evidence would (or does) conclude that no wrong had been committed.

          I agree that most police are probably fine people. I even have relatives who are or have been police. But the few who aren't good can cause a hell of a lot of damage, especially when there is more than one of them and they scratch each others' backs.

        • by Copid (137416) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:42PM (#46485517)
          This is the best part of it IMO. It doesn't matter whose fault the problems were. Was it the suspect misbehaving? Was it an abusive cop? Is it a liar trying to get an officer in trouble after the fact? On the whole, it's a mix of all of them, but we don't need to know the actual mix to appreciate the fact that it seems to be better for everybody.

          It's very hard for police unions to fight against something that clearly reduces their physical danger and exposure to complaints. If they save face by pretending that the cameras are making the "bad guys" behave and that it wasn't a police problem in the first place, that's fine by me.
        • fascist apologist (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Uberbah (647458) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:53PM (#46485653)

          I suspect you should have a good chat with Kelly Thomas and revise your storyline. Or read up on LEO departments stealing millions from people not convicted of any crime via "asset forfeiture". Or how hundreds of thousands of mostly black and brown men are stopped in NYC without probable suspicion under "stop and frisk".

          • by mythosaz (572040)

            Texas stealing from motorists along I-10, and NYC's stop-and-violate are, undeniably, bullshit - and that comes from a guy living in Arizona :)

            ...but it doesn't mean that cameras on cops probably isn't a good idea.

            Heck, it might even shed light on how bullshit your other scenarios are.

            • Actually, the Tenaha TX scandal resulted in an admission of guilt, a mountain of stolen personal assets, a big settlement and a change in the town's police procedures, but the cops involved were quietly eased into other jobs without serving the five consecutive life sentences that would have been morally justified by their actions.

              Details: https://www.aclu.org/blog/crim... [aclu.org]

          • I suspect you should have a good chat with Kelly Thomas and revise your storyline.

            What storyline -- that sometimes people lie about what police do? Do you seriously believe that doesn't happen? And anyone who believes it does is a fascist?

            • by mythosaz (572040)

              Any support for police on /. is you being part of the corrupt system, maaaan.

              It's like arguing with creationists who shout Piltdown Man! Piltdown Man! to explain why all science is bullshit, and the earth is 6,000 years old.

              • by Uberbah (647458) on Friday March 14, 2014 @04:17PM (#46486527)

                Who do you guys even think you're kidding here? When was the last time you heard of a LEO held in contempt of court for perjury or falsifying evidence, much less charged by a DA, much less convicted? The cops that murdered Kelly Thomas by bashing his head in as he screamed for help from his father were just let off scott free. You have to have something as egregious as a cop shooting a handcuffed man lying facedown on the pavement, on fucking video, before they serve time. And even then, they serve less time than a football player who shot himself in the leg.

                So again, who do you even think you're kidding here, Slick? Try and tell us with a straight face that if you give a group of people a huge amount of authority, with next to zero accountability, that their authority wont be abused on a constant basis.

                • by blueg3 (192743)

                  held in contempt of court

                  That's not the route they seem to usually go.

                  much less charged by a DA

                  In national-level news (i.e., in a serious or well-publicized case), a couple of weeks ago.

                  much less convicted

                  About a month ago (same caveat as above).

      • I generally agree.

        I would also suspect that the police officers recognize that if the recording shows the first words out of their mouth sound professional and reasonably polite, then they are home free in the eyes of the jury if the suspect suddenly seems hostile. Sounding professional and polite is also likely to illicit less hostile responses.

        For most police officers, this is no change in behavior. But there are surely some marginal individual officers who will build better habits when they see how it

      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:46PM (#46485569) Journal

        I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion, but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...especially in a world where every last person on a planet has their own camera and might catch it. There's obviously a good number of well documented "bad cop" cases, but there's a lot of cops, and bad cop stories make news, because it's a big violation of our trust.

        The problem isn't a small minority of bad cops, it's the alleged majority of good cops that don't immediately report and ostracize the bad cops.

        You end up with a police culture that intentionally turns a blind eye to bad behavior.
        That's not lawful good, no matter how you try and spin it.

        • by mythosaz (572040)

          Cops, like everyone else, work in a world that's neither black nor white.

          Like racism or the acceptance of gays, I think changes behind the blue line are largely generational, and mostly vanishing -- but even so, they present complicated decisions for the people involved. I agree that looking the other way is a problem, but I also think it's something that certainly isn't like it was in my father's generation, and I'm sure it'll be better when my children are grown.

          My opinion, anyway.

        • by JackieBrown (987087) <dbroome@gmail.com> on Friday March 14, 2014 @03:04PM (#46485791)

          I was dating a female sheriff. She was laughing about how a police friend of hers would like to sneak E in his dates drinks and how one girl caught him and swapped drinks.

          The fact that she found it funny, that all of his police friends knew he was date raping these women, really put a dent in my view of the police.

          And the worst thing is, they would probably treat a civilian that did the same thing as a filthy monster.

        • by alexo (9335)

          The problem isn't a small minority of bad cops, it's the alleged majority of good cops that don't immediately report and ostracize the bad cops.

          a.k.a. bad cops

      • Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Uberbah (647458) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:48PM (#46485605)

        A lot of the good (from the police perspective) is that people don't act like jerks when they're clearly being filmed.

        Everyone knows that cops have had video cameras mounted in their cars, for decades. Neat how you skipped the parts of the summary talking about how police violence and complaints have dropped dramatically where these cameras have been used.

        Almost like it's the cops who are the real jerks here. Interesting.

        but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...especially in a world where every last person on a planet has their own camera and might catch it

        The problem with the "aww, it's just a few bad apples" canard is that one bad one rots the whole barrel. When all your "good cops" are willing to commit perjury to cover up for the "bad apples", there are no good cops.

        • by mythosaz (572040)

          I'll ignore your "all cops are perjurers" tirade.

          As to the rest:

          A lot of the good (from the police perspective) is that people don't act like jerks when they're clearly being filmed.

          Everyone knows that cops have had video cameras mounted in their cars, for decades. Neat how you skipped the parts of the summary talking about how police violence and complaints have dropped dramatically where these cameras have been used.

          Almost like it's the cops who are the real jerks here. Interesting.

          It's almost like both sides benefit from there being a camera on them.

          Cameras help.

          Which side of the confrontation is the problem is a matter for (people like you) to debate.

          • by Uberbah (647458)

            I'll ignore your "all cops are perjurers" tirade.

            You mean you're going to ignore anything that interferes with your worship of authority. When cops dare to actually enforce the law [naplesnews.com] against fellow cops, they get stalked and harassed.

            It's almost like both sides benefit from there being a camera on them.

            It's almost like you don't know that Cops has been on the air for 25 years. Whether the person is innocent and being hassled by power tripping cops, or an actual "bad guy" worrying about going to jail for the

            • by mythosaz (572040)

              It's almost like both sides benefit from there being a camera on them.

              It's almost like you don't know that Cops has been on the air for 25 years. Whether the person is innocent and being hassled by power tripping cops, or an actual "bad guy" worrying about going to jail for the meth stashed in his trunk, the very last thing on their minds is whether or not they're on video.

              As best as I can tell from watching Cops these last 25 years, most of the people on cops are either (a) drunk, or (b) drunk.

      • by FuzzNugget (2840687) on Friday March 14, 2014 @03:16PM (#46485905)

        the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world

        Any cop who consciously neglects to report a corrupt colleague or subordinate is equally corrupt.

        Are you really suggesting the "overwhelming majority" of "good people" in uniform have no idea what their colleagues and subordinates are up to and are completely unaware of their corruption? Do you have idea how minutely detailed the paperwork is required to be and how glaringly obvious it is when details are "missing" or plainly false?

        Has there ever been a single situation where one corrupt jackass is tazing some innocent law-abider for "non-compliance" and one of the five other cops standing around him said, "what the fuck are you doing? You can't just torture someone into submission!" ... of course not, they readily assist him by wrenching the victim's arms to put him/her in cuffs to be dragged into the cruiser (or worse).

        Until we get rid of this "protect the brotherhood above all else" attitude that's heavily ingrained in police culture, corruption will continue to reign and continually worsen.

      • I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion

        Looks like you got modded so far in to oblivion you looped around to +5. Impressive!

      • by Jack Griffin (3459907) on Friday March 14, 2014 @03:55PM (#46486307)

        There's obviously a good number of well documented "bad cop" cases, but there's a lot of cops, and bad cop stories make news, because it's a big violation of our trust.

        I tend not to pay much attention the news, but my problem is not so much good cop/bad cop but stupid cop. Maybe I have a nostalgia goggles, but when I grew up, cops wore blue trousers and a blue shirt and shoes, like an office worker. You'd see them walking the beat and they were friendly and said hello. Now every time I see cops they have commando boots, cargo pants and a combat vest with guns and tasers and all sorts of GI Joe paraphernalia. They have visible tattoos and wrap around sunglasses and all like look like wannabe gangster thugs. It makes it hard for me to teach my kids to respect the law when the create that image for themselves.

      • by s.petry (762400)

        I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion, but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...

        I happen to agree with this perspective, but do notice a huge difference in training Police get today compared to when I was growing up long long ago. Police today are trained to believe that everyone out there is criminal. Not all officers buy into this, but it is being taught and drilled into them. Police are also taught that they are supposed to stick together no matter what. In the 60s and 70s this happened to some degree but it was not discussed as training material and only used when questionable

    • I wouldn't say it will do 'almost nothing', since the stats clearly show otherwise.

      Still, if police were *required* to submit video evidence for any trial that involves an officer or have the case dismissed, it would certainly cut down on police corruption. Police wouldn't be able to use the 'oh, my camera was broken' or 'I forgot to turn it on' as an excuse.

      • by PRMan (959735)
        Once it becomes commonplace and accepted, the jury will be very unlikely to take an officer's word if their camera "malfunctioned".
    • by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:23PM (#46485277)

      Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse. Either the camera will be off, the video will be "lost" or the recording device will be "broken". They want the video for convictions, but they will make damn sure the video is lost or the camera is off when they go to beat the shit out of some innocent person.

      And yet, the actual evidence cited in the summary shows the exact opposite result of your theory.

      Kind of funny, considering that you also posted a comment [slashdot.org] about how the anti-vaccination movement ignores real evidence that contradicts their views.

      • by a whoabot (706122)

        The results show that use of force and complaints are down. How is that the "exact opposite" of his theory? Maybe most of the complaints that were prevented would have been frivolous. Maybe most of the use of force that stopped would have been appropriate: I.e., the cameras cause those interacting with the police to behave better. Maybe most of the abuse is intentional: If that's the case, then there is nothing strange about hypothesis that the police intending to be abusive would also intend to turn o

      • by rahvin112 (446269)

        Ooo a stalker!

        Allow me to rebut! A drop in complaints does NOT mean there has been a drop in misconduct. If that was the case there would have been drops in misconduct when cameras were installed in cars (there wasn't). This is because, as I noted, when cops do bad things the video suddenly isn't available, either because it was turned off, the tape was "lost" or the equipment was "broken" and couldn't record.

        I fully support and attempted to articulate the ACLU view on this, that cameras can work, but only

        • This is because, as I noted, when cops do bad things the video suddenly isn't available, either because it was turned off, the tape was "lost" or the equipment was "broken" and couldn't record.

          Your argument doesn't make sense. Why would people file complaints of actual police misconduct when there's no camera available, but suddenly stop filing those complaints when the camera was there (even if the footage was "lost")?

          And that also doesn't address the other statistic, a reduced number of incidents using force. What, are those incidents no longer being reported because officers can throw away the footage? That doesn't make sense either.

          • by Jiro (131519)

            Why would people file complaints of actual police misconduct when there's no camera available, but suddenly stop filing those complaints when the camera was there (even if the footage was "lost")?

            Some reports are real and some are fake. Cameras reduce the number of fake reports, but they don't reduce the number of real reports (since the police will "lose" the recording in a real incident). The end result is that the total number of reports of police misconduct goes down, but actual police misconduct doe

          • by rahvin112 (446269)

            Because people routinely file complaints against cops to try to sway a judge that they were mistreated, and even just because they are mad about being caught. Those complaints are the primary reason complaints of actual misconduct never amount to anything, because they are lost in the noise and even when they aren't the cops can say it's just another bogus complaint. This is also tied to the fact that when people know they are recorded they are more polite and that applies to both sides which leads to less

    • by sjames (1099) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:24PM (#46485283) Homepage

      It will never happen, but if a law was passed that when the video is unavailable, the citizen's report is presumed to be true and complete, I'll bet those cameras would suddenly get a lot more reliable.

      • Until the day the first rapist or murderer discovers the camera really was broken - at which point the media will rally against this 'loophole' that allows serious criminals to 'get off on a technicality' and there will be immense public pressure to undo it.

        • by sjames (1099)

          I'm fairly sure there would be physical evidence in the case of rape or murder. The cop's conduct would have little to do with it and his eye-witness testimony would be unnecessary. In the case of rape, there would also be the victim's testimony.

    • by gurps_npc (621217)
      I assure you if a camera was supposed to be 'on', and it wasn't, any reasonable prosecutor will throw out the case if the defense refuses to plead guilty. Don't be surprised if jurys are told that the footage should have existed but doesn't.
    • Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse.

      The results dispute your claim:

      incidents involving officers using force have dropped more than half, and citizen complaints have dropped almost 90%

  • by calzones (890942) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:15PM (#46485173)

    Just wait, til the cops start uploading all their footage to a central server for the NSA to add to its collection so they can start cataloging every social interaction that cops see while on their beat. Someone who's face matches a potential subject of interest in a database will get flagged when they show up on the footage and the NSA will then start tracking them based on geolocation data in the footage.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:18PM (#46485229)

    Run around and point a video cam at a cop.

    Or ... better don't.

    • Run around and point a video cam at a cop.

      Or ... better don't.

      First thing I thought of was the regulations being put on Google Glasses and they haven't even been publicly released yet.

      It's pertinent now to wear a video device ones self. Look at Russia and the car cams they apparently require due to the traffic situations-accidents they can be involved in.

  • by letherial (1302031) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:19PM (#46485239)

    I predict that these 'cameras' will have a higher then normal fail rate.

  • Do these record sound as well? How legal is this in an all party state, where everyone has to consent to being recorded and a suspect refuses?
  • by Jaime2 (824950) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:35PM (#46485411)

    So, when cops have cameras, reported incidents of police using force dropped by half. I believe that means that 50% of uses of force were unwarranted or unnecessary, otherwise why would they have stopped?

    This sound like pretty clear evidence that police think they can get away with bending the law as long as no one (except the victim) sees them.

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      This sound like pretty clear evidence that police think they can get away with bending the law as long as no one (except the victim) sees them.

      This is the LAPD we're talking about. I think that fact was already pretty well-known.

    • by Copid (137416) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:47PM (#46485583)
      Either that or people see cameras on them and are less likely to run or resist arrest. But most likely a mixture of the two. I'm sure there's a lot of misbehavior on both sides when the cameras are off. It looks like the cameras are a big win for everybody.
    • Your explanation is a possible one, but it is not the only one.

      A) The general public would know about the initiative. Being recorded works both ways, it makes everyone think about their actions more, cops and civilians alike.
      B) It's possible that the video encourages cops to be more polite and less aggressive because they know the video has their back if something gets out of hand.
      C) It's possible that the video encourages cops to be more polite and less aggressive because they are more likely to get in

    • by ganjadude (952775)
      on the other hand, it could also mean that gang members can no longer put in complaints against the cops for abuse for putting them to the ground when they run from them?

      Dont take this to mean I am blindly siding with the cops, but if the criminals no they are on tape, they cant try and claim brutality when none exists, This is just one of the reasons besides cops not beating innocent people
  • It should be streaming to a central, offsite server where the images and sound can be saved, not deleted at the cop's convenience. The footage should be available to citizens and police alike.

    Intentional vs. accidental obscuring the image would have to be on a case by case basis, but hopefully the sounds recording would still provide enough cues and clues...

    • by PRMan (959735)
      I worked with police for a while. Trust me, you do NOT want to see most of the crap that they have to deal with. Available to a public watchdog panel? Fine. Available to the public at large? I really don't think you want to see severed heads or murdered, raped teenagers' dead nude bodies.
      • by MitchDev (2526834)

        I don't mean for broadcast or the like, but for review when a potential lawsuit or harassment claim pops up.

  • by dave562 (969951) on Friday March 14, 2014 @02:40PM (#46485497) Journal

    I used to think that the ACLU was a force for good, and they might be. But they do not know when to quit, or compromise on anything. Here we are finally getting accountability for law enforcement, and now they want to stop the program?

    I wonder if anyone told them that nothing is perfect and life is all about compromises.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Let's put this in a different light to show you why the ACLU took this position. You are a programmer writing the ruleset to be used to prioritize some set of functions in your project. Once you are finished, you send your ruleset (a bill to be voted on) to committee for peer review and feed back. Maybe call it the "beta" version of your ruleset.

      The ACLU(quality control staff) is basically telling the lawmakers(you, the grunt programmer) that while this bill(ruleset) they want to pass has the general idea,

    • by Frobnicator (565869) on Friday March 14, 2014 @09:41PM (#46489191) Journal

      I used to think that the ACLU was a force for good, and they might be. But they do not know when to quit, or compromise on anything. Here we are finally getting accountability for law enforcement, and now they want to stop the program?

      Obviously you didn't RTFA.

      The ACLU complaint was that while the law requires LEOs to carry the cameras, it does not mandate that they actually record anything, it does not mandate that the recordings be made available to the citizens who were arrested, interviewed, or interacted with, and it doesn't specify a data retention policy.

      The ACLU agreed that cameras are good. They want mandatory recordings rather than optional recordings. They want the complete, unedited recording to be available to the citizens involved. And they want a data retention policy so officers cannot delete the material the same day, nor can they keep it indefinitely.

      The ACLU's 2-page comment (see the article) cited specific cases where these were problems. One had multiple officers turn cameras off when a citizen didn't cooperate, then they turned the cameras back on to reveal a citizen who was badly injured, with the official report being they had injured themselves while resisting arrest. Also it cites accounts where officers clearly edited footage by removing potentially incriminating bits, and of officers deleting the recordings the same day rather than filing them as part of the reports of their associated incidents.

  • I wonder how cops will react to citizens having cameras on their persons during altercations with cops? In theory it should be exactly the same thing, but in practice, citizens trying to (legally) film cops during such interactions have not gone well for the citizen.

    • by PRMan (959735)
      If the cops are already filming, then they shouldn't care nearly as much.
      • by roc97007 (608802)

        Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that if a cop commits a crime during an altercation, that the video won't somehow get lost?

  • Is the only things the ACLU [aclupa.org] can say is "Yes" or "No"? Instead of saying "I respectfully urge you to please vote “no” on this legislation" perhaps say something like "I respectfully ask you to amend the legislation as follows". It is easy to point at legislation and say "bad bill" but it is much more difficult, and productive, to say how the bill can be fixed. They make some oblique suggestions but they are not set out so that the can be easily added to the bill. For example, one of their issues

  • Unless of course it shows something that could get the department sued, in which case there will be a "computer error" and the video will be lost.

    • by voss (52565)

      In most cases tampering with the video would be a felony. Any decision to delete video would have to be logged by a supervisor.

      • by Rich0 (548339)

        They won't be deleted. There will simply be a recording malfunction. At least, that is what all the records will show. No supervisor is going to sign off on deleting incriminating evidence. Plenty will sign off on a statement that no video could be recovered from the device.

  • I noticed the borg when they pulled me over a few months ago. Interesting. :D

    Anyway, cameras on cops probably fall into the "anything we record can and will be used against you in a court of law", but anything that helps your case will require a lot of legwork by your attorney to get. Not to mention "Oh, there was a malfunction that day" that you were conveniently beaten up on the side of the road.

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito

Working...