How Police Body Cameras Help Police Behave
No longer is it just the defendant’s word against the cops.
(Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)
The meat and potatoes of criminal defense work involves challenging cops on the stand. It’s not easy when there’s nothing to counter the cop’s testimony aside from the client’s version of what happened. While the defendant can take the stand, the chances that a judge will credit him over a cop are about nil.
But with advent of body cameras, the game has shifted. Police departments around the country and at least five states have now mandated that police wear body cameras when approaching a suspect, conducting a car stop, investigating incidents involving weapons, interacting with emotionally disturbed people, searching people or their homes, and making arrests.
Luxury, Lies, And A $10 Million Embezzlement
That’s a lot of footage that would not have otherwise been memorialized and turned over to defense.
Defense counsel finally has something more to lean on than just the client’s word that he wasn’t doing anything wrong when the cop stopped and frisked him. Or that he was completely cooperative during a car stop. Or that he never threw 10 bags of cocaine to the ground when the cop approached him.
No longer is it just the defendant’s word against the cops. Now there’s video defense counsel can point to and say, “Look, Judge, the cop is lying.”
This has many ramifications. Let’s start with cases where defendants are stopped on the street or in a car, and police claim a series of events followed that justified them frisking the person or searching the car.
Sponsored
Thomson Reuters' Claims Explorer: A Powerful Tool For Legal Claim Identification
Curbing Client And Talent Loss With Productivity Tech
Law Firm Business Development Is More Than Relationship Building
Curbing Client And Talent Loss With Productivity Tech
Countless car searches come on the heels of routine traffic violations because police claim something like: “I saw a marijuana leaf on the dashboard.” Or, “The driver appeared exceptionally nervous and wouldn’t look me in the face.” Or (from a real case): “I asked to see the driver’s registration and when he reached under the waistline of his pants, he pulled out several packets of drugs and hurled them into the air.” (I’m sure this is the first thing any person with illegal contraband would do when stopped by police.)
By law, cops are not allowed to stop and search people based on a feeling alone. Courts have outlawed this because it leads to rampant racial profiling.
And even if guns or drugs turn up during those stops, the ends don’t justify the means. The Fourth Amendment protects everyone against illegal searches and seizures – not just the innocent.
Before body cams, police could make up anything they wanted about what justified both the stop and the subsequent search. But now that there’s video documenting what actually happened, police should twice before exaggerating or lying on the stand. And even then, it still happens.
In a recent hearing of mine, an officer testified that the passenger (my client) and the driver “gave them a hard time” when asked for license and registration and “wouldn’t answer their questions.” The video showed the opposite.
Sponsored
Tackling Deposition Anxiety: How AI Is Changing The Way Lawyers Do Depositions
Luxury, Lies, And A $10 Million Embezzlement
The prosecutor argued that the defendants (two young black males) didn’t willingly get out of the car when ordered to. But the video showed both men exiting the car peaceably, hands raised, and standing at the back as ordered by police. They stayed there in the damp, cold night, legs crossed (as ordered by police) for 40 minutes while police searched the car for no legitimate reason.
Had we not had video, I dare say there might have been testimony of furtive movements, powdery residue on hands, inconsistent stories between the passenger and driver, and extreme nervousness. There would have been no way for me to persuade a judge that that wasn’t necessarily what happened.
Cops dislike the 4th Amendment. They see it as a technicality — throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If a gun is found, who cares if the person was illegally stopped. The guy should be convicted — right? Many civilians feel this way, too.
But what if you or your dad were stopped and frisked for no reason, and it happened a lot. Or your car was searched just because you forgot to fasten your seatbelt. Dare say it would leave a bad taste in your mouth about cops and whether they were really there to serve and protect.
Courts have long decided not to let cops rely on hunches because that reliance can often be abused, thereby further damaging strained relations between police and the communities they’re charged with protecting.
The use of body cameras steers police into following the law; not searching people or cars without meeting the appropriate legal standard. It creates transparency in the stop and arrest process which, up till now (and particularly before the advent of cell phones and civilians use of them to video arrests), was something only police controlled, directed and reported on.
The widespread use of body cameras also protects police themselves. Should they be in a tough situation where they’re forced to shoot someone, the video would clearly record what led to that shooting. It would insulate them from false charges of police brutality or use of unnecessary force.
Body cams are a win-win for all parties.
The judge watching the video of the car stop in my case called what the police did “reprehensible.” They approached the car which being driven without headlights, with an immediate attitude against the two young black men inside. The cop called the passenger a liar within seconds of the stop when the passenger said he had no identification and gave his name. They searched the car without probable cause. They ordered the passengers out and frisked them. They found no contraband or weapons. After 40 minutes, they ultimately discovered my client had an open misdemeanor for which they arrested him.
I wonder if there had been three white men in the car, would the police have done what they did or just issued the driver a summons and sent them on their way. Because of the video, the judge got to see the way it really went down, and not just rely on the officer’s word.
She still denied suppression, as judges are wont to do. But at least the cop knows someone’s watching. On the next stop, he might be a little more polite or not conduct a search for no reason at all.
Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.
