No tape, no testimony

In order to incentivize more systematic use of the new technology, this law school column recommends that courts devalue or discredit the testimony of police officers when they fail to activate their body cameras. The proposal is patterned after rules in place in several states regarding mandated recording of custodial interrogations.

Advertisements

Tags: ,

2 Responses to “No tape, no testimony”

  1. Mark Bond Says:

    Reblogged this on e-Roll Call Magazine.

  2. Gunther Says:

    Great article. I would say that if there is no tape, the DA tells the cops, he will not take a case, period. It is funny how cops years ago, lauded the video machines to protect them from complaints by citizens and criminals and how they hate the videos with a passion. I would like to point out that the videoing police encounter was started by a Texas police officer which had recorded his own murder by three Mexicans. If it wasn’t for the tape, his murder would have gone unsolved or would have taken twice as long. The video machine was owned and paid for by the Texas officer because he thought it was a good idea.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: