4 ms·

> if it's part of an investigation (makes sense to me) This part seems curious to me. Isn't that exactly when a person "who can be seen or heard in it, along w

by cdubzzz 10y ago

> if it's part of an investigation (makes sense to me) This part seems curious to me. Isn't that exactly when a person "who can be seen or heard in it, along with their personal representatives" (e.g. accused person and lawyer) would need access to such footage? Perhaps there is some nuance here about what constitutes an active investigation?

sp332 10y ago
Yes, you get access to evidence if it's going to be used against you. That's a whole separate thing.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jrs235 10y ago
  What if it isn't going to be used against but could be exculpatory?
  - sp332 10y ago
    Of course, it's illegal for them to withhold any exculpatory evidence.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      If its not public, you have minimal chance of discovering it if it isn't provided, so while it is illegal for them to withhold it, you'll never know it existed and was withheld unless someone who does know of it -- almost certainly the police themselves, or the person shown in it (quite possibly, the real criminal, who would be revealing their own identity by coming forward) -- actively reveals it. So, illegal or not, it makes it much easier for them to get away with concealing exculpatory evidence.
- jrs235 10y ago
  (Orignally this was a reply to a reply of this comment that apparently got deleted.) What if while arriving on scene to a burglary there is body camera footage from an officer that appears to show someone running off and away from the scene carrying [whatever was stolen] and from that footage one could possibly conclude that the personal doesn't look like the person the police decided to accuse and prosecute. This could be exculpatory evidence and help clear you of the charges. (Obviously the prosecutor is suppose to let the defendent and court know of any known exculpatory evidence, but what if the police choose to withhold it from the prosecutor/court or don't think anything of the footage? )
slapshot 10y ago
"Active investigation" means a the pre-arrest phase of investigation. E.g., they send a cop by a suspected trap house but don't want to tip off the residents that they are under suspicion. Otherwise, a criminal organization would just request all the body cam footage each week to make sure they aren't being investigated (or change their tactics in response to the police movements). If there's an actual arrest and trial, the Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland (1963) requires that the state hand over any exculpatory evidence [1]. The state has to go out of its way to hand over evidence -- even if the defendant doesn't know it exists. [1] "Exculpatory" = "might show that you are innocent." There's a long line of cases that define how broad that definition is. * I am not your lawyer. Go get a criminal defense lawyer.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  "active investigation" means anything the police want it to mean. Don't pretend it's a legally binding term. What you're talking about is evidence in a trial, which can still remain sealed, and has nothing to do with the public being able to view the footage.

by cdubzzz 10y ago

sp332 10y ago

Yes, you get access to evidence if it's going to be used against you. That's a whole separate thing.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jrs235 10y ago
What if it isn't going to be used against but could be exculpatory?
- sp332 10y ago
  Of course, it's illegal for them to withhold any exculpatory evidence.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    If its not public, you have minimal chance of discovering it if it isn't provided, so while it is illegal for them to withhold it, you'll never know it existed and was withheld unless someone who does know of it -- almost certainly the police themselves, or the person shown in it (quite possibly, the real criminal, who would be revealing their own identity by coming forward) -- actively reveals it. So, illegal or not, it makes it much easier for them to get away with concealing exculpatory evidence.
jrs235 10y ago
(Orignally this was a reply to a reply of this comment that apparently got deleted.) What if while arriving on scene to a burglary there is body camera footage from an officer that appears to show someone running off and away from the scene carrying [whatever was stolen] and from that footage one could possibly conclude that the personal doesn't look like the person the police decided to accuse and prosecute. This could be exculpatory evidence and help clear you of the charges. (Obviously the prosecutor is suppose to let the defendent and court know of any known exculpatory evidence, but what if the police choose to withhold it from the prosecutor/court or don't think anything of the footage? )

slapshot 10y ago

"Active investigation" means a the pre-arrest phase of investigation. E.g., they send a cop by a suspected trap house but don't want to tip off the residents that they are under suspicion. Otherwise, a criminal organization would just request all the body cam footage each week to make sure they aren't being investigated (or change their tactics in response to the police movements). If there's an actual arrest and trial, the Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland (1963) requires that the state hand over any exculpatory evidence [1]. The state has to go out of its way to hand over evidence -- even if the defendant doesn't know it exists. [1] "Exculpatory" = "might show that you are innocent." There's a long line of cases that define how broad that definition is. * I am not your lawyer. Go get a criminal defense lawyer.

1_2__3 10y ago
"active investigation" means anything the police want it to mean. Don't pretend it's a legally binding term. What you're talking about is evidence in a trial, which can still remain sealed, and has nothing to do with the public being able to view the footage.