5 ms·

> They didn't erase the tapes though. But they said that they did. I'd prefer it if they'd be in more trouble for destroying evidence on something that is ongo

• pyre 17y ago
  > But they said that they did. I'd prefer it if they'd be in more trouble for destroying evidence on something that is ongoing than claiming a retention policy. This would provide an incentive for them not to claim that data is destroyed. It's not like the police station operates as a single unit (always in sync). There are multiple people doing multiple jobs. It's entirely possible that the person fielding these information requests didn't know that this was part of something on-going. In reality, it wasn't even on-going anymore. He filed the information request once the court case was over, and before he filed the current suit against the police. At that point there was no way for the police to know that he would file a suit against them, and to their knowledge all of the pending cases that involved those recordings were over with. I'm sticking with the idea that the person fielding these requests automatically denies requests over 90 days without checking whether or not the recordings were actually removed. This could be due to formal (or informal) department policy, or just individual laziness.