4 ms·

Sergeant Ben Therriault, president of the Richmond Police Officers Association, told the Chronicle that these activities aren’t uncommon among police today. He

Sergeant Ben Therriault, president of the Richmond Police Officers Association, told the Chronicle that these activities aren’t uncommon among police today. He said offers often seek out video from Tesla vehicles for potential evidence, and while he says they often make direct contact with owners and get the evidence voluntarily, a warrant — and a tow — sometimes prove necessary, should contact not be established in a timely manner. (Therriault acknowledged to the Chronicle that a tow is "the most drastic thing you could do.”) https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62044621/teslas-being-towed-by-police-to-collect-video-footage/ https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62044621/teslas-being-tow...

pcaharrier 2y ago
For an analogous situation, think about what the police would have to do if they believed a crime was recorded in surveillance footage from a building's security system and they couldn't get consent from the owner to go and download the footage. If a judge thinks there's probable cause, the police will get a search warrant to enter the building, seize the equipment, and make copies as evidence. Obviously it looks a little different when the recording equipment is inside a car, but the legal analysis would be pretty much identical. But woe to the police department that goes around towing Teslas without getting a judge to sign an order/warrant.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  I am honestly not sure where this stands. If I am a third party and my equipment witnesses a crime (say, camera recording a murder in an alley), how keen are judges to force me turn over my equipment? What if I encrypt all of the footage? Can they also compel me to unlock it? That seems like 5th Amendment problem, but you are not self testifying and not under investigation.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    The fifth protects against self-incrimination, which has been interpreted to encompass one's family. As far as I know (IANAL) you don't have a right to withhold evidence regarding an unrelated party.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > What if I encrypt all of the footage? Can they also compel me to unlock it? Yes, they absolutely can. Well, they can put you in jail until you agree to, anyway.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
      Guess I need to watermark all of my footage with screen caps of me stealing gum.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Tesla can detect the vehicle being towed. They could provide an option to wipe the USB drive locked in the vehicle's glovebox if this event is detected. This would make police attempts to tow potentially not worth the effort.
        JohnFen 2y ago
        But it wouldn't stop the cops from towing the car in order to make the search. There would still be a good chance that you didn't wipe anything, and they won't know if you did or not until they look.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - pcaharrier 2y ago
    Interesting questions that (to an an extent) are still being worked out in U.S. case law. You're right that there's no 5th Amendment problem if you're not a suspect and likely also because surveillance footage isn't "testimonial" evidence (have fun going down that case law rabbit hole when you have a few days to waste). How keen are judges to sign off on a search warrant to make you turn over the equipment? Pretty keen as long as the equipment itself or information on the equipment is evidence of the commission of a crime. Whether they can compel a third party to decrypt footage stored on their equipment is a little thorny as a legal issue [see here for a short discussion: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-the-government-force-suspects-to-decrypt-incriminating-files/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-the-government-force-...]. It's not a perfect analogy, but think of a person who keeps evidence of some crime (say some stolen documents) in an unbreakable (for hypothetical purposes) lock box with a (hypothetically unbreakable) combination lock. The lock box contains the evidence, but isn't evidence itself. Similarly the combination isn't evidence of a crime. In general a court won't order the disclosure of something like the combination though they might order a person to use the combination to open the box so the police can seize the evidence. So depending on the court and the judge, some investigators might find a judge who would be willing to sign an order to compel a person to decrypt surveillance footage, though I'd also expect someone who's determined to fight such an order would have a doozy of a constitutional law question on his hands.
giancarlostoro 2y ago
I'm assuming these aren't even uploaded to "the cloud" somewhere, and even so, its probably a limited time window.
- pcaharrier 2y ago
  I assume the same thing. But even if they were, police (for the most part) get to choose how they want to search for evidence. If they can get your iMessages (for instance; I'm just making a hypothetical) by sending a subpoena to Apple or by seizing your phone and copying the messages directly from it they can do either one of those things (even if one would be much easier).
- yreg 2y ago
  The recordings are stored on a usb stick in the car. The time window is quite long.

pcaharrier 2y ago

For an analogous situation, think about what the police would have to do if they believed a crime was recorded in surveillance footage from a building's security system and they couldn't get consent from the owner to go and download the footage. If a judge thinks there's probable cause, the police will get a search warrant to enter the building, seize the equipment, and make copies as evidence. Obviously it looks a little different when the recording equipment is inside a car, but the legal analysis would be pretty much identical. But woe to the police department that goes around towing Teslas without getting a judge to sign an order/warrant.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
I am honestly not sure where this stands. If I am a third party and my equipment witnesses a crime (say, camera recording a murder in an alley), how keen are judges to force me turn over my equipment? What if I encrypt all of the footage? Can they also compel me to unlock it? That seems like 5th Amendment problem, but you are not self testifying and not under investigation.
- klyrs 2y ago
  The fifth protects against self-incrimination, which has been interpreted to encompass one's family. As far as I know (IANAL) you don't have a right to withhold evidence regarding an unrelated party.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > What if I encrypt all of the footage? Can they also compel me to unlock it? Yes, they absolutely can. Well, they can put you in jail until you agree to, anyway.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    Guess I need to watermark all of my footage with screen caps of me stealing gum.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      Tesla can detect the vehicle being towed. They could provide an option to wipe the USB drive locked in the vehicle's glovebox if this event is detected. This would make police attempts to tow potentially not worth the effort.
      - JohnFen 2y ago
        But it wouldn't stop the cops from towing the car in order to make the search. There would still be a good chance that you didn't wipe anything, and they won't know if you did or not until they look.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- pcaharrier 2y ago
  Interesting questions that (to an an extent) are still being worked out in U.S. case law. You're right that there's no 5th Amendment problem if you're not a suspect and likely also because surveillance footage isn't "testimonial" evidence (have fun going down that case law rabbit hole when you have a few days to waste). How keen are judges to sign off on a search warrant to make you turn over the equipment? Pretty keen as long as the equipment itself or information on the equipment is evidence of the commission of a crime. Whether they can compel a third party to decrypt footage stored on their equipment is a little thorny as a legal issue [see here for a short discussion: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-the-government-force-suspects-to-decrypt-incriminating-files/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-the-government-force-...]. It's not a perfect analogy, but think of a person who keeps evidence of some crime (say some stolen documents) in an unbreakable (for hypothetical purposes) lock box with a (hypothetically unbreakable) combination lock. The lock box contains the evidence, but isn't evidence itself. Similarly the combination isn't evidence of a crime. In general a court won't order the disclosure of something like the combination though they might order a person to use the combination to open the box so the police can seize the evidence. So depending on the court and the judge, some investigators might find a judge who would be willing to sign an order to compel a person to decrypt surveillance footage, though I'd also expect someone who's determined to fight such an order would have a doozy of a constitutional law question on his hands.

giancarlostoro 2y ago

I'm assuming these aren't even uploaded to "the cloud" somewhere, and even so, its probably a limited time window.

pcaharrier 2y ago
I assume the same thing. But even if they were, police (for the most part) get to choose how they want to search for evidence. If they can get your iMessages (for instance; I'm just making a hypothetical) by sending a subpoena to Apple or by seizing your phone and copying the messages directly from it they can do either one of those things (even if one would be much easier).
yreg 2y ago
The recordings are stored on a usb stick in the car. The time window is quite long.