Minnesota's requirement, since early in the 1990s, that all custodial interrogations by police be recorded on videotape felt like a disaster to police departmen

Minnesota's requirement, since early in the 1990s, that all custodial interrogations by police be recorded on videotape felt like a disaster to police departments when it was first proposed, but now it is generally liked by all participants in the criminal justice system here.[1] On the whole, expecting any confession to a crime to be on videotape is just normal life here now, and everyone has gotten used to how the system works. There will be legal issues to decide if body cameras become commonplace about whether those are turned on by default, and how discoverable (and by whom) the videotaped records are, as the article submitted here reports, but this is just the kind of issue that courts and legislatures are equipped to deal with, especially if you the citizen make your point of view known. What's new here is a technical means that for the first time can massively reduce the he-said, she-said disputes that have come up in complaints about police conduct. Having more evidence to evaluate according to the law of evidence and in light of other legal rights of citizens and responsibilities of the police seems like a generally good idea. [1] http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Recording_Interrogations.pdf http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Recording_Interrogations.pdf http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=855&issue_id=42006 http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseac... http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2006/10/crimes_truth_and_videotape_man.html http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2006/10/crimes_truth_a...