NJ State Trooper Feels The Best Part About The Required Dashcam Is The OFF Button
from the welcome-to-new-jersey,-here's-your-complimentary-beating dept
We've seen plenty of stories here dealing with law enforcement's general displeasure with having their actions captured on camera by citizens (with one rare, exemplary exception). An odd stance to take, considering most law enforcement officers are recording a majority of their interactions with the public -- except when it's more convenient not to. Scott Greenfield runs down the details of another case where a state trooper's camera was used selectively to "throw out" incriminating evidence.The virtue of having a video of police encounters has been proven over and over, whether because it belies the allegations of a crime or proves them. But then, sometimes the guy with his finger on the dashcam's "on" button may not want evidence of what is about to happen. Via NJ.com:Ultimately, the charges against Bass were dropped because the officers failed to show up in court. That, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily indicate any sort of irresponsibility or maliciousness on behalf of the troopers involved. But one of State Trooper Dellagicoma's actions during the incident certainly does.Allen Bass, 50, sued Trooper Gerald Dellagicoma and others in 2009, claiming they punched and kicked him multiple times, causing him to urinate on himself, after he complied with their commands to get off his bicycle at Ellis Avenue and Clinton Avenue in Irvington a year earlier.
[Bass] was riding his bike July 10, 2008, in Irvington when Dellagicoma and other troopers who were on patrol in the area got out of their patrol cars and ordered him to stop. Bass claimed he laid on the ground chest-down and spread his arms and legs.
Troopers allegedly then punched and kicked him before arresting him. Bass was charged with drug possession, resisting arrest by flight and resisting arrest by force, court documents show.
Court documents show Dellagicoma, who joined the force in 2001, failed to activate his patrol car camera and was suspended without pay for 30 days, but only served 15 days of that suspension.And this wasn't an isolated incident.
Records show Dellagicoma was reprimanded several times prior to the incident for the same infraction.In fact, Dellagicoma is named in another federal civil suit for basically the same actions:
In another federal civil lawsuit, Salah Williams of Newark, an African-American, claims he was a victim of racial profiling, excessive force and malicious prosecution when Dellagicoma allegedly assaulted, maced, arrested and charged him for no reason while walking near his store in the city... Similar to the Bass case, Dellagicoma also failed to activate his patrol car camera and appear in court, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against Williams.This is a big problem. As Greenfield points out, New Jersey State Troopers are required to record every interaction with the public.
What makes this special is that in New Jersey, there is a requirement that arose from the racial profiling scandal that rocked the Turnpike, that all encounters with State Troopers be videotaped. The state was kind enough to put cameras in cruisers. Never again would a trooper be falsely accused of profiling a driver just because he was black. (This is known as the "black plus" theory of profiling.)The bigger problem is the handling of those who choose to grant themselves exceptions to this requirement. The offense is treated as a minor infraction, punishable by a written reprimand or a short suspension -- neither of which are severe enough to make troopers like Dellagicoma reconsider hitting the OFF switch when it suits them.
The only way an incentive system works is to make the cost of noncompliance greater than the cost of compliance. Apparently, a written reprimand and a few days suspension doesn't cut it. And when it happens repeatedly, it is clearly failing to serve as a deterrent. That's not good enough.Citizens aren't going to be on hand to record all of these interactions, although each passing day provides more and more documentation captured by the public, many of whom put themselves in harm's way to secure this footage. And it's a sign that the system is pretty screwed up if "recording the police" often equates to "putting yourself in harm's way."
The efficacy of video depends on its actually being used, in every instance and including the entire encounter. Anything less reduces it to a game, where the police make the rules, and the rules will not be good for the other side.
This single incident cost New Jersey taxpayers $50,000 and did more damage to the already-questionable reputation of NJ state troopers. All it cost Dellagicoma was a single paycheck, leaving him free to "fail to activate" his camera again and again as the situation suits him.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: evidence, new jersey, police, recording
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sounds familiar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought they were just told to not do it again.
And the politicians wondered why OWS took off like it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We were going to give you 10 bazillion dollars since you are too big to fail, but now we have to 'fine' you to show that we are 'hard on crime'.
You will only receive 9.999999999 bazillion dollars in your bailout.
"Yes, maam, may I please have another?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've yet to meet a man too big to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> corporations people too? I've yet to meet
> a man too big to fail.
Chris Christie ought to use that as his next campaign slogan-- "I'm too big to fail!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But if the guy controlling the on/off switch is the same guy who's planning whether or not to create an . . . "awkward moment" . . . then it's the best of both worlds, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> system at all?
If there was no 'off' button, they'd just work around it. You'd end up having a 'randomly' placed coffee cup on the dashboard that just happens to block the view of the camera.
Or the cruiser will just happen to end up stopped so that the camera is pointing off to the side instead of at the car in front of the cruiser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect it is more likely that the Police Union demanded it to prevent recording of "private matters" that happen on the job. On occasion, we all have to make phone calls home, etc while at work. Even the police, while on the job, have the right to some form of privacy during those situations.
I recommend giving them a button to "redact" the footage by flicking a switch. Similar to commercial skipping technology in DVR's. Don't erase it, but mark it so that any normal monitoring of said footage would be "skipped" unless there was specific reason to go back and view it - such as a claim of excessive force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: batteries running out
I don't know how much tape there is, but I would say it makes sense to make sure a tape can cover 2 shifts, and if there was any issue, the tape is turned in as part o the evidence at the end of shift, otherwise it is reused.
haha. tape..
hdd nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: batteries running out
Flash drives, much more shock resistant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: batteries running out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> by a police officer (on or off duty) should be
> automatically punished with a much greater level
> of severity than the same crime committed by an
> ordinary citizen.
You'd run into some 14th Amendment/Equal Protection issues with that plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a difference. If he actively turned it off, he should be fired on the first offense. If he failed to turn it on, that MIGHT mean it was an accident, and a suspension and reprimand might be in order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With current technology I would think they should have cameras running during the entire shift and the video stored for 30 days before overwriting. The technology exists, is cheap, and could even include a 'cop cam' worn by the officer connected via RF.
In fact, if the car is a take home car it should record off duty use too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The number of hours depends on the storage method, resolution... However, police cars will not have the compression ratios that store cameras have because there is simply too much motion in the frame. This means it will take more space to store. Also you don't want to use traditional hard drives in a car (especially not high capacity drives) the jarring and motion will result in premature failure.
30 days is enough time that requests could be made to hold onto the data, but not so much time that it would greatly increase the cost of the technology. Most security video is kept 7 or 30 days. (Yes there are many exceptions).
Now it might be a good idea that any actions taken by the officer in relation to charges be kept until that case has made it's way through the court system. So for instance if a citation is issued, or arrest made that video is transferred to the court system and preserved until the case has reached it's end.
But let's face it, most of the time the video is not going to contain anything of value, and as such there is no need to keep it forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make suspensions matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make suspensions matter
There is no punishment for police that isn't eventually rectified by the people supposedly punishing them. They wait for the story to blow over, and then make it all good again. Police look out for other police long before they look out for the public. It's why all cops get a deserved bad rap. They don't need to be bad themselves, they just need to harbor the bad ones and pretend that they are still good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I noted down some suggestions a months ago - http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/08/how-the-police-and-politicians-can-regain-the-public-trust/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All it cost?
I don't know about you, but losing even one paycheck would be enough to change my behavior pretty quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All it cost?
I'm sure you have a behavior or three that you wouldn't be able to stop if it cost you a paycheck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps if he were caught trying to solicit underage children they would ask him to retire with a full pension and we wouldn't have to deal with him anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The camera and storage should also be hardwired and locked so the officer can not disable or delete anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Providing motivation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just goes to show..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irvington is bordering Newark, and area in question is typical urban ghetto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]