Videotapes: Can law enforcement come together on this pressing issue?

The issue is ‘how will officers be allowed to use police incidents captured by video?’  Currently most everyone, including law enforcement personnel, is divided on this issue.  This is even more apparent when the police incident involves a ‘critical incident’ such as a use of force, pursuit, officer-involved shooting or custody death.  I believe the officers should be allowed to use this video evidence just like any other piece of evidence.  If we in law enforcement don’t take a consistent, united stand on this issue, someone else will ram an unacceptable practice down our throats.  But, let’s take a moment and look at some of the more obvious areas of controversy.

Criminal suspects don’t get to review video evidence before they give a statement is an issue raised by outsiders.  This really is totally irrelevant.  Criminal suspects aren’t required to write reports concerning their actions and they aren’t compelled to give statements to the police agency.  Actually they will eventually have access to this evidence during discovery in their criminal proceedings and before they make the decision to grant an interview or testify in court.  Police officers don’t have that protection unless they personally are being investigated criminally for their conduct and refuse to give a statement.  But, even then the involved officer can be compelled to write reports and give a statement during any administrative investigation regarding the exact same incident.

Officers may change their version of events if they are allowed to view this video evidence before they write reports or give a statement.  Yes, that may happen.  But, in the end, our ultimate goal is to get the best account of what occurred.  If evidence, whether it’s video or some other form, will assist in reaching that goal we should pursue it.  Few persons say the officer can’t use contemporaneous notes s/he may have made, reflections from a walk through conducted, scene observations after the event concluded, or extemporaneous statements made at the scene.  Even civilian complainants who have made allegations of police employee misconduct should be allowed to view video evidence that may refute or mitigate their allegations before they are questioned further in the administrative interview.  We shouldn’t be playing a game of ‘gotch ya!’ with either these civilian complainants or our own officers. 

Officers currently use a variety of evidence in preparing their reports and giving compelled statements.  A police officer regularly will use available evidence when preparing contemporaneous reports of any police incident, including his/her use of force.  Audio recorders, CAD documentation, photographs of injuries or equipment damage, training documents and written policy/procedures are commonly used by a well-trained officer. What makes video evidence any different?  Nothing and we should resist any effort to carve out an exception on this value piece of evidence. 

Will an officer’s knowledge of evidence, including video, necessarily slant his/her version of the events?  Some state police officer bill of rights legislation and collective bargaining agreements mandate that the entire administrative  investigative file be open to the accused officer before s/he is compelled to give a statement.  In reality if we haven’t made the case before the compelled statement, it’s rare that it will be made by the admissions of the officer during the compelled statement.  Police officers frequently meet with their representatives, including attorneys, and discuss their upcoming compelled statement.  An officer’s representative would be remiss if they didn’t discuss the events with the involved officer in an effort to more factually present the circumstances of the officer’s involvement.  If the action of the officer is inexcusable, any review of the video evidence won’t let that officer off the hook.  S/he still will be accountable for his/her action or lack of action.

Would this give an officer the opportunity to lie about the circumstances of the police incident?  I don’t believe that would be true in nearly all circumstances.  We need to address this issue with the assumption that all officers are professional and want to conduct themselves appropriately.  We shouldn’t create our policies on this critical issue based on what the minority, unprofessional officer might do at the expense of our good officers.  Our investigative techniques are adequate to ferret out those who may abuse their position.  Most of our officers are good and want to prepare reports and give statements that are as accurate as possible.  Access to all of the evidence directly connected to their role in a police incident is the best course to assist these officers in this task.  Consider these examples: “During the shooting I shot until the threat stopped.  At the time of the shooting I really didn’t count the number of rounds I fired.  It was only after my magazine was checked that I realized I had fired eight rounds.”  Or, “During the shooting I believed I remained in one location.  It was only after I viewed my body camera video that I realized I moved several steps to the right while firing my weapon.”  Any concern with these more accurate accounts?

The ‘appearance of evil’ is often worst than the evil itself.  We’re got to be concerned with those who will attack the credibility of our good officers.  This often occurs when the officer is required to write a report, give one or more statements even when compelled, followed through a walk-through, and then evaluated against mounds of evidence found later.  Resist this urge.  Involved officers should be required to give only one compelled statement after they have had the opportunity to review all relevant evidence.  If we don’t allow this, there will undoubtedly be variations in the officer’s account, however slight, that gives reviewers (even our own personnel) the belief that the officer is not being fully truthful.  We want the most factual account from the officer who is now facing potential criminal (state and federal), civil and administrative charges.  Let’s not handcuff our good officers at the expense of those few who might abuse their badges or others who might hide in the shadows exhibiting ‘hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil.’