South Carolina Senate Subcommittee Considering Mandatory Body Cameras for South Carolina Officers

South Carolina Senate Subcommittee Considering Mandatory Body Cameras for South Carolina Officerscategories: DUI

A South Carolina State Senate Subcommittee recently heard arguments from both sides regarding a pending bill that would require all South Carolina police officers to wear body cameras. Briefly – the bill would require all law enforcement officers in South Carolina to wear body cameras that would record all of their contact with the public.

The voices against mandatory body cameras (primarily from law enforcement) point to the cost of outfitting all officers along with the cost of storing doubt. The data storage cost could be substantial when one thinks about the volumes of footage that would have to be retained and stored for years under current Freedom of Information Act requirements. Several estimates put the anticipated storage expenses into millions of dollars a year for some cities. Other concerns raised would include privacy; for example, when an officer comes into a home on a criminal domestic violence call; or, officers working undercover. Certainly all of the issues raised have merit.Read More

Supporters of body cameras argue that they help courts close cases faster, reduce the number of items that officers use force, and make allegations of misconduct against officers easy to investigate for both parties.

An interesting question for South Carolina drivers accused of DUI/drunk driving, is how would mandatory body cameras fit within the current statutory scheme of SC Code 56-5-2953? An argument could be made that the video recording requirements present in DUI investigations would be extended to cover all officers present with body cameras if they recorded any field sobriety tests administered to the driver; and/or show the person being arrested; and/or showed the driver being advised of their Miranda rights. Critically – these are all mandatory requirements of South Carolina’s current DUI law as it relates to “dash cams.” If South Carolina makes “body cams” mandatory then I believe a strong argument could be made under SC Code Section 56-5-2953 that all body cam footage be provided to the defense prior to a DUI/drunk driving trial. An interesting question would be if an officer has a body cam and does not follow the requirements of 56-5-2953, what is the remedy? The current judicial remedy for failure of the police to meet the requirements 56-5-2953 is dismissal of the DUI/drunk driving charge.

Greenville, South Carolina DUI Attorney Steve Sumner primarily handles misdemeanor and felony DUI/drunk driving cases. Steve is a former DUI prosecutor and has been in private practice since 1994. Steve has been recognized as a South Carolina Super Lawyer® in the field of DUI defense since 2013. He is a member of the National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers™ for criminal defense. He is a member of the National College for DUI Defense and has held a judicially endorsed AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell® and a “Superb” (10.0 out 10.0) ranking with Avvo since 2011.

http://www.thestate.com/2015/03/04/4024004_officers-concerned-about-bill.html?rh=1

http://www.wsj.com/articles/los-angeles-police-kill-man-in-struggle-captured-on-video-1425302531

http://www.wsj.com/articles/task-force-report-calls-for-more-body-cameras-1425257551

SC Code Section 56-5-2953

Continue Reading...

Body Cameras for Law Enforcement Could Assist in DUI Cases

In the wake of the recent events surrounding Michael Brown’s death, Eric Garner’s death, and other similar incidences raising concerns of excessive force by law enforcement, many police agencies are considering and some actually using body mounted cameras.

In August, The Wall Street Journal reported that, following the use of body-mounted cameras on police in Rialto, California, use of force by police declined by 60 percent and citizen complaints about the police fell 88 percent.

In addition to reducing instances of excessive force by police, how else might body cameras affect criminal investigations? More specifically, how might they affect DUI investigations?

Well, let me ask you this: How valuable might it be to a DUI investigation to see exactly what the officer saw when they arrested a DUI suspect rather than merely relying on a police report?

Unfortunately, officers write their police reports hours after the arrest took place. By the time the officer actually sits down to write their report, memory fades, opinions replace fact, and the decision fabricate in order to justify an arrest is sometimes made.

In my practice as a DUI defense attorney, I cannot remember a DUI police report that didn’t allege that the suspect “had bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, and emitted the distinct odor of alcohol.” This was true even in cases when it was later determined that my client was, in fact, not under the influence. While these clients were eventually cleared of driving drunk, the unverified police report led to DUI charges.

Currently, many law enforcement agencies use dashboard mounted camera videos which can capture the DUI stop. They cannot, however, capture whether the officer actually observed bloodshot watery eyes or slurred speech. A body camera would serve to provide the first-hand evidence to justify the allegations made in a police report written hours after the incident occurred. If the officer alleges that a suspect’s eyes are bloodshot or that they have slurred speech in a police report, the footage from a body camera can ensure that those allegations are, in fact, true.

You may remember my previous complaints about law enforcement taking DUI suspects out of the view of the dash-cam to conduct field sobriety tests. In their police report, officers claim that suspects “fail” the field sobriety tests without an explanation as to how the suspect “failed.” As was the case with the supposed bloodshot watery eyes and slurred speech, people are often cleared of DUI charges notwithstanding a police report alleging that they “failed” field sobriety tests. Footage from body cameras can confirm whether the suspect actually “failed” the field sobriety test, thus confirming credibility of the police report or exposing its flaws.

Opponents of body cameras argue that, in addition to being an “encumbrance,” the cost of equipping every officer with a body camera and the cost of storing and managing such a voluminous amount of data outweighs any benefit the footage might provide.

Fortunately, the argument that body cameras are too costly is losing merit with price of technology and cloud-based storage systems dropping precipitously. Ultimately, when a criminal conviction (…and the punishment associated with such a conviction) is on the line, there should not be a price too large to ensure the accuracy and integrity of a criminal investigation.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 12th, 2015 at 2:17 pm and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

No More Dayton Cameras!

No More Dayton Cameras – We Win! The Dayton Police Department has announced that it will STOP using traffic cameras for speed and traffic enforcement.  An Ohio law takes effect March 19, 2015 that requires that a police officer witness traffic infractions at intersections where a camera is used.  The city will lose all of the 20 fixed red-light and speed cameras throughout Dayton.

Dayton police will continue to use three Mobile Speed Vehicles around high incident intersections to capture traffic violations. A police officer will travel with the vehicle to witness any infractions in addition to onboard cameras as is required by the law.

Unfortunately for those already ticketed by Dayton cameras, the  city says any previously issued traffic camera tickets are valid and fines must be paid.  In addition, if you have three or more traffic camera tickets you are still at risk of having your car impounded.

Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio and has long fought against the Dayton Cameras. He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671. You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500. Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog. You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

“All I do is DUI defense.”

Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield,Kettering,Vandalia,Xenia, Miamisburg,Huber Heights, Springboro, Oakwood,Beavercreek, Centerville

Continue Reading...