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...

Police Officers Really Do Lie About DUI

In my many years as a Pennsylvania DUI Attorney defending the rights of those accused, I have seen many, many cases of police officers “fudging” or “shading” the truth and even outright lying. This is one of the main reasons why anyone who is accused of a DUI should have an experienced PA DUI lawyer fully examine the facts of their case.

Apparently police officers have no problems with lying in DUI cases.

Take for example a recent scandal in Georgia where a police officer falsified DUI readings:

The forced resignation of a deputy assigned to the DUI task force could affect the prosecution of hundreds of cases, according to those in the legal community.

Erik Norman faced mandatory resignation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 19 after a prosecutor reported that Norman told her he had falsified readings from a hand-held alcohol-testing device.

Unfortunately, police corruption happens all over the country and Pennsylvania is no less a victim than any other state.  The same problems of lack of transparency and oversight as well as the absence of criminal prosecution for these offenders creates an environment where “a little lie here and there” becomes the rule rather than the exception or that “the ends justify the means.”

If you or a loved one is arrested for a Pennsylvania DUI violation, you should have an expert PA DUI attorney examine the evidence against you to determine whether it is real or a fabrication by the police.  For a free consultation please call 1-866-MCSHANE.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Boston Police Department Investigates Officers For Court Misconduct – Attorney Sam’s Take

I guess it is a good thing that I am vacationing in New York as I write this; the Boston Police Department just broken my heart!

Imagine my excitement after all the blogs I have written about police misconduct...particularly the off-an-on relationship law enforcement seems to have on the stand when it comes time to testify. I found an article on the Boston Herald announcing, “BPD eyeing possible ‘misconduct’ of 4 officers”

My hopes even grew as I learned that said misconduct involved what they did in court!

“Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy”, I thought. “Finally, this is going to be addressed. Hurray for law and order and no-nonsense prosecutors”, I thought.

But then I read on.

“Testilying”, as it was called in Brooklyn, was not what everybody was worried about.

You see, it is true that a Boston police detective sergeant is on paid leave and three other officers are on administrative duty while internal affairs and prosecutors investigate the possible misconduct, according to a police statement. However, the “misconduct” has nothing to do with robbing citizens of their liberty through blatantly breaking the law against perjury.

Instead, the transgression has to do with making too much overtime.

Kind of a white collar sort of thing. Kinda sorta.

You know, the kind of thing that would be called "fraud" if you or I did it.

You see, police officers make overtime pay for court appearances that fall on their days off or at times that are not part of their regular shift. The concern, according to Boston Police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll, is whether four officers went to court when they were not supposed to go.

“At this point we’re trying to determine the facts and circumstances relative to this investigation,”Ms.. Driscoll explained.

She further explained that the situation has led the department to audit the system it uses to manage police officers’ court appearances. In a message from Boston police Commissioner Edward Davis to the entire department, Davis said the investigation involves “several” officers from Area E-5 Hyde Park/West Roxbury.

A vital and necessarily huge investigation like this cannot be handled by the police department alone. And so, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley’s office is cooperating with the department and monitoring its investigation a spokesperson for the DA announced. She said that “The commissioner has called for an audit of the court reporting system...At this point, it’s a citywide audit. It’s just good management, being extraordinarily thorough.”

As you can imagine, serious allegations like this requires a vigorous defense. It should therefore be no surprise that Gerry Sanfilippo, president of the Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society, has weighed in, saying that the union remains firmly behind its members as the investigation moves forward.

He further explained “We always support our members to the fullest.”

Oh, thank G-d. I thought that the Commonwealth’s priorities had somehow collided with common sense in my absence!

Over the past quarter century, both as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I have had a great deal of experience dealing with law enforcement and police testimony.

My eyes moisten as I remember the early days, in Brooklyn, when I was preparing an officer to testify on a search and seizure matter in a drug case. I asked the officer how the search happened, trying to find a way to make two inconsistent stories somehow consistent.

His answer was, “Which was is better?”

Smile, smile, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

He actually seemed somewhat confused when I told him, “The way it actually happened.”

Police officers are given a great deal of deference by judges and jurors when they testify. It is assumed that they always tell the truth. Of course, it is also assumed that were the officers to stray from the truth after taking that all-important oath, the prosecutors would surely prosecute.

You remember the last time something like that actually happened?

No, I didn’t think so.

Naturally, the powers that be are not concerned with such things. After all, who do they hurt...defendants? Come on, things are much too tight to worry about them.

After all, there is money involved here!

So, don’t look to the Commonwealth for considerations of fairness and an even playing field.

If you want a shot at that, look for an experienced criminal defense attorney who knows the situation to argue for it on your behalf.

If you want to talk to me about a case, feel free to call me at 617-493-3000.

In the meantime, have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

To view the original story, please go to : http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1317663&srvc=rss

View the original article here

Continue Reading...