Indiana Supreme Court - 'Officer Testimony' > Video Evidence

[bigity]

Not directly gun/self-defense related, but worth taking a note of.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 ... ence.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some scary stuff.

"Seeing how often official reports by law enforcement are contradicted by video recordings, you'd think judges would have become a bit more skeptical about the supposed "superiority" of officers' recall powers. But that's apparently not the case, at least not in Indiana, where the state's Supreme Court has ruled that officer memory trumps video recordings."

[baldeagle]

That's an exaggerated description of what the court decided. At issue was the officer's testimony that the car ran off the road vs the video that showed she veered onto the shoulder. Since she blew a 0.9 and was over the legal limit, it's hardly a stretch to say that the officer observed her swerving, saw probable cause to pull her over and was obviously right in his assessment. To claim that this proves that in every case an officer's testimony will outweigh video evidence is hyperventilating to the nth degree.

[Vol Texan]

If (and these are a lot of ifs - we are working with limited information here)....

If the camera was not focused on the car 100% of the time, for instance, if the officer saw her swerve before turning in behind her, or if the camera doesn't turn on until the emergency lights are turned on...

Then the officer's word SHOULD be better than the camera.

If, however, the camera showed the car 100% of the time that the officer saw it, for instance, if the officer approached from the rear from a distance and had her in the camera's sights for the full duration of his observation, then I'd feel less comfortable with this decision. As an example, if he testifies that he saw her swerve off the road and pulled her over right away, but the camera showed her driving perfectly OK for 5 full minutes before he pulled her over, then I'd find reason to disagree with the decision.

But baldeagle is right - this is not suggesting that the officer's statement will always overrule the camera 100% of the time. This doesn't seem to be setting a broad-reaching precedent here.

[VMI77]

That's an exaggerated description of what the court decided. At issue was the officer's testimony that the car ran off the road vs the video that showed she veered onto the shoulder. Since she blew a 0.9 and was over the legal limit, it's hardly a stretch to say that the officer observed her swerving, saw probable cause to pull her over and was obviously right in his assessment. To claim that this proves that in every case an officer's testimony will outweigh video evidence is hyperventilating to the nth degree.

I'm not sure I see the difference.....the shoulder isn't the road so a vehicle veering onto the shoulder is veering off the road. I didn't read the article, just going by your statement, but unless the officer gave a description of "off the road" that included also going off the shoulder, it seems to me the testimony would be consistent with the video.

[bigity]

Not running around saying the sky is falling here, just an interesting (and potentially scary) precedent.

"Deputy Claeys testified “both passenger side tires were over the fog line” and “completely off the roadway” “twice.”" - Apparently the video in question does not show this happening.

[VMI77]

Not running around saying the sky is falling here, just an interesting (and potentially scary) precedent.

"Deputy Claeys testified “both passenger side tires were over the fog line” and “completely off the roadway” “twice.”" - Apparently the video in question does not show this happening.

Excuse my ignorance, but what and where located is a "fog line?"

[Keith B]

Not running around saying the sky is falling here, just an interesting (and potentially scary) precedent.

"Deputy Claeys testified “both passenger side tires were over the fog line” and “completely off the roadway” “twice.”" - Apparently the video in question does not show this happening.

Excuse my ignorance, but what and where located is a "fog line?"

The 'fog' line is the bright white painted line on the right side of the highway at the edge of the pavement. It is the line that is more visble to the driver when in heavy fog and using fog lights to show where the edge of the road is.

EDIT TO ADD: Here is an article on the 'reasonable suspicion' validity in Missouri on crossing the fog line http://law.missouri.edu/lawreview/files ... hitney.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cb1000rider]

Good lesson. I've seen a few cases (real life) where it's officer vs public testimony. And DA's argue that the officer has no incentive to not tell the truth, while a defendant has a great reason not to tell the truth. This is an immediate shift from guilty until PROVEN innocent. Seeing a judge accept that scared the heck out of me.

On the other hand, a camera can only capture so much perspective and a minor little action out of the field of view can totally alter an interaction...

What do I take away? More cameras = better protections for good guys.

[VoiceofReason]

My son was stopped once for “driving too close to the white line” and he was intimidated into giving permission to search the car.

The real reason he was pulled over was because he is Hispanic. He used to get pulled over a lot and messed with by the DPS. One DPS officer would run up beside him, drop way back, run up beside him again trying to get him to run. Another officer shined his flashlight into my son’s car and on my son while they both were driving on a highway.

I don’t know if this has anything to do with it but he hasn’t been pulled over once since he got his CHL.

[mamabearCali]

That is really rotten. We do not need our LEOs to act that way. When I was a new driver I practically lived on that white line.

[EEllis]

That is really rotten. We do not need our LEOs to act that way. When I was a new driver I practically lived on that white line.

Act what way? The cop saw someone who was driving erratically, pulled them over and arrested them for DUI when they blew over the limit. After conviction the person is trying to argue that because they just swerved a bit on the line and not all the way over as the officer testified that means there was no pc. That the mind isn't a computer with instant playback shouldn't be a shock to anyone. There is a reason they do instant playback in sports. Being wrong doesn't equal lying and a camera doesn't give you the same info that being there does.

[mamabearCali]

I was referring to the bit about trying to get them to run. If that is what they were really doing....that is not ok.

[EEllis]

I was referring to the bit about trying to get them to run. If that is what they were really doing....that is not ok.

My bad, I was wondering.

A buddy of mine used to weave behind drivers he thought were drunk because if they were it often would throw them off and give him PC for a stop. I admit that trying to get kids to run sounds bad but I gave up mind reading a long time ago and try not to assume the worst.

[MechAg94]

The article seems to indicate that the officer testified she went over the white line, but the video showed she only veered onto the white line. That is a pretty thin difference.

[Keith B]

It will usually boil down to a combination of both the dashcam video and the officer's testimony against the defendant. Dashcams can help or hurt a case for both parties. I personally am all in favor of as many cameras and audio recrodings as can be obtained. It jsut goes to show solidly who was right and who was wrong.