The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Why Tulsa PD will never have real, tamper-resistant dashcams:

http://vimeo.com/3302044

Less-edited version (1 hour 12 min): http://vimeo.com/3299211

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1joImpo4l0[/youtube]

Are you saying TPD is racist? Just trying to follow...

Too much $$$$$$$

What an idiot.. Not only a racist, but an idiot on top of it all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TURobY

Are you saying TPD is racist? Just trying to follow...

---

I would say insights into the unguarded thoughts and actions of police make departments nervous.
I doubt the police culture of TPD is that much different than Krebbs or Los Angeles, it's just that the lack of documentation here gives Tulsa more plausible deniability in misconduct cases.

The absence of priority funding for dash cameras seems to be a strategy to keep it that way, in light of the historical fact that there has always been money for less important things like Segways, special effect sirens or high-profile "task force" headline grabbing.

In the Krebbs case, the racist and homophobic remarks, coupled with the plotting among the officers might have led one to believe they were in the midst of a hate group.  For such a revelation to take place in a city like Tulsa would certainly shock the community, yet it is likely inevitable.

I was hoping for something to restore my faith, though.  Just one good cop on tape saying "hey, wait a minute..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by TURobY

Are you saying TPD is racist? Just trying to follow...

---

I would say insights into the unguarded thoughts and actions of police make departments nervous.
I doubt the police culture of TPD is that much different than Krebbs or Los Angeles, it's just that the lack of documentation here gives Tulsa more plausible deniability in misconduct cases.

The absence of priority funding for dash cameras seems to be a strategy to keep it that way, in light of the historical fact that there has always been money for less important things like Segways, special effect sirens or high-profile "task force" headline grabbing.

In the Krebbs case, the racist and homophobic remarks, coupled with the plotting among the officers might have led one to believe they were in the midst of a hate group.  For such a revelation to take place in a city like Tulsa would certainly shock the community, yet it is likely inevitable.

I was hoping for something to restore my faith, though.  Just one good cop on tape saying "hey, wait a minute..."

---

Spending priority?  Really?  It's not like we're talking 20 bucks.

At an absolute minimum, we are talking $3,000,000 to out fit all the cars, and that doesn't include a dime for maintenance, nor one penny to store hard drives or have how many hundreds of hard drives available once one gets turned in.

Tulsa tried the cheaper route once before, and see where it ended up.  Not one unit still working.  

Cheap product and no money for maintenance spells waste of $$$$

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

Why Tulsa PD will never have real, tamper-resistant dashcams:

http://vimeo.com/3302044

Less-edited version (1 hour 12 min): http://vimeo.com/3299211

---

Cameras would protect more Officers from bogus complaints than they would catch of Officers doing something wrong.

http://media.myrecordjournal.com/sites/default/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player.swf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNZXbE4PpBs
from http://www.myrecordjournal.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=20283728&BRD=2755&PAG=461&dept_id=592754&rfi=8

'The cameras are digital and operate through a series of activations that initiate an automatic recording feature for supervisors to review.

The cameras are activated any time the car's emergency lights are turned on, any time there is an accident involving the police vehicle and under specific settings determined by the administration.

Cossette said the settings include auto activation any time the car reaches a preset speed. In an accident, Cossette said the digital technology also allows police to access the 10 seconds before a collision happened.

Once recorded, the images are uploaded directly from the camera to the server through a wireless tower that takes the images while the cars are parked in the police lot.

"Our cameras are among the most sophisticated in the state. They are a great tool that our officers can use for a variety of functions," Cossette said. '

I wonder how much that system costs.

Since we are talking about dashcams and cameras in general, here is an interesting study.....


New study: When civilians would shoot…and when they think you should

Fascinating experiments by 2 California researchers show that young civilians who might someday be on an OIS jury overwhelmingly disagree with veteran officers about when police are justified in shooting armed, threatening perpetrators.

Interestingly, tests also reveal that when facing shoot/don’t shoot decisions of their own, civilians tend to be quick on the trigger—and often wrong in their perceptions. Even in ideal lighting conditions, civilian test subjects show “a very low capacity for distinguishing” a handgun from an innocuous object, such as a power tool. Forced to make a time-pressured decision, the vast majority would shoot a “suspect” who is, in fact, unarmed.

“On one hand,” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, “this research should make civilians more sympathetic to officers who mistakenly shoot unarmed subjects under high-stress, real-world conditions.

“But on the other hand, the study shows the woeful lack of understanding most non-cops have about the larger legality and appropriateness of using deadly force. And this can result in serious ramifications in the courtroom.”

The findings, by Dr. Matthew Sharps, an expert on eye-witness identification and a psychology professor at California State University-Fresno, and Adam Hess, a lecturer in criminology at the school, are reported in The Forensic Examiner [12/22/08], published by the American College of Forensic Examiners. Their paper, “To shoot or not to shoot: Response and interpretation of response to armed assailants,” can be read in full by clicking here.

In their experiments, Sharps and Hess report, they first addressed “how untrained people would react if placed in the position of police officers confronting a situation potentially involving firearms and firearm violence.”

Eighty-seven female and 38 male college student volunteers of various races were each shown 1 of 4 high-quality digital photos of simulated “crime scenes.” The settings were stage-set with the guidance of veteran FTOs from the Fresno PD, “all highly experienced in tactical realities and the sorts of situations encountered by witnesses and officers on the street.”

Three photos showed a lone M/W subject, holding a Beretta 9mm pistol in profile: one depicted a “simple” scene, “sparse in terms of potentially distracting objects”; another a “complex” scene, “including street clutter, garbage cans, and other potentially distracting items”; the third a complex scene that included several bystanders and a young, female “victim” being threatened by the armed perpetrator pointing the gun at her in a 1-handed grip.

In a fourth photo, the scene was the same as the third—except that the Beretta was replaced with a power screwdriver.

Before any pictures were shown, each volunteer was told that a scene “which may or may not involve a crime or sources of danger” would be flashed for 2 seconds or less on a movie screen. “You may intervene” by shooting at the perpetrator “to protect yourself or others if you see an individual holding a weapon,” the researchers explained. Participants could “shoot” either by pressing a button or by firing a suction-tipped dart from a toy gun.

“The conditions for all 4 scenes involved uniformly excellent lighting (strong sunlight), and the relative comfort of witnesses being seated,” Sharps and Hess write. “There was no movement or occlusion of important elements of the scenes, and of course there was no personal danger for the respondents in the experiment.”

The smallest number of individuals decided to shoot at the lone subject holding a gun in the simple environment with no victim. Yet “even under these circumstances, in which no crime was depicted,” a strong majority—64%—decided to fire. This despite the fact that the “perpetrator” as depicted could have as easily been target-shooting as committing a crime, the researchers note.

In the complex but victimless scene, 67% chose to shoot. When a victim and bystanders were added, the proportion of shooters rose significantly, to 88%—nearly 9 out of 10.

But most revealingly, when the suspect pointed a power screwdriver instead of a gun, some 85% “shot” him. “In other words,” Sharps and Hess write, “respondents were equally likely to shoot the perpetrator whether he was armed or unarmed, as long as there was a potential ‘victim’ in the scene. It made no [statistically significant] difference whether the perpetrator held a gun or a power tool.”

Across the range of scenes, “when untrained people…‘confronted’ a suspect, the majority decided to shoot him under all conditions….[The] very high number of those who decided to shoot the unarmed suspect under ideal conditions might be inflated even further under the rapidly changing and visually confusing circumstances of a typical police emergency.”

The challenge the volunteers faced in distinguishing between the gun and the power tool was relatively easy, compared to officers making split-second decisions in the field. Cops frequently have to employ “rapid cognitive processing” in darkness or semidarkness, often deciding in less than a second whether to shoot, the researchers observe.

“During that time, many factors in a scene must be evaluated: the suspect’s motions; where the weapon is aimed; the presence of other people, including other potential suspects, and whether they are in the officer’s probable field of fire; other potential sources of hazard, to self, to others, and to the suspect, in the immediate environment….

“In view of these extensive processing demands, errors in perception or cognitive processing are likely to be relatively frequent….

“[E]xtraordinary demands are placed on the cognitive and perceptual abilities of police officers in cases of gun violence. Public perception of these incidents, however, typically does not center on the cognitive or perceptual issues involved.”

Instead, officers’ errors in shooting suspects brandishing innocuous objects rather than guns are “attributed, in many sources, to racism…and failures of integrity.” It seems “incomprehensible, to many people, that officers could possibly mistake a [non-weapon] for a real firearm in the dark.”

Among several instances the researchers cite in which officers have been pilloried by the press and public for mistaken perceptions is the infamous case of Amadou Diallo, who was shot and killed by NYPD personnel in 1999 when he abruptly pulled a black wallet from his pocket during a confrontation. More recently, a subject was shot dead in Tacoma, WA, when he pointed a small, black cordless drill directly at officers.

“It should be noted that the situation in which most people [in the experiment] effectively decided to kill an unarmed suspect was similar to the circumstances surrounding” these 2 cases, the researchers state.

The intensely negative reactions of civilians toward officers involved in such incidents may, in reality, “have more to do with highly unrealistic public and mass-media expectations, and with popular ideas about deadly force, than with putative racism or integrity issues on the part of police,” Sharps and Hess suggest.

A disturbing insight into the public mind-set regarding police use of deadly force surfaced through a companion experiment conducted by the research team.

Again using digital photography projected onto a screen, 33 females and 11 males recruited from freshman psychology classes were asked to view scenes in which a male or female Caucasian perpetrator, positioned “among typical street clutter,” pointed a pistol in a 1-handed grip at a young, female “victim.”

After viewing the scene for a full 5 seconds (“far more than ample observation and processing time”), each subject was asked “what a police officer should do on encountering the situation depicted”…and why.

Previously, 3 senior FTOs and a senior police commander had evaluated the proper police response. All concluded that “there was no question that this situation absolutely required a shooting response for both the male and female perpetrator…. [A]ny police officer encountering this situation must fire [immediately] on the perpetrator…in order to prevent the probable imminent death of the victim.”

To the researchers’ surprise, the civilian volunteers overwhelmingly rated this a no-shoot situation. Only 11.36%—roughly 1 out of 10—“felt that a shooting response was called for,” the researchers report. “[A]pproximately 9 out of 10…were of the opinion that an officer should not fire…although all of the senior police officers consulted stated that the situation depicted absolutely required a shooting response.

“This result may have important implications for situations in which 12-person juries must evaluate a given police shooting….In any given, randomly selected jury of 12 citizens, these results suggest that on average, 1 or at most 2 jurors out of 12 would be likely to see an officer on trial in an officer-involved shooting situation as justified in shooting a perpetrator, even under the clearest and most appropriate of circumstances.”

Sharps and Hess want to conduct further research before drawing any solid gender conclusions. However, “no male respondent felt that a shooting response was justified with a female perpetrator,” and only 1 in 16 female respondents favored shooting the male gunman.

The reasons the respondents gave overall for their negative views on shooting graphically illustrate the cop-civilian disconnect. Some thought the suspect wouldn’t really fire because of “the daylight, public conditions of the situation.” Others “concocted elaborate rules of engagement” under which an officer might shoot: if the suspect fired first, or if the suspect had already committed murder, or if the officer had first tried to “convince” the suspect to drop the gun.

Still others “literally invoked the need for clairvoyance on the part of the police, saying that an officer should not fire…because the suspect ‘did not look like she wanted to kill.’ Several qualified their responses with the idea that if the police had to fire, they should shoot the perpetrator’s leg or arm, because…‘a shot to the leg is relatively harmless….’ ”

The researchers speculate that “many of these unrealistic responses may have derived from confusion of media depictions of police work with the real thing on the part of the public…and probably from unrealistic expectations concerning the workings and capabilities of the human nervous system….”

They conclude: “f these ideas and attitudes are as widespread as the results of this initial research effort suggest, there is substantial need for better education in the realities of crime and police work for the public from which, of course, all jurors are selected.…This extreme discrepancy between public perception and actual police policy and operations warrants further attention, both in future research and in the modern criminal justice system….

“t is clear that these [findings] assume special significance for the real-world courtroom circumstances under which actual witnesses, jurors, and public constituencies consider and testify as to the actions of law enforcement personnel in application to real-world violent crime.”

“Although this research is a welcome first step in helping to bridge the gap of understanding between many civilians and law enforcement, it’s important to remember that the exploration doesn’t stop here,” says Dr. Lewinski. “Force Science Research Center Advisor Tom Aveni’s work on contextual cues makes clear that in order to facilitate a more thorough understanding of these issues, this study should expand beyond static settings and expand into fluid and dynamic scenarios that better reflect issues of threat recognition and response in regard to human movement. Although we’re supportive of and grateful for the work that’s been done to date, we’re hopeful that the focus will move in this direction.”

Aw, to hell with this.

If you think cops are abusing their powers, there's nothing stopping a Joe Q. Public from buying a $100 Flip video camera and placing it in a discreet location in the car when an arrest occurs. A lot of cell phones have video capabilities, too.

The threat of "Smile, you're on Candid Camera" can work both ways in encouraging good and proper behavior. I'm all for that.

MD:   I totally agree with that study.  It is easy to see how "us" easily accuses "them" of acting to rashly when in reality we would be more prone to over reacting.  Particularity when you ask 18 year old college freshmen. The big difference is the training and experience that enables an officer to perform his/her job like a professional instead of John Q Public. Which is why the mistaken shooting incidents are rare and why the public can get worked about about each one.

Think about it:  Just in Tulsa there are over 1,000 people running around with guns hunting bad guys.  At least a dozen times a day each one of those people evaluates a situations to determine if his/her firearm will be needed.  That's huge potential for mistakes, and it rarely happens.  When it does it is usually tragic but often tragically understandable.


RWARN:  There are several noted instances in which a citizen attempted to video record a police encounter.  They either ended very poorly for the citizen on the spot, or led to serious harassment when disciplinary proceedings were brought based on the recording.   I also find the notion that average citizens would have to consider buying recording devices to protect themselves from police to be very alarming.

I would imagine the police wanting a working video system as much as the public does.  Certainly it protects them from unfounded allegations of misconduct and at the same time can help provide evidence of others' wrongdoing.  The cost is my only concern, but since most cities are able to have some kind of a system it's hard to believe Tulsa is unable to.

The claims that cellphones and cameras may actually be disguised guns are always amusing, as is the Tennessee trooper's claim that iPhones have laser sights so the user has to delete all the photos on it to insure his safety.


My point exactly.  Even the smallest burgs in Oklahoma have dashcams, Tulsa can always find an excuse not to.

It is amazing what we do without (compared to other cities our size) because the city doesn't have the money for it.  I've always wondered where the money goes.

Maybe you should ask yourself, where does the money come from?

The people that voted for essentially twenty eight years worth of federal tax cuts, stole money directly from urban police departments.  Tulsa will adjust, just like everyone.  But it will never make up the difference.  Until people decide urban issues and urban systems are worth funding, TPD will always be underfunded and the city will always struggle financially.

We're getting ready to see a ton of local cuts.  Our sales tax system is not consistent (sales tax never is).  I'm hoping for an increase in federal spending on cities and their police departments.  Could have had dash-cams years ago, might take us several years more to get them without federal or state intervention.

I'm not arguing the TPD is over or even fully funded, I don't know enough about the issue to speak intelligently.  But don't we have a lot full of new police cars sitting unused?  I would think $35,000 for one new cruiser could buy more than a few dash cams.  Looking it up, a top of the line system is about $5,000.

The TPD has an annual budget near $90,000,000.00.   They can't find any money for some dash cams?  Not even a few?

While on the topic . . .

1960:  262,000 people in Tulsa, 252 police officers.  Less than 1 officer for every 1,000 people.

2007:  380,000 people in Tulsa, 830 police officers.  More than 1 officer for every 460 people.

The police cars are paid for by the third penny sales tax.  Also, we were told this week that there will be no new vehicles purchased for the next two years.  So, the ones we have will have to last.

I couldn't find crime statistics from 1960 in Tulsa but this is the earliest I found.

1980  350,387 people in Tulsa, 36 murders, 251 rapes, 798 robberies, 1630 aggravated assaults,  total violent crime  2715

then here is 2005:

2005  380,440 people in Tulsa, 59 murders, 303 rapes, 1096 robberies, 3538 aggravated assaults, total violent crime 4996

Here is the latest totals:

2007  381469 people in Tulsa, 55 murders, 299 rapes, 1023 robberies, 3175 aggravated assaults, 24044 property crime, 6843 burglary, 13522 larceny-theft, 3679 auto theft, 255 arson

I think the police are a little busier now with just reported crime.  This doesn't even address, the 911 system and how many more times we are dispatched compared to the 1960's.  In addition, the area we patrol is larger and our responsibilities have changed alot since the 1960's.

How many of those brand-new Chargers does the dept have now, as a percentage to the total fleet?  I know I still see the Chevys but have been seeing the black and white Chargers more and more.

I think they bought mainly Fords and Dodges this year.  The Chevy doesn't have as much room and they break down faster.

I think everyone probably wants the police department to be outfitted well, it just isn't a priority (just stating the fact, not making a judgment call).  Comparing today to 29 or 49 years ago is a little misleading.  There have been huge economic/demographic shifts. 

In 1960, Tulsa was about a third of the size it is now in square miles.  There was a massive annexation back in the 60s that made us much closer to what we are today.  The people that ran Tulsa back then decided that cities like Broken Arrow might some day threaten them for dominance of the area.  Before that, we were much more densely populated, the police department patrolled a much smaller area in 1960.  In essence, we had much better police coverage then.

In 1980, for those that were around back then, you probably remember how very little Tulsa had grown around Woodland Hills.  That mall was built in 1977.  There was a whole lot of absolute nothing between there and Bixby, or there and Broken Arrow.  71st street was mostly a rough two lane road.

Our police department covers way more area than it did 30 or 50 years ago. 

MD:

I did not mean to imply that the police are not doing their jobs or not working hard at what they do.  I just saw that stat while looking up some data and was shocked by it.  Just poor planning and societal changes I guess, but still.  Just sucks to be able to do less with twice as much.

The good old days.  No traffic on Memorial south of 71st.

Likewise, it's hard to believe that Tulsa doesnt tap any number of federal grants for the purpose of funding dashcams the way it does for what seems like an endless variety of other special-interest enforcement grants.
 
If Tulsa really wanted them, we would have them.  Instead we buy novelty sirens, Segways, overpriced e-Citation  systems, etc, etc.

A dashcam might have been useful here . . . .


Tulsa Police Car Totaled In Accident

Posted: March 24, 2009 06:20 AM CDT

Updated: March 24, 2009 06:20 AM CDT
 
NewsOn6.com

TULSA, OK -- Tulsa Police are trying to sort out what led to an accident involving a Tulsa Police car overnight.

The accident happened around 11 p.m. Monday when the police car and a pickup truck collided at the Skelly Bypass and Peoria Avenue.

Both the police officer and the driver of the pickup truck say they had a green light.

The police car was totaled.

No one was hurt in the accident.

The Feds dictate what is allowed to be used for grants.  For the past several years, unless it is considered homeland security equipment, the Feds don't want to buy equipment, they want to pay for time, whether it is to pay an officer's salary or pay for officer overtime to work some sort of special project.  Many years ago the Feds used to buy all kinds of equipment through grants, such as radars, weapons, .......  but that died off around 1990.  Most grants now reimburse salaries/overtime.

And Tulsa has not purchased any 'novelty sirens' (the one or two being used were donated for trial/testing) nor 'e-Citation' system (it hasn't been funded).

Someone mentioned the 'top of the line' dashcams were running about $5000.  Actually, that is very much on the low end.  Top of the line is more around $15K.  You can't set anything on the dash anymore with airbags, so you'll have to mount something on the roof.  Radios/computers/sirens/light controls take up the room between the seats. 

This is the setup that OHP currently uses in it's cruisers.

http://www.watchguardvideo.com/products/

It records onto a DVD, once its full, you simply pop it out, write your name and date on it, and they turn it in to their commanding officer.

It has some great features, you can turn on/off the wireless body mic, it has both a front facing camera and inside facing one as well.  So you can see what goes on inside your car when you have someone in the back.  It also records their voice as well. 

There are several diff variables, but I believe OHP has theirs set, to where once the officer turns on his lights, it automatically starts recording the 30 seconds prior. 

This system really has some great features.  I am not for sure how much this system costs, but it is one of the most user friendly and complete systems I have ever seen.


Here is a closeup of just the display
(http://www.watchguardvideo.com/images/products/large/DVDloading_large.jpg)

here is a link to their website for more info. 
http://www.watchguardvideo.com/products/ (http://www.watchguardvideo.com/products/)


I personally think this would be a great tool for TPD, I honestly have no idea what the system cost to buy and maintain.

I looked into it a little bit and it has gotten good reviews.  System seems ideal.  The only possible drawback is the ability of officers to tamper with the system (lost discs).  BUT, if a disc is lost it would be like any other evidence - the assumption goes against the person that had possession of the evidence and lost it.   Like everything else in the police force, put policy in place for use of the system, when those policies are not followed it general means trouble.

Alas, I searched a bit and could not find an idea of how much it costs. 

There have been a few times where suspects have subpoenaed video from OHP only to be told the "tape was misplaced" so there's no reason to believe a DVD would fare better. 
Due to the fragility of DVD media it is rapidly going out of style as a camera recording format, quickly being replaced by Flash Memory (Secure Digital, Memory Sticks) in the form of AVCHD recordings that can be instantly uploaded by cellular networks to police mainframes. 

For crash analysis (TiVo-like playback of the 30-seconds prior to airbags being deployed), a DVD carriage would be less likely to survive, whereas SD memory would continue to record and preserve the data.  Depending on bitrate, AVCHD format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD) lets you record 11 hours of VGA video on a 16Gb memory card, and the digital stamping makes tampering a lot harder.  I would not trust a system where the vehicle operator could manually pause any part of the recording, as there is likely no ethical (if not legal) reason to do so. 

A reverse-angle camera would be useful to document/refute any claims of abuse, but it worked against some Texas troopers when their prisoner was the only one who commented when they encountered a wrong-way driver on the way to booking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsYVts-VCl8   

And the worse part is that the one that notice is supposed to be drunk.  That one is funny

They fired the cops involved in this dashcam-documented beating today, almost a year and a half after the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RPVs4gFfr0
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/05/five_birmingham_police_officer.html

Five Birmingham police officers have been fired for a January 2008 beating of an already-unconscious suspect with fists, feet and a billy club, a battering caught on videotape until a police officer turned off the patrol car camera, city and police officials said today. 

Authorities believe the video, taken after a high-speed chase by several area law enforcement agencies ended when the fleeing suspect's van flipped, has been seen by numerous Birmingham officers and up to a half dozen supervisors over the past year. But top city and police officials weren't made aware of the taped beating until they were contacted by the district attorney's office two months ago.

In fact, investigators say, the suspect, Anthony Warren, didn't even know he'd been beaten until the tape surfaced at his trial in March. Warren was ejected from the vehicle and knocked unconscious, and thought all of his injuries were sustained in the wreck.

Police Chief A.C. Roper called the video "shameful." Mayor Larry Langford said it was "disgusting."
Roper hasn't identified the officers. Four of them worked in the department's Vice and Narcotics Unit.

   
MONDAY: Highway patrol spends more than $1.4 million on state-of-the-art cameras
   
By PAUL MONIES The Oklahoman
Published: 6/21/2009  2:38 PM
Last Modified: 6/21/2009  2:46 PM

The state Department of Public Safety has spent more than $1.4 million in the past year to outfit its patrol vehicles with state-of-the-art digital video cameras.

But access to footage from those cameras has been closed to the public by the Legislature at the agency’s request.

The cameras figured prominently in a recent skirmish between an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper and a paramedic from the Creek Nation ambulance service.

After the latest order of cameras is installed, the public safety department will have 368 WatchGuard DV-1 cameras in its patrol vehicles, said spokesman Capt. Chris West. Each video system costs more than $4,500.

The cameras are made by WatchGuard Video LLC of Plano, Texas. That company beat out three others last year, according to a review of bid documents. A Kansas vendor, Digital Ally, had a lower bid at $3,895 per camera but didn’t meet the agency’s specifications.

“It installs easily, and they have some attributes that some other cameras cannot meet,” Lt. Col. John Harris, deputy chief and director of the patrol’s transportation division, said of the WatchGuard camera. “It’s all-digital, which is such a plus with storage. It’s an expensive piece of equipment, but you get what you pay for. It’s a good product for law enforcement.”

1.4 milliion for 368 cameras?  Wow.  No wonder Tulsa won't spend the money for them.  The City of Tulsa can't afford them!
 




 

Recording to DVD was state-of-the art last decade. 
Flash memory is where it's at now.  DPS should have asked for a markdown on old merchandise.

You probably noticed the paramedic attack video was analog tape (due to the tape wrinkles) so obviously not all of the vehicles have been converted.

Maybe Tulsa could investigate whatever cleaver financing small towns like Krebbs are using to get equipped.

Can TPD get the old VHS machines for super cheap then?

It wasn't great, but it was better than nothing.  It would be good enough to deduce a Tag Number from close up, to prove intoxication, or an assault on an officer.   I hope someone from the city is at least ASKING for them.

I doubt it.

The city is telling us today that we can't even keep the amount of officers we have now without finding a way to cut 1.73 from our budget.  If that doesn't happen then the city will lay-off 41 police officers on Tuesday.

Furthermore, we also learned that even if the city council accepts the more cops federal grant that would provide funding for 63 officers for three years, there would be no money available to provide equipment for them.

Today the Mayor appeared before the trash authority and asked them to provide up to $2.9 million to provide equipment for the cops funded by the federal grant.

That was the money that was planned to and I had hoped for buying recycling carts for all Tulsans.

Remember to say thank you.

What the police union wants, the police union gets. 
They dont want dashcams, though.

The mayor told us she was going to do that today.  She also talked about finding another dedicated funding source for public safety so we don't eat up so much of the budget.  Don't worry Michael, the city council won't agree to the federal grant so you will be able to keep the money. 

I know alot of officers want dashcams.  I personally would rather wait for a eye level camera that officers could wear outside the vehicle that also has audio. They are probably about 5-10 years away. Since the majority of our work is done outside the vehicles, I think that would make more sense.  However, the union has no say in dashcams, the decision to purchase and fund dashcams comes from the City administration. 

I don't know of any union statement made against dash cams.  In fact, I'm confident it would be just the opposite.

But, I'll bet Martinson is against them.  They would take up too much budget money!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/17/crimesider/entry5246958.shtml

Prisoner overpowers Md. deputy in car, escapes
 
By Larry Carson and DOn Markus
Baltimore Sun
 
BALTIMORE — Nearly four dozen law enforcement personnel from Howard and Anne Arundel counties, as well members of the Maryland State Police, were searching Friday for a 20-year-old prisoner from Jessup who used his handcuffs to choke a sheriff's deputy and escape from custody late Thursday, authorities said.

Devin James Champagne, who was found guilty earlier Thursday evening of felony theft by a Howard County jury, could now face new charges of attempted murder, assault of a police officer and escape for the 11:30 p.m. incident that briefly left Donald Chase unconscious and sent the veteran officer to the hospital.

A former Baltimore police officer who became a sheriff's deputy in 1996, Chase was taken first to Howard County General Hospital because of cuts on his neck, and then was transferred to Johns Hopkins Hospital with a possible eye injury.

The condition of the 64-year officer was not available, but Sheriff James Fitzgerald said that Chase was "coherent" when they spoke by telephone Friday.

Champagne's home, just over the Anne Arundel County line in the 7500 block of Montevideo Court, was searched early Friday, police said. A neighbor later called police after seeing a shutter in one of the house's front windows open and close quickly, and another resident in the mostly rural neighborhood told police that a man in leg shackles was spotted near the home. But Fitzgerald later called the tips "unfounded."

Fitzgerald said that Champagne was the first Howard County prisoner to attack a sheriff's deputy in nearly 20 years, then quickly added that the procedure used to transport prisoners will be "reviewed" next week to help ensure greater safety for officers and the public.

Currently, Howard County uses only one sheriff's deputy to transport prisoners within the county, and only some of the cars are fitted with wire barriers between the back and front seats. Those cars are typically used while transporting prisoners charged with more serious crimes, or people taken into custody who are believed to be on drugs.

Champagne is on probation in Anne Arundel County for a 2007 first-degree assault conviction.

Awaiting the jury's verdict on burglary and theft charges after a two-day trial, Champagne disappeared from the courthouse Thursday night.

He was later talked back into returning by a family member, an officer at the courthouse said Friday.

After the verdict, Champagne had his bond revoked and was placed in handcuffs and leg shackles. The car Chase was driving was stopped at a light and about to make a turn into the detention center when the attack occurred. Police said that Champagne climbed into the front seat and tried to take Chase's gun, but he couldn't get the weapon.

The three-step system that police are taught on taking their gun out from their holster might have saved Chase's life, police said. Unable to get the gun, Champagne crawled out the passenger side window and ran into the woods near the detention center.

After Chase reported what had happened, police began searching the area with a combination of officers, police dogs and two helicopters in the mostly wooded neighborhoods near the detention center, a few miles from the house where Champagne and his mother live.

Champagne was believed to be unarmed at the time of his escape; police said that anyone who sees him should call 911.

Wonder if he had a dash cam to capture any of the struggle.......
 

Im looking hopefully forward to the day I might be wrong about this:

Tulsa Police may have cameras in their squad cars in the not-too-distant future, evidently as a result of a potential final settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by black police officers against the city.

On Friday morning — shortly before resigning as chief of police — Ron Palmer told the Tulsa World that putting cameras in marked patrol cars has been the topic of recent discussions within the city and community and in the context of the lawsuit.

...But city lawsuit settlements are typically paid for from the city's sinking fund, which is funded with property taxes. Alternatively, the cameras possibly could be paid for with capital improvement money or grants, but evidently not from the city's general fund, which is where police and firefighter pay comes from.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100125_11_A1_TulsaP519382

So the cost wouldnt come from salaries, but rather the fund they use to pay lawsuits from.
I would also like to see them pursue grant money like every PD under the sun uses to buy their dash cameras.

I wonder how much trouble they would be in with the NAACP if they started a "White Officer's Coalition"?

Also the NAAWP, cable channel W.E.T. and a mens-only network... no wait, I think they already have the last one.

Several, actually, so I'm told.

CoCo,

That's just wrong!

Okay fine, they should also start an Indian officer's (red dot or feather type) coalition, Jewish officer's coalition, female officer's coalition, LBGT officer's coalition....

Does that pull me back out of the ditch?