City Signs Off On Police Race Bias Suit
Hoss:
Quote from: patric on February 26, 2011, 11:21:05 am
The court-ordered dash cameras are finally being installed, per Tulsa World.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110226_14_A1_CUTLIN949833
Interesting thing is, although they are court-ordered, the officers can turn on and off the recording at will.
...sort of like someone on house arrest being able to slip on and off their ankle bracelet. Otherwise, the units can record 24/7 for days on end if they are allowed to.
"Live video streaming capabilities are built in to the Arbitrator 360° as an additional safety feature. Police dispatchers can now monitor what’s happening in each patrol car from headquarters. If an officer is in trouble, such as an altercation during a traffic stop, the dispatcher can remotely zoom the camera for a better picture, or change the frames-per-second bit rate for more details."
"Once the record button is pressed, either manually or through a designated trigger, the 90 seconds of video preceding it are automatically included to ensure all evidence is captured. Agencies can activate up to 16 triggers to start the recording, such as when the speedometer hits a certain speed, the sirens turn on, car doors open or impact is detected. " With 191 hours of video recording time they could also run continuously.
Now the big question could be "Are the recordings public record?" or will they be treated like OHP video where DPS lobbied the legislature to exempt them from the Open Records Act? (i.e., is it going to take a "Trooper Martin"-like episode to get video released?)
Did you not also read in the article that the cameras would be triggered as long as the lights are running? And they can also be manually triggered? I'm guessing that as long as the lights are running, they won't be turning those cameras off.
Your paranoia of the LEO sometimes borders on the silly.
patric:
Quote from: Hoss on February 26, 2011, 01:06:41 pm
Your paranoia of the LEO sometimes borders on the silly.
Then let's hear your explanation as to why it took a court order to get dashcams.
Hoss:
Quote from: patric on February 26, 2011, 01:14:27 pm
Then let's hear your explanation as to why it took a court order to get dashcams.
I'm not the one who thinks the LEO is some insidious group out to get the common man. Let's here YOUR explanation, since you seem to think all LEO is wrought with corruption.
patric:
Quote from: cynical on February 26, 2011, 12:54:31 pm
Good question. If dash camera video recordings are considered "law enforcement records," as I believe they are, they are generally exempt from the Open Records Act unless a court orders them released. Law enforcement investigative materials are not usually released.
That's something DPS rushed through the legislature after loosing a lawsuit pertaining to it's records of racial profiling.
From the TW:
Oklahoma remains one of only four states that closes public access to videos shot from police dashboard cameras. The public-records exemption applies only to the Highway Patrol, not to other law enforcement agencies. A survey of regional states by the Tulsa World shows Texas, Missouri and Arkansas all treat state police dash camera videos as open records.
Until 2005 dash camera videos were considered public records in Oklahoma. Then the Department of Public Safety requested the Legislature amend state law to make all audio and video records closed to the public.
The amendment, part of a bill with many exemptions requested by DPS, sailed through the Legislature with little discussion.
Has DPS forgotten that it is a public agency? Taxpayers footed the bill for dashboard-mounted cameras and should be privy to the videos.
OHP spokesman Capt. Chris West claims the agency requested the audio and video recordings be closed to the public out of concerns for trooper safety and the privacy of residents.
We appreciate their great sensitivity but let's be realistic: Videos of such incidents rarely are sought by the public except in instances when there are questions about the behavior of a trooper or the party stopped. News organizations would not routinely air all video cam arrests. The May 24 incident is a good example of why taxpayers paid to have dashboard-mounted video cams.
Different states release cam videos at different stages — after a case reaches initial court stages or sometimes after the case has been adjudicated. We think Ohio has the right idea. The highway patrol there not only releases dash camera videos upon a request from the public, they go a step further and make them available on the Internet.
The Legislature needs to seriously look at the Ohio model when it convenes next year and change the law.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20090625_61_A14_Nextle594516&archive=yes
patric:
Quote from: Hoss on February 26, 2011, 01:30:48 pm
Let's here YOUR explanation, since you seem to think all LEO is wrought with corruption.
A federal judge gave his formal approval to the final settlement in a racial discrimination lawsuit against the city of Tulsa on Wednesday, putting an end to 16 years of litigation in the class-action case brought by black police officers.
U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern signed the documents shortly after 4 p.m. Wednesday. The documents include an agreed-upon order that calls for the city to pay $4,157,766.50 to Insight Public Sector Inc. for the purchase, installation and maintenance of video cameras for all Tulsa Police Department patrol and traffic vehicles over a period of five years.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100909_14_A1_Afeder582048&archive=yes
Sounds like a court order to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page