Body Cameras For Police - How About Recorded Confessions?

[George Costanza]

There is a lot of talk now about police being forced to use body cameras. All to the good. I think they should.

There is another area of the criminal justice system that is related to the body camera issue, but which gets far less attention, and it should not. I refer to the critical problem of non-recorded confessions.

Almost all of the arrest reports I read on a daily basis, contain an alleged "confession" or "admission" by the defendant, which usually seals the case. Sometimes, the confession is recorded. When that happens, it usually DOES seal the case, because there can be no question as to what was said (unless, of course, the police used coercive tactics before turning the recorder on).

By far the majority of confessions are NOT recorded, however, setting up a "he said/she said" situation for juries to sort out. And guess how juries usually go with that one.

There are five states in the U.S. that have legislation to the effect that no claimed confession or admission can be introduced into evidence unless it has been recorded in some fashion - video, audio or written and signed by the defendant. The rest of the states have no such law.

Just as objective recording of encounters between police and citizens needs to be filmed, so also should objective recordings of confession be made before any such can be used against a criminal defendant. Of course, police departments and police unions are on record as vehemently opposing such a recording requirement. One has to wonder why. One would think that the police would welcome such a requirement as it would eliminate a suspect who confessed and then recanted his confession in court.

One can't help but think that the reason law enforcement is so opposed to recorded confessions is that it is so easy to claim a defendant confessed when he did not, knowing that, without an objective recording of the confession, the jury is almost always going to believe the cops, rather than a defendant.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There is a lot of talk now about police being forced to use body cameras. All to the good. I think they should.

There is another area of the criminal justice system that is related to the body camera issue, but which gets far less attention, and it should not. I refer to the critical problem of non-recorded confessions.

Almost all of the arrest reports I read on a daily basis, contain an alleged "confession" or "admission" by the defendant, which usually seals the case. Sometimes, the confession is recorded. When that happens, it usually DOES seal the case, because there can be no question as to what was said (unless, of course, the police used coercive tactics before turning the recorder on).

By far the majority of confessions are NOT recorded, however, setting up a "he said/she said" situation for juries to sort out. And guess how juries usually go with that one.

There are five states in the U.S. that have legislation to the effect that no claimed confession or admission can be introduced into evidence unless it has been recorded in some fashion - video, audio or written and signed by the defendant. The rest of the states have no such law.

Just as objective recording of encounters between police and citizens needs to be filmed, so also should objective recordings of confession be made before any such can be used against a criminal defendant. Of course, police departments and police unions are on record as vehemently opposing such a recording requirement. One has to wonder why. One would think that the police would welcome such a requirement as it would eliminate a suspect who confessed and then recanted his confession in court.

One can't help but think that the reason law enforcement is so opposed to recorded confessions is that it is so easy to claim a defendant confessed when he did not, knowing that, without an objective recording of the confession, the jury is almost always going to believe the cops, rather than a defendant.

I totally agree. Yes, confessions should be recorded.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would say that you are thinking to small.

Interrogations in general should be recorded to include confessions. There is absolutely no reason at all to have police contact with a suspect that is in a controlled environment that is not under video surveillance. If any of it is to be used as evidence the jury should see EXACTLY how it was obtained. Don't have to worry about 'before they switched it on' in that case - the entire time it should be on in 100 percent of cases.

The cops don't like this for the simple reason that they do not want to be under scrutiny. That is unacceptable.

 

[Agit8r]

There is a lot of talk now about police being forced to use body cameras. All to the good. I think they should.

There is another area of the criminal justice system that is related to the body camera issue, but which gets far less attention, and it should not. I refer to the critical problem of non-recorded confessions.

Almost all of the arrest reports I read on a daily basis, contain an alleged "confession" or "admission" by the defendant, which usually seals the case. Sometimes, the confession is recorded. When that happens, it usually DOES seal the case, because there can be no question as to what was said (unless, of course, the police used coercive tactics before turning the recorder on).

By far the majority of confessions are NOT recorded, however, setting up a "he said/she said" situation for juries to sort out. And guess how juries usually go with that one.

There are five states in the U.S. that have legislation to the effect that no claimed confession or admission can be introduced into evidence unless it has been recorded in some fashion - video, audio or written and signed by the defendant. The rest of the states have no such law.

Just as objective recording of encounters between police and citizens needs to be filmed, so also should objective recordings of confession be made before any such can be used against a criminal defendant. Of course, police departments and police unions are on record as vehemently opposing such a recording requirement. One has to wonder why. One would think that the police would welcome such a requirement as it would eliminate a suspect who confessed and then recanted his confession in court.

One can't help but think that the reason law enforcement is so opposed to recorded confessions is that it is so easy to claim a defendant confessed when he did not, knowing that, without an objective recording of the confession, the jury is almost always going to believe the cops, rather than a defendant.

There is also the matter of HOW they get the confessions through coercive means. Of course such confessions are not reliable, and a jury seeing the whole process will understand that readily from context.

 

[George Costanza]

Thanks for the replies. Here's the thing - cops quite often have a lengthy dialogue with a suspect before they turn on the recorder. They lie to him about all kinds of things, which (believe it or not) they are legally allowed to do. They tell him they have his prints when they don't. They tell him they have him on a surveillance video when they don't. They tell him his partner ratted him out, which he didn't. And on, and on.

Or, they may promise him all kinds of things, such as immediate release if he confesses (never going to happen), filing of reduced charges if he confesses (ditto), will not file against a loved one who is also involved (ditto), etc. The best one is telling a murder suspect they will not go for the death penalty if he confesses (ditto).

And then, once they get the suspect softened up sufficiently, they turn on the recorder. (The smart suspect will ask the cops to confirm the promises made pre-turn on, once the recorder is actually on. The smart cops will confirm the promises and then edit the recording.)

But requiring recording of confessions, even with the potential for abuse, is still much, much better than what we have now.

 

[George Costanza]

There is absolutely no reason at all to have police contact with a suspect that is in a controlled environment that is not under video surveillance.

Once I was cross examining a cop about why he had failed to record the defendant's alleged confession that had been obtained in the interview room of the police station. I knew for a fact that the room was equipped to video record everything that went on in there.

Why no video recording? "It wasn't working that day." Did you feel the need to record this statement? "No, not really." Did you have a tape recorder? "No." Was a tape recorder available anywhere in the police station? "No, not to my knowledge." It got so bad, that I actually asked him, finally: "Will you admit that there is such a thing as a tape recorder?" Know what? He wouldn't even do that!

I agree with you that there is no excuse for not recording a statement given in the controlled environment of a police station. Evidently, this cop thought there was.

 

[toxicmedia]

There is a lot of talk now about police being forced to use body cameras. All to the good. I think they should.

There is another area of the criminal justice system that is related to the body camera issue, but which gets far less attention, and it should not. I refer to the critical problem of non-recorded confessions.

Almost all of the arrest reports I read on a daily basis, contain an alleged "confession" or "admission" by the defendant, which usually seals the case. Sometimes, the confession is recorded. When that happens, it usually DOES seal the case, because there can be no question as to what was said (unless, of course, the police used coercive tactics before turning the recorder on).

By far the majority of confessions are NOT recorded, however, setting up a "he said/she said" situation for juries to sort out. And guess how juries usually go with that one.

There are five states in the U.S. that have legislation to the effect that no claimed confession or admission can be introduced into evidence unless it has been recorded in some fashion - video, audio or written and signed by the defendant. The rest of the states have no such law.

Just as objective recording of encounters between police and citizens needs to be filmed, so also should objective recordings of confession be made before any such can be used against a criminal defendant. Of course, police departments and police unions are on record as vehemently opposing such a recording requirement. One has to wonder why. One would think that the police would welcome such a requirement as it would eliminate a suspect who confessed and then recanted his confession in court.

One can't help but think that the reason law enforcement is so opposed to recorded confessions is that it is so easy to claim a defendant confessed when he did not, knowing that, without an objective recording of the confession, the jury is almost always going to believe the cops, rather than a defendant.

There are things I want to happen, and don't want to know they happened.

Back in WWII, our early intelligence people used batteries, pliers, cigars, and other handy torture devices to get what they wanted, and we never heard about it. In many cases, to this day.

I don't violate the law, anymore, so I'm all for the cops being tough in criminals, no matter what color they are. I can't stand people who think the cops should just do nothing if people run away from them. They need less than lethal ways to stop people resisting arrest. Plus there is something about healthy fear of the cops. A bloody nose ain't the end of the world.

But cameras?.......who would want that?

Those who do...I want a body camera strapped to you while you work all day. How would that feel?

 

[Jarlaxle]

You approve of people being tortured. How psychotic.

 

[foggedinn]

There is no rule of Law in this or any other country. We are under rule of politic. I understand the nature of confession during police interogation.
As for body cameras, I would rather see the money spent bringing art classes back into our schools.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is absolutely no reason at all to have police contact with a suspect that is in a controlled environment that is not under video surveillance.

Once I was cross examining a cop about why he had failed to record the defendant's alleged confession that had been obtained in the interview room of the police station. I knew for a fact that the room was equipped to video record everything that went on in there.

Why no video recording? "It wasn't working that day." Did you feel the need to record this statement? "No, not really." Did you have a tape recorder? "No." Was a tape recorder available anywhere in the police station? "No, not to my knowledge." It got so bad, that I actually asked him, finally: "Will you admit that there is such a thing as a tape recorder?" Know what? He wouldn't even do that!

I agree with you that there is no excuse for not recording a statement given in the controlled environment of a police station. Evidently, this cop thought there was.

Of course they do - they want to feel like they have solved the crime reality be dammed.

They also want carte blanch to deal with the 'criminals' as they see fit to ensure that goal. I am actually all for loosing many of the rules that they may have to deal with but I think the lines need to be clear and bright as hell as well as having the jury able to see 100 percent of the contact the cops had with an individual.

If the cops were not trying to hide anything they would not advocate against these ideas as they would greatly help in establishing the police did everything right. Of course they are not advocating for it at all....

 

[FA_Q2]

There is a lot of talk now about police being forced to use body cameras. All to the good. I think they should.

There is another area of the criminal justice system that is related to the body camera issue, but which gets far less attention, and it should not. I refer to the critical problem of non-recorded confessions.

Almost all of the arrest reports I read on a daily basis, contain an alleged "confession" or "admission" by the defendant, which usually seals the case. Sometimes, the confession is recorded. When that happens, it usually DOES seal the case, because there can be no question as to what was said (unless, of course, the police used coercive tactics before turning the recorder on).

By far the majority of confessions are NOT recorded, however, setting up a "he said/she said" situation for juries to sort out. And guess how juries usually go with that one.

There are five states in the U.S. that have legislation to the effect that no claimed confession or admission can be introduced into evidence unless it has been recorded in some fashion - video, audio or written and signed by the defendant. The rest of the states have no such law.

Just as objective recording of encounters between police and citizens needs to be filmed, so also should objective recordings of confession be made before any such can be used against a criminal defendant. Of course, police departments and police unions are on record as vehemently opposing such a recording requirement. One has to wonder why. One would think that the police would welcome such a requirement as it would eliminate a suspect who confessed and then recanted his confession in court.

One can't help but think that the reason law enforcement is so opposed to recorded confessions is that it is so easy to claim a defendant confessed when he did not, knowing that, without an objective recording of the confession, the jury is almost always going to believe the cops, rather than a defendant.

There are things I want to happen, and don't want to know they happened.

Back in WWII, our early intelligence people used batteries, pliers, cigars, and other handy torture devices to get what they wanted, and we never heard about it. In many cases, to this day.

I don't violate the law, anymore, so I'm all for the cops being tough in criminals, no matter what color they are. I can't stand people who think the cops should just do nothing if people run away from them. They need less than lethal ways to stop people resisting arrest. Plus there is something about healthy fear of the cops. A bloody nose ain't the end of the world.

But cameras?.......who would want that?

Those who do...I want a body camera strapped to you while you work all day. How would that feel?

You mean recorded all day while at work like, say, a bank teller? Or the clerk at McDonalds? Anyone who has ever worked in a cash cage? Or one of the thousands of other people that are recorded virtually every second of their work day. You know how that feels - completely neutral. It is not a personal location or is there any expectation whatsoever of privacy. I have never heard a teller complain about being filmed at their minimum wage and shitty job. I wonder why cops have such an issue with it?


Hell, recently the AMU CTK section (air mobility unit and composite tool kit - they are the people that issue tools to aircraft maintainers before they go to the flight line and maintain aircraft) personnel implemented just that - a recording system that catches all issued items within the work section. You know who pushed for it? THEY did because it helps in shutting down those personnel who try and blame CTK personnel for missing items in their boxes. The system has been useful in SEVERAL instances in not only clearing CTK personnel from issuing a faulty CTK but also in preventing a total shutdown of the flight line when CTK personnel make an error. It was an excellent idea that I hope is implemented in our CTK section as well.

None of these jobs have the power to infringe on my rights or outright abuse me as a police officer has. None of them have the ability to place me in jail for significant portions of my life. The very extraordinary powers that police are given drives the NEED for them to wear recording devices. So many people work in places right now where that is already the case and there is zero issues with it. Here is the one case where it is NEEDED and yet there are people advocating against it. There is no reason whatsoever that police are not wearing recording devices while on the job virtually 100 percent of the time. None whatsoever.

 

[George Costanza]

If the cops were not trying to hide anything they would not advocate against these ideas as they would greatly help in establishing the police did everything right. Of course they are not advocating for it at all....

Precisely. Very well stated.