Tom, I don't see why they would not be admissible in court. Investigators, attornies, and one judge have told me that any recording is admissible as long as one of the parties is aware that a recording is taking place. Otherwise a court order is required.
That is why traffic, security, dash, and camcorder footage is allowed.
This particular camera is anything but hidden and has a bright green ring around the lens. Kind of hard to say its hidden.
I like the idea of this concept. To be able to see exactly what was said and done by the officer and the "alledged suspect" (all are innocent till proven guilty). Looks to me that a lot of questions of propriety, use of force, threatening actions, etc, from either side could answered via the video. Also, since the credibility eyewitness testimony can be brought into question from the stress of the situation to outright purjury, this could help greatly in putting the course of events in order.
I want to see what they cost, and equip our law enforcement officers with them.
The only issue I would have with it is if the video was not made available to the defense. For example, casinos record everything, but somebody suing a casino can find it almost impossible to get videos from the casino that might support their claim.
I know that is an issue of a private corporation's property as opposed to the video made by public servants, so it is not 100% relevant - I was just using it as an example of what *not* to do.
Also relevant, people suing casinos are working civil cases.
In criminal cases, the prosecution is legally mandated to share evidence with the defense. Failure to do so gets rulings overturned and DAs into various kinds of bad situations.
You mean "wear" right?
You mean "wear" right?
Yes as long as the video is
Yes as long as the video is allow as evidence in court.
And they need to be high
And they need to be high definition so we can actually identify the person.
NEW POLL : Is it still safe
NEW POLL : Is it still safe enough for me to still conduct my annual visit to my hometown?
Tom, I don't see why they
Tom, I don't see why they would not be admissible in court. Investigators, attornies, and one judge have told me that any recording is admissible as long as one of the parties is aware that a recording is taking place. Otherwise a court order is required.
That is why traffic, security, dash, and camcorder footage is allowed.
This particular camera is anything but hidden and has a bright green ring around the lens. Kind of hard to say its hidden.
I like the idea of this concept. To be able to see exactly what was said and done by the officer and the "alledged suspect" (all are innocent till proven guilty). Looks to me that a lot of questions of propriety, use of force, threatening actions, etc, from either side could answered via the video. Also, since the credibility eyewitness testimony can be brought into question from the stress of the situation to outright purjury, this could help greatly in putting the course of events in order.
I want to see what they cost, and equip our law enforcement officers with them.
The only issue I would have
The only issue I would have with it is if the video was not made available to the defense. For example, casinos record everything, but somebody suing a casino can find it almost impossible to get videos from the casino that might support their claim.
I know that is an issue of a private corporation's property as opposed to the video made by public servants, so it is not 100% relevant - I was just using it as an example of what *not* to do.
Also relevant, people suing
Also relevant, people suing casinos are working civil cases.
In criminal cases, the prosecution is legally mandated to share evidence with the defense. Failure to do so gets rulings overturned and DAs into various kinds of bad situations.