Greenfield Police Getting National Exposure

[Denny347]

There's a female in these photos?

C'mon now...let's not go there.

 

[INMIline]

Link?

Funny what qualifies as "national exposure" nowadays. My cat got national exposure when I put him on YouTube.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Video cameras are to the immoral what crosses and garlic are to vampires.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Just wait unti IRE 617 is implemented. Oh, how the hilarity will ensure.

So, do we have a video? *


*Yes, that is from "The Young Ones" (the one where the vampire is pretending to be a driving instructor from South Africa).

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Sounds like a reply to this original posting on Indystar thinks he has something to post on YouTube.
Haha, "forced" the driver to dump his weed and break his pipe. Oh the horror!!!!!
Maybe it's a funny video, I dono.

Another question I have is what is the time limit on waiting for the K9 officer to arrive? How long can the original officer detain someone waiting on the K9 officer?

The video you mentioned could be funny, or it could be a nice example of officer discretion showing that not all officers are JBT who are going to bust everyone they can for anything that they can, or both. In my much younger days I had an officer "force" me to pour out the beer that was in my car, by force I mean he said as best as I can remember "you have one minute to pour it all out or I'm taking all of you to jail" he even complimented me on my style compared to my friends, I opened up six bottles at once and grabbed them between my fingers to hold them upside down while my friends were doing them one at a time . The officer involved could of arrested me and at least one of my friends, along with impounding my vehicle but he didn't. I have no problem with how he handled it, actually I wouldn't have a problem with him if he did arrest me and impound my car. But I'm grateful to him that he handled it the way he did.

But the video could also show an unlawful search which resulted in the officer finding the weed and pipe and that is why the officer didn't arrest the person and allowed them to dump the weed and break the pipe.

But I do have a question regarding that post, how long does an officer have to get a K-9 unit for a sniff around? I know that it has to be within a "normal traffic stop" and that they can't hold you indefinitely, but what is a normal traffic stop? Has there be any case law in IN regarding it? Yes I know an officer can continue the stop while he/she runs checks and such but are they allowed to lets say run the DL and wait for a response and read/listen to the response, then run the VIN number and wait, then run a check on your LTCH and wait, run the ID/LTCH/warrant check on each passenger indivdually and wait for the response before checking the next then etc... An officer can I think easily stretch out a stop for dang near as long as he/she wants if they are allowed to do it that way. What does case law say about this? Can an officer claim it was a consensual encounter after the initial stop? Or should a person ask the officer to let them know when they are free to go as soon as possible? ie officer hands the driver a ticket/warning for whatever and continues to talk to them for 20 minutes until the K-9 shows up.

Well, that's interesting. However, they have no right to come on his property demanding to have his camera. They can have a copy of the recording, but they can't take his camera. Even for evidence. Once they walked on my property demanding my camera I'd call the state police after telling the officer to leave and they refuse. That'd be considered trespassing wouldn't it? Being told to leave and they don't

If the officer came onto your property to ask for your camera as evidence, they would not be commiting tresspass under Indiana law.

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following:
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.

So if he/she was attempting to secure evidence or investigating if there was evidence that needed to be secured, you can't tresspass them.

IF this is true, then yes, I would consider it an overstepping of authority. It is not only in this post that that is a big "if".

If proof exists, I'd like to see it. Until then, I'll reserve judgment.

Blessings,
Bill

Agreed on this instance, but I have seen video of the same type of situation. What does the law in IN say about this? Can an officer confiscate a camera for evidence? Other than if it was used in the commission of a crime that is, I assume that they can confiscate one if the criminal used it during the crime ie upskirting (I think that's illegal in IN) or if some punks were driving around playing mailbox baseball/shooting people with paintballs/etc and taping it. But what about in the case of an ordinary citizen filming a LEO interaction? Are they allowed to seize it for evidence or are they required to get a warrant? And are they allowed to seize it until they get a warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence? And if and officer demands your camera are you allowed to say no? Can you face charges for doing so? ie Obstruction of justice/refusing to aid an officer/perhaps even resisting arrest( Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties if you attempt to prevent the officer from taking the camera?

Can any of the attorneys/LEO chime in on this? What is allowed in IN?

Just wait unti IRE 617 is implemented. Oh, how the hilarity will ensure.

What is IRE 617? I tried a search on it and only came up with area codes and such.

 

[Scutter01]

What is IRE 617? I tried a search on it and only came up with area codes and such.

Here'sa PDF summary:

http://warrickprosecutor.org/Documents/legalupdate.2009.09.16.pdf

 

[Eddie]

The prosecutor can subpoena photos, negatives and such if the person holding them won't voluntarily make a copy. There would be no reason to seize the camera as the camera isn't evidence.

If the officers actually thought the recordings would be useful evidence then they might get the owners contact information and discuss whether or not he would be willing to share the information voluntarily, ask him not to destroy the records and so forth. I guess if some wacky guy had a recording that was evidence and threatened to destroy the recording right then and there then the police might be ok with seizing it.

On the other hand this situation sounds more like the officers did not want a recording to be made so they were using the threat of seizure of the camera as evidence to try to stop the homeowner from recording them.

 

[SavageEagle]

Surely they couldn't take the whole camera though, right? I mean, the SD card or videotape should suffice, right?

I'm just curious because it's one thing to take the footage with the media it's on, but it's a whole 'nuther can of worms to take the WHOLE camera. By taking the whole camera, they end my ability to take more video that could be used as evidence. It would be one thing to take the footage AFTER the encounter, but not during. If they take away either the camera or just the media DURING the whole incident, couldn't that be considered TAMPERING with evidence?

One could always argue that by taking the camera before the incident was over they could have done other things at the time not in the video. I just think it would be in their best interests to take the video footage after the fact is all I'm saying.

 

[jsgolfman]

Just wait unti IRE 617 is implemented. Oh, how the hilarity will ensure.

So, do we have a video? *


*Yes, that is from "The Young Ones" (the one where the vampire is pretending to be a driving instructor from South Africa).

Absolutely one of the best comedies, ever.

young ones - Google Videos

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes, I think we can all agree that everything British is superior.

IRE 617 is Indiana Rule of Evidence 617 requires video taping of police interviews. When it was discussed at INGO, the hilarity ensued. Doing what I do, I can't wait to see it implemented.

 

[jeremy]

Yes, I think we can all agree that everything British is superior.

Hmmm...

Being of Scot-Irish heritage I'll have to disagree with that statement.

 

[AFA1CY]

Hmmm...

Being of Scot-Irish heritage I'll have to disagree with that statement.

And of being of German ancestry we always got along with the British... ...

Then again, at one time the British throne was German...

 

[Indy317]

Just wait unti IRE 617 is implemented. Oh, how the hilarity will ensure.

Not only will hilarity ensue, more people will likely get away with crime. Misdemeanor cases won't be too bad, but for small felonies like theft of a bicycle, well there will be no more road side interrogation. The person will have to be taken to the police station in some areas, due to lack of this equipment available to patrol officers. That time it takes to transport the person back to a video/audio recording room would lead me to believe that many would come to the realization, during transportation, to not say anything. It sounds like in some areas, during low figure thefts, the cops might start just detaining, IDing, and then releasing. Unless there is some sort of electronic recording taking place, no more reason for street side interrogations out in the field. Of course this might lead to every police vehicle having some sort of recording device, which of course will likely lead to calls for a tax increase, blaming such increase on the state, for required additional equipment.

Rule 617. Unrecorded Statements During Custodial Interrogation
(a) In a felony criminal prosecution, evidence of a statement made by a person during a Custodial Interrogation in a Place of Detention shall not be admitted against the person unless an Electronic Recording of the statement was made, preserved, and is available at trial, except upon clear and convincing proof of any one of the following:
(1) The statement was part of a routine processing or "booking" of the person; or
(2) Before or during a Custodial Interrogation, the person agreed to respond to questions only if his or her Statements were not Electronically Recorded, provided that such agreement and its surrounding colloquy is Electronically Recorded or documented in writing; or
(3) The law enforcement officers conducting the Custodial Interrogation in good faith failed to make an Electronic Recording because the officers inadvertently failed to operate the recording equipment properly, or without the knowledge of any of said officers the recording equipment malfunctioned or stopped operating; or
(4) The statement was made during a custodial interrogation that both occurred in, and was conducted by officers of, a jurisdiction outside Indiana; or
(5) The law enforcement officers conducting or observing the Custodial Interrogation reasonably believed that the crime for which the person was being investigated was not a felony under Indiana law; or
(6) The statement was spontaneous and not made in response to a question; or
(7) Substantial exigent circumstances existed which prevented the making of, or rendered it not feasible to make, an Electronic Recording of the Custodial Interrogation, or prevent its preservation and availability at trial.

(b) For purposes of this rule, "Electronic Recording" means an audio-video recording that includes at least not only the visible images of the person being interviewed but also the voices of said person and the interrogating officers; "Custodial Interrogation" means an interview conducted by law enforcement during which a reasonable person would consider himself or herself to be in custody; "Place of Detention" means a jail, law enforcement agency station house, or any other stationary or mobile building owned or operated by a law enforcement agency at which persons are detained in connection with criminal investigations.
(c) The Electronic Recording must be a complete, authentic, accurate, unaltered, and continuous record of a Custodial Interrogation.
(d) This Rule is in addition to, and does not diminish, any other requirement of law regarding the admissibility of a person's statements.

Under this Court's inherent authority to supervise the administration of all courts of this state, the Indiana Rules of Evidence are hereby amended by the addition of the following new Rule 617, which shall apply to evidence of a statement made by a person during custodial interrogation that occurs on or after January 1, 2011.

Hilarity will ensue. First, I can see a lot of ticked off victims upset that the beat cops didn't "question" the suspect. Sorry, can't question the suspect anymore, don't have the require audio and video equipment in the car!! Second, look at all the loopholes in the law. Forgot to turn on the equipment, thought the crime was a misdemeanor, etc.. Why not just make a rule that says: Don't arrest anyone. That would solve a lot of these issues.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Being of Scot-Irish heritage I'll have to disagree with that statement

Ummm, Scot-Irish are British (English, Welsh, Scots and Irish). We moved you to Ireland to help colonize Ireland. See your people's flag under our Union Jack:

YouTube - Rule Britannia, UK

AND THE GUARDIAN ANGELS SANG THE STRAIN,

RULE, BRITIANNIA!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Misdemeanor cases won't be too bad, but for small felonies like theft of a bicycle,

Which the Prosecuting Attorney will end run by filing these as Criminal Conversion (as they should now).

Indy, the police can still arrest, given probable cause. It's just that if they want "statements" they have to video tape them so it's all on the up and up--no more click-filled audio tapes, no more mysterious magnetic interference. All the cards will be flipped up.

 

[Indy317]

Which the Prosecuting Attorney will end run by filing these as Criminal Conversion (as they should now).

Indy, the police can still arrest, given probable cause. It's just that if they want "statements" they have to video tape them so it's all on the up and up--no more click-filled audio tapes, no more mysterious magnetic interference. All the cards will be flipped up.

Sometimes there isn't probable cause _until_ the statements, that is what I am getting at. Some idiots will still give a statement, even after a silent 5-15 minute transport to the PD. However, some will have an awakening, and wisely not say anything once they get to the PD. Of course I think a lot of officers, who don't have the equipment out in the field, are just going to get their info and cut them loose. Now all _possible_ evidence which _might_ have been obtained is gone. The property is gone, the person is gone...I don't see any prosecutor filing anything in these cases. Now, I only see this affecting only a small % of cases. Mostly thefts where the person takes something, is not actually seen taking the stuff, but seen in the room, or in close proximity. I know of thieves who are stopped with reasonable suspicion, given their rights, and then tell so many lies, they paint themselves into a corner. So they have lied in an official police investigation, but sometimes they finally admit what happened, and sometimes will actually admit they have the property on them (pants, backpack, etc.). Those crimes will now pay for those criminals stopped by officers who have no A/V equipment and cut the person loose. No admission, no evidence produced=no arrest, not even a warrant for conversion. Some officers won't play the game of stopping someone who is suspected of theft and only go at the investigation like it is criminal conversion. Screw that. To me, it should be theft or nothing. If that means a few folks end up loosing textbooks, laptops, purses, game systems, etc., I will refer them to take their complaints to their elected officials and judges.

The state is already telling cops how to conduct missing person and domestic battery investigations. I sometimes wish the state would tell the police how to conduct _all_ investigations. Then if someone from the public doesn't like how something turned out, don't go crying to the Chief, or mayor, or prosecutor...go crying to your elected state representative.

 

[JetGirl]

Yikes

YouTube - Film Is Not A Crime

 

[Eddie]

Indy317 I sympathize. When I was a cop I felt like you do. Now that I'm a lawyer I feel more like Kirk. The problem isn't with the honest cops that are trying to do a good job. From my perspective its the "shell game" that gets played. The police and prosecutor start out with an enourmous advantage in terms of being able to collect and document evidence while the person being investigated is relatively powerless to document the events as they are occuring. Their lawyer has to start days or weeks behind the prosecution and try to reassemble what happened. The accused is supposed to have access to the evidence; both the evidence that supports the case against them as well as any evidence that might help acquit. The reality is often what I call the "shell game". The defense counsel doesn't get all of the reports, videotapes are hidden or mysteriously recorded over. Evidence that could help acquit, that got collected by the police, sometimes even seized from its owner is then kept away from the accused's attorney. Now there has been a backlash over some interrogation tactics and so the rules are getting cranked down a little more, but it will help even the playing field where confessions are concerned.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There is no shell game. It is open and notorious.

Deaf defendants are not video taped.

Gaps, interference and clicks in audio tapes.

This is why the Supreme Court instituted 617. They are sick of us whining about what was going on during police interviews. If there was not an open and obvious problem, the Supreme Court would not have required this new procedure.

Now if they could do something about "missing" OWI DVDs.

 

[MTC]

Yikes

YouTube - Film Is Not A Crime

Not trying to threadjack or start anything, since I like most folks here, but consider...
No, film itself isn't a crime. You might want to check the source of that video, however. Did you catch the url at the end? From the *about* section of tacomasds.org:

About SDS
Students for a Democratic Society is an association of people on the left. It seeks to create a sustained community of educational and political concern; bringing the ideas and experiences from diverse backgrounds together. It maintains a vision of a democratic society where at all levels people have control of the decisions which affect them and the resources on which they are dependent. It seeks a relevance through the continual focus on realities and on the programs necessary to effect change at the most basic levels of economic, political, and social organization. It feels an urgency to put forth a radical, democratic program whose methods embody the democratic vision.

TacomaSDS.org hopes to help radical groups based in Tacoma, WA, especially SDS, bring their message online, and facilitate communication, planning, and the dissemination of information.

I see they've sanitized their "message" somewhat from nearly thirty years ago, when I met a few of them unexpectedly at the IU main campus at Bloomington, and definitely from forty years ago, based on what I knew of them at that time, and found out later. Google Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).
The meanings are clear if you're well-versed in the Marxist dialectic.