Why They Hate Video

[mrjarrell]

In Philly a case just got tossed out because the cop was lying on the stand. Surveillance video directly contradicted his sworn testimony. If that video hadn't existed a person who had their rights violated would be going to jail, (yes, the cops found some weed. But they violated the law to try and make their case). This why shady cops hate video and some, (who aren't shady) don't mind it. Hopefully at some point every action the boys in blue take will be videoed, for the protection of the good ones and to the detriment of the bad ones.

Video of pot bust spotlights lapses by police - Philly.com

 

[littletommy]

Why would an officer who is deemed "untrust worthy" to testify in court, still be an officer at all?

 

[phylodog]

I tried to rep you mrjarrel but I have to spread it around first. I appreciate the wording of your post and recognition that not all of us are bad or guilty.

 

[cobber]

Why would an officer who is deemed "untrust worthy" to testify in court, still be an officer at all?

The $64,000 question. Sounds like perjury. Not good.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I tried to rep you mrjarrel but I have to spread it around first. I appreciate the wording of your post and recognition that not all of us are bad or guilty.

Got him for you.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

I guess there arent consequences to lying under oath? Could have swore there were...

 

[mrjarrell]

I guess there arent consequences to lying under oath? Could have swore there were...

Usually nothing significant, in the cases we've seen before. A slap on the wrist and, in the case of some Philly cops, being put on a list of people who can't be trusted to testify. If they can lie to you in the field, there's no reason that lie can't extend to the courtroom.

 

[gglass]

Good find.

As stated above... Why would an officer still be employed as such, if they could no longer be trusted to testify in criminal cases? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

+1

 

[hornadylnl]

In before the "the ends justify the means" posts.

 

[spencer rifle]

I guess there arent consequences to lying under oath? Could have swore there were...

I see what you did there.

 

[dross]

In before the "the ends justify the means" posts.

He was just trying to get home at night.

 

[Lucas156]

it was for officer safety

 

[level.eleven]

I read the article, but still have some confusion. It is possible to be a police officer, carry a gun, arrest powers, the whole ball of wax, but you can be placed on a list that says you are untrustworthy to testify in a court of law?

This one is particularly bad as there were supervisors on the scene.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You're talking about the "black list" of a prosecutor's office?

 

[level.eleven]

You're talking about the "black list" of a prosecutor's office?

I don't know. That is why I asked. I guess I don't see how one can be a police officer but be deemed "untrustworthy" when it comes to providing testimony in a court of law. Isn't that officer now a liability?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

CAN be. It really depends on the elected guy's policy.

Cops who commit perjury/lie don't always get prosecuted or fired:

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Cops-who-lie-don-t-always-lose-jobs-1262936.php11

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003760490_bradycops24m.html

Sometimes they stand by their man, sometimes they know something is wrong (hmmm, he sees a lot of burned out license plate lights but only on Black and Hispanic drivers?) and will not go forward with a case.

Last few times that it has happened in my county and it did result in his prosecution and termination. Like everything else, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

 

[TRWXXA]

I guess there arent consequences to lying under oath? Could have swore there were...

Eric Holder is still walking the streets and, last I heard, still the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. 'Nuff said.

 

[rambone]

I guess there arent consequences to lying under oath? Could have swore there were...

Officer perjury is punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 lost vacation days and possibility of desk duty without parole.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Officer perjury is punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 lost vacation days and possibility of desk duty without parole.

Based on what, Rambone? Kirk's first-hand knowledge would seem to refute that, at least sometimes.

CAN be. It really depends on the elected guy's policy.
...
Sometimes they stand by their man, sometimes they know something is wrong (hmmm, he sees a lot of burned out license plate lights but only on Black and Hispanic drivers?) and will not go forward with a case.

Last few times that it has happened in my county and it did result in his prosecution and termination. Like everything else, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

(I removed [strike]his[/strike] Kirk's two cites of it being ignored as they were in Seattle, WA, not here in Indiana.)

Rambone, I realize you paint everyone with a badge with the same brush, but let's be honest here: They're people. Some are good, some less so, and some need to be locked up for the protection of society. Lumping them all together is akin to painting everyone with a LTCH with the same brush as the very few (2:1000 or so) who get their LTCHs revoked in a year. (or maybe that was a 4 year total... It was 2006, IIRC, when I got the statistic from ISP)



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk's first-hand knowledge would seem to refute that, at least sometimes

Ram, what BoR says is correct.

I realize you paint everyone with a badge with the same brush, but let's be honest here: They're people. Some are good, some less so, and some need to be locked up for the protection of society.

Negative, ghostrider. You are mistaking me with rambone. I did no such thing.

Again, it depends on the case (fact sensitive and all that). Remember not all lying is perjury. Sometimes it is not relevant, sometimes it is an honest confusion (cops will confuse traffic stops with one of the 100 others that they have done), sometimes it is an honest mistake (cross racial, or I've represented twins before), inter alia.

Sometimes police perjury is taken seriously, sometimes it is not. Sometimes what is a relevant matter is subjective and defense attorneys and prosecutors will disagree, but that is to be expected. That in itself is part of the justice system.

I didn't want to give Indiana examples out of respect for the good cops out there and didn't want to give the impression that I was gloating to being argumentative. I can give them, but I prefer not to.

BTW, this is why I am an unabashed supporter of IRE 617 and hope it is expanded. I believe, or it is my opinion, that technology will help take the mistake-prone nature of humanity out of testimony. At least to the extent that this is possible.