cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/20380296
Medina offered two puzzling excuses for leaving his camera off. He “cited intermittent conversations with his wife, who was a passenger in his unmarked patrol vehicle at the time of the collision,” Ortiz says. “He claimed there was a right to privileged communication between spouses, which specifically exempted him from mandatory recording requirements.” But the relevant policy “does not provide for nonrecording based on spousal privilege.”
Even more troubling, Medina said he “purposefully did not record because he was invoking his 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate.” Since “he was involved in a traffic collision,” he reasoned, he was “subject to 5th Amendment protections.”
I think he’s right, but they should still be accountable for all evidence against them while the bodycam is off including witness testimony and he is also rubbing the social contract real thin.
EDIT: idgaf if you don’t like to hear it, our legal system has gaps and flaws we cannot just pretend away.
I get what you’re saying.
I still think there’s a difference between a private civilian and a public official (especially one with little to no oversight or accountability). They aren’t forced to be police officers. They choose it. I don’t think I could trust anyone less than I do an officer who would do anything to get rid of body cams.
Right, but there is currently a constitutional protection which makes it legally okay to exclude any and all self-incriminating evidence and I don’t see a police officer clause tacked below it so the officer is factually correct.
I feel like the current legal interpretation disagrees with your statement though.
Theres an ongoing case against Nicholas P. Duty for a judge and jury to create precedent for future rulings. Got any past decisions?