Albuquerque, NM

174 readers

8 users here now

Rules

Try not to do anything we need to make a rule about. It will be named after you.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Steve

[email protected]

Albuquerque's police chief thinks cops have a 5th Amendment right to leave their body cameras off (reason.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/abq

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] finitebanjo -9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] finitebanjo 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I feel like the current legal interpretation disagrees with your statement though.

[–] finitebanjo 2 points 2 months ago

Theres an ongoing case against Nicholas P. Duty for a judge and jury to create precedent for future rulings. Got any past decisions?