264
265

Houston Police Department body camera program launched (click2houston.com)

zsreportAlief が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Houston213 372ポイント373ポイント  (181子コメント)

HPD Gang Division here. I should be getting my camera next week. I'm generally for it, as I've had one of the older pilot models and it makes my life 100% easier in immediately disproving frivolous and false complaints and proving what actually happens on a scene in court.

But one thing that I've discussed with colleagues and something that I don't think I've seen discussed outside of our circle is what we call "the weed conundrum." In summary, properly adhering to our policies regarding cameras will effectively remove officers' ability to exercise discretion. For example, let's say I stop a car on a traffic violation, the driver is a young person, has a job or is in school, no criminal record, is a productive member of society with plenty of options ahead. Only problem is, I ascertain probable cause to recover narcotics I believe are in the vehicle. Lo and behold, there's a dime bag in their pocket. Now, without a body camera, I'm free to exercise my discretion to chastise this kid for riding around with this stuff, flick it into the bayou, and let them go. In that setting, an arrest will not put them in jail for the next 12 hours, get their car towed and incur $300 in storage fees, possibly lose their job for not showing up, and now you've got a criminal record that could very well inhibit your future options.

Since I'm in a proactive street-level gang unit, all we do is make targeted stops against vehicles we believe to have just made narcotics purchases. And probably 85% of the time it's just weed. And probably 85% of those stops end in the scenario described above. Hey dummy, don't be riding around with this shit, if you're gonna smoke it, leave it at home. And everyone drives away.

But now, if I want to keep my job, every. single. bag. I find, somebody's got to go to jail over. Because it's all recorded, and if some supervisor randomly audits my footage, or some defense attorney subpoenas all my footage from a particular day and sees I let one person slide but not his client, then he drops a complaint and now I'm in jeopardy of losing my job.

Same with DWIs. Unless you had caused an accident and there was no way to work around it, I generally would work to get somebody you knew to come pick you up and take you home. Saves you $20,000 in lawyer fees, a suspended license, and possible loss of job and income. Not anymore.

I understand and approve the need for officers to wear them. I enjoy the protection it provides. But it's a double edged sword, and I don't think many of the people screaming for them considered this angle.

EDIT - Let me clarify the DWI thing. Neither I, nor any other officer I work with, has ever let or would let a drunk or impaired person keep driving after a stop. We're not going to take the risk of that person driving a mile down the road and killing themselves or somebody else. What we do a great portion of time is hold that person at the scene until a friend or family member can pick them up or take them home. We typically expend all possible options before effecting a DWI arrest. That includes utilizing the city's Sobering Center whenever possible. The reason, as u/kilroy1944 pointed out, is that DWI processing takes anywhere from 6-8 hours, and when an officer is pulled from their beat which is already critically short staffed (HPD is currently staffed at 1995 levels...), then it leaves no officers around to respond to robberies, home invasions, burglaries, or assaults in progress. Every day is a zero sum game. Somebody will always lose. We spend the entire shift trying to maintain a balance.

[–]YolandiVissarsBF 64ポイント65ポイント  (35子コメント)

Actually I think the weed law was changed this year - I can't find a source but for 2 oz or less its just a ticketable offense that doesn't even go on the persons record.

Can someone confirm this for me?

But anyway, I've never heard of cameras removing officers discretion as not every video is going to be watched, just the ones that are flagged.

Then again I'm not an officer so I don't know nothin bout that life

[–]Houston213 56ポイント57ポイント  (26子コメント)

That program is only in effect if you have zero arrests on your record. If you have a 15 year old arrest for graffitiing a fence, then you can still be charged. Even if you have no other charges on your record, you still get put in handcuffs, car towed, etc, and you're booked and fingerprinted before you're released on the premise that you complete a program so that it gets dropped off your record.

And the new policy that came out with these cameras states that a supervisor will review two random videos a month from every officer. So in addition to the ones that are flagged, you never know which videos will be watched by an outside party.

[–]binger5 10ポイント11ポイント  (10子コメント)

And the new policy that came out with these cameras states that a supervisor will review two random videos a month from every officer.

Can your supervisor use discretion? I understand if they're out to get you and you have to do everything by the book, but you should see something like that coming right?

[–]kilroy1944 26ポイント27ポイント  (9子コメント)

Your supervisor could ignore it. But they run the risk of someone higher up reviewing the video. Or someone from another agency. Or a defense attorney who wants to make a point about you charging their suspect, but not suspect x. Or any officer or citizen who dislikes you (say a crazy ex), can file a complaint with allegations like he destroys evidence. Video reviewed and you are screwed. Or if the guy goes and murders/assaults/rapes someone later that night, you are on the hook. If you are seen on video destroying the marijuana, you have by Texas Penal Code committed a felony of Tampering with Evidence. If it magically disappears, you have violated policies like "Shall make all Class B Arrests or Higher" or "Sound Judgement" and face days off. It is a good deal of risk to take for an officer to help out some random citizen by ditching a joint.

The way that Internal Affairs works, is that every case that is brought before them by a complainant is reviewed from top to bottom. This is great, but can lead to Conduct not Alleged findings. These generally mean you violated policy, though the complainant's actual allegation turned out to be bullshit. This might be as simple as failing to fill out a racial demographic form after a traffic stop (a tool used by department to statistically track who we stop in cars).

From my experience, some things will happen with the statistics in Houston related to arrests. Minor offenses like Marijuana and Driving with License Invalid will skyrocket. DWI arrests will skyrocket (generally a good thing). Crime will increase in neighborhoods due to manpower being taken up on these arrests, and not chasing those doing the most harm to the community. And finally, the city will be paying lots of overtime to Officers.

As an example of how short certain areas are presently. Night Shift in North Houston, an area from the North Loop up to Greenspoint, and from HWY 290 corridor to the Hardy Toll Road has approximately 30 Officers riding on weekend nights. This area has Studewood, Inwood, Acres Homes, Greenspoint, and large swaths of unnamed barrios. For 90% of the geographic area, close to 50% of the population lives below the poverty line. It is not uncommon on a weekend to have 1/8th or more of the Units tied up on DWIs. And it is not uncommon for units that do not avoid work to run 20 calls (20 interactions with citizens who called police).

From what we've heard from Central Officers, the new body cameras are taking 30-40 minutes to download, with limited computer equipped to download them. So, officers will be working 30-40 minutes extra every day. The city is presenetly allowing paid overtime for this. They may require officers take comp time instead, but the city is obligated to pay officers after they have banked 480 hrs of comp.

[–]humplick 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

In this context, what does 'Comp.' mean? I only known it as Comparative, as in sales numbers year-to-year,

[–]laosurvey 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't know what the 'comp' means (I think comparable) but it's time you can take off with pay later on.

[–]HandsomeHodge 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I work in IT, so It could be totally different. But for me, comp time is when a salaried employee works overtime on one day, they have to take that time off on another day, so their weekly hours are still 40. My company is pretty loose about it, so I can "bank" hours and use them when I want. I assume its the same for police, considering he said: "but the city is obligated to pay officers after they have banked 480 hrs of comp."

[–]cedricchase 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Probably compensation, as in 'compensatory time'.

[–]2-4601 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Compensatory.

[–]knz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Compensated

[–]lantzstriking -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah this guy sounds like he's full of shit.

[–]Randa11F1agg 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

When you say they review 2 random videos a month it makes me wonder how recordings work with the body camera's. Do you start and stop recordings as you have encounters with people or is it something that is constantly rolling?

[–]Houston213 19ポイント20ポイント  (3子コメント)

We're supposed to turn them on whenever we engage in "police" activity, ie, stops, calls for service, talking to witnesses, and leaving them on when transporting someone to jail or the hospital. And there's a 30 second backtrack on audio, meaning any video recording clip will also contain the previous 30 seconds of audio before the video was activated.

[–]Randa11F1agg 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ahh, thank you for answering. Is it possible that cases could be dismissed because the camera was turned off during an encounter?

[–]Houston213 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's possible, but there are other ways to ensure any evidence gathered was gathered lawfully. Unless probable cause is developed, any searches must be consensual, and we have documentation that has to be signed by a vehicle or property owner to prove that they consented to the search that can't be recanted in court. Additionally, with every uniformed officer to be assigned a camera, its very unlikely that every single camera on a scene would be off at the same time.

[–]kilroy1944 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dismissed is unlikely. If the camera malfunctions or was not on, the new General Order requires officers to narrate as soon as possible after the incident on their camera why the camera was off. Something like, I've had this thing for two days, the suspect jumped out of his vehicle on a traffic stop, I had to get out quick with my weapon, and didn't turn it on.

While the cases will probably not be dismissed, they may win in a jury trial.

[–]YolandiVissarsBF 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

I have one more question since you're in the gang division

  • a few years back the FBI classified juggalos as a gang. How bad would you say our juggalo problem is, and how do we protect my babies from them?

[–]Houston213 59ポイント60ポイント  (4子コメント)

1) Our juggalo problem is Insane. Its a huge Posse. They're always acting like Clowns. 2) Cover them in magnets.

[–]steelsunWestbury 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

This wins.

[–]teamFBGMRice University 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Fuckin Magnets, how does that shit work?

[–]smarmyfrenchman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What the fuck is a clock?

[–]SnarleXx 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I assume because they attract opposites, in the purpose of this its opposite genders

[–]zsreportAlief[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I assume that rule is if you have an arrest, even if the charges were dismisses, you still don't get the benefit of the new weed rule - kind of like the diversion program for DUI/DWI.

[–]kilroy1944 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is exactly this. It is a jail diversion program. It would take the State of Texas to make marijuana possession a Class C (Ticketable Offense).

[–]YolandiVissarsBF 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ahhh gotcha.

Well shit.

[–]kilroy1944 21ポイント22ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is correct information on the new Marijuana First Chance Program... I know, because I have filed a few of these cases.

First, it is 2 ozs or less. What happens when you encounter an adult with this is as follows:

You qualify if it is under 2 ozs, you have valid ID (State or Federal), you are not charged with any other crime, and you have not enrolled in the program before. So if you are driving on a Suspended License w/o Insurance, you are booked on DWLI and the Marijuana.

Officers review your Criminal History, and determine if you have a previous arrest (not conviction). Then they contact the District Attorney's Office. Then they contact the Jail Diversion program at a separate phone number.

Officers detain the the individual, and process the scene as normal. So if you are in a car, your car is towed. Officers then transport the individual to Central Booking, where they are fingerprinted in the AFIS system. The individual detained then is read the rules of the program. If they agree to them, which includes drug counseling courses and requires one to call a phone number and register with program within 48 hrs, they sign the form. After that, the officer tags the marijuana with HPD Narcotics, and turns the paperwork in at the Narcotics Hold Desk. The individual is then released from custody, downtown at Central Jail.

This is far more time consuming than a ticket (a Class C Offense). The individual's car is still towed. The individual still deals with a court program and if they do not meet their obligations, a warrant is issued for their arrest.

The only times I have been involved with this program are to train others on it or to make a larger case on a second suspect in a car, where the smaller amount of marijuana was important to that case. For the most part, officers avoid marijuana cases. For myself, a simple possession of marijuana arrest would take an hour to complete. First Chance takes about two hours, or 1/4th the shift tied up with something like this. Not that it is a bad program in principle, it is just a knee jerk reaction thrown on us during the DA elections and therefore has its issues.

[–]supremeMiloLazybrook/Timbergrove 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your discretion needs to move to the "probable cause"

[–]login228822 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

for the last decade(9yrs) police have had the discretion to just write a ticket for amounts under a qp

[–]megalynn44 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Weed aside, the point stands. A police officer needs to be able to exercise some level of discretion and judgement, and body camera's will obstruct this aspect. It could also lead long term to issues with tying up resources and slowing down justice because every time someone hires a lawyer, that lawyer will demand all footage of this officer be picked over with a fine tooth comb. This aspect of things need to be addressed.

[–]TayminatorUptown 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think you may be right. Not sure on the amount, but I remember seeing an article on Chron that says it is just a ticket-able (think I made that word up) offence.

[–]separeaude 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Any usable quantity is a jailable offense by state law, which peace officers are sworn to uphold and bound by policy and sometimes law to enforce.

Officers have been pretty lenient pursuing marijuana cases and letting a lot of folks go even with the diversionary programs in place. Loss of discretion is one of the unintended consequences of persistent video from body cams.

[–]sigmabody 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

It sounds like you're pointing out two possible failings in the system, both of which I would personally be 100% in favor of addressing:

  • The police department might take disciplinary action against an officer who uses discretion in choosing to not punish citizens to the maximum extent possible under the law
  • A defense attorney might argue that the use of discretion in one instance is grounds for a discrimination implication in another instance

It seems like both of those could (and should) be addressed, and that would alleviate the double-edged nature of policing the police. In the former instance, the police supervisors should be re-trained (and or the policy changed) such that they learn that their job is to protect and serve, not control and punish. In the latter instance, the law (and/or courts) should emphasize that the state is not required to punish everyone to the maximum extent allowed under the law, and that that's not even in the best interests of the society.

They both sound like legitimate concerns... with fairly easy solutions, if applying common sense to the law was at all "easy". =/

[–]Houston213 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

You. You're well reasoned and articulate. I like you. Thanks for the feedback.

[–]Default85 24ポイント25ポイント  (5子コメント)

I actually think this might eventually be a positive thing if you are pro-legalization. If enforcement rates go up it could create a blacklash that could lead to reform. All it takes is the arrest of a kid of some important official. That would ruin their life, unless the DA drops the charge.

[–]Sambomike20 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

That already happens. They just sweep it under the rug because it's an important officials kid.

[–]OldSpoiledMilk 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

DING DING DING, bingo. That young kid walking home smoking a blunt in the barrio sure as fuck ain't getting the same treatment as Mr. Affluenza.

[–]LanceGD 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

but now there will be footage of them sweeping it under the rug. and that will make its way to the public in one way or another

[–]lolmoo 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

There already is footage of that via dash cameras, and it is swept under the rug all the time...

No public outcry.

[–]Sambomike20 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well there is, just not enough of an outcry.

[–]TopSecretSpy 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't see what you wrote as an argument against body-cameras; I see it as an argument against the war on drugs and the draconian approach to the law that so many in society want to push. The fact that we allow a dime-sack of weed to ruin a person's life is a horrible thing, and that's where the change should happen. (Note: I'm personally for decriminalization of most [but not all] drugs, and dramatically expanding health care options to make decriminalization a viable option, but in only rare cases am I for legalization.)

As for DUIs, again I think the law can be more nuanced in its approach, but given the inherent public danger aspects I can't agree with just giving them a warning.

The problem with discretion is a related item to what you mentioned; the defense attorney will argue, as you said, why did you let [x] off but not [y]? This kind of discretion leads to the heavy potential for abuse, an abuse we know is going on all the time (even if you personally are no part of that), and I think in a climate where people are highly aware and concerned about, for example, disparate racial treatment by police, discretion of the kind you're advocating is actually a problem.

[–]dzernumbrd 33ポイント34ポイント  (16子コメント)

Same with DWIs. Unless you had caused an accident and there was no way to work around it, I generally would work to get somebody you knew to come pick you up and take you home. Saves you $20,000 in lawyer fees, a suspended license, and possible loss of job and income. Not anymore.

You seriously let drunk drivers off?

[–]riggetThe Heights 15ポイント16ポイント  (5子コメント)

I was all for this post until he said that. I cant believe this is the only comment questioning that.

[–]TheGeneral159 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Guys... It's sad that he had to edit his post for you guys to realize what he meant

[–]OldSpoiledMilk 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

He is still letting people go, they will do the same thing again and hit you or your family killing them instantaneously.

[–]TheGeneral159 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

maybe? maybe not. everyone makes mistakes in life. my friend pulled over and slept in his car instead of risking to drive home.

a cop found him and arrested him for being drunk even though he pulled over and slept it off responsibly.

doesn't make my friend a horrible person nor does he even do that often.

[–]riggetThe Heights 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nah, I dont see how a "dont do it again" is helpful in that situation. He said in the original post he would have someone pick them up. His edit doesn't change anything.

[–]Allegiance_to_Mhysa 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, and I would think, if anything, this could reinforce the person's nonchalance for driving drunk.

[–]in_the_corner 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I generally would work to get somebody you knew to come pick you up

No

[–]seraph1337 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

no shit, this was my reaction. this guy is acting like he should get a fucking cookie and not have to wear a body cam so that he can get away with not doing his fucking job. "oh, well I guess he didn't hurt anybody, I should just let him go to save him the trouble!" are we just going to wait until they T-bone a soccer mom's van and kill a 7 year old to let them know that shit isn't cool?

[–]0xnull 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd assume it's a bit more nuanced. Like it's right at 0.08, wasn't stopped for impaired driving, etc.

[–]separeaude 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm for strict DWI enforcement, but I can also understand how the resources required to properly investigate one diminishes policing effectiveness in high crime areas. A good DWI investigation takes at least 4 hours of officer time, not including court time, warrant time, etc. Small departments and busy districts can run in to major problems behind a borderline DWI case.

It's not the best course of action to call a ride, but there's a decent reason behind it.

[–]OldSpoiledMilk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really. because the person will just be out on the street doing the same thing hitting your kid at 90+ MPH turning him into a loosely piled collection of organs and body parts.

[–]losplagas 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yeah because that happens all the time. God you sound like a fucking soccer mom.

[–]ten24 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

About 27 times per day in the US.

[–]backtard -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not bad for 300 million people

[–]subtledeception 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Pretty bad for something that is 100% preventable.

[–]backtard 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry, 27/3000000 is more like 99.99999% preventable.

[–]carlos_the_dwarf_ 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Isn't that more a problem with your department's policies than with the camera itself? Presumably the guys up the chain of command understand discretion, too--or maybe not, if they insist on an arrest for every dime bag you find?

[–]Whatalalala 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

He did mention that defense lawyers would have a field day if they could prove that he was selectively enforcing the law, and ultimately this would have professional repercussions for him.

[–]carlos_the_dwarf_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My (limited) understanding is that some laws allow for discretionary enforcing. Is this not the case?

[–]Bingo661 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm hearing legalize it. No disrespect

[–]GeneralMalaiseRB 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

When a cop falsely arrests someone, all we hear is, "The officer's job is not to interpret the laws. You're going to jail, and you can plead your innocence with the judge/court." You get to hide behind the "tell it to the judge" aspect of our criminal justice system when you arrest someone for no reason. Now you're complaining that you can't hide behind it anymore when you want to turn a blind eye to a crime you don't feel like dealing with? What does it take to get you to do your job according to the damn rules? Near-constant video surveillance, apparently! I understand your points, but they still boil down to, "Now that I'm constantly being recorded, I actually have to consistently do my job and follow the letter of the law." That's what you're paid to do! So sorry you won't be able to tuck drunk drivers safely into their beds anymore instead of arresting them.

[–]Houston213 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Cool. When it takes us 15 mins instead of 5 to get to someone breaking into your house, because someone had to come clear across the map, rest assured it was because the drunk took priority. Your priority.

[–]GeneralMalaiseRB 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

It already takes that long. Longer, from my experience. What's the excuse been before body cameras became prevalent?

Sorry if I'm not buying it. I know your job is tough. But the high school dropout at Arby's is under constant surveillance while on the job, and he doesn't have a government-issued license to detain, hurt, or kill people. He'll lose his job for being 5 minutes late. Sorry if modern society (finally) demands accountability from those who wield such power.

[–]TotesMessenger 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]patssle 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

Can officers request a change in policy - sign a petition, talk to the chief, or something? It's clearly a waste of time for you guys to be arresting most people for smoking or carrying weed.

[–]Houston213 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

Policy, especially big city police policy, is written by legions of city lawyers specifically to distance the city from any liability and to put responsibility and liability on individual employees (officers.) In this day and age, no department will retrograde in transparency when it comes to cameras; the shitstorm would be epic in scale. So, from a command level, it's fiscally easier to replace individual officers who disagree or violate policy than to open yourself to gigantic lawsuits.

[–]patssle 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Change was the wrong word to use. Indeed the police departments don't write policy...but they do enforce it. And often can decide not to make a priority to certain policies or putting extra emphasis on others.

[–]kilroy1944 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Marijuana violates one policy they might change, which is "Shall arrest all Class B offenses or higher." This could be changed to "Shall Arrest all Class A Offenses or Higher." This would make it policy to arrest all DWI-2nds and Marijuana over 2 ozs and so on, but not necessarily things like DWLI, Criminal Trespass, Posession of a Joint's Worth of Marijuana, all DWIs.

That said, technically, if an officer touches marijuana/disposes of it in any way, they are committing felony Tampering with Evidence. If they require a suspect to throw away a joint, or bag of weed, they are technically forcing him to Tamper with the Evidence. This is a big deal.

[–]login228822 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Marijuana violates one policy they might change, which is "Shall arrest all Class B offenses or higher." This could be changed to "Shall Arrest all Class A Offenses or Higher."

Texas already changed that in 2007 assuming the person lives in the county.

Why can't houston police just use this provision of the law?

[–]kilroy1944 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I do not know. I would assume that is a decision at the County Level. Class A and Class B are handed in County Court, and they do not give us the option to issue a summons. They do send people out on very affordable bonds for minor offenses though.

[–]Turbostar66First Ward 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The police union here is large and has lots of pull. I'm sure they could get something happening if they really wanted to.

[–]H-townwx91 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

As a person who 10 years ago when I was 15 got roughed up by an officer at my high school because I was holding a "weapon" (which were my glasses that I had just dropped and broke), I love the body cams idea. Makes officers safe from people who accuse of brutality and tells both sides of the story.

[–]Bank_GothicThe Heights 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

I've heard this argument (cameras are bad because they limit officer discretion) and I don't buy it for two reasons:

1) I have never heard of anyone getting let off the hook by an officer. Ever. Especially not for drugs. The closest would be a warning rather than a traffic ticket. Police departments in large cities, like HPD, are driven top-down by numbers and statistics, not by beat cops doing community policing. Besides, do we really want police officers not busting drunk drivers? But, even the officer's statements regarding discretion are true...

2) The cost-benefit analysis still favors the use of cameras. Yeah, maybe police don't feel quite as free to let people off for petty crimes, but that "cost" is minimal compared to the benefits - reduction of frivolous complaints against officers and all the attendant costs; improved officer and suspect behavior if they know they're on camera; increased accountability for officers who violate procedures and the law; increased pressure on the district attorney and the other powers-that-be to remove bad apples - after all, if the news gets ahold of these videos every time an officer abuses his or her position, it creates a lot more public pressure.

The cameras aren't a perfect solution and there are certainly going to be some draw backs. But they are a huge step in the right direction.

[–]thecrazydemoman 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

side affect of them not letting anyone off for small offenses is that those things will get eventually removed from the law books more quickly.

[–]falanor 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not likely. Those small offenses that a lot of people commit? That's a lot of money they'd be letting go of.

[–]thecrazydemoman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah but those people would be bothered by it enough to put pressure to fix it.

[–]JawneCypress 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

Do you, by policy, have discretion in these cases? If so, I don't see the problem. I understand how if you are found to let one person go but not another it would look bad but it should. If there is a reason for it I am sure you would get a chance to explain it.

[–]Houston213 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Not really. By policy, an officer could be fired or even charged with destroying evidence for getting rid of weed outside of "official" means. Our policy is like 600 pages and broadly worded enough that you could get in trouble for putting your socks on in the wrong order in the morning if anybody up the chain of command decides anything you do is in "bad judgement" without ever defining what constitutes bad judgement. And department policy supersedes state policies, meaning it doesn't matter what state rules say an officer can do, the department will decide for itself. "Discretion" exists mainly in spirit, not in written rule, but it's quickly being eaten up.

[–]JawneCypress 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

Then I feel like it shouldn't be used. While I am sure many people appreciate it , if it's not supposed to be done then I don't think it should be used. I think the only way to be sure everyone is treated fairly is to try and keep as much of enforcement black and white and let the courts handle the grey. I also think this would speed up the process of fixing these issues in the law. More rich white kids with no previous record getting busted with small amounts of weed will get more traction in changing the law.

[–]Houston213 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

I understand where you're coming from, but I have only worked in acres homes, third ward, sunnyside, and greenspoint, so I have stopped exactly zero rich white kids in those neighborhoods in the last four years. I have spent more time and energy trying to talk low income black male juveniles who didn't have a record out of the path they were heading down which could've easily started with what I'd just pulled out of their pocket or sock. I see everyday what the lack of good decisionmaking and education has done to those young men and those neighborhoods, and to the guys in my unit, it's a very rare thing to encounter a young black man in those neighborhoods without a record, so when we do, and we have to power to keep him without a record, we try to keep it that way. We'd rather put the fear of god in him about what the future looks like if he doesn't stop doing stupid stuff and let him go than to book him and start him down a hole he can't climb out of. My partner, who is black, grew up in Acres Homes, and he's a great testament and eye opener to those early teenagers who are on the cusp of either keeping on the narrow path and making a success of themselves or going with the flow of the neighborhood and culture and joining the rest of their peers.

[–]kissthepan 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds like you guys are good eggs. Keep it up.

[–]kilroy1944 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm all for more rich white kids going to jail. What will be a problem that impacts those non-rich white kids in the hood, and everyone else in the hood will be the taxing of resources. First, the jails will have a good deal more residents. Second, officers will be tied up DWI cases and marijuana cases, when they could be out finding those more dangerous criminals, harassing the dope dealers, and so on. It is a continual balancing act for officers that actually put in hard work.

You do not want to spend time away from your area processing a needless arrest, when you could be in the area deterring or responding a robbery crew or burglary crew that is wreaking havoc among those you are supposed to protect. So you let the joint go, or you let the old guy/dumb kid/single mom tow her car home or get a friend to pick them up.

This is what worries me the most, as our resources are already very taxed, and no authority in the department has addressed this.

[–]Zentdiam 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The underlying tone seems to be more black juveniles are pulled over in random stops, as they patrol rougher neighborhoods, and they will be affected more anyways.

[–]lolmoo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is kind of a ridiculous argument to make; drug laws in this country are notoriously known for being way harsher than necessary. Some high school kid with a dime bag shouldn't be going to jail and having it on their record as a criminal offense in the first place. And if someone is DUI, I don't really think there should be any discretion involved because of an actual reckless behavior.

Body cameras are also an increasing necessity with the state of our country being so litigious. And honestly the reason isn't even for police accountability as it should be (I don't think most of these are ever reviewed outside the agency in the vast majority of cases), but like you said, the biggest reason is because of all the ridiculous lawsuits.

The cameras come at a pretty small cost compared to even one frivolous lawsuit against a city or agency and should be standard on every LEO in the country.

[–]jaramini 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not saying this is on you, but, I know the incarceration rate for marijuana for black versus white is pretty disproportionate, something like 4 or 5 times as many African Americans do jail time for weed as do white people. So, if 85% of the stops end in you tossing their drugs, what's the racial makeup of the remaining 15%? I think marijuana prohibition is a bad policy, and it should be legalized, but not enforcing the law 100% of the time is likely responsible for some of this. Discretion is great, but race is often a factor in who benefits from that discretion. Again, not you necessarily, but system-wide.

[–]StringerBel-Air 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He said he only works in black neighborhoods so both the ones be let's go and the ones he detains would be black most likely.

[–]taleden 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

To me, I actually prefer this side effect in the long run. Yes, in the short term it means pain and suffering for people who only needed a firm warning, but that policy also enables all sorts of biased and prejudicial enforcement based on race, class, whatever. We'd like to think all police officers are reasonable enough to exercise that discretion honorably, but experience has taught us that we can't really make that assumption.

By requiring the written laws to be enforced uniformly, even for rich white folks, we force society to deal with the fact that they are bad laws and change them.

[–]Zeakk1 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Incidentally, if officers lose their discretion it's less likely bias will have as much inpact. So, if we're trying to be optimistic, the law will be more evenly enforced.

[–]I_say_no_alot 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I feel as though you may be one of very few officers to offer that discretion; not once have I heard of anyone from my high school just being chewed out and sent on their way and there were several groups of people that got misdemeanors for posession in return, most of which were all clean cut, on the way to contributing to society kiddos, myself included. This may make it harder for you as you will begin to arrest more and more teens for the equivalent of a blunt or 2 joints, but all we can hope is that this will cause a change in the war on drugs, that's all we can do.

[–]OldSpoiledMilk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The prison complex makes too much money off it, not much can change it.

[–]terminamorte 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wonder if this cops will start turning in their fellow "bad apples" now that they can't use discretion.

Lol just kidding, we all know the camera will just malfunction.

[–]FinalCactus 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I hear what you're saying, but surely 'exercising discretion' is common practice and understood throughout the organization, isn't it? I can't imagine a police force in the world exists that robotically arrests every single infraction.

If there aren't current on-paper guidelines that formalize discretion, maybe body cameras will make that happen?

[–]HeresCyonnah 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The issue seems to be that he's giving minorities a pass most of the time, which is honestly the one group that people aren't going to give (as much of) a shit about, in terms of changing policy.

[–]Sephran 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No it's not common practice. You can't formalize discretion. Body language, verbal language, actions before and during, all change a conversation.

Hell, i'm sure if you put 10 separate officers through the same exact training, all of them will approach differently.

[–]DooDooBrownz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

that's an interesting take, but lack of public access to the footage is the more pressing issue. As new as this tech is, there has already been a massive amount of cases where the cops refused to grand the public access to the video, including lawyers of the defendant where the footage could exonerate their client, or the footage mysteriously disappeared or was erased when it would have conflicted the leos version of events. so really cameras are just another tool for the prosecution, not a check on abuses of power. this lack of transparency and subversion of indented purpose of these devices is the reason why people don't want them.

[–]__Parallax__ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you are supposed to book everyone even if they only have a dime bag of pot, and you don't, are you not breaking the law regardless of whether or not there is a camera? If you are allowed to use discretion, then why does it matter if it's on camera or not?

[–]40_Minus_1 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

$20,000 in lawyer fees

Attorney here. I really need to increase my rate, apparently.

[–]Landru13 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Isn't removing this discretion exactly the point of body cameras? Discretion sounds like a good thing at first, but in reality it makes the system ripe for abuse. It puts the ability in your hands to discriminate. Pull over your friend's kid? Let him go with a warning. Pull over some black kid who acts like an asshole, and take him in for the same exact offence. When people of privilege can't be shown favoritism, the system changes. Arrest a few thousand poor people for weed and nothing gets done, start arresting wealthy peoples kids at the same rates and 'problems with the law' start getting noticed.

You probably don't use these tactics to discriminate, but there are definitely those who do. Good cops aren't the reason we need body cameras.

The real solution is to fix the law regarding these special cases.

[–]horsemeat_pie 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

And that is exactly what should happen. You shouldn't have that level of discretion. How can society come to the conclusion that its laws are stupid if they aren't being equally enforced? Lock up a few "clean cut kid" with a job and his whole life ahead of him and maybe momentum will build to legalize it already.

[–]Houston213 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

Got it. Just make sure you demand your ticket next time you're stopped. Reject any warnings. You know, fairness and equality.

[–]johnthedebs 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

IMO, horsemeat_pie is making the most important point in the whole thread. Your discretion here (while admirable and, I think, a good thing given the circumstances) is a short-term bandaid that saves one kid and dooms a dozen others.

If the laws were equally applied they would change in a hurry to more accurately reflect what our society as a whole is okay. Right now they reflect what those with power in any given jurisdiction are okay with.

[–]OldSpoiledMilk -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure thing, long as you let people who clearly don't care about driving under the influence go with their chauffeur so that they can be driving out on the streets again in a week to kill my family.

[–]bowtie25 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Very valid point. I have had some hpd officers cut me a break for weed before when they obviously had bigger fish to fry. I had not thought of that conundrum

[–]Moleculor 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are so many things wrong with this perspective, I don't even know if I can cover them all.

  1. You are not a jury. If you want 'discretion', sit down on a jury.

  2. Someone's age, employment status, future prospects, etc, should not factor in to whether or they get away with a crime. You are not a judge, and do not get to make sentencing decisions based on what tiny portion of someone's life you see. The asshole you let go home drunk may look good on paper, but may also be a wife beating, child beating sleazy fuck who just got away with drunk driving again for the sixth time.

  3. If you feel like one person should not go to jail over weed or drunk driving, you should campaign to have those laws changed.

  4. You are inherently racist. This is not a personal attack, it's a fact of human nature. (Virtually) everyone is inherently racist.1 You making decisions on who to let off and who to cuff will inherently have racist trends. Which means your 'discretion' is going to be inherently racist.

  5. You seriously let people who are careening down the road in a dangerous enough way to be noticeably drunk that you feel it necessary to pull them over, and you don't fucking arrest their asses? They're driving a deadly weapon. They've shown a careless lack of regard for the safety of others around them. You slap them on the wrist and let them get away with it? Fucking SERIOUSLY?

If this is seriously the attitude of the people you work with (and you), I for one hope the body cameras come faster, are permanently on, and absolutely force you to do your job in a fair and impartial manner. What you're describing here is disgusting.

1 For more on the fact of being racist, listen to Act 2 of Cops See It Differently, Part Two. Personally, I recommend part one too, but the relevant section is in part two. The short version is that one of the most racist police departments in the nation, Las Vegas PD, turned around and became one of the most fair when they changed their training regime from one of "RACISM BAD! Don't do it!" to "I'm racist! You're racist! Here's how you don't let it change what you do."

[–]zsreportAlief[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

My favorite video depicting two incidents of Police discretion. I remember seeing this when it aired in 2002 or 2003, the officer was with ESU, had put in his 20 years, and retired during the filming of the show.

[–]handstobattlestation 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can you tl;dw for those of us who are curious but cannot view currently?

[–]thecrazydemoman 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

First stop, throws the guys keys in/on the back of the rigid truck, tells the guy to find his keys. The guys angry at him about it, says hey you wanna go to jail or find your keys. Apparently a trick from his wife.

Second one was a DWI, kicks the guy and his passenger out of the car, locks the keys in the car.

[–]Fabalus_Elagabalus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmmm, officer discretion? Intentional or unintentional is this how we end up with whites and blacks using pot at equal rates but blacks disproportionately snagged into the criminal justice system? Perhaps the real solution is to end the criminalization of weed, and all drugs instead of making an argument against body cameras. The premise of your argument as a LEO seems to be that weed is not a real problem that should be criminalized if you should have the discretion to let people go when you bust them. How can there be oversight of such discretion to know it isn't motivated by racism, classism, homophobia etc.?

[–]the45one 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Lol the police and drug system needs a complete overhaul. How do cops feel knowing that so many regular people don't trust them?

[–]edimunster 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Correct me if I'm wrong, people that get charges expunged aren't compiled in a huge list somewhere, right? And if they aren't, are you more inclined to chastise expertise depending on the ethnicity of said individuals? Because this seems like a double edged sword but it only seems to negatively affect minorities because I have met only 1 black person ever be expunged while white individuals get expunged more frequently, especially the collegiate population.

[–]jolly_erich 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The police are under no legal requirement to enforce every violation of the law, so this is primarily a problem with management, correct?

[–]BigBudMicro 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol what a load of bullshit. You don't want the body cameras because you and your buddies don't want any video evidence when you decided to drop someone you don't know.

[–]thatnameagain 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So then you're saying you don't have discretion. You just choose to exercise it outside the confines of what the law and your job allows.

[–]Armitage1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you explain why some cops seem to be resistant to being recorded? Some have gone as far as to even say it is illegal. From the public's perspective, it seems to show the officer has something to hide or wants to prevent something from being documented. Are these guys flat out wrong or is there some reasonable explanation for this ?

[–]jmdugan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

well, police, be the strongest voices in the efforts to align laws with this highly exemplary morality

[–]Singular_Thought 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now, without a body camera, I'm free to exercise my discretion

Is "Officers Discretion" unlawful? I was under the impression that it is a recognized function of the criminal justice system.

If it is lawful, then what's the problem with exercising it on camera?

[–]Jesusthecarpenter 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought cops were allowed to exercize discretion in shit like this. Maybe that's just my jurisdiction but you should organize your union and maybe team with a social community org type thing. You should be able to do what you have done in the past. There's no good in ruining people's lives over dime bags.

[–]chuckymcgee 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is an absurd argument. It's your job as an officer to uphold and enforce the law. You don't have the discretion to make decisions that would otherwise get you fired if your superiors or the public knew about it. Period.

The law needs to be fairly and uniformly enforced. The outcome for any potential law-breaker should be the same, no matter who responds to the call. That's justice. I shouldn't go to jail if Officer Rogers investigates but get off the hook if Officer Stevens shows up. Or worse, end up dead because Officer Krump decided to make his own call.

Maybe Officer Stevens sees the dimebag and ignores it because I look white and I'm "a good kid". Maybe Officer Stevens would have had a different opinion if I looked black and was wearing a hoodie. Maybe Officer Krump would think I'm reaching for a weapon and shoot me. That's not justice. And that's why we want bodycams.

There may be plenty of laws that we think are unfair, or overbearing. The solution is not to perpetually ignore them unless we find them convenient to invoke because we don't like the person we're dealing with- it conveniently criminalizes large swaths of the population and effectively grants allows law enforcement an excuse to lock up anyone they decide they don't like. Instead, the solution is to work to change the law. Once "good kids" start getting locked up and everyone realizing the law applies uniformly, we'll see the laws themself change rather quickly.

[–]eliasv 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perhaps drug arrests for black people and white people will start to become more proportionate with officers given less opportunity to exercise discretion based on their own personal feelings...

[–]RabbiMike 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then make it so the camera only turns on when a gun is drawn or when voices get above a certain level

[–]JoeyHoser 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Would it not be reasonable to legislate with the use of body cams, that footage is to be concealed unless complaints are registered/evidence is required/whatever for specific instances? And that's its not be viewed randomly without specific reason? I feel like that would solve the issue, assuming this doesn't create more problems.

[–]kerrigan7782 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Surely it's policy to only check body camera footage in the event of either an arrest or a complaint?

[–]Fatalmistake 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You sound like a cool cop, can you come to California and be cool here?

[–]Houston213 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Teach me to surf and it's a deal.

[–]mrjosemeehan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sorry, but there's just no room for that kind of discretion in your job. If we're not prepared as a society for every single person caught breaking a rule to face a full and equal punishment regardless of their age, class status, "prospects," race, or whatever else could potentially influence an officer consciously or subconsciously, then we should change the rule itself. "This rule goes too far but I can selectively scale it back to reduce the harm it causes" is a non-solution because it forces an officer to subjectively (and without regard to factual, legal guilt) "pre-judge" defendants to determine whether they're deserving to go before a judge in the first place.

[–]ryegye24 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This sounds like a problem with current prohibitionary laws, not with body cameras. I don't think the existence of bad laws makes a very good argument against increased transparency.

[–]tryin2figureitout 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm confused. You're saying without the cameras you're free to use your discretion and not arrest the kid with weed. But if you can't do that on camera are you really free to do it or has breaking the rules become so normalized you consider it within the scope of your discretion?

[–]altarr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am not saying you should be "by the book" but frankly, but letting drunk people off, you are just encouraging them to drive drunk again.

Perhaps you SHOULD be evenly enforcing the law which would then allow accurate statistics on these arrests to surface and then we can push for the laws to be changed.

[–]snatchenvyPearland -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

For example, let's say I stop a car on a traffic violation, the driver is a young person, has a job or is in school, no criminal record, is a productive member of society with plenty of options ahead.

Give them a traffic ticket and be on your way.

then he drops a complaint and now I'm in jeopardy of losing my job.

You think you will lose your job over a complaint?

[–]Houston213 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Will do. Just make sure you demand your ticket next time you're stopped.

[–]snatchenvyPearland 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

In your scenario... a ticket for a traffic violation versus you trying to justify a search of their pockets to take them to jail.

I would guess that they weren't going to talk their way out of a ticket no matter what. Yep, just write the ticket.

[–]simmonsg 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

properly adhering to our policies regarding cameras will effectively remove officers' ability to exercise discretion.

Pretty sure no one is going to be reviewing your body cam unless there is an incident. I don't see any officer discretion going away.

[–]Houston213 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

The new policy that came out with these cameras states that a supervisor will review two random videos a month from every officer. So in addition to the ones that are flagged, you never know which videos will be watched by an outside party.

[–]simmonsg 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ohh, gotchya. Hope you guys figure something out.

[–]kilroy1944 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Also, every arrest video will be reviewed by the prosecuting ADA and the defense attorneys.

[–]simmonsg 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

As they should be. I consider an arrest to be an incident, and all incidents should have their video reviewed. A sort of QA, if you will.

[–]kilroy1944 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, but you do not know what incident will be an arrest from the start. Say, you offer an individual to pay a tow truck driver to take them home. They cannot come up with the money. So you offer a friend to come get them, they cannot reach anyone. You offer to take them home, but they don't give you an address. So you arrest them. Now all of that previous conversation is going to the Defense Attorney, who will argue obviously this crime was not that serious because of how hard the officer tried to find an alternative to arrest.

Or, to tie up the case, the attorney has his client file a complainant that he was arrested because he refused to pay a tow truck driver or because he wasn't from town. So now a large number of your "non-incident" videos are going to be looked at by the Internal Affairs. And trying to get somone another ride home is a violation of GOs.

Not that I am against Body Cameras, but these are the issues that are going to come up that have not been addressed to a wide audience by any authorities in City Government/Department.

[–]Math_Blaster_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They get audited

[–]InteriorEmotion -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can't you just make your camera "malfunction"? Seems like body cams commonly "malfunction" during use of force incidents.

[–]quezlar -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

seems to me an easy solution would be to make the policy to never charge a kid for a dimebag, then its perfectly consistant

per my chief noone is to be charged for weed possession, end of story, its working out just fine

[–]dungrapid4 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are too many stupid fucking drivers on the road. The last thing I want to encounter is a drunk stupid driver. PLEASE DO NOT EVER GO EASY ON DWI DRIVER.

[–]deipriex -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How about if we ended the prohibition of marijuana. Would this argument be used for any other situation?