Didn't do it but cop THINKS you did? GUILTY!

[Bob Hubbard]

You don't. You tape your dashboard, and the view out the front of your window. Cop will be behind or next to you.

Cop says you were doing 40 in a 30, your dash cam shows you never went over 32. You get the security rig that does all the "court approved security" stuff with anti-tampering, etc.

Then again, you -might- (talk to a lawyer) be able to get away with it if on the front, back and sides of the vehicle you have big block letters that say "We video record 360' at all times.". You might also be in the clear if you have a separate video with audio going and specifically ask the stopping officer for their name and badge number right from the start, and ask that they ok your recording the stop "for quality assurance".

Then again, they might say no, drag you out of the car, and play "hide the maglite", Chi-Town style. I dunno.

I still go on "If the cop's not doing anything wrong, there should be no objection to being recorded while on-duty/."

Then again, I wasn't up for testing the TSA goonsquad and doing any airport photography this past trip either.

 

[jks9199]

Ok fair enough.

But would anyone like to address my concern that cops can lie if they want, and with no verification we are presumed guilty with no way to prove otherwise? I notice no one chose to tackle that fundamental issue?

Yes, a cop could lie. I mentioned several questions that could impeach the officer's testimony. You have the right to confront your accuser, and demand that he show that he is trained, experienced, etc. and ask how he arrived at his estimate, too.

But... a cop caught lying over a traffic ticket, at least in most jurisdictions, will very quickly be fired. And won't get another job as a cop, either. In fact, if terminated in that fashion -- they may lose their pension, too. In other words, what's in it for the cop to lie about speeding? Or seeing you run a red light... or whatever traffic violation you care to name. Lots of them come down to the cop's word versus yours.

Oh... by the way... I have caught someone lying in court. THE DEFENDANT! More than once... For example, one night I'm a traffic detail to handle the intersection while the traffic light engineer makes some changes to the hardware. The intersection is posted "No U-turns." Well, he's working at night because the traffic's light, so I'm not really having to do much... This car comes down, and the kid driving decides he's going the wrong way. So... he starts to turn down the cross street... and decides it's wrong too... and he swings hard left... backs up, and finishes his U-turn. Only to be confronted by me, directing him to pull into the parking lot to receive his special driving reward. He wasn't very grateful. :shrug:

Court date comes up, and he's there. With one or two of the occupants of the car. They try to say that I directed him to make the U-turn. Had I known he was going to be there, and that I'd need them... I'd have brought the traffic light guys. 'Cause we all were watching him and saying "that moron ain't gonna do a U-turn with a cop standing here, is he?" Nope... but Defendant & buds actually introduced enough doubt in the judge's mind that (in conjunction with a clean driving record... anyone ever wonder about giving someone a break for a clean record since if you always give someone a break for a clean record, they'll always have a clean record?) he dismissed the charges.

Oh, and then there was the guy who got lucky. I tried to give him a break; I only cited him for disobeying a highway sign, instead of the 15+ he was doing over the limit. Well, he came to court... and in my testimony, I established nicely how fast he was driving. I did, however, fail to mention one little thing... the 4 speed limit signs he'd passed! Yep, charges dismissed... 'cause the cop screwed up.

 

[Carol]

Id go to Jail for that... you CANNOT tape the cops in Illinois.

I don't know of any statutes in Illinois law that criminalize taping of a police officer, and wasn't able to find a citation online (granted I am not a lawyer...)

Wiretapping laws must be obeyed, yes. Illinois is a two-party (all party) consent state.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What happens when StreetView passes a cop car in those states I wonder.....

 

[Carol]

What happens when StreetView passes a cop car in those states I wonder.....

Nothing. StreetView is video only. Perfectly legal, as is the security camera on the sidewalk, the surveillance cams at Wegmans, or the CCTV camera behind your bank tellers.

We put a big sign up on the door of our lab saying "WARNING: VIDEO AND AUDIO SURVEILLANCE IN PROGRESS" when we began recording video and audio in our lab. When it was just the run-of-the-mill CCTV, no sign.

 

[Sukerkin]

Don't make an issue of minor things, don't seek out confrontations, and don't be a jerk. Also, don't hang out with jerks or those who seek out confrontation.

Such true words there that they justified saying them twice.

There are issues of trust with LEO's it seems. That is in part because some people do not think that the law applies to them and that becomes a source of problems when they wear a 'badge'.

So the fundamental problem is how to address those trust issues?

Over here in Blighty, we have what is generally termed 'policing by consent' and there is a fair consensus that neither 'we', the subjects, or "they", the police, want our police to be armed.

Both of those factors mean that, whilst there are still problems, 'trust' is very much easier to come by when dealing with our coppers. That doesn't mean that they always get the respect they deserve but it does mean that we see them less as an oppressive force - indeed, the most common moan about police we seem to use is that there is never one around when you need one .

 

[jks9199]

Such true words there that they justified saying them twice.

There are issues of trust with LEO's it seems. That is in part because some people do not think that the law applies to them and that becomes a source of problems when they wear a 'badge'.

So the fundamental problem is how to address those trust issues?

Over here in Blighty, we have what is generally termed 'policing by consent' and there is a fair consensus that neither 'we', the subjects, or "they", the police, want our police to be armed.

Both of those factors mean that, whilst there are still problems, 'trust' is very much easier to come by when dealing with our coppers. That doesn't mean that they always get the respect they deserve but it does mean that we see them less as an oppressive force - indeed, the most common moan about police we seem to use is that there is never one around when you need one .

I count a few British cops as acquaintances. We've got a whole lot more in common in what we encounter than we have different... You often draw a distinction in that cops in the US are armed; I think that's artificial and inaccurate. British police are also armed, in various ways -- including more firepower in the case of some units that a lot of us here in the US routinely carry.

In the end, the police are the folks who make you do what you're supposed to. The police are the ones who catch you when you're doing wrong. Yes, they're also the ones that protect you from people who do bad things -- but they generally only respond when things have already gone bad.

Police in both the US and UK require the voluntary compliance of the majority of the population. We don't have enough cops to do otherwise; speed enforcement is a great example. Cops could start zero-tolerance enforcement, and write people at 5 or less over... but nobody would tolerate it for long. Instead, you're generally safe so long as you're not more than 10-15 over the limit...