dnewton3
Staff member
Another thing to keep in mind regarding the recording of events is the timeliness of complaints versus the data storage.
Consider a few situations very different from each other.
Event 1
Robbery call goes out over the air. Officer sees the suspect car and pursues; chase ensues. Eventually comes to a stop and there is a brief shooting causing the death of the suspect. Because this was recorded on a dash-cam, and the event is obviously high-profile, the data is immediately gathered and logged electronically as evidence.
Event 2
A typical traffic stop for speeding violation. Two occupants; both females are attractive and dressed for a night out; a bit provocative in their clothing. Male officer has the typical discussion of short duration, takes the license to run it on the computer in his car, then returns to issue a verbal warning for the violation and the event ends. He was professional and polite; they were courteous and cooperative. Because he suspects nothing was "wrong" at the time of the stop, and because he did them a favor by not issuing a citation, he does not "store" the stop data and it is deleted at the end of his shift. But several days later, she calls to complain about him "coming on" to her, and her friend in the car is backing her side of the story. Had he known, he could have saved that recording as his proof of professional behavior, but because it's gone, people will think he erased it to dispose of the evidence.
Obviously in event 1, there is a very easily understood mantra to save all evidence including the video which would exonerate the officer. But in event 2, there was no rational reason to think he needed to corroborate his story with the camera recording.
So the question becomes one of integrity versus cost of data storage. As much as we all think data is cheap, every single event involving an officer with the public would need to be stored for some duration of "statute of limitations". To save all that data for a week, multiplied by all the officers on a department, adds up to a LOT of data storage if you have to save everything.
I am NOT a fan of over-regulation in life; too many laws already. But if we want to protect BOTH the public and the officers, using the truth via video evidence, then there should be a timely duration set to file one's complaint, and after that it should be considered void. That way the department can plan and pay for the data storage systems, and make all events "logged" and they would drop out by expiration, unless tagged to be "saved" indefinitely. But that would drive up costs, and taxes, and you know how well that is received ... If you want a three day complaint period, then set the data storage for 4 days. If you want a week complaint period, set the data for destruction at 8 days. Etc. My point is that if we don't get a timely complaint, we don't think much of a non-critical event. Data gets discarded, if it exists at all. For those of us who don't have dash-cams and body cameras, it's our word against theirs. And the older the event is, it's harder for us to be able to recall/document something we do dozens of times a day, several days in a row, a week or two later. What might be fresh in the complainant's mind is long gone in ours.
In this story-line, I honestly don't know what made the officers save the dash-cam recording. They handled it well, and she was certainly not offensive at the scene. They had no idea from that interaction that she would turn on them and write such a biased and inaccurate editorial. And because she is a prominent person of color, she would have received a lot of credibility, had it not been for the video they kept. I personally would not have believed such an innocuous conversation needed to be kept, but it's a good thing they did!
P.S. - I have had people call and complain about my interaction with them occasionally. It's not frequent, but it happens to nearly every cop at least once a year. You just cannot please some people. I've had circumstances very similar to event 2 happen to me. I've had young women with low plunging necklines take their license from between their bra and breast, because that is where they stick it prior to a night out on the town. Heck, my wife has done that; license on one side and cash/card on the other. Let's not for a second pretend this is not common for some women. And cops are taught to keep our eyes on the person's hands; that is what will kill us. Hands handle weapons, etc. So when they reach for their license in their shirt, where do you think we're looking? My eyes follow their hands right into the cleavage. I want to be clear; I don't "leer". (I have a beautiful wife and family at home and I get all I can handle from my marriage; I don't need extra-curricular activity to make me happy. But the only way I get to go home is to stay safe out on the road.) I watch people's hands way more than I look at their eyes or anything else. Hands kill! You don't watch the dog's tail when it's his big teeth that bite. But if the dog has his tail in his mouth, you cannot help but to look at the other end. I have had women complain about their perception of what I am doing in these circumstances occasionally. Don't want me looking at your chest? Don't wear a plunging shirt and hide stuff in there. The alternative? I become careless and not diligent, and I might die from my lackadaisical attitude. Now my wife becomes a widow and my children fatherless. No thanks.
I realize some of this might seem funny and "sex" related, but I assure you it's not. And it would not be funny to you if you were at risk of losing your job, being publicly humiliated, and experiencing stress levels that most folks will never see in their lifetime.
I truly wish we had body cameras, and a data storage system that was at least a week in capacity.
Consider a few situations very different from each other.
Event 1
Robbery call goes out over the air. Officer sees the suspect car and pursues; chase ensues. Eventually comes to a stop and there is a brief shooting causing the death of the suspect. Because this was recorded on a dash-cam, and the event is obviously high-profile, the data is immediately gathered and logged electronically as evidence.
Event 2
A typical traffic stop for speeding violation. Two occupants; both females are attractive and dressed for a night out; a bit provocative in their clothing. Male officer has the typical discussion of short duration, takes the license to run it on the computer in his car, then returns to issue a verbal warning for the violation and the event ends. He was professional and polite; they were courteous and cooperative. Because he suspects nothing was "wrong" at the time of the stop, and because he did them a favor by not issuing a citation, he does not "store" the stop data and it is deleted at the end of his shift. But several days later, she calls to complain about him "coming on" to her, and her friend in the car is backing her side of the story. Had he known, he could have saved that recording as his proof of professional behavior, but because it's gone, people will think he erased it to dispose of the evidence.
Obviously in event 1, there is a very easily understood mantra to save all evidence including the video which would exonerate the officer. But in event 2, there was no rational reason to think he needed to corroborate his story with the camera recording.
So the question becomes one of integrity versus cost of data storage. As much as we all think data is cheap, every single event involving an officer with the public would need to be stored for some duration of "statute of limitations". To save all that data for a week, multiplied by all the officers on a department, adds up to a LOT of data storage if you have to save everything.
I am NOT a fan of over-regulation in life; too many laws already. But if we want to protect BOTH the public and the officers, using the truth via video evidence, then there should be a timely duration set to file one's complaint, and after that it should be considered void. That way the department can plan and pay for the data storage systems, and make all events "logged" and they would drop out by expiration, unless tagged to be "saved" indefinitely. But that would drive up costs, and taxes, and you know how well that is received ... If you want a three day complaint period, then set the data storage for 4 days. If you want a week complaint period, set the data for destruction at 8 days. Etc. My point is that if we don't get a timely complaint, we don't think much of a non-critical event. Data gets discarded, if it exists at all. For those of us who don't have dash-cams and body cameras, it's our word against theirs. And the older the event is, it's harder for us to be able to recall/document something we do dozens of times a day, several days in a row, a week or two later. What might be fresh in the complainant's mind is long gone in ours.
In this story-line, I honestly don't know what made the officers save the dash-cam recording. They handled it well, and she was certainly not offensive at the scene. They had no idea from that interaction that she would turn on them and write such a biased and inaccurate editorial. And because she is a prominent person of color, she would have received a lot of credibility, had it not been for the video they kept. I personally would not have believed such an innocuous conversation needed to be kept, but it's a good thing they did!
P.S. - I have had people call and complain about my interaction with them occasionally. It's not frequent, but it happens to nearly every cop at least once a year. You just cannot please some people. I've had circumstances very similar to event 2 happen to me. I've had young women with low plunging necklines take their license from between their bra and breast, because that is where they stick it prior to a night out on the town. Heck, my wife has done that; license on one side and cash/card on the other. Let's not for a second pretend this is not common for some women. And cops are taught to keep our eyes on the person's hands; that is what will kill us. Hands handle weapons, etc. So when they reach for their license in their shirt, where do you think we're looking? My eyes follow their hands right into the cleavage. I want to be clear; I don't "leer". (I have a beautiful wife and family at home and I get all I can handle from my marriage; I don't need extra-curricular activity to make me happy. But the only way I get to go home is to stay safe out on the road.) I watch people's hands way more than I look at their eyes or anything else. Hands kill! You don't watch the dog's tail when it's his big teeth that bite. But if the dog has his tail in his mouth, you cannot help but to look at the other end. I have had women complain about their perception of what I am doing in these circumstances occasionally. Don't want me looking at your chest? Don't wear a plunging shirt and hide stuff in there. The alternative? I become careless and not diligent, and I might die from my lackadaisical attitude. Now my wife becomes a widow and my children fatherless. No thanks.
I realize some of this might seem funny and "sex" related, but I assure you it's not. And it would not be funny to you if you were at risk of losing your job, being publicly humiliated, and experiencing stress levels that most folks will never see in their lifetime.
I truly wish we had body cameras, and a data storage system that was at least a week in capacity.
Last edited:
