Indiana Supreme's: Cops Must Record Statements

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    Or they are inadmissible in court. They are touting this as a great victory for cops and prosecutors. I see an upside for the arrestees, myself. Those who just exercise their 5th amendment rights and remain silent till a lawyer is present will come out on top. It could well cut down on instances of intimidation and the like. It will alos make it harder to force confessions.

    From the Star

    INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Supreme Court has imposed a rule that will prohibit a criminal suspect’s statements taken during police station questioning from being used as evidence unless it is electronically recorded.There are some exceptions to the rule, such as statements made during routine booking or when the suspect doesn’t agree to be recorded. The rule will apply to statements made after Jan. 1, 2011.

    The court said today that the rule change is aimed at helping police, prosecutors, judges and juries in their search for justice.
    Indiana Public Defenders Council director Larry Landis says similar rules exist in many states. He said it would improve the quality of decision-making by judges and juries and could lead to more convictions because there will be better evidence of confessions.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    The Indiana Supreme Court has amended the Indiana Rules of Evidence to prohibit evidence of a suspect's statement taken during police station questioning unless it was electronically recorded. There are exceptions to the rule. The new rule appliesto statements made on or after January 1, 2011.

    To review the entire rule, Indiana Evidence Rule 617, Unrecorded Statements During Custodial Interrogation, visit courts.in.gov. The rule, which was approved bymajority vote, states in part, “In a felony criminal prosecution, evidence of a statement made by a person during a Custodial Interrogation in a Place of Detentionshall not be admitted against the person unless an Electronic Recording of thestatement was made.”

    A place of detention means a jail, law enforcement agency station house, or facility owned and operated by law enforcement. An electronic recording means an audio-video recording. The exact definitions for “place of detention” and “electronic recording” can be found in Rule 617 online.

    There are seven exceptions to the rule which can be found online as well. Generally,the exceptions include the following:

    1. statements made as a part of routine processing or “booking”

    2. statements made when the suspect does not agree to be electronically recorded

    3. when there is an equipment malfunction

    4. when the interrogation takes place in another jurisdiction

    5. when law enforcement officers reasonably believe the crime under investigation is
    not a felony

    6. the statement made is spontaneous and not in response to a question

    7. substantial exigent circumstances exist which prevent the recording



    The rule change is aimed at helping police, prosecutors, courts and juries in their search for truth, justice, and due process of law. As the Supreme Court order amending the rule details, a complete audio video recording, which captures the voice, facial expressions and body language of the suspect and interrogator can be a valuable tool for law enforcement, courts, and citizens. The electronic recording can provide strong evidence of guilt, confirm police gave suspects all required warnings, and ultimately lead to more guilty pleas. The recordings are also likely to lessen factual disputes in court and reduce the number of motions to suppress evidence. The Order states, “With the foregoing considerations in mind, the Court finds that the interests of justice and sound judicial administration will be
    served by the adoption of a new Rule of Evidence.”

    In March 2009, at the request of the Supreme Court, the Court’s Committee on Rulesof Practice and Procedure asked the public to comment on the idea of recording custodial interrogations. The Committee forwarded the comments to the Court for its consideration. The Court also reviewed a significant body of existing legal and scientific research including the rules, statutes, and actual results in over a dozen other states and jurisdictions that already follow this practice. The Rules of
    Evidence can be found at courts.in.gov/rules.

    ***************************************************

    I am at a loss over January 1, 2011 and less than amused by the exceptions (we will see an increase in sun spots I predict). However, I am very happy to see this rule adopted.
     
    Last edited:

    Boilers

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 20, 2009
    3,440
    36
    Indianapolis
    Ideally they should not deter, inhibit any other recording of events, as well.
    Audio recorders
    Video cameras
    Someone taking notes, including perps....
     

    WabashMX5

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2009
    373
    16
    Brownsburg
    The late effective date, according to the order adopting the new rule, is because Marion County specifically asked for the extra time to get recording gear together.

    And LOL at "sunspots". Solar flares and mysteriously-magnetized filing cabinets also seem likely future culprits. But it'll surely be a good thing to keep the interview process transparent -- which is a good thing as long as truth-seeking, rather than gamesmanship, is the goal. :yesway:
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    I must say, after seeing Kirk's contribution, that I share his lack of amusement for the exceptions. Too many loopholes in there to suit my tastes. "Malfunctions" have occurred in the past on video and had devastating results for suspects. I guess if more people were advised about their rights these hurdles could be overcome.
     

    WabashMX5

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2009
    373
    16
    Brownsburg
    We already "at the least" tape record all formal interviews. Then those get transcribed for court. No big woop here.

    In my limited experience, I think that's generally true in Tippecanoe County, as well. I suspect for most departments, it'll just mean that the camera starts running sooner, rather than making the difference as to whether it gets run at all.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Anybody remember the thread a couple months ago about a new law that let police question suspects without a lawyer present?
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    We already "at the least" tape record all formal interviews. Then those get transcribed for court. No big woop here.

    Huge woop!

    No more stopping the tape in the middle of the interview (well, we might see more video malfunctions or renditions to neighboring states). No more *clicks* or *inaudible* or magnets near the tape recorder. No more having a pre-interview interviews. No more guessing at what the body language or facial expression is.

    Make no mistake, this will be a sea change in police procedure.

    We need to press the public education aspect for the sake of potential jurors about why the Supreme Court is doing this and how this reflects on un-vdeoed confessions and statements.

    The Sheriff's video taped interview of the defendant was a pivotal piece of evidence at my last trial last week, that the prosecution refused to play for the jury (I had to play it; it was a self-defense case). The jury acquitted in under 20 minutes.

    What the prosecution tried to pull last week also concerns me about video taped interviews. It may be like the OWI tapes. They do not like what they see and thus stuff can go missing.

    We shall see, but last week's stunt does not fill me with confidence.
     
    Last edited:

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    But it'll surely be a good thing to keep the interview process transparent -- which is a good thing as long as truth-seeking, rather than gamesmanship, is the goal. :yesway:

    Amen, brother!

    I think cops should be equipped like the Colonial Marines in Aliens. We see and hear what they see.:D

    The late effective date, according to the order adopting the new rule, is because Marion County specifically asked for the extra time to get recording gear together.

    Yeah, cause those fancy, rich counties like Warren or Fountain can pay for video recording equipment from the loose 100s on the floor of the courthouse, while Marion County, with no political influence and no money from its much lower population needs time to lie up the dough. Judge, please.
     

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,417
    149
    Napganistan
    Huge woop!

    No more stopping the tape in the middle of the interview (well, we might see more video malfunctions or renditions to neighboring states). No more *clicks* or *inaudible* or magnets near the tape recorder. No more having a pre-interview interviews. No more guessing at what the body language or facial expression is.

    Make no mistake, this will be a sea change in police procedure.

    We need to press the public education aspect for the sake of potential jurors about why the Supreme Court is doing this and how this reflects on un-vdeoed confessions and statements.

    The Sheriff's video taped interview of the defendant was a pivotal piece of evidence at my last trial last week, that the prosecution refused to play for the jury (I had to play it; it was a self-defense case). The jury acquitted in under 20 minutes.

    What the prosecution tried to pull last week also concerns me about video taped interviews. It may be like the OWI tapes. They do not like what they see and thus stuff can go missing.

    We shall see, but last week's stunt does not fill me with confidence.
    It states "Electronic recording". What is that? It does not specify "Video recording" which would lead one to believe that they mean video only. I'm trying to find rule 617 that defines "electronic recording" but it is elusive. As for the rest...you watch too much TV.
     
    Last edited:

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    The late effective date, according to the order adopting the new rule, is because Marion County specifically asked for the extra time to get recording gear together.

    And LOL at "sunspots". Solar flares and mysteriously-magnetized filing cabinets also seem likely future culprits. But it'll surely be a good thing to keep the interview process transparent -- which is a good thing as long as truth-seeking, rather than gamesmanship, is the goal. :yesway:


    Hey Marion County!
    Walmart.com: Canon DC410 Silver DVD Camcorder with 41x Advanced Zoom: Camcorders

    Recording directly to DVD- no sunspots, no magnetism. $300/camera. Problem solved.

    Unless you just want to slow things down...

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    SC_Shooter

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 20, 2009
    841
    16
    Bloomington
    Hey Marion County!
    Walmart.com: Canon DC410 Silver DVD Camcorder with 41x Advanced Zoom: Camcorders

    Recording directly to DVD- no sunspots, no magnetism. $300/camera. Problem solved.

    Unless you just want to slow things down...

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Bill, why not just stream them on the internet so there can be immediate justice. Jury duty would consist of having a panel of people sitting on standby and watching their computer. The jury MOD would get a call about an action in progress and cut to camera IN_Marion_33T4. The jury would watch the arrest, search and confession and be able to render a verdict on the spot.

    That's got all the makings of a very bad movie. :D
     

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,417
    149
    Napganistan
    I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I don't have a dog in this fight.
    I'm getting one of these for my uniform. I've seen these in person and they are really neat. A local PD issues them to all their officers, that is how I got to play with it. VERY cool.
    High Resolution PI Camstick!
    http://indianalawblog.com/documents/Evidence Rule 617s.pdf
    Transcript of Motion to Suppress Hearing at 72-73, United States v. Bland, No. I :02-CR-93
    (N.D. Ind. Dec. 12,2002). The Indiana Court of Appeals has also declared that it:
    ... discern[ s 1 few instances in which law enforcement officers would be justified
    in failing to record custodial interrogations in places of detention. Disputes
    regarding the circumstances of an interrogation would be minimized, in that a
    tape recording preserves undisturbed that which the mind may forget. In tum, the
    jUdiciary would be relieved of much of the burden of resolving disputes involving
    differing recollections of events which occurred. Moreover, the recording would
    serve to protect police officers against false allegations that a confession was not
    obtained voluntarily. Therefore, in light of the slight inconvenience and expense
    associated with the recording of custodial interrogations in their entirety, it is
    strongly recommended, as a matter of sound policy, that law enforcement officers
    adopt this procedure.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    In an age when teen age girls at the mall have video cameras on their cell phones and i-pods, I cannot imagine that video should not be required to satisfy electronic recording.
     

    bigcraig

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,162
    38
    Indy
    Not that I will ever need to worry about being arrested, but if I do, these are the only words that will be recorded.

    "Officer, please direct all questions to my attorney Kirk Freeman"

    "Oh, and officer, try not to laugh at his accent. It will be difficult as I find british accents funny as well, but it only make him angry."
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Further, in my earlier post in this thread (I feel so underappreciated, Denny, don't you hang on my every word? You must not be impressed.), "electronic recording" is defined as "[a]n electronic recording means an audio-video recording."

    Now, I take audio-video recording to mean video tape, but I've been wrong before, just ask any ex-girlfriend.:D
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    "Oh, and officer, try not to laugh at his accent. It will be difficult as I find british accents funny as well, but it only make him angry."

    I AM NOT ENGLISH; I WAS BORN . . .


    Wait a tick, tea time! Wait here whilst I have biscuits and tea, old man. Now I'm off to run like the clappers!

    BTW, you do know that English accents play well in bars over here. Women dig it.

    If only I did have my grandfather's accent. *kicks rocks*
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom