Indiana Supreme's: Cops Must Record Statements

[Agent 007]

.

 

[VN Vet]

Many cell phones today have voice recorders. Inform the Officer that you are recording this. His recording and yours had better match exactly.

 

[SC_Shooter]

Uh....no.

I don't know what TV show you are watching, but in my years in the investigations division of my department, we had the video/audio rolling before the interviewee ever entered the room. Nothing like catching the bozo making incriminating statements while talking to himself BEFORE any questioning even begins.

Rolling video during felony investigation interviews is nothing new. In fact, I'm surprised that there are any modern departments that don't video their suspect interviews in major felony cases.

There you go pointing out the obvious again!

 

[Denny347]

Actually, you won't find too many of us that would disagree with this. I would be uncomfortable without it. I'm surprised this was not decided on earlier.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Rolling video during felony investigation interviews is nothing new. In fact, I'm surprised that there are any modern departments that don't video their suspect interviews in major felony cases.

It's very new. Why do you think the Supreme Court is requiring audio-video taping? Because it is not done presently in all cases.

I don't know what TV show you are watching, but in my years in the investigations division of my department, we had the video/audio rolling before the interviewee ever entered the room. Nothing like catching the bozo making incriminating statements while talking to himself BEFORE any questioning even begins.

Don't watch television, but in my work I see many interviews not video taped and lots of click-filled audio tapes or tapes that suddenly go wobbly from strange, unexplained magnetic interference (and missing OWI dvds. Heck, last Friday I had a case where the state let my guy's car be destroyed three months before filing the case and the prosecution did not tell me until 4 hours before I went to inspect it--maybe the judge shouldn't dismiss the case if the state video taped the evidence destruction?). Darn those Mystery Magnets anywho.

Anywho, new 617 is going to be a sea change of how police procedure is conducted throughout the state (to be fair to our LEO friends, yes, some interviews are videotaped. The smart ones always do this). No more mystery gaps in tapes, no more using Jedi powers to determine what a deaf defendant said, no more invisible magnets, no more speculation as to body language or facial expressions.

Can you tell I'm excited by the new rule?

Another potential problem raised by 617 is that these video taped interviews will not be disclosed as the prosecution does not like what they see. I had this problem last week as the prosecution did not like what they saw and refused to show it to the jury. The jury certainly liked it!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Actually, you won't find too many of us that would disagree with this. I would be uncomfortable without it. I'm surprised this was not decided on earlier.

That's an honest and smart cop. Denny knows that 99.7% of the time that the defendant will not check himself, but wreck himself and the video tape cannot be disputed as someone's memory can.

If only more police officers had Denny's attitude on this new rule!

I have my own opinion on why this rule was not adopted earlier. But, 1: this is a public forum, 2. you know what they say about opinions!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm in the office late pounding out a jury instruction for this new rule.

I'm thinking . . . .

___________________________________________________________

It is currently not the law in Indiana that custodial interrogations must be electronically recorded. As of January 1, 2011, however, the Indiana Supreme Court shall require than all custodial interrogations be electronically recorded, meaning an audio-video recording.

You may consider this when you deliberate upon whether the interrogation of the Defendant in this case was done without coercion, and whether the interrogation was accurately recorded by the police.

The State of Indiana has the burden to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such an interrogation was done without coercion. The lack of an electronic recording may in itself show reasonable doubt.

______________________________________________________________

I am so digging this new rule!

 

[j706]

We already "at the least" tape record all formal interviews. Then those get transcribed for court. No big woop here.

X2-Common Sense.

 

[Indy317]

I carry a digital pocket recorder with me. I use it as much as I can. Sometimes I forget to turn it on, sometimes the battery is dead and I didn't get a warning. It is great for crash reports. Nothing like hearing people use terms like "I thought.." or "I'm thinking I was...." The best is when you put those terms, in quotes, in the narrative. It is even better if the person files a complaint because they thought they did no wrong and _swear_ they never said that. You can whip out the recording and show them that is exactly what they said.

I have always found the people, regardless of their underlying duties, who refuse to have things recorded or video taped are usually scared they are the ones who will make a mistake. I was at a first line supervisor training meeting at one job I used to work. The subject of recording discipline meetings came up. The company absolutely didn't allow it, because they knew they had issues in some areas with managers and recording statements could really hurt the company (while allegations might be admitted to, a recording could be even more damning). Not only that, half the people in the training class said they flat out would refuse to allow the meeting to be recorded. To me, those people shouldn't be supervisors. If you are in the right, why not allow the recording? Not only that, but some of those people thought it was illegal to record such a conversation without telling them. Well, that isn't the case in Indiana.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The ACORN dust up demonstrates clearly why the Supreme Court is requiring this. ACORN is busted, then makes counteraccusations and the video tape shows them to be liars.

Big Government Blog Archive San Diego: ACORN Stands By Their Employee, Until They Don’t

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Heck, last Friday I had a case where the state let my guy's car be destroyed three months before filing the case and the prosecution did not tell me until 4 hours before I went to inspect it--maybe the judge shouldn't dismiss the case if the state video taped the evidence destruction?

Found this old thread recently. Just to update since a couple of people asked me, the state dismissed this case last month where they had destroyed the car.

I don't know what TV show you are watching, but in my years in the investigations division of my department, we had the video/audio rolling before the interviewee ever entered the room.

Like I said earlier, I don' watch television. Hide the ball/evidence happens to me every day, I don't need a vicarious experience.

617 will help stop, but not eliminate entirely, this hide the ball mentaility that is popular among SOME in law enforcement.

All cards out on the table only helps the integrity of the system.

 

[Eddie]

I've seen the game played from both sides of the table. What happens before the video camera gets turned on can heavily influence what gets said once the camera is rolling. It will be a sword that cuts both ways; no more shaping an arrestee's testimony through five hours of questioning before recording a two minute videotaped "confession" but also a record of every lie the arrestee gets caught in and a record of every time they change their story.

 

[Indy317]

I still wonder what will happen to those road side interrogations at departments that don't have A/V recording equipment in the vehicles. My guess is that the cops stop/detain, gather personal info, then release. It is going to be crazy to have to constantly be driving suspected thefts of $1 candy bars and $800 laptops back to the station for questioning. Oh well, just raise taxes for A/V equipment in the vehicle, or raise them to pay for gas that is now going to be used to transport people to and from the PD. My guess is that in those departments w/o the equipment, might be better to just release and try to prove the case only with the witness's statement than deal with trying to get a confession.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

What worries me is that this could be used to record a suspect surreptitiously without his/her knowledge, as I believe in Indiana, for an audio recording only one party need be aware of the recording. It's one thing to record a suspect when he/she realizes it, it's another to do so without the suspect knowing that there's a camera rolling.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I still wonder what will happen to those road side interrogations at departments that don't have A/V recording equipment in the vehicles.

No problem. The police can still arrest with probable cause, but if the police want statements then they comply with 617.

My guess is that in those departments w/o the equipment, might be better to just release and try to prove the case only with the witness's statement than deal with trying to get a confession.

Big department, small department, rich or poor, they can always arrest if probable cause.

It's one thing to record a suspect when he/she realizes it, it's another to do so without the suspect knowing that there's a camera rolling

Yes, another good reason not to talk to the police and exercise your right to remain silent. Big Brother is watching!

 

[Cat-Herder]

Part I is from the Attorney's side, Part II is from Law Enforcement's side

YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1

YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2

 

[Indy317]

What worries me is that this could be used to record a suspect surreptitiously without his/her knowledge, as I believe in Indiana, for an audio recording only one party need be aware of the recording. It's one thing to record a suspect when he/she realizes it, it's another to do so without the suspect knowing that there's a camera rolling.

What? That is exactly the type of voice recording I try to use. I don't always use this type of recording, but if my recorder is going, the person's I am dealing with no nothing about it.

No problem. The police can still arrest with probable cause, but if the police want statements then they comply with 617.

My issue is when you are dealing with a likely thief, and a person who doesn't/can't shut-up. With these types, it is easy to talk them into lie after lie. That helps establish probable cause, and sometimes these street interrogations are the only thing which leads to probable cause. Those will be gone. I figure some departments will install the needed equipment, some will do extra work and transport people back to the station, and other officers will just say to themselves "Hey, it wasn't my stuff that was stolen." and just cut the person loose after getting their info.

Criminals where the officer just releases them w/o questioning will win. Criminals who are smart enough to use the transport time to come to the conclusion not to talk once they reach the department will win. Either way, more people will find out crime pays.

 

[cordex]

I figure some departments will install the needed equipment, some will do extra work and transport people back to the station, and other officers will just say to themselves "Hey, it wasn't my stuff that was stolen." and just cut the person loose after getting their info.

Personal video equipment that would meet the legal requirements can be had for less than $50 each. Departments spend as much as 70 times that amount for each officer's radio. A friend of mine is a reserve deputy and was issued his camera recently. His was a $130 clip-on model that takes remarkably good video and audio.

I find it very hard to believe that too many Indiana departments will be unable to come up with the cash for this.

 

[Denny347]

Personal video equipment that would meet the legal requirements can be had for less than $50 each. Departments spend as much as 70 times that amount for each officer's radio. A friend of mine is a reserve deputy and was issued his camera recently. His was a $130 clip-on model that takes remarkably good video and audio.

I find it very hard to believe that too many Indiana departments will be unable to come up with the cash for this.

Sadly, my Dept IMPD strictly forbids personally owned video equipment. We have a general order spelling out that if the department does not issue it, we are not allowed to have it. We can be suspended for up to 90 days I think without pay...not worth the risk IMO.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

What? That is exactly the type of voice recording I try to use. I don't always use this type of recording, but if my recorder is going, the person's I am dealing with no nothing about it.

Frightening, sir.