Hidden Video Surveillance Cameras

Hidden Video Surveillance Cameras Spur NFL Action on Domestic Violence

If you have ever doubted the power of hidden video surveillance cameras, look no further than NFL Baltimore Ravens’ firing of Ray Rice on September 8, 2014. After Mr. Rice pleaded not guilty to assault charges May 2014, Rice was allowed to enter a pretrial intervention program to avoid prosecution. Shortly after that, a security camera video recording of NFLer Ray Rice dragging his then fiancée emerged. Initially, the NFL announced a two-game suspension for acts of domestic violence as depicted in a video recording of Mr. Rice dragging his then fiancée.

This seemingly light punishment caused a firestorm of public debate about NFL’s inability to deter acts of domestic violence by its players. Just when it seemed that NFLer Rice would get way with domestic violence, NFL took drastic measures to suspend him indefinitely after a recently released hidden video surveillance camera recording of Ray Rice’s punching his then fiancée surfaced.

In the aftermath of a public outrage over perceived leniency in the NFL’s handling of Rice’s acts of violence, the NFL took steps to suspend Rice indefinitely, but the NFL Baltimore Ravens went further and terminated Rice’s contract on August 8, 2014.

Complimentary of TMZ which released the video recordings showing Rice dragging and striking his then fiancée, the NFL meted out severe punishment to Mr. Rice. Without evidence of footage from hidden video surveillance cameras, NFL could possibly have gone on pretending that nothing serious happened to warrant a stiffer punishment.

Surveillance Video Security Camera Systems Are the “New Sheriff in Town”

Increasingly, surveillance video security camera systems are becoming the “new sheriff in town” in policing against domestic violence and other bad behavior by public officials or public figures. Not too long ago, there was a surveillance video security camera recording of three celebrities involved in an elevator scuffle. Thanks to hidden video surveillance cameras, it now seems that society is vigilantly and effectively taking a stand against police brutality or police use of excessive force, acts of domestic violence by athletes, and other bad behavior by public officials or public figures.

Indeed, even Congress that is often maligned as “do-nothing” is spurred by the footage from hidden video surveillance camera to take action against the NFL. Because of the NFL lobbying of Congressional leaders, it remains unclear what action Congress can take to cause NFL to change its attitude and failure in dealing with NFL players’ on-field and off-the field sportsmanship conduct. Notwithstanding, it is refreshing to learn that Congressional involvement to pressure NFL is looming on the horizon. According to CNN, Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he won’t rule out “Congressional involvement” to pressure NFL to alter its deep-seated fundamental far-reaching problem involving domestic violence.

We have seen in the past how evidence of hidden video surveillance cameras with audio caused the downfall of a presidential candidate (Remember United States President candidate Romeny’s 47% comment. We have seen how law enforcement agencies have started embracing body cameras, and clamoring to equipment their police officers with body worn cameras and surveillance cameras mounted in their police vehicles to promote accountability and transparency. Hidden cameras are fast becoming a way of life to stamp out bad behavior by public officials as well as public figures such as athletes.

 Learn more about hidden video surveillance cameras at: IP Security Camera System Homepage.

The Benefits of Wearable Body Cameras

In the aftermath of recent tragic deaths by police officers, concerned citizens’ outcry against police brutality is spurring police departments to assign police officers with wearable body cameras.  With the prevalence of video cameras, hidden cameras such as hidden camera sunglasses with DVR, citizens, weary of police brutality are increasingly video recording public encounters with the police. It appears that some police departments and police unions that opposed body cameras in the past are clamoring for wearable body cameras to reduce complaints, and to improve transparency and accountability.

Historically, it is generally difficult for a criminal defendant (or a private citizen with complaints against police officers) to prove misconduct by police officers, unless there is a video recording of an encounter with police. On rare occasions, however, Courts are increasingly dismissing pending criminal cases against defendants accused of resisting arrest when there is credible evidence of police excessive force.  Often times,  this happens after a defense attorney has requested discovery of all police records relating to an arrest, and the requested records show evidence that contradicts the grounds for an indictment.

It must be noted that without an authenticated video recording of an arrest, it is generally difficulty for defendants in criminal cases to prove police brutality or police use of excessive force during an arrest.  Quite often, a jury will find a police officer’s testimony more credible than that of a defendant.  Nonetheless, there is now evidence to suggest that the tide is now changing as citizens increasingly use their smart phone cameras and wearable hidden cameras to record what they perceive as police use of excessive force.

Likewise, police departments nationwide are investing in wearable police body cameras to improve transparency and accountability.  Also, it is reasonable to assume that police departments are increasingly adopting the use of wearable police body cameras because they recognize that body cameras can exonerate them from complaints of both perceived and actual police brutality. Furthermore, it appears that more and more police departments are reportedly emulating the Rialto Police Department’s Body-Worn Video Camera Experiment: Operation “Candid Camera,” date April 29, 2013 .

Operation “Candid Camera” 

In an apparent effort to improve police accountability and solve high citizen complaints of police use of force, the City of Rialto commissioned a study, the result of which was dubbed:  “The Rialto Police Department’s Body-Worn Video Camera Experiment: Operation ‘Candid Camera,’” date April 29, 2013 .  During the “Candid Camera” experiment, the Rialto Police Department assigned every police officer with a body-worn camera. After one year of experiment, the Rialto Police Department saw an 88 percent (88%) decline in complaints against police officers.

According to media reports, the number of police departments opting for body-worn cameras is increasing.  Still, there is evidence to suggest that some police officers bent on abusing their power can violate a suspect’s civil rights and still lie about it or hide crucial evidence.  It is possible that some police departments resist assigning body cameras to their police officers because they want to maintain a code of silence.   However, discovery of evidence that suggests falsification of records or police reports can lead to public mistrust of and loss of confidence in police officers.

Dash Video Camera Recording Clears New Jersey Man of Violent Traffic

Consider an eventful footage from a New Jersey police car’s dash video camera recording.   In 2012, Bloomfield Police Officers in New Jersey arrested a Mr. DJ Marcus Jeter, and they charged him with eluding police, resisting arrest, and assault on a police officer.  After prosecutors started criminal proceedings against Mr. Jeter, a dash video recording from another police officer’s vehicle was subsequently discovered.  However, police did not immediately release the video recording until Mr. Jeter’s attorney requested the police to provide all records relating to Mr. Jeter’s arrest.  It turned out that prosecutors did not know about the existence of the dash video camera recording because the arresting officers omitted to disclose the fact.

After reviewing the video, the images on the video recording clearly contradicted the arresting officers’ claims heard on the video that the suspect was resisting arrest, and that he was trying to grab a police officer’s gun.  In the end, prosecutors dismissed all the charges against DJ Marcus Jeter.  Instead, two of the three police officers who were implicated in the police report cover-up have been charged with various offenses, including conspiracy, official misconduct, and falsifying reports. One of the officers has been charged with aggravated assault. They pleaded not guilty.  A third officer pleaded guilty to tampering.

Providently for Mr. Jeter, the dash video camera recording was discovered, and subsequently all the charges against Mr. Jeter were dismissed. Without the dash video camera recording, Mr. Jeter faced a long jail sentence.  A video on Youtube  indicates that even Mr. Jeter’s attorney had doubts about his client’s claims until he discovered the existence of the video camera recording.  Folks, that’s the power of video camera recorders.

Public Video Recordings Contradict Police Officers’ Shootings

The importance of public video recordings of police encounters cannot be emphasized enough.  In two recent tragic deaths involving the police, public video recordings seem to contradict initial police statements.
The first instance is the tragic death of one Mr. Kajieme Powell on August 22, 2014, in St. Louis, Missouri.  Mr. Powell was reportedly killed by police officers within a few seconds after they arrived on the scene.  Police officers had responded to a report of a theft in a store. The police claimed that the deceased had a knife in his hand, that he aggressively walked towards them, and that he came within three feet of the police officers when they fatally shot him.

After video recording by a witness to the shooting of Mr. Powell surfaced, it now appears the police must explain the discrepancy as to the distance between the police and the deceased before they fatally shot him. In a press statement shortly after two police officers fatally shot Mr. Powell, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Chief Dotson indicated that that Mr. Powell aggressively advanced toward the officers on August 22, 2014, and that he came within three feet of the police officers.  However, the statement now appears to be at odds with the images in the video recording by a witness.

It appears from a video recording by a witness that the deceased was more than three feet away from the police officers.   Hence the discrepancy between the the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department's statement and the video recording by a witness.  Needless to say, the video recording has caused the public to wonder aloud why the police used lethal force instead of non-lethal weapons to subdue the suspect before they killed him.

According to the Huffington Post, CNN’s Don Lemon and Christ Cuomo “pushed” Chief Dotson to explain the police officers’ decision to use lethal force, rather than opting for an alternative form of defense like a Taser.  Chief Dotson is quoted as saying:

"Certainly a Taser is an option that's available to the officers, but Tasers aren't 100 percent," Dotson said…"In a lethal situation, they used lethal force," he added.

It is not clear if the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department has explained the discrepancy between the initial police statement and the evidence of a public video recording of the same tragic death.  Also, it is unclear if police officers had police body cameras on or the dash camera in the police vehicle was on. If not, it seems that the police could have avoided all this second-guessing of their actions if the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department assigned police body cameras to their police officers.

Police Shooting at Walmart Store

Another tragic death is that of one Mr. John Crawford III, a 21 year-old young who was killed on August 5, 2014 at a Walmart store in the Dayton suburb of Beavercreek, Ohio.  According to media reports, the police said that the killing of Mr. Crawford III was justified because he waved an air rifle at customers and refused to obey police officers’ orders to drop the weapon.

In contrast, after an attorney for the family watched a video footage from a video recording inside the Walmart, he has asserted that the killing was unjustified.  In the aftermath of the shooting, media reports indicate that the Ohio State Attorney’s Office will start an investigation, and that video recordings from as many 203 surveillance cameras inside the Walmart store will be examined.

Advocacy for Wearable Hidden Cameras Transparency and Accountability

Going forward, it is obviously clear that the public will continue using wearable hidden cameras in the quest to demand transparency and police accountability. Equally refreshing, it appears that the public outcry against police brutality is causing many law enforcement agencies to take steps to improve transparency and accountability.

The adoption and use of police body cameras is the right step in the right direction, especially for some law enforcement agencies that have long resisted mounting dash video cameras in police vehicles to monitor police encounters with the public.  Certain communities often complain about disparate treatment during encounters with police officers. Until now, such complaints have usually fallen on deaf ears of the powers that be.  With the advent of wearable body cameras, hidden cameras and smart phone cameras, community advocates are using these tools of choice to help them demand that police perform their duties in accordance with both Law Enforcement Oath of Honor and Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.

Law Enforcement Oath of Honor and Code of Ethics

Presumably, all police officers take a Law Enforcement Oath of Honor which invariably reads as follows :
"On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, the community, and the agency I serve. So help me God."

In addition, law enforcement officers are required to perform their duties in accordance with their Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. Among other things, police officers have a social contract to hold themselves and others accountable for their actions. Moreover, they are required to protect the innocent against deception, not to use violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice.

Conclusion

As the above examples of police use of force and subsequently discovered public recordings indicate, the public outcry about police brutality or police use of excessive force is forcing police departments to improve accountability with the public they serve.

Indeed, we all depend on police officers to maintain law and order.  It’s this desire for tranquility and respect and appreciation of what police officers do that is so hard to reconcile whenever there is an accusation of police brutality.  People of goodwill and rationality want to give the benefit of the doubt that officers acted properly in a given situation.  Family members, friends and law abiding citizens and community at large often have disbelief that a police officer they know or respect can stoop so low as to commit the things they are accused of.  This bias in attitudes towards police officers perhaps accounts for many acquittals involving a police officer as a defendant.

 In criminal cases involving a claim of police brutality or police use of excessive force by a defendant, jurors often don’t find defendants to be as credible as police officers. Nevertheless, courts are increasingly dismissing criminal cases against defendants when there is clear and convincing proof such as footage from video recording devices, including body cameras, wearable police body cameras, hidden cameras, smart phone cameras and other video recording devices.

As noted above, recent tragic death have caused the public to wonder aloud whether the police are just quick to kill rather than subdue a suspect who does not pose immediate danger to a police officer’s life.  In all these police shootings, evidence of video camera recordings by witnesses seems to be at odds with police initial statements immediately after the shootings.

We all desire to have peace of mind from lawlessness and senseless criminal behavior that afflicts certain neighborhoods. By the same token, we should demand that police officers abide by their Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, and Law Enforcement Code of Ethics to enforce law and maintain law and order.
Whenever there is evidence of video recordings by onlookers that clearly shows police brutality, it is difficult even for staunch supporters of police officers to be indifferent to criticism.   If “every cloud has a silver lining,” it is that hidden wearable cameras or other small video recording devices are validating complaints of police brutality, and spurring police department to invest in body cameras.

To learn more about hidden cameras, wearable hidden cameras and hidden camera sunglasses with DVR, visit at: ipsecuritycamerasystem.com.