It is destruction of evidence. Therefore, it should be an automatic termination revoking of their certification. And jail time for the destruction of evidence. First time every time.
We all see this but why when they started wearing body cams and laws made to govern it did they not make that part of the law. It makes a mockery of transparency.
Whenever cops decide to withhold BWC footage or tamper, edit or delete footage, then the public should ALWAYS assume that those cops and the PD they work for is corrupt and criminal from the most junior officer to the Chief. It should remain solely their task to prove that they are not corrupt or criminal.
Any cop that mutes a body worn camera, must be charged with conspiracy…as that is what they are doing once he mutes his camera…. This should be very clear…. Why else do they not want anyone else to know what they are discussing….
Another stupid comment, can they take a dump or piss? Or does the BWC have to be on for that. What about if they are interviewing a victim, and medical info comes up. Think before you open you stupid mouth.
Another stupid comment, can they take a dump or piss? Or does the BWC have to be on for that. What about if they are interviewing a victim, and medical info comes up. Think before you open you stupid mouth.
@@glee21012if you go to the restroom it can be taken off As far as everything else it can be redacted before it's given to the public So you should be able to just think and not open your mouth
If the second snapperhead "wasn't here" WHY did he request a drivers license? He did not see any infraction. He is operating on hearsay, typical cop BS.
Muted cameras more than once. Obviously conspiring to violate his rights. Getting their stories straight. They call it a “deputy conference”. This should be against policy. Hell, it should be fireable.
the BWC is an independant gatherer of evidence, it should be only the FOIA office who should redact sensitive info as if it is taken to court the unredacted video is made available to the defense team.
The cop didn't give him a ticket which means that the driver didn't break the law. Both of those cops need to be fired and charged for violating this man's 4th amendment right and for unlawfully detaining him. Body cams should not have a mute button because any personal information can be redacted or blurred later. Mute buttons are used for corruption purposes only.
I mean, I’ve never got a ticket while getting pulled over, and I was for sure breaking the law every time. Saying that no ticket = no violation occurred just encourages cops to give out tickets every time. We don’t need that.
They are not supposed to protect you, they have no duty to protect you, exactly why most have removed that ridiculous “protect and serve” crap from their cars, emblems, etc… and replaced them with other BS wording that is just as untrue.
There are endless video's that put the ignorance, stupidity, and ego's of the members of law enforcement on display to the public. Courts have ruled you can be too smart to be a cop.
@@kansascitybob2430 Thank you....thank you....thank you!!! Soooo many people are under the misconception police are there to "protect them"... when the Supreme Court has clearly ruled LE has no Legal Obligation or Constitutional Duty to protect the public. I wish people would open their eyes to this truth/fact instead of continuously parroting erroneous information.
@@175hydro there are a lot of people aware of this, and more learning it everyday, the events at the Uvalde school really drove the point home to a lot of people. No doubt there are police officers who run towards the danger when others are fleeing from it, I was simply pointing out the fact that the bottom line is they don’t have to. I don’t deserve any thank you, just stating a fact, that being said, you’re welcome😏👍🤜🤛
Any cop who mutes their camera, which shouldn't even be an option, should have their court case immediately thrown out and have to pay court costs out of pocket.
It’s not destroying records. Their policy is probably to mute conversations amongst deputies per policy. Just because you don’t like doesn’t mean laws are being violated Cops usually only have body cameras on when they’re interacting with citizens. The JSO officer is a LT and I don think they are even issued a bwc. Each department uses the bwc different and have policies in place for use.
Why are they allowed to mute for a deputy conference? Sure, if redaction of a conversation is required later, redact it, but removing the evidence in a way which is impossible to rectify later should mean instant charges dismissal...
exactly if goes to court the defense has the right to all BWC footage unredacted, but they can only get it if it exists and muting should carry a considerable fine, on both parties personally, hell any fines they pay can be donated to a children's charity but certainly not to any government entity.
Muting of body cameras shouldn't even be possible and should be treated as destruction of evidence. Instant termination, jail time and loss of pension.
Muting of Recording should Automatically dismiss ANY charge And because of Muting Felony Charges should be automatically brought against Both Officers for tampering with evidence
I wish they would pass a law prohibiting muting of body cameras aka “Deputy Conference” and leave that to the police department and DISTRICT ATTORNEY to redact or mute as needed in order to preserve the record and identify lies and possible coverup/corruption.
So we now know both organizations are corrupt and will conspire to violate your rights without giving it a second thought. Disgusting and contemptible 😡
We supplied the body worn cameras and they should be ON 100% of the time. No mute button and No On/Off button. The entity that collects the video would not work for the police. It would be a system of civilians who review all of the footage and grade each officer on their conduct. Any misconduct will be taken to the cheif if it goes against policy, and to the DA if it breaks the law. It's time for blue brotherhood to man up and accept the times. A professional GOOD cop wouldn't worry about the camera for any situation. With that said, there would be ZERO need for qualified immunity. Let them carry their own personal insurance to cover their own stupidity.
Exactly. If the information is truly sensitive, a judge will gladly agree to redact it. Just like search warrants , they're not hard to get if the basis is actually legal.
The only purpose of muting the cameras is to eliminate potential evidence. The only one with access to that footage is the police and if the officers said anything sensitive in the “conference” that info can be redacted just like the man’s license was. They didn’t turn off the camera because the license was in view.. THEY REDACTED IT… so why can’t they do the same with the audio? Because they want to be able to hide their conversations from the courts. There is no other possible explanation when they are the ones with the power to redact things before they are released to the public… this is nothing but tampering and preemptively destroying governmental records.
No the judges are on the same payroll as the officers. They work together and cover for each other. The only things that should ever be redacted is name, DOB, address or any other personal information.
@@woodsrdr here we go with the citizen arrest BS again, you better have airtight PC to do that or you will be charged. Go ahead and try it sometime, see what happens. Common law calls for police to arrests, unless there is imminent danger.
There should be no mute button on BWC. The only information that should ever be redacted is personal information such as name, DOB, & address. Anything else should be classified as tampering with evidence, obstruction, & conspiracy.
I firmly believe that body cam's should NOT be mutable or otherwise accessible by the police officer OR the police department, they should be handled by a non police, non partisan panel. Police should never be able to hide what they say or do. When that starts happening, you can bet a LOT of crooked cops are going to cry like beaten newborns.
If you’re looking for help from the auditing community, the first thing you MUST do is get a dash cam. Otherwise it’s your word against his, and the jury will always believe the cops.
@@Patrick-vo3cr no, not because I disagree with those things, but because of the ways they would be used. Car companies would find a way to make them upload to the cloud, and claim ownership of the videos. Courts would then ask for those records, not from the citizens but from the corporations that own them, and you wouldn't be able to strike the evidence from the record because the owner of the video gave it away willingly. If you doubt this, look at cloud cameras like Ring. The customer doesn't own the footage. There are some privacy protections in place that prevent the company from using the footage in certain ways, but they're also allowed to use your footage for advertising and have the final say when deciding whether to turn it over to the police.
Jurys.....no. Municipal Judges yes. Jurys are much more open.... municipal judges in traffic court are just another branch in the roadside piracy racket.
This second officer is a joke, he stated, I don't know where he stopped you at?? Really you are where he stopped him at. I don't care what the deputy said about the legality of the stop, if the deputy is out of county, he has no more authority to detain someone than I do.
The problem is the deference the courts show LEO over citizens. The very fact that the courts allow some vague notion of self described “officer safety” to override the bill of rights indicates how out of balance current precedent is. Muting body worn cameras is obviously destroying evidence and transparency yet the courts refuse to punish officers for doing so. And, even when the evidence is uncontestedly clear that the officers violated the law, they can usually rely on the same courts to find they have qualified immunity and therefore no personal liability. Officers, like children and bullies, will push things as hard as they can until there are personal consequences. Policing won’t improve until the legal system stops protecting the bad actors.
Muted BWC should result in an instant dismissal of charges. It is tantamount to a Brady violation where exculpatory evidence is deliberately withheld by the prosecution.
From now on everytime I have to deal with a Cop I'm going to State out loud " Dont even think about Muting you body cam. Your Not cooking up a Lie on me".
Just my opinion - but I believe the 2nd officer was likely correct in that jurisdiction would not be an issue if there was a criminal citation - i.e., reckless driving. He was probably covering for a complaint by telling the driver that. If they had issued a criminal citation it would allow for several arguments in court. 1) When the 1st officer contacted the driver did he say it was for speeding or reckless driving? 2)Does the 1st officer have a BWC or car camera issued to him, if so why were they not active? 3) If the officer does have a BWC/car camera but they were not active the judge would have to assume they would be exculpatory for the defendant with the defendant claiming the originally stated reason for the stop was speeding - which is a non-criminal citation and likely not something that can be initiated out of jurisdiction.
He should have just said he was being kidnapped by somebody who's impersonating somebody who has lawful authority. How can the officer ask for ID for something he doesn't know anything about. He already admitted he didn't see any violation.
A written warning is a save face statement. Complete example of the thin blue line. This guy completely backed the officer without getting himself in trouble.
It’s called a Mutual Aid Agreement. Most agencies have them with their surrounding agencies that allow the other agencies to conduct stops and criminal enforcement in the agencies that have an MAA.
An officer out of their jurisdiction is the same as a citizen. They have no authority to detain someone. So no he does not have the right to stop someone.
@@MrAndrewFarrow city police and county sheriffs will beg to differ on jurisdictions. They are very particular about it. Here in this case, its neighboring county sheriffs, with a “supposed” county agreement for policing. To me that means an agreement just like you said…at the county lines and a few miles in, or in particular areas adjacent to both counties. But it doesnt give sheriff’s the power to go to the opposite ends of neighboring counties and start writing tickets. Thats not the way jurisdiction works. Only the state highway patrol has jurisdiction across the state, and even then its only along state highways and interstates
@@Cooldaddio2 so, if the State police get you, you simply step back onto a side road, and if that police force is waiting for you, you just run across the road, where they’re having their tea? We all saw it happen in Porky’s and just assumed it was humour.
Cops should NOT be allowed to mute their bwc’s while they are clearly conspiring against a citizen. How does this PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY??? If anything, it does the complete opposite. We pay for those cameras. We, the people, DEMAND that law enforcement officers NOT be allowed to mute their body worn cameras anymore. We, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND transparency. Police should NOT be allowed to hide their conspiring ways while on duty.
They should not be able to mute cameras, thats destroying evidence not recording what the complaintant is stating happened. Disgusting, embarrassing and deplorable for these public servants to be doing that. It shows that they are potentially and allegedly corrupt. Shameful 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
They clearly were trying to do damage control after this retaliatory stop for passing the off duty officer. There's a reason he didn't want to give his name and badge number when asked again. Despicable behavior.
🐺Road pirates 🏴☠️ muting body cams??? Nah… Road pirates bullshitting their victims???? Nah… I just find it very hard to believe. Thank you Jeff for your service! We appreciate your awesome investigative journalism!👏🏻👍🏻
How can you confront your accuser in court when evidence is manipulated to suit the prosecution? Any tampering of evidence should automatically dismissal of charges and the officer(s) immediately added to the Brady List for lack of integrity.
Destroying public records by knowing muting body cameras must be made illegal by so called law enforcement and a mandatory suspension of the the offer involved
Will never understand why with their ability to redact sensitive information they still have the right to mute official records of interactions with the public..
Muting , blocking turning off or any altering of a bodycam should be considered tampering with evidence and obstruction . I believe we the people have enough evidence of police doing this that there can be a class action suit filed preventing them from in anyway altering public records. Any attorneys comments on how they think officers are allowed to do this and not be held accountable?
Question : He’s stopped does he really need to show ID without witnessing the infraction? Why TF is that officer turning his BC off and on though? This cannot be legal! Just because they are wearing the same clown uniform does NOT mean that any of them are right!
He knows if he had given him a ticket, it wouldn't go well in court because he has no leg to stand. on and the next cop told him that when he mute the microphone.. he was off duty..
The muting of a bodycam or the "inability to find the footage" should result in immediate dismissal of the charges. Tampering with evidence charges on the cop who muted it and if the footage turns up missing the whole department gets dereliction charges. But that will never happen because this country is a lost cause.
The people need to protest an get this muting of the body cameras to be illegal or designe the cameras were they can’t do this an if caught they need to be charged with destroying evidence. An abolish qualified Immunity. It’s an absolute shame that these servants keep doing every dirty trick they can to keep from being held accountable.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
A officer muting their body camera should be considered tampering with government records
Agreed 💯
Felony deprivation of rights and conspiracy to commit a felony.
Agreed
Thats a great point. Makes me wonder why they even need a mute feature. Anything needing to be muted could be redacted later.
“Public records”
Disabling a bodycam in any manner should result in a charge of obstruction of justice.
Destruction of evidence? I dont see much difference if they had deleted the audio at a later date.
FELONY!
I'd vote for tampering with evidence as the muted audio could potentially contain exculpatory evidence.
@@WildWilDavis Or Conspiracy
@@mleaf4ever105 definitely toss that on the docket!
I have a simple rule. If you mute a body camera, you’re a dirty cop. Period!
Absolutely!!!
It is destruction of evidence. Therefore, it should be an automatic termination revoking of their certification. And jail time for the destruction of evidence. First time every time.
For sure covering something up.
We all see this but why when they started wearing body cams and laws made to govern it did they not make that part of the law. It makes a mockery of transparency.
if your BWCs are mutable, it's because you're part of a criminal gang.
I believe that whenever they mute the camera, ALL charges should be dismissed AND the tyrant charged with Tampering with Evidence!
Whenever cops decide to withhold BWC footage or tamper, edit or delete footage, then the public should ALWAYS assume that those cops and the PD they work for is corrupt and criminal from the most junior officer to the Chief. It should remain solely their task to prove that they are not corrupt or criminal.
And then spend time in jail. 4 tampering with evidence
They should be charged with the crime they were going after the citizen with
Conspiracy charges should be brought against these cops.
Any cop that mutes a body worn camera, must be charged with conspiracy…as that is what they are doing once he mutes his camera…. This should be very clear…. Why else do they not want anyone else to know what they are discussing….
Another stupid comment, can they take a dump or piss? Or does the BWC have to be on for that. What about if they are interviewing a victim, and medical info comes up. Think before you open you stupid mouth.
I agree with you same thing I said
Great Point.
There should be no mute button at all, they can redact the video before releasing it
it's falsifying a public record. they should be fired charged and jailed
The mute button needs to be removed from body cams, in addition to the on/off button.
THIS
Another stupid comment, can they take a dump or piss? Or does the BWC have to be on for that. What about if they are interviewing a victim, and medical info comes up. Think before you open you stupid mouth.
Absolutely 💯
@@glee21012if you go to the restroom it can be taken off
As far as everything else it can be redacted before it's given to the public
So you should be able to just think and not open your mouth
Evidence tampering for sure
When cops mutes their mics it's a 99.999999% chance that they're conspiring against someone.
Yep most definitely
99.999999% is way beyond reasonable doubt and would make them criminally liable. Sounds good to me.
If judges had balls they would charge cops for destroying evidence any time they turn off or mute their bodycams while in the presence of any suspect.
Judges work with cops, false charges and all, to enforce their authority.
If the second snapperhead "wasn't here" WHY did he request a drivers license? He did not see any infraction. He is operating on hearsay, typical cop BS.
He handed it over to the first sheriff.
The real problem with the offiers juridiction is the off duty as well, on a basic traiffic stop
Muted cameras more than once. Obviously conspiring to violate his rights. Getting their stories straight. They call it a “deputy conference”. This should be against policy. Hell, it should be fireable.
it should an is a crime these cops only mute their cameras when they know their guilty
Called evidence tampering and is a felony......
It should be arrestable.
the BWC is an independant gatherer of evidence, it should be only the FOIA office who should redact sensitive info as if it is taken to court the unredacted video is made available to the defense team.
Evidence tampering is a felony.....
The cop didn't give him a ticket which means that the driver didn't break the law. Both of those cops need to be fired and charged for violating this man's 4th amendment right and for unlawfully detaining him. Body cams should not have a mute button because any personal information can be redacted or blurred later. Mute buttons are used for corruption purposes only.
I mean, I’ve never got a ticket while getting pulled over, and I was for sure breaking the law every time.
Saying that no ticket = no violation occurred just encourages cops to give out tickets every time. We don’t need that.
@@cerealdude890 mmmm mmmmm how's that boot taste. 😂😂😂
@@cerealdude890traffic codes are civil infractions, not crimes
@@hobbitsatplay9542 Yeah, obviously. I never said they were crimes, so what’s your point?
@@hobbitsatplay9542most traffic citations are recognized as criminal offences..
Imagine having to protect yourself from the people who are supposed to protect you.
They are not supposed to protect you, they have no duty to protect you, exactly why most have removed that ridiculous “protect and serve” crap from their cars, emblems, etc… and replaced them with other BS wording that is just as untrue.
There are endless video's that put the ignorance, stupidity, and ego's of the members of law enforcement on display to the public. Courts have ruled you can be too smart to be a cop.
What you wrote would make a great t shirt!
@@kansascitybob2430 Thank you....thank you....thank you!!! Soooo many people are under the misconception police are there to "protect them"... when the Supreme Court has clearly ruled LE has no Legal Obligation or Constitutional Duty to protect the public. I wish people would open their eyes to this truth/fact instead of continuously parroting erroneous information.
@@175hydro there are a lot of people aware of this, and more learning it everyday, the events at the Uvalde school really drove the point home to a lot of people. No doubt there are police officers who run towards the danger when others are fleeing from it, I was simply pointing out the fact that the bottom line is they don’t have to. I don’t deserve any thank you, just stating a fact, that being said, you’re welcome😏👍🤜🤛
A crime so egregious that I’m going to stop you, outside of my jurisdiction, just to give you a warning.
What an amazing and brave public servant.
Any cop who mutes their camera, which shouldn't even be an option, should have their court case immediately thrown out and have to pay court costs out of pocket.
Wow. Destroying public records. Who gave them the right to do that. Thank you Jeff for your journalism.
Trump is the only one who can do that. Just ask him.... problem is, those records are not his property.
Hidden dash cams would expose thousands of Brady Cops.
@@interestedparty00 I think the term "Brady Bunch cops" is more appropriate.
No one, they chose to under color of law, which gets rid of their qualified immunity. duh
It’s not destroying records. Their policy is probably to mute conversations amongst deputies per policy. Just because you don’t like doesn’t mean laws are being violated Cops usually only have body cameras on when they’re interacting with citizens. The JSO officer is a LT and I don think they are even issued a bwc. Each department uses the bwc different and have policies in place for use.
Why are they allowed to mute for a deputy conference? Sure, if redaction of a conversation is required later, redact it, but removing the evidence in a way which is impossible to rectify later should mean instant charges dismissal...
exactly if goes to court the defense has the right to all BWC footage unredacted, but they can only get it if it exists and muting should carry a considerable fine, on both parties personally, hell any fines they pay can be donated to a children's charity but certainly not to any government entity.
@@tamtheman2099 fine ? Wtf
@@williamboyle8918 a "Fine" is a penalty payment courts fine people like american citations there is a cost from the guilty party
Two Road Pirates lying to The People and concealing their true attitudes toward us.
Any time cops mute their bodycams it should be considered withholding exculpatory evidence and the case dismissed.
Muting a BWC should be charged as obstruction. Period.
Muting of body cameras shouldn't even be possible and should be treated as destruction of evidence. Instant termination, jail time and loss of pension.
Muting of Recording should
Automatically dismiss ANY charge
And because of Muting
Felony Charges should be automatically
brought against Both Officers
for tampering with evidence
I wish they would pass a law prohibiting muting of body cameras aka “Deputy Conference” and leave that to the police department and DISTRICT ATTORNEY to redact or mute as needed in order to preserve the record and identify lies and possible coverup/corruption.
That off duty office should have been arrested for holding this American against his will and Illegally detained.
Muting a BWC should be considered a form of destruction of evidence, a criminal offense.
Intentionally muting cameras should be a crime of tampering with evidence.
And auditurds editing their footage to suit their agenda??
Despicable that the cops muted their audio and even more despicable that they are allowed to do so.
You know they're lying about the authority to pull him over because he would have been yanked out by the first coward from St Johns.
This. Cops will never NOT if they knew they could. They don't get paid for NOT.
YOU KNOW THE COP IS LYING AS SOON AS HIS MOUTH OPENS !!
So we now know both organizations are corrupt and will conspire to violate your rights without giving it a second thought. Disgusting and contemptible 😡
It should be against the law for cops to mute their body cameras. No more we investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong.
We supplied the body worn cameras and they should be ON 100% of the time. No mute button and No On/Off button. The entity that collects the video would not work for the police. It would be a system of civilians who review all of the footage and grade each officer on their conduct. Any misconduct will be taken to the cheif if it goes against policy, and to the DA if it breaks the law. It's time for blue brotherhood to man up and accept the times. A professional GOOD cop wouldn't worry about the camera for any situation. With that said, there would be ZERO need for qualified immunity. Let them carry their own personal insurance to cover their own stupidity.
Very well said :)
That is just stupid. What about when they have to go to the bathroom.
Muting body cameras should not be allowed. If they want to redact, ok. Then a judge or lawyers can determine wether or not to release footage.
Exactly. If the information is truly sensitive, a judge will gladly agree to redact it. Just like search warrants , they're not hard to get if the basis is actually legal.
The only purpose of muting the cameras is to eliminate potential evidence. The only one with access to that footage is the police and if the officers said anything sensitive in the “conference” that info can be redacted just like the man’s license was. They didn’t turn off the camera because the license was in view.. THEY REDACTED IT… so why can’t they do the same with the audio? Because they want to be able to hide their conversations from the courts. There is no other possible explanation when they are the ones with the power to redact things before they are released to the public… this is nothing but tampering and preemptively destroying governmental records.
No the judges are on the same payroll as the officers. They work together and cover for each other. The only things that should ever be redacted is name, DOB, address or any other personal information.
I bet their policy doesn't allow them to pull people over unless it is a felony, if they are off duty, to and from work.
Which is why they colluded and changed speeding to reckless driving.
You mean like a citizen's arrest that we are all legally allowed to perform? That sounds about right.
Or if they have a warrant or are in hot pursuit.
That sounds right! ... though reckless driving is NOT, but itself, a felony!
@@woodsrdr here we go with the citizen arrest BS again, you better have airtight PC to do that or you will be charged. Go ahead and try it sometime, see what happens. Common law calls for police to arrests, unless there is imminent danger.
There should be no mute button on BWC. The only information that should ever be redacted is personal information such as name, DOB, & address. Anything else should be classified as tampering with evidence, obstruction, & conspiracy.
I firmly believe that body cam's should NOT be mutable or otherwise accessible by the police officer OR the police department, they should be handled by a non police, non partisan panel. Police should never be able to hide what they say or do. When that starts happening, you can bet a LOT of crooked cops are going to cry like beaten newborns.
Despicable actions of these officers, when will they learn
They are dispicable beings, so what else do you expect from them ?
They won't.
When pig carcasses are found frequently
when we start invoking the 2nd in mass
Never not till their personally held accountable
They knew that they couldn't win in court with an honest judge. Straight up harassment from a dirty cop!
This is simple destruction of evidence - a felony. Nothing a decade or so in prison for the cops wouldn't fix.
Both should be terminated and their licenses revoked!
lie, cheat, steal, bully, and intimidate - Police Credo.
If you’re looking for help from the auditing community, the first thing you MUST do is get a dash cam. Otherwise it’s your word against his, and the jury will always believe the cops.
You’ll never see a jury.
@@mookiewilson4166 Maybe in some states, but not in mine either
@@Patrick-vo3cr no, not because I disagree with those things, but because of the ways they would be used. Car companies would find a way to make them upload to the cloud, and claim ownership of the videos. Courts would then ask for those records, not from the citizens but from the corporations that own them, and you wouldn't be able to strike the evidence from the record because the owner of the video gave it away willingly.
If you doubt this, look at cloud cameras like Ring. The customer doesn't own the footage. There are some privacy protections in place that prevent the company from using the footage in certain ways, but they're also allowed to use your footage for advertising and have the final say when deciding whether to turn it over to the police.
Jurys.....no. Municipal Judges yes. Jurys are much more open.... municipal judges in traffic court are just another branch in the roadside piracy racket.
in defense of the jury...they do have a threat of violence from the imf to continue taxation or suffer the consequences.
This second officer is a joke, he stated, I don't know where he stopped you at?? Really you are where he stopped him at. I don't care what the deputy said about the legality of the stop, if the deputy is out of county, he has no more authority to detain someone than I do.
The problem is the deference the courts show LEO over citizens. The very fact that the courts allow some vague notion of self described “officer safety” to override the bill of rights indicates how out of balance current precedent is. Muting body worn cameras is obviously destroying evidence and transparency yet the courts refuse to punish officers for doing so. And, even when the evidence is uncontestedly clear that the officers violated the law, they can usually rely on the same courts to find they have qualified immunity and therefore no personal liability. Officers, like children and bullies, will push things as hard as they can until there are personal consequences. Policing won’t improve until the legal system stops protecting the bad actors.
This, 100%.
Muted BWC should result in an instant dismissal of charges.
It is tantamount to a Brady violation where exculpatory evidence is deliberately withheld by the prosecution.
Destruction of EVIDENCE. PERIOD. Love you Jeff! SEMPER FIDELIS MY BROTHER.
The Duval Deputy is basing everything on HEARSAY.
Muting should be seen as obstruction of justice, the phrase they like to use themselves.
Muting the camera is "DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE.or PRIOR RESTRAINT.
From now on everytime I have to deal with a Cop I'm going to State out loud " Dont even think about Muting you body cam. Your Not cooking up a Lie on me".
Why do cops think they have the authority to mute body cams? Infuriating.
Any tampering with a body camera should be an immediate dismissal!
Talk to your state legislature. Most body cam policies are based on department policy and what state law says
Just my opinion - but I believe the 2nd officer was likely correct in that jurisdiction would not be an issue if there was a criminal citation - i.e., reckless driving. He was probably covering for a complaint by telling the driver that. If they had issued a criminal citation it would allow for several arguments in court. 1) When the 1st officer contacted the driver did he say it was for speeding or reckless driving? 2)Does the 1st officer have a BWC or car camera issued to him, if so why were they not active? 3) If the officer does have a BWC/car camera but they were not active the judge would have to assume they would be exculpatory for the defendant with the defendant claiming the originally stated reason for the stop was speeding - which is a non-criminal citation and likely not something that can be initiated out of jurisdiction.
Great reply, thanks for the info!
You think there is justice? C'mon.
if the officer released a reckless criminal is he then culpable of following damages? ha ha ha
That was harassment and this needs light shined upon it. Thanks, Jeff, for doing the lords work. Keep us posted.
He should have just said he was being kidnapped by somebody who's impersonating somebody who has lawful authority.
How can the officer ask for ID for something he doesn't know anything about. He already admitted he didn't see any violation.
That's why he asked for ID and didn't demand it. What he said was very deliberately worded.
Deputy should be REPRIMANDED for the intentional conspiracy
I still say they should get 5 years for the destruction of evidence
A written warning is a save face statement. Complete example of the thin blue line. This guy completely backed the officer without getting himself in trouble.
That thin blue line always seems criminal
It’s called a Mutual Aid Agreement. Most agencies have them with their surrounding agencies that allow the other agencies to conduct stops and criminal enforcement in the agencies that have an MAA.
An officer out of their jurisdiction is the same as a citizen. They have no authority to detain someone. So no he does not have the right to stop someone.
Plus, he was off duty.
So, if you run across the road, away from a LEO to another jurisdiction they can’t touch you???
Bizarre.
@@MrAndrewFarrow city police and county sheriffs will beg to differ on jurisdictions. They are very particular about it. Here in this case, its neighboring county sheriffs, with a “supposed” county agreement for policing. To me that means an agreement just like you said…at the county lines and a few miles in, or in particular areas adjacent to both counties. But it doesnt give sheriff’s the power to go to the opposite ends of neighboring counties and start writing tickets. Thats not the way jurisdiction works. Only the state highway patrol has jurisdiction across the state, and even then its only along state highways and interstates
@@Cooldaddio2 so, if the State police get you, you simply step back onto a side road, and if that police force is waiting for you, you just run across the road, where they’re having their tea?
We all saw it happen in Porky’s and just assumed it was humour.
@@MrAndrewFarrow ok. Youre a cop. And your here to argue. Dont have time for that. Later. Much later
Watching from the uk 🇬🇧 god bless the homeless vets
Cops should NOT be allowed to mute their bwc’s while they are clearly conspiring against a citizen. How does this PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY??? If anything, it does the complete opposite. We pay for those cameras. We, the people, DEMAND that law enforcement officers NOT be allowed to mute their body worn cameras anymore. We, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND transparency. Police should NOT be allowed to hide their conspiring ways while on duty.
This is why we all need dashcams and record EVERY police encounter. Thanks for covering this Jeff.
Deputy conference to conspire to figure out what crime they can get him on
😮
Cop said "ok we'll play this game"!.... It's not a game it's LAW!
Driver talks too much with the second cop. Classic good cop/bad cop behaviour.
When he goes to court, he absolutely demand a non redacted copy of the other officers body cam for discovery.
They should not be able to mute cameras, thats destroying evidence not recording what the complaintant is stating happened. Disgusting, embarrassing and deplorable for these public servants to be doing that. It shows that they are potentially and allegedly corrupt. Shameful 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
They clearly were trying to do damage control after this retaliatory stop for passing the off duty officer. There's a reason he didn't want to give his name and badge number when asked again. Despicable behavior.
They’re ALL Just Winging It 😂
We need to put on the ballot a states referendum to remove the mute button option and feature on all police body cameras
Must be awesome that people never can question you or your motives. That everybody just has to accept your word is the only truth.
🐺Road pirates 🏴☠️ muting body cams??? Nah… Road pirates bullshitting their victims???? Nah… I just find it very hard to believe. Thank you Jeff for your service! We appreciate your awesome investigative journalism!👏🏻👍🏻
They never fail to disappoint, ever.
Transparency - Valid until it infringes on the thin blue line.
Fire both of them for conspiracy to commit violation of rights and road piracy 😮😂
It fully shows the contempt that these officers have for the public and that their only interest is protecting themselves
How can you confront your accuser in court when evidence is manipulated to suit the prosecution? Any tampering of evidence should automatically dismissal of charges and the officer(s) immediately added to the Brady List for lack of integrity.
Destroying public records by knowing muting body cameras must be made illegal by so called law enforcement and a mandatory suspension of the the offer involved
The problem with holding them accountable is a lawyer and a judge that has balls enough to do it and finally say you destroyed evidence
Will never understand why with their ability to redact sensitive information they still have the right to mute official records of interactions with the public..
Muting bodycams should be a crime of Tampering with Evidence.
When they mute, you have to assume they are conspiring against the victim. And 5 times? FIVE TIMES! MUTED!
Full transparency on display. They now call it a “conference” to legitimize their fear of transparency.
Muting , blocking turning off or any altering of a bodycam should be considered tampering with evidence and obstruction . I believe we the people have enough evidence of police doing this that there can be a class action suit filed preventing them from in anyway altering public records. Any attorneys comments on how they think officers are allowed to do this and not be held accountable?
pulled over for "disturbing the peace" or "impeding an investigation", or one of those other "catch all" crimes
Totally legal for him to pull you over if you were doing reckless driving, which is why they need to mute cameras so they can get their lies straight.
The conversation should automatically be considered as conspiracy against the citizen.
If that county has a mutual aid agreement with his county then he legally can pull over that vehicle for a traffic stop😑
Question : He’s stopped does he really need to show ID without witnessing the infraction?
Why TF is that officer turning his BC off and on though?
This cannot be legal!
Just because they are wearing the same clown uniform does NOT mean that any of them are right!
I wonder if that written agreement exists. Did the people from both counties vote for it.
He knows if he had given him a ticket, it wouldn't go well in court because he has no leg to stand. on and the next cop told him that when he mute the microphone.. he was off duty..
It should be a felony to mute a police officer's body cam. It should also come with a felony charge of obstructing and tampering with evidence.
The muting of a bodycam or the "inability to find the footage" should result in immediate dismissal of the charges. Tampering with evidence charges on the cop who muted it and if the footage turns up missing the whole department gets dereliction charges. But that will never happen because this country is a lost cause.
Disabling sound on body camera should be a criminal charge of obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence.
The people need to protest an get this muting of the body cameras to be illegal or designe the cameras were they can’t do this an if caught they need to be charged with destroying evidence. An abolish qualified Immunity. It’s an absolute shame that these servants keep doing every dirty trick they can to keep from being held accountable.
Where do we draw the line on officers violating civil rights? These seem like officers that would illegally enter a home.
Shoulda begged him to provide the ticket so we can address all this in court .... and FOIL that alleged agreement.
“Deputy conference” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
How can they charge a misdemeanor without evidence?
Wow I watched that video 8 years ago, time flies. Good work then Jeff and still doing it. Your country men should salute you.