What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Police caught planting drugs on body cam OOF (1 Viewer)

SHIZNITTTT

Footballguy
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/20/baltimore-police-officer-mistakenly-records-himself-with-body-cam-planting-drugs-at-crime-scene.html

The city of Baltimore has launched an investigation after body cam footage from a city police officer appearing to plant drugs at an arrest location.

The video, from a January arrest, is from the body camera of Baltimore Police Officer Richard Pinheiro, who is seen planting a bag of pills in a tin can while two other officers look on. The footage was evidence in a case that was scheduled for last week, but prosecutors wound up droping the case after being contacted by a public defender who was reviewing the footage in preparation for court.

Baltimore’s Office of the Public Defender is now demanding that dozens of cases, where Pinheiro and his two colleagues were the arresting officers, be dropped by the Prosecutor's Office.

“The officers involved are still witnesses in other active cases that are currently being pursued for prosecution in Baltimore City Circuit Court. The officer whose camera shows him planting the drugs, Officer Richard Pinheiro, is a witness in approximately 53 active cases,” reads a statement released by the Office of the Public Defender. “The prosecutor claimed to be ‘appalled’ by the video and dropped the charges in that case, but no clear policy has been taken in other cases involving these officers.”

The release also points out that Pinheiro was called to testify in another case the following week without any disclosure of this videotape.

“Officer misconduct has been a pervasive issue at the Baltimore Police Department, which is exacerbated by the lack of accountability.” Debbie Katz Levi, head of the Baltimore Public Defender’s Special Litigation Section said in a statement. “We have long supported the use of police body cameras to help identify police misconduct, but such footage is meaningless if prosecutors continue to rely on these officers, especially if they do so without disclosing their bad acts.”

In the video, it appears that Pinheiro attempts to turn off the camera but only mutes it before he plants the bag of drugs in among a trash pile in a back alleyway. The officer and his two colleagues then walk back out to the street, where he is seen flipping a switch which brings the sound back on. Pinheiro then walks back to the alley where he “discovers” the narcotics. He then brings his find back to his partners before the video ends.

“Officers should not be able to decide when to turn the cameras on and off, and footage like what was presented here needs to result in immediate action by the State’s Attorney and the Police Department,” Levi said.

WoW! 

 
If that was done to me, I'd be pretty pissed if they planted low grade stuff on me. I have a reputation to uphold. 

 
Fox gets some of that a little wrong. The cop DID turn on the bodycam after planting it. What he didn't realize is that those systems  are actually always on and record without audio all the time. When it is switched on, it goes live and starts recording with audio, but it also preserves the 30 seconds of muted audio before the switch was flipped as well.

What's unfortunate is that dirty cops will know that now as well.

 
I'm shocked I tell you.  Shocked that bad people can become police officers.  
I'm offended by this officer's actions, and by those of his fellow officers on scene.  The public trust will not be restored by making an example of these officers, but making an example of them would be a start.  The damage done here will last in the impression of the population long after these guys are locked up and gone, if that happens.  

 
with the bodycams... seems like we're hitting a point where if they're turned or somehow left off during a bust, many people will jump to this conclusion that the police are up to something. 

makes me think about that australian woman getting shot- cameras were off there too, right?

how do these cameras work? are they always on? does the officer manually turn them on and off when they're on scene somewhere? is the info automatically uploaded to the cloud or do they have to plug in when they get back to the station house?

 
Why can they be turned off at all? I don't get to turn the security cameras on and off at my office. Seems like its ripe for abuse. 

 
I'm shocked I tell you.  Shocked that bad people can become police officers.  
Not sure this is a glowing example of how Joe was encouraging people to post. 


Bad people are in the world and they are prevalent in all kinds of professions. There are slimy CEOs embezzling money, bad doctors, bad mechanics, bad politicians, bad gas station attendants, and yes bad police officers. We are all human. I'd like for police officers to be 100% honest and trustworthy but unfortunately that's not true. However it's hyperbole such as the above quoted that doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion. This really puts anyone who is a police officer, or has family/friends who are police officers on the defense. I do not believe that's what Joe was describing when he talked about the new forum policy, and it's attitude such as the above that really feeds the divide we all like to complain about. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure this is a glowing example of how Joe was encouraging people to post. 


Bad people are in the world and they are prevalent in all kinds of professions. There are slimy CEOs embezzling money, bad doctors, bad mechanics, bad politicians, bad gas station attendants, and yes bad police officers. We are all human. I'd like for police officers to be 100% honest and trustworthy but unfortunately that's not true. However it's hyperbole such as the above quoted that doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion. This really puts anyone who is a police officer, or has family/friends who are police officers on the defense. I do not believe that's what Joe was describing when he talked about the new forum policy. 
:rolleyes:

 
Most commonly the officer has to load the information from his system to a master system upon end of shift.  That video is commonly retained 10 to 90 days unless removed to a more permanent storage.  The video, or more accurately segments from the shift, is removed to more permanent storage if the officer designates it as evidence in a case.  It can also be marked for longer retention by the officer's superiors, the prosecution, defense attorneys and due to open records requests.

The reason the systems do not run uninterrupted is due to concerns over officer privacy (bathroom use) and due to privacy concerns of citizens.  Officers are not infrequently called not on criminal matters, but on civil assists of citizens I distress, sometimes citizens with heightened privacy protections.  Also officers may be present during very sensitive exams of protected child victims or sexual assault victims.

Departments are currently struggling to draft directives and protocols for the proper recording and storage of recordings.  This veritable flood of information becomes a governmental record, and as such is subject to very specific rules for storage and disposal, as well as retrieval.  It is a logistic problem.

 
Not sure this is a glowing example of how Joe was encouraging people to post. 


Bad people are in the world and they are prevalent in all kinds of professions. There are slimy CEOs embezzling money, bad doctors, bad mechanics, bad politicians, bad gas station attendants, and yes bad police officers. We are all human. I'd like for police officers to be 100% honest and trustworthy but unfortunately that's not true. However it's hyperbole such as the above quoted that doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion. This really puts anyone who is a police officer, or has family/friends who are police officers on the defense. I do not believe that's what Joe was describing when he talked about the new forum policy, and it's attitude such as the above that really feeds the divide we all like to complain about. 
I agree.  There are people with no moral compass serving hamburgers, selling crack, living on welfare, living in mansions, running churches, breaking legs for the mob, building casinos, selling real estate, fixing cars, practicing medicine, you name it.   My point agreed with yours.  Not all cops are bad.  Not all anything are anything.  Painting with a broad brush is often very stupid.  

But I do think the police need bodycams to keep the honest guys honest.  I guess if they are being paid by my taxes to protect me, I'd like them to be accountable and have my best interests in mind.  What they do on their own time is on them.  But what they do on my time, I'd like to know what I'm paying for.  I also think politicians should wear them.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree.  There are people with no moral compass serving hamburgers, selling crack, living on welfare, living in mansions, running churches, breaking legs for the mob, building casinos, selling real estate, fixing cars, practicing medicine, you name it.   My point agreed with yours.  Not all cops are bad.  Not all anything are anything.  Painting with a broad brush is often very stupid.  

But I do think the police need bodycams to keep the honest guys honest.  I guess if they are being paid by my taxes to protect me, I'd like them to be accountable.  What they do on their own time is on them.  But what they do on my time, I'd like to know what I'm paying for.  
Couldn't agree more. Bodycams are a great thing. I wish the body cams recorded everything, not just the prior 30 seconds after the officer turned it on. Too many instances I've heard about that the police officer didn't turn his camera on. Can't fault him... sees a crime his first instinct shouldn't be to turn his camera on, but it does raise eye brows. When no one is policing the police that is a big problem. Cameras at least let them know someone is watching

 
Do you have them in the bathrooms, in medical exam rooms, inside private residences where children reside? 
Were those officers peeing in the alley? I didn't see a Dr or nurse present in the alley either. 

As far as children, I don't think that matters. Where do you draw the line at age when it comes to crime? Kids are carrying and using guns at all ages. I would think the better approach would be to have protocols for use of body cams. They should be on at all times. If an officer needs to turn it off for an acceptable reason, they would need to audibly record that reason. (the same way they notify dispatch that they are going to lunch). I would also have someone conduct audits of officer's frequency of turning their cams off. Simple tracking of data will identify outliers for review. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like the direction of positive action needs to change.  There are clearly private times that need to be offline, but why not have the cameras default on, and require the officer to intentionally switch it off.

The police can learn to turn it off when going to the bathroom, or entering certain sensitive locations.  But if a patrol officer switches the cam off during patrol, the burden of explanation goes to him to explain why...especially if he then goes on to make a traffic stop, drug bust, or what have you without turning it back on.

ETA:  looks like KC beat me to this idea...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We need to get to the point where it's illegal for an officer to turn off the camera.  If they are good officers doing the right thing then they have nothing to worry about.

 
We need to get to the point where it's illegal for an officer to turn off the camera.  If they are good officers doing the right thing then they have nothing to worry about.
I lean this way as well.

but I also feel that way about cameras around the city in general (that people complain about invading privacy). if you're out in public, you shoudn't have anything to worry about IMO... unless you're up to some shenanigans.

 
Most commonly the officer has to load the information from his system to a master system upon end of shift.  That video is commonly retained 10 to 90 days unless removed to a more permanent storage.  The video, or more accurately segments from the shift, is removed to more permanent storage if the officer designates it as evidence in a case.  It can also be marked for longer retention by the officer's superiors, the prosecution, defense attorneys and due to open records requests.

The reason the systems do not run uninterrupted is due to concerns over officer privacy (bathroom use) and due to privacy concerns of citizens.  Officers are not infrequently called not on criminal matters, but on civil assists of citizens I distress, sometimes citizens with heightened privacy protections.  Also officers may be present during very sensitive exams of protected child victims or sexual assault victims.

Departments are currently struggling to draft directives and protocols for the proper recording and storage of recordings.  This veritable flood of information becomes a governmental record, and as such is subject to very specific rules for storage and disposal, as well as retrieval.  It is a logistic problem.
:goodposting:

I recently found the following (from here) and thought it explained some things about the cams fairly well:

"The audio on police body cams and many dash cam systems begins recording as soon as the “record” button is pressed. The reason you often don’t hear any audio for the first 30 seconds is because of “pre-event recording.”

With modern (the last ten years or so) car and body cam recording equipment, the camera is recording whenever it’s powered on, whether it’s in “record” mode or not. The video is sent to a solid-state buffer that holds the last 30 seconds (the interval is variable with many systems, but 30 seconds is standard) of video. This is constantly being updated.

When the operator pushes the “record” button, the contents of the buffer are appended to the front of the recording. This 30-second segment has no audio, for privacy protection. Most cops don’t want to have a device that records everything they say throughout the entire shift.

When you see a police bodycam or dashcam video online, the first 30 seconds is often silent (and largely uneventful) because you’re looking at the contents of that pre-recording buffer. The sound comes on once the officer pushes the “record” switch.

The pre-event feature was created to overcome a shortcoming with dash cam video. While the officer was on patrol, some noteworthy event (someone running a red light, the brandishing of a gun, an explosion, whatever) would take place within view of the camera. However, if the recorder wasn’t turned on, the event wouldn’t have been recorded. The officer could capture everything that happened afterward, but the incident that created the need for the recording was lost.

Early systems were not much more than VCRs connected to cameras mounted on the dash, and recording onto two-hour VHS cassettes. That technology didn’t provide for pre-event recording. When the systems started to become 100% digital, the pre-event recording feature was possible."

 
Followup question:  do you think the frequency of police misconduct generally goes up or down when the police are known to be on film?


Seems like cops are finding ways to shut them off and keep them off. Like when they murdered the Australian yoga instructor. 

 
Were those officers peeing in the alley? I didn't see a Dr or nurse present in the alley either. 

As far as children, I don't think that matters. Where do you draw the line at age when it comes to crime? Kids are carrying and using guns at all ages. I would think the better approach would be to have protocols for use of body cams. They should be on at all times. If an officer needs to turn it off for an acceptable reason, they would need to audibly record that reason. (the same way they notify dispatch that they are going to lunch). I would also have someone conduct audits of officer's frequency of turning their cams off. Simple tracking of data will identify outliers for review. 
You deliberately misunderstand me.  I was responding to the question of why the can be turned off. I was not arguing or advocating in any way that such applied to the planting drugs scenario.  I was quite clear I do not condone that behavior, am in no way an apologist for that type of behavior, and in fact want the book thrown at them.

As for the protocols you suggest, some departments are using those.  there is not yet a consensus or a national standard.

 
Seems like the direction of positive action needs to change.  There are clearly private times that need to be offline, but why not have the cameras default on, and require the officer to intentionally switch it off.

The police can learn to turn it off when going to the bathroom, or entering certain sensitive locations.  But if a patrol officer switches the cam off during patrol, the burden of explanation goes to him to explain why...especially if he then goes on to make a traffic stop, drug bust, or what have you without turning it back on.

ETA:  looks like KC beat me to this idea...
The argument is that it generates irrelevant video at a phenomenal rate and someone then has to review that video for privileges in discovery requests and open records requests.  There is a legitimate logistics problem.   Take my department.  We have 750 officers working 230 shifts a year on average, eight hours per shift.  That is 1.38 million hours of video potentially in need of review during a year.  that would take a lot of attorney time.  

I do believe the logistics can be overcome.  I believe privileges can be sharper defined by courts and legislatures, and that things will get better.   

I think the key is going to be linking the video to GPS and to dispatch.  We do not need video of cops riding around.  when they are dispatched, dispatch should be able to turn on their video when the arrive on scene.  Also there should be a presumption that if an officer is in a use of force situation and they have not assured that their camera is on that they be subject to discipline up to and including termination.

 
I'm offended by this officer's actions, and by those of his fellow officers on scene.  The public trust will not be restored by making an example of these officers, but making an example of them would be a start.  The damage done here will last in the impression of the population long after these guys are locked up and gone, if that happens.  
Its even more than the public trust though.  This idiot framed someone whom  I  guess he assumed was a criminal,  and in an effort to MAKE SURE  he went down,  has now  effectively freed a bunch of other criminals  because the evidence this particular group of 3 officers now cannot be trusted.   It would  take alot of coincidence for them to have framed everybody they arrested  and anybody who was a legitimate criminal now has grounds to appeal their convictions.   Well done idiots. 

 
You deliberately misunderstand me.  I was responding to the question of why the can be turned off. I was not arguing or advocating in any way that such applied to the planting drugs scenario.  I was quite clear I do not condone that behavior, am in no way an apologist for that type of behavior, and in fact want the book thrown at them.

As for the protocols you suggest, some departments are using those.  there is not yet a consensus or a national standard.
My apologies then. Carry on. 

 
I think I was reading the startrib article online regarding the recent shooting in the alley.  The article mentioned that on average, 6 hours per month per officer were uploaded.  I know they spend a lot of time filling out paper work... and peeing I guess, but that seems like very little backup for what they are doing.  I also know the bodycam process is pretty new, but I hope that they develop a reasonable baseline of how many hours of film should be uploaded per month.

 
The argument is that it generates irrelevant video at a phenomenal rate and someone then has to review that video for privileges in discovery requests and open records requests.  There is a legitimate logistics problem.   Take my department.  We have 750 officers working 230 shifts a year on average, eight hours per shift.  That is 1.38 million hours of video potentially in need of review during a year.  that would take a lot of attorney time.  

I do believe the logistics can be overcome.  I believe privileges can be sharper defined by courts and legislatures, and that things will get better.   

I think the key is going to be linking the video to GPS and to dispatch.  We do not need video of cops riding around.  when they are dispatched, dispatch should be able to turn on their video when the arrive on scene.  Also there should be a presumption that if an officer is in a use of force situation and they have not assured that their camera is on that they be subject to discipline up to and including termination.
bolded: but funny that my location has no problem staffing a whole department to review red light camera video form countless intersections running 24 hours a day....oh but right those generate revenue for the county. 

 

but snark aside, I agree with your 2nd point..there needs to be a way to remotely activate and assigning the footage to a pertictualr case file. Not that it needs to be reviewed in all cases, but there and easily accessible if needed.

In the event of a sensitive child or medical case where video is not advisable, they can call in a request to deactivate the recording.

for a bathroom break, maybe the officer calls  in "uh, dispatch, Ive got a #2 in hot pursuit of an exit, requesting permission to disable recording" lol

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So it's okay for you to police the forums, and ask a poster stops saying certain things, but it's not okay for me? Got it. Carry on. 
This is slowing down, a step in the right direction.

Now go ahead and bring it to a halt.

 
bolded: but funny that my location has no problem staffing a whole department to review red light camera video form countless intersections running 24 hours a day....oh but right those generate revenue for the county. 

 

but snark aside, I agree with your 2nd point..there needs to be a way to remotely activate and assigning the footage to a pertictualr case file. Not that it needs to be reviewed in all cases, but there and easily accessible if needed.

In the event of a sensitive child or medical case where video is not advisable, they can call in a request to deactivate the recording.

for a bathroom break, maybe the officer calls  in "uh, dispatch, Ive got a #2 in hot pursuit of an exit, requesting permission to disable recording" lol
My personal preference is that police officers not have discretion in recording.  Anyplace they have a right to be they should be recording.  If they have some reason to believe there is a privacy interest that may prevent disclosure or discovery they should alert their police legal advisor to review and potentially perform redaction, while retaining the original so that a court can review any redactions to protect privileges.  Cops are not trained to make these decisions.  They need uniformity of action.  Others should be making privilege determinations and be mindful of citizens legitimate expectations of privacy from having video disclosed.

On Photo Red Light no one reviews all twenty four hours of film for each day.  The systems mark the video when triggered and then most departments or their contractors review those few moments of video.  In a twenty four hour cycle their may be 3 or 4 minutes of video to review.  The difficulty with body cam footage is that their is a ton of it, some is subject to protection, there are watchdog groups, including the press and just interested citizens asking for countless hours of it, it needs to be reviewed, and currently redaction programs are rudimentary.  This is the reality, the facts.  I believe citizens should push their departments to change the facts, to improve, to move forward.  We do not have to be satisfied with the status quo. We need to seek the future, actively.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top