TheAgitator.com
My Cato Interview on Video Technology and Police Accountability
Tuesday, September 15th, 2009I did an interview for Cato’s daily podcast today on how video technology is helping to hold the police more accountable. You can have a listen below.
4 Responses to “My Cato Interview on Video Technology and Police Accountability”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I love the idea of QIK. I don’t know that I would invest in the company because I think that soon every major telecom company will start offering the same service. That will be good for us but bad for QIK unless they hurry up and get partnerships going with some telecoms.
Advice for the police:
1. Your youtube problem is only going to get worse from here on.
2. Cops complain that the youtube stuff only shows part of the story.
3. The best defense for police is going to be recording your own high quality video of everything you do and then actually do your job right.
I see this as one of the most positive things we have going for us at the moment.
Oh, by the way, Radley, you sounded good. Very coherent speaking, clear and to the point. Good job.
I wish you would get your own AM radio show. I think you would do well.
First, sorry about length of the post I am about to make.
Largely because of Mr. Balko’s writing, I have started tracking court cases that say “dash camera.” This week a truly incredible case came out. Excerpt:
U.S. v. COPPIN (N.D.Tex. 9-11-2009)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MOSES COPPIN.
Criminal No. 3:09-CR-125-L.
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.
September 11, 2009
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SAM LINDSAY, District Judge
. . .
I. Background
Defendant Moses Coppin was indicted on May 6, 2009, on a single
count of felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). An arrest warrant was issued,
and Coppin was arrested on June 1, 2009. . . .
. . .
The court held an evidentiary hearing on August 31, 2009.
Dallas Police Officers Ashly Carrillo and Richard Saliba
testified on behalf of the government, and Derrick Cottingham
testified on behalf of Defendant.
Page 4
Defendant was a passenger in a Lincoln Town Car driven by
Derrick Cottingham that was stopped early on June 29, 2008, by
Officer Carrillo and his partner. Officer Carrillo testified that
the car was driving northbound on Dilido Road and that he and his
partner initiated a traffic stop because the rear license plate
light was out. He further testified that during the stop, Officer
Saliba, who had pulled over a silver sports utility vehicle, also
at 2900 Dilido Road, joined him during the stop. Carrillo stated
that Saliba approached the driver, and he approached the
passenger. He testified that Defendant was dressed in black, wore
gloves, and had a ski mask on top of his head. He also stated
that Defendant made furtive gestures with his hand towards the
area under his seat and that he saw a bandana on the floor of the
car. He testified that he asked Defendant to put his hands up
several times, and when Defendant did not comply, he opened the
passenger door and removed Defendant from the car and patted him
down. He stated that Saliba removed Cottingham from the car and
that the two men were seated on the curb near the rear of the
car. According to Officer Carrillo, he noticed what he thought
was the grip of a gun under the seat. He therefore searched the
car pursuant to Terry v. Ohio and found a gun and ammunition.
Upon finding the gun, he placed Defendant under arrest.
Officer Saliba testified that on the night in question, he and
his partner were working in the same area and stopped a silver
sports utility vehicle on Dilido Road for excessive noise. He
stated that out of the corner of his eye he saw another police
vehicle initiating a traffic stop just south of his position.
According to Saliba, the Lincoln Town Car stopped within twenty
yards of him. He testified that he looked over to the Town Car,
made eye contact with the driver of that car, and saw him begin
to slump down in the seat, which concerned him. He stated that he
could not see the hands of the driver of the Lincoln Town Car and
noticed that although the car had Virginia tags, it
Page 5
did not have corresponding Virginia tags in the middle of the
windshield but that there was a Texas sticker on the left side of
windshield. He testified that he exited his patrol vehicle and
approached the driver’s side window of the Lincoln Town Car.
Officer Saliba testified that he heard Carillo ask the passenger
to let him see his hands and that he saw the passenger leaning
forward and could not see his hands. According to Saliba, he then
drew his weapon. He testified that when Carrillo removed
Defendant from the passenger side, he removed Cottingham from the
driver’s side of the car, performed a Terry frisk of him, and
then walked him around the front of the car to the curb. He
stated that the two men were seated on the curb until Carrillo
found the gun in the car and the two men were arrested.
Derrick Cottingham testified that he was not driving the car
when the police pulled up behind him and turned on the flashing
lights. He maintains that he was waiting at the entry gate to an
apartment complex located at 2900 Dilido Road. He states that the
police officers did not ask any questions, but approached the
car, opened the doors, placed him and Defendant on the curb a
distance from the car, searched the passenger compartment, and
arrested them. He states that his rear license plate light was
working because he had recently replaced it after being pulled
over by the Grapevine police. He testified that he had been
pulled over and given a warning, and that he replaced the rear
license plate light because he was staying in a nice area and did
not want to give the police an excuse to pull him over again.
Upon questioning from the court, both officers testified that
they did not know if the cars they were driving that night were
equipped with dash cameras. The court then ordered the government
to determine if the cars had cameras and to submit any evidence
to the court. On September 3, 2009, the government submitted
evidence to the court relating to the cars driven that night, the
arrest
Page 6
reports for the silver sports utility vehicle, and the Dallas
Police Department’s policy on retaining videos. The court held a
second hearing on September 10, 2009, for further argument in
light of this additional evidence.
C. Analysis
The court has carefully reviewed the evidence, the testimony,
and transcript of the evidentiary hearing. There are multiple
inconsistencies in the testimony and evidence. These include not
only discrepancies between the version of events set forth by the
government and Defendant, but also inconsistencies between the
officers’ testimony and the arrest reports. With respect to the
arrest reports, the officers’ testimony varies from those reports
in major ways, including which officer found the gun, the
sequence of events, and the basis for the traffic stop.
The arrest reports were written by Officer Saliba. They
indicate or imply that the two officers were partners at that
time and were riding in the same patrol car. There is nothing in
the arrest reports that indicates that Officers Saliba and
Carrillo were not partners or that they did not observe the
events at the same time. Their testimony, however, made clear
that the two officers were not partners and were not in the same
vehicle. Saliba did not see the Lincoln Town Car until after
Carrillo had initiated the traffic stop by turning on his
emergency lights.
Both officers testified that it was Carrillo who searched the
car and found the gun. The police report for Defendant states
“[t]he following weapon . . . was found by Officer Saliba,
Richard G.” Coppin Arrest Report 3 (all capital letters omitted).
Later in the report it states that “AO Carrillo, A. 8793
conducted a Terry frisk of the area inside the vehicle where AP
Coppin was seated and found a loaded .380 caliber semiautomatic
handgun, serial #175861 underneath AP Coppin’s front
Page 7
passenger seat.” Id. (all capital letters omitted). Not only
does the officers’ testimony contradict the police report, but
the report itself is internally inconsistent as to which officer
found the weapon.
More problematic is the officers’ testimony that Officer
Carrillo initiated the stop because the rear license plate light
on the Lincoln Town Car was out; the arrest reports for both
Coppin and Cottingham state that the officers did not notice the
license plate light until after the car was stopped. Defendant’s
arrest report states: “AO’s observed a black Lincoln Town Car,
Virginia tag JTR4743, traveling northbound 2900 Dilido Road
displaying a Texas inspection sticker. AO’s performed a traffic
stop of the vehicle at 2900 Dilido Road and observed that the
rear license plate light of the vehicle was inoperative.” Id.
(all capital letters omitted). Cottingham’s arrest report is very
similar: “AO’s observed a black Lincoln Town Car, Virginia tag
JTR4743, traveling northbound 2900 Dilido Road with a vehicle
registration that expired 4/2008. AO’s performed a traffic stop
of the vehicle at 2900 Dilido Road and observed that the rear
license plate light of the vehicle was inoperative.” Cottingham
Arrest Report 3 (all capital letters omitted).
According to both arrest reports, the reason the officers
stopped the vehicle was because of the Virginia license tags and
the Texas inspection sticker. These portions of the arrest
reports do not square with the testimony. Officer Carrillo stated
that he initiated the stop because of no rear license plate
light. He did not notice the Virginia tags until after he
activated the police vehicle’s overhead emergency lights. He
never testified that he was aware that the Town Car’s license
expired in April 2008. Moreover, Officer Saliba testified that he
noticed the Virginia tags and Texas inspection sticker only after
Officer Carillo had stopped the vehicle. Officer Saliba observed
the Town Car, its Texas inspection sticker, and Virginia tags
only because Officer Carrillo had stopped the vehicle.
Page 8
Officer Saliba did testify that the computer program used in
creating the police reports uses certain templates and fills in
some information for the user, and both officers admitted that
their testimony was at odds with the police reports. The use of
templates may explain some of the inconsistency, but the court
does not believe that the officers could not have made changes or
edit what they now claim is incorrect information. Saliba also
testified that he reviewed the reports before they were submitted
to the jail sergeant and agreed that making accurate reports is a
very important part of his job. Moreover, Carrillo testified he
knew that a supplemental report could have been submitted to
correct errors in the arrest report, but he was not familiar with
the procedure to submit a supplemental report.
Both officers testified that they were not aware or could not
remember if their patrol cars had a dash camera that began
recording when the flashing lights are activated. The court’s
request for additional information resulted in a determination
that both cars had functioning dash cams, but that the recordings
from the night in question had been destroyed pursuant to the
General Orders of the Dallas Police Department, which provide for
a ninety-day period for such recordings, unless flagged for
further retention.
The officers’ testimony is also brought into doubt by
Cottingham’s testimony about his rear license plate light. He
testified that he had been pulled over by the Grapevine police
and had changed the light to avoid being pulled over again. At
the second hearing, Defendant submitted evidence corroborating
his testimony that he was stopped by the Grapevine police for an
inoperable license plate light on May 20, 2008. The government
argues that his testimony is not credible because he did not
testify that he was arrested on another traffic warrant at that
time. While Cottingham was not entirely forthcoming with the
court and arguably created the impression that he
Page 9
was stopped only for the license plate infraction, this evidence
does corroborate his story about the license plate light, which
the government did not believe initially.
The court concludes that there are multiple inconsistencies
between the officers’ stories, the arrest reports, and
Cottingham’s testimony. These inconsistencies relate directly to
the most important issues regarding the traffic stop: the
reasonableness of the stop and credibility. The testimony was
stated in such a way to justify or enhance the reason for the
initial traffic stop. Regardless of the reasons for the multiple
inconsistencies — that is, whether they are the result of poor
report writing, lapse of memory because of passage of time, or
misrepresentations — credibility is substantially undermined.
The court has serious doubts that the officers had a reasonable
suspicion that the occupants of the Town Car were involved in
criminal activity at the time of the stop. These inconsistencies
undermine the officers’ credibility to a degree that the court
concludes that the government has not met its burden in showing
that there was a reasonable basis for the traffic stop at its
inception. As the stop was not justified, the court need not
reach the parties’ arguments about whether Defendant had a
privacy right in the car or whether he has standing to challenge
the search. Accordingly, the court concludes that the evidence
found during that traffic stop must be suppressed. The court
grants Coppin’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and hereby suppresses
the evidence obtained by the Dallas Police Department during the
traffic stop on June 29, 2008.
. . .
This, by the way, is one of those technicalities ppl like to cite to show criminals getting away with murder. The problem is that this technicality exists so that they can’t just pull you off the street and frisk you because they want your donut (hey, Krispy Kreme is Krack for Kops). Either an officer is honest and can be trusted not to lie (yeah, right) or they have proven that nothing they say can be trusted, especially in a court of law. Maybe these guys were criminals, maybe they weren’t, and maybe it shouldn’t be a crime to drive around with a gun in your car. I have done so for decades and the only way a cop would know is if he performed an illegal search, like this one.