Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
In Ohio, a University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing was allowed to view body camera footage before submitting his report on the shooting of motorist Samuel DuBose, whom he had claimed started to drag him down the street with his arm still inside the vehicle. That scenario was not backed up with what is seen on the officer's body camera video and some have questioned why Tensing was allowed to view the footage beforehand.
The better question is why is an ordinary citizen giving any kind of statement, having seen the video or not?M-Quigley wrote:I haven't seen anything about them allowing ordinary citizens who claim self defense to be able to see video evidence prior to making a statement.
Police officers have to write reports. Private citizens don't.M-Quigley wrote:What's that old saying, What's good for the goose is good for the gander?
The written report of a police officer is also subject to discovery. Why not view the video? Videos from every knucklehead with a cell phone are already on the evening news.Thug Hunter wrote:Wow. There is definitely a lot of ignorance on this topic. I've seen it on other forums, too.
Private citizens NEVER have to give a statement. If they choose to, they can wait as long as they want to, and can submit requests to view available video. Of course, if they are criminally charged, they will indeed see that video, as it will be provided to them and their lawyers through a process known as discovery.
My issue with Garrity has always been you pretty much give them the ammo for areas to look. If you as a police officer kill someone with say a knife and hide the knife and hide the body. Then invoke Garrity and say "the knife is here and the body is there" does that mean they can't use either of those against you in court? I highly doubt that. The police investigating the crime criminally will simply say they were on the path to where both were located and that your statement didn't lead them there. When I had union protection, I never fully understood Garrity and how it helped anyone.Thug Hunter wrote:While it may vary from place to place, police officers are typically ORDERED to provide a statement. Sometimes that means a brief description of it immediately after, and a lengthy interview later. A police officer may invoke what we call "Garrity rights," which mean that the statement the cop is ordered to provide can't be used in a criminal action against him or her. Basically, Garrity means that the officer still has the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. The statement will be used in administrative procedures, to issue discipline if appropriate. A police officer can refuse to give a statement, even after being issued an order to do so. Typically, that would result in being fired, and loss of union benefits, which vary.
And I don't quite understand the interplay between federal and state law. 99% of the time an OIS is going to be a state matter. Chances are you'd be questioned by a local/state authority under Garrity. Can the feds then come in and say oh well, we're not investigating you for state homicide charges, we're investigating the whole situation for federal civil rights violations and subpoena all of the state/agency records in the matter? Kind of like how the governor of Ohio can't pardon someone for a federal offense.JediSkipdogg wrote:The police investigating the crime criminally will simply say they were on the path to where both were located and that your statement didn't lead them there. When I had union protection, I never fully understood Garrity and how it helped anyone.