I was reading the news today and came across an article about an incident caught on video (see below). In the old days (like back in 2012 and before), it was primarily a person's testimony vs the officer's testimony. An officer would describe in a report that someone failed field sobriety tests. The person would recall they felt they did a better job than what was in the report.
Body Worn cameras have changed the examination of cases because now we can see what actually transpired.
Body Worn Cameras
I have spent virtually my entire 15-year legal career in criminal law. I have seen a number of changes during my time as both prosecutor and now in defense. The implementation of the body camera is one of the biggest changes I have seen (to go along with proposition 36 and 47).
I can tell you there needs to be some uniform standards in the use of Body cameras. I subpoena the body cameras as soon as I am retained as an attorney. I have seen as I have tried to obtain the evidence each agency is still trying to figure out how to implement it. Escondido has very different procedures from the San Diego Police. While every agency may have different procedures, in the end, there should be uniformity in the evidence.
Body Worn Camera evidence is key, especially in a San Diego DUI case. In most every report you will see the officer note "slurred speech". I cannot tell you that when I review the whole video and not hear a single slurred word I begin to wonder what else may be inaccurate. Was the report a cut and paste job? The officer never met the client so did they just honestly (mistakenly) think they have slurred speech? If the video shows slurred speech (and other symptoms of impairment) then the body camera does its job because I get to tell the client the totality of the evidence shows this may not be a case to go to trial on. Call the Law Offices of Mark Deniz to be proactive on your case at (858) 751-4384.
In all cases, a body camera is a great tool. There needs to be as much uniformity as possible. The officer in the field needs to know it cannot be turned on and off at their discretion. There is evidence to be tallied. There are tax dollars to ensure they are enforcing the laws in a professional manner. It can also be the best evidence to determine what actually transpired in an incident. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
It is a perfect illustration of the benefit we get because of Body Camera Video.
New video of a Chula Vista police officer tackling a teenager with his baton sparked outrage in the South Bay as students and their parents demanded a thorough investigation into the incident.
The Chula Vista Police Department is reviewing the actions of several of its officers following the altercation Wednesday near Castle Park High School.
Officers showed up at Loma Verde Park around 4 p.m. in response to someone allegedly flashing gang signs, a CVPD official said.
Students who hang out at the park, some of them waiting for their parents to pick them up after work, say there was no flashing of gang signs or any other activity that would prompt such a full-scale response.
Video of Campus Officer Pushing High School Freshman
The video is sparking anger in the South Bay. NBC 7's Steven Luke has more.(Published Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018)
Students said it actually started with a game of football.
"When they were passing I said 'Do you want to catch' to the cop and then we threw the peace sign up and they left and later came back saying we were throwing up gang signs at them," said 17-year-old Palomar High School student Logan Moreno.
Department officials said gang activity is known to occur at the park.
Manny Rubio, director of communication for the Sweetwater Union High School District, also confirmed they've asked police to keep a closer eye on the park during after school hours due to recent concerns of criminal activity.
Students said more than a dozen officers responded and started putting people in handcuffs. They said the commotion attracted more teenagers who gathered around as officers yelled at them to get back.
NBC 7 has obtained a video showing students being handcuffed on the ground as officers tell crowding students to step back. A male officer then tackles a girl onto the sidewalk.
CVPD Is Looking Into Officers' Actions at Park Near Castle Park HS
(Published Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018)
CVPD said the girl threw a plastic water bottle at a female officer.
"We have one snippet of video that has been seen on Facebook that has a very limited viewpoint of what occurred," CVPD Captain Vern Sallee said. "It doesn't even really show the assault on the police sergeant... I can say nothing that we've seen so far would warrant changing the status of the officer's duty status."
Four minors, including three boys and one girl, were arrested and face charges related to gang affiliation and resisting arrest. The girl seen in the video being tackled was arrested for battery on a police officer.
All have since been released.
CVPD Lt. Peak said the department is reviewing the actions of those involved. No officers or students were injured, Peak said.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 66, Muratsuchi. Electricity: system reliability.Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, as defined. The Public Utilities Act authorizes the commission to ascertain and fix just and reasonable standards, classifications, regulations, practices, measurements, or service to be furnished, imposed, observed, and followed by specified public utilities, including all electrical corporations. If the commission finds after a hearing that the rules, practices, equipment, appliances, facilities, or service of any public utility, or of the methods of manufacture, distribution, transmission, storage, or supply employed by the public utility, are unjust, unreasonable, unsafe, improper, inadequate, or insufficient, the act requires that the commission determine and, by order or rule, fix the rules, practices, equipment, appliances, facilities, service, or methods to be observed, furnished, constructed, enforced, or employed. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.This bill would require the commission to require an electrical corporation to include in annual reliability reports, required by a specified decision of the commission, that are due after July 1, 2014, information on the reliability of service to end use customers that identifies the frequency and duration of interruptions in services and indicates areas with both the most frequent and longest outages, using local areas determined by the commission. The bill would require the commission to use the information to require cost-effective remediation of reliability deficiencies if the report, or more than one report, identifies repeated deficiencies in the same local area and would authorize the commission to suspend this requirement upon specified findings. The bill would require the electrical corporations to conspicuously post their annual reports on their Internet Web site. Because a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the definition of a crime.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 2774.1 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:
(a) (1) The commission shall require an electrical corporation to include in an annual reliability report, required pursuant to Decision 96-09-045, as amended, or a decision that supersedes Decision 96-09-045, information on the reliability of service to end use customers that identifies, but is not limited to, the frequency and duration of interruptions in services. This information shall indicate areas with both the most frequent and longest outages, using local areas determined by the commission. The commission, in consultation with the electrical corporation, shall ensure that the geographical boundaries of local areas do not split up circuits for reporting purposes, if the electrical corporation aggregates data by circuits. The information shall be sufficiently aggregated to both maintain electrical system security, and be of use and relevance to affected customers of the electrical corporation.(2) Before July 1, 2014, the commission shall determine the local areas for the purposes of paragraph (1).(3) The requirements of paragraph (1) shall apply to annual reports due after July 1, 2014.(4) The electrical corporation shall conspicuously post on its Internet Web site the annual report required pursuant to Decision 96-09-045, as amended, or a decision that supersedes Decision 96-09-045.(b) (1) The commission shall use the information contained in an electrical corporation's annual reliability report to require cost-effective remediation of reliability deficiencies if the report, or more than one report, identifies repeated deficiencies in the same local area as determined by the commission pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). In requiring cost-effective remediation, the commission shall consult with the electrical corporation and consider mitigating factors that may impede an electrical corporation from implementing required cost-effective remediation, including, but not limited to, local permitting matters or other events or conditions or public policy considerations that may present higher priority safety or reliability issues.(2) The commission may suspend the requirements of paragraph (1) if the commission finds that expenditures by the electrical corporation to comply with that paragraph are not justified or that the remediation measures undertaken by the electrical corporation are not effective at improving reliability.(c) (1) The commission may order an electrical corporation to make more frequent trend analyses of local area service reliability and to make those analyses publicly available.(2) The information made publicly available shall provide sufficient confidentiality for purposes of protecting electrical system security.(3) The commission may make those analyses publicly available.
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature in adding Section 2774.1 to the Public Utilities Code, that the required system reliability information be included in the annual report required by the Public Utilities Commission in Decision 96-09-045 (September 4, 1996), while preserving the discretion of the commission to modify an electrical corporation's reporting requirements.(b) It is the further intent of the Legislature to require an annual reliability report to include and differentiate both sustained outages and momentary outages, as defined by the Public Utilities Commission.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
Hire a Proactive, affordable, and quality defense when you are facing San Diego DUI charges. Whether you have been charged of a San Diego DUI, Poway DUI, La Mesa DUI, Santee DUI, Mission Valley DUI, Clairemont DUI, Point Loma DUI, La Jolla DUI, Carmel Valley DUI, Mira Mesa DUI, Pacific Beach DUI, Del Mar DUI, Carmel Valley DUI, Encinitas DUI, Oceanside DUI, Escondido DUI, Vista DUI, San Marcos DUI, Carlsbad DUI, El Cajon DUI it is vital you need to hire an attorney who knows how to defend your rights and can determine if the government can prove their case. Contact the Law Office of Mark Deniz now for a free case evaluation at (858) 751-4384.