Cop Fakes Body Cam Footage, Prosecutors Drop Drug Charges (arstechnica.com) 111
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Prosecutors in Pueblo, Colorado are dropping felony drug and weapon-possession charges after an officer involved in the case said he staged body cam footage so he could walk "the courts through" the vehicle search that led to the arrest. The development means that defendant Joseph Cajar, 36, won't be prosecuted on allegations of heroin possession and of unlawful possession of a handgun. The evidence of the contraband was allegedly found during a search of Cajar's vehicle, which was towed after he couldn't provide an officer registration or insurance during a traffic stop. Officer Seth Jensen said he found about seven grams of heroin and a .357 Magnum in the vehicle at the tow yard. But the actual footage of the search that he produced in court was a reenactment of the search, the officer told prosecutors.
so this bent copper (Score:4, Insightful)
This bent copper is going to the clink for attempting to pervert the course of justice, right?
Lol :(
Re: (Score:3)
He's probably getting promoted to "Senior Body Cam Educator".
Once again; power corrupts.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a police officer think that presenting a "re-enactment" would be acceptable legal procedure in court? Courts hear evidence - not "re-enactments".
Re: so this bent copper (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news: Police bodycam footage doesn't have the time/date on it and it's the individual officer who decides what to show in court.
So what use is it as evidence?
Re: (Score:1)
I have to wonder what probable cause to search the vehicle came to his attention after towing it from the orginal scene. Did he have a warrant? It wasn't in any sort of moment.
He should be criminally charged for an unjustified search as well. Its time start making an example of people who violate civil rights under color of law.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to wonder what probable cause to search the vehicle came to his attention after towing it from the orginal scene. Did he have a warrant? It wasn't in any sort of moment.
That's already been through the courts. They can search your car if they impound it. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency... [nolo.com]
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/can-the-police-legitimately-search-my-vehicle-without-a-warrant.html
Valiant officer providing alternative facts (Score:3)
This officer was just presenting Alternative Facts, Ok?
In fact he was *helping* the court by showing an example of a vehicle search. It could have been the same vehicle the suspect was driving. All vehicle searches look the same anyway, so what does it matter?
This officer is being unfairly treated by the Crooked Media !
Did the court know it was a reenactment? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the court knew it was a reenactment then that's one thing, but if the officer attempted to pass-off the footage as legitimate then he needs to be found in-contempt.
Has making false statements to police ever been used against the police? Seems that it should qualify if an officer lies about the circumstances in official reports.
Re: (Score:2)
If done properly, it's more descriptive than an oral testimony. Kind of like having an illustration. I can imagine it would be hard to describe a vehicle search in detail.
Either way, that doesn't seem to be the intent here.
Bungalows (Score:2)
I understand that nobody can read any more. But you have to show them a video because they don't understand "First, I opened the right front door and looked under the seat. Then I opened the glove box and I found ..."?
Re: (Score:2)
Different cars, different layout. Explains visibility, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
People like you are the reason there are youtube videos on how to configure samba.
Re: (Score:2)
Not people like me. People like the kind that can't get out of jury duty.
Re:Did the court know it was a reenactment? (Score:5, Informative)
If the court knew it was a reenactment then that's one thing, but if the officer attempted to pass-off the footage as legitimate then he needs to be found in-contempt.
From the the source article [chieftain.com] it seems that the prosecutor did not know at first. It came out only after a prosecutor noticed some discrepancies between the body cam footage and the report and asked the officer to clarify.
Jensen replied back, saying, "For the search, the body cam shows different than the report because it was. Prior to turning my body cam on I conducted the search. Once I found the (expletive referring to evidence), I stepped back, called (a fellow officer), then activated my body cam and walked the courts through it."
Mayer then replied back, “Was that in the report? If not you’ve got to write a supplement explaining that your body cam was off during the search and that the body cam that does exist is a reenactment.”
Now I have to give props to the prosecutor for alerting the defense and the court about it. They could have buried it.
Has making false statements to police ever been used against the police? Seems that it should qualify if an officer lies about the circumstances in official reports.
There is now an investigation and we'll see. Most likely no. The problem is that since it was "re-enacted" without disclosing the fact gives the appearance that it could have been planted. If the officer had turned on his body cam right after and merely declared "I found this gun here a minute ago. . ." most people would have given the officer the benefit of a doubt.
Re:Did the court know it was a reenactment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I have to give props to the prosecutor for alerting the defense and the court about it. They could have buried it.
This is where we are now? Where we have to give "props" to our officers of the court for not committing criminal professional misconduct by suppressing evidence that the defense is legally entitled to? No wonder the cop was comfortable turning off his camera and then faking evidence when he "remembered" that it needed to be on.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do police body cameras have off switches again?
Re: (Score:2)
Because some people don't want their interactions with police to be subject to FOIA requests.
Re: (Score:2)
No direct control, but if they request it the officer should be able to accommodate them.
Re: Did the court know it was a reenactment? (Score:1)
Unfortunately that is where we've been at for a while.
How much you want to bet that gun he planted was used to commit a crime? Hmm, what happens if we lock this guy up for that crime? Oh, that's right, the real criminal goes free. And these cops are all we have to figure that out with.
This pig should be hung. But he isn't guilty of anything other than showing inadmissible evidence. Which, if you or I tried, would be called perjury.
He literally referred to his own evidence as "shit" or some other expletive?
Re: (Score:2)
This is where we are now? Where we have to give "props" to our officers of the court for not committing criminal professional misconduct by suppressing evidence that the defense is legally entitled to? No wonder the cop was comfortable turning off his camera and then faking evidence when he "remembered" that it needed to be on.
There are too many stories of prosecutors hiding evidence or conveniently "forgetting" to hand over evidence to the defense.
Re: (Score:1)
And those stories go back for over 100 years.
Things are actually better now and improving. Body cams and DNA exposed a lot of bad behavior by police and prosecutors.
It should not even be a crime (Score:3)
Neither possession should be a crime anyway... Free citizens of a free country ought to be able to poison themselves with whatever substances they please. And the gun? Hello? The Bill of Rights?
If these things are illegal in the first place — without anybody protesting loudly — protesting minute details (like the original search vs. reenactment) seems kinda silly... If the government is allowed to violate the Second Amendme
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even a libertarian but I have to agree. Criminalize the dealers not the users, at the very least make this a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The article doesn't say it, but I suspect the "unlawful possession of a handgun" comes from possession of a handgun while also having the heroin, because having a hidden handgun in a vehicle is allowed in Colorado. Ie, it's a tacked on charge that makes the jury more receptive to the prosecutor's argument that this is a bad guy, and a tougher penalty which hel
Re: (Score:2)
For what? Why should selling something to a willing buyer be a crime? Ah, it is "harmful" — well, it is harmful only to him and/or other willing consumers...
Re: (Score:2)
According to the charges document from the Ars Technica article (https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cajacharges.pdf):
"Count 4 - Possession of a weapon by previous offender (F6)
On or about November 2, 2016, Joseph Frank Cajar unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly possessed, used, or carried upon his person a firearm or other weapon, namely: .357 Magnum, and Joseph Frank Cajar was previously convicted of a felony, namely: Menacing, as defined by Colorado, C.R.S. 18-3-206(1)(2)(a)(1), on July
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah-yeah, yada-yada. The typical hand-waving of "pragmatists" dismissing the Founding Fathers as idealists.
Imagine, if we treated the First Amendment the same way.
The minute you allow "reasonable" to enter an argument, you no longer have a Constitution. And, maybe, you don't need it — United Ki
Re: (Score:1)
Banning products, that a significant number of citizens want, is not effective. All it does is provide windfall profits to criminal gangs.
There are even instances of criminals donating money to keep the bans in force! 8-{
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is the state of things. The truly sad thing about this is if the prosecutor is lucky it will only be harmed with the drop in their conviction rate and not because police and other prosecutors try to get even for making a police officer look bad (or worse) while giving testimony.
With how things are now prosecutors with integrity should be rewarded with more important cases and faster promotions so that they can start cleaning up offices of corruption. Instead we let them suffer alone while the co
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, sadly. Prosecutors are very often political, and their job demands on keeping the tough-on-crime voters happy, which means having a high conviction rate. A prosecutor admitting to a mistake is a rare occurence. I've seen past prosecutors object strongly when a prisoner is released based upon strong new evidence, so even when they're no longer in the job they refuse to admit to mistakes.
Re:Did the court know it was a reenactment? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is now an investigation and we'll see. Most likely no. The problem is that since it was "re-enacted" without disclosing the fact gives the appearance that it could have been planted. If the officer had turned on his body cam right after and merely declared "I found this gun here a minute ago. . ." most people would have given the officer the benefit of a doubt.
*this*
I guarantee you if I was a juror and something is presented as evidence and *later* is claimed to be a reenactment then I will assume "hand in the cookie jar" and will then (given the general climate of distrust of blue in the country right now) likely presume that to equate to an attempt to fabricate evidence. Once I get that in my head then *all* the testimony from that cop and his co-workers in support of his testimony becomes hearsay at best and lies at worst... eg. I become a defense attorney's favorite juror.
Remember we have a presumption of innocence. The moment that there is doubt (very reasonably so in this case) on the evidence of guilt then not guilty becomes a mandatory verdict.
Is it likely that the guy is actually guilty in this case? Honestly no idea, but lets stipulate "Yes". I still rather he go free, because what if I'm in a similar situation, but because I've been on a date with a cop's ex-wife I'm not liked much by my local PD. This would be an easy thing to do to put me away.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it likely that the guy is actually guilty in this case? Honestly no idea, but lets stipulate "Yes". I still rather he go free, because what if I'm in a similar situation, but because I've been on a date with a cop's ex-wife I'm not liked much by my local PD. This would be an easy thing to do to put me away.
I would say then this would be a clear example of how shoddy police work means criminals go free.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup.
Really the only shocker for me is just how upstanding the DA was about it.
Re: (Score:2)
no DA is upstanding. the power of the office ruins them all. can't be avoided. its a problem.
but he probably felt that if HE got found out, later on, it would go worse for him.
ie, he did it out of fear for his own safety/job. nothing else. I assure you, that's all that motivates this kind of person. doing the right thing is not even in their vocabulary. they, just like sociopathic ceo's, JUST WANT TO WIN. at. any. cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't this mean that oversight/transparency works?
Re: (Score:2)
it may, but his counter was to my assumption in faith that a DA was human...
Sadly he has more likelihood of being correct than me.
Re: (Score:2)
The moment that there is doubt (very reasonably so in this case) on the evidence of guilt then not guilty becomes a mandatory verdict.
Agreed, if there is doubt on all the evidence. Just doubting one piece of evidence in the face of mountains of seemingly legitimate evidence shouldn't get the defendant off the hook.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, but specifically for this case the actions of the cop poisoned the well so to speak.
He threw *all* his testimony into doubt and he is the primary source for the DA.
Sure in cases where you have traffic cams and independent witnesses to back up the charges you don't need the cop's testimony. It'd be nice, but your case (as DA) should prevail without it.
Re: (Score:2)
*this*
I guarantee you if I was a juror and something is presented as evidence and *later* is claimed to be a reenactment then I will assume "hand in the cookie jar" and will then (given the general climate of distrust of blue in the country right now) likely presume that to equate to an attempt to fabricate evidence. Once I get that in my head then *all* the testimony from that cop and his co-workers in support of his testimony becomes hearsay at best and lies at worst... eg. I become a defense attorney's favorite juror.
It's worse than that. I'm no lawyer but assuming this cop remains on the force, I would be shocked if any defense attorney fails to bring this up when he takes the witness stand in a trial, using it to speak to his (lack of) credibility. "You offered a 'reenactment' in that case -- how can we believe that you didn't do another reenactment in this case?" He becomes a defense attorney's favorite witness.
Re:Did the court know it was a reenactment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior to turning my body cam on I conducted the search. Once I found the (expletive referring to evidence), I stepped back, called (a fellow officer), then activated my body cam and walked the courts through it."
Okay. Why wasn't his (expletive deleted) body camera already on, like, from the start of the incident? The cameras are to document things and/or prevent bad behavior (by all parties). As such, it should be on all the time during an incident, not just when convenient or beneficial for the Police.
Re: (Score:2)
I assumed these cameras were always recording, so that they could save the previous few minutes once recording was activated.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the body cam should be on when worn. Citizens' privacy is guarded not by not taking the video in the first place (there's already a cop all up in their business) but by not letting anyone see the video without a subpoena.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why there should not be an off switch (Score:1)
The officer should not have the option of turning the body cam on and off. To prevent (or at least make it more complicated to pull off successfully) things like this.
Jensen replied back, saying, "For the search, the body cam shows different than the report because it was. Prior to turning my body cam on I conducted the search. Once I planted the evidence, I stepped back, called (a fellow officer), then activated my body cam and walked the courts through it."
Re: (Score:1)
Despite my criticism of the Pueblo legal system (based on my own experience), I should say that I believe at least one prosecutor was honest (I don't remember his name). I also must say I believe the chief of police was a good guy too (from Kansas City). But on the whole, a typical cop was more criminal than the average criminal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
In the video he apparently acts surprised when he finds the gun. He doesn't tell anyone it's a "reenactment" until his statement and the video don't quite line up with each other and the prosecutor asks him about it.
video: https://goo.gl/HmUxVA [goo.gl]
Re: (Score:2)
At the time he provided the video he didn't tell them it was a reenactment, but from the sounds of things no one has asked for his account either, so he may not have had much of an opportunity to say what it was. The proceedings moved to trial based on the "evidence", but before trial they followed up with him to get his account, and he explained how he found the contraband, placed it back where he had found it, got another officer, and then reenacted the discovery for the camera. They had no clue that was
Re: Did the court know it was a reenactment? (Score:3)
No, police have to write up detailed reports about any arrest. If that report did not include the fact that the search happened twice, and that the video was a reenactment, then the reasonable assumption is that the officer tried to pull a fast one.
It may not have been truly malicious or intended to deceive; we humans are really good at justifying our actions to ourselves. But it was illegal and unethical and (I believe) should result in punishment, or else we erode trust in the police.
Harry Stone would know what to do.... (Score:2)
Has making false statements to police ever been used against the police? Seems that it should qualify if an officer lies about the circumstances in official reports.
Fuck the reports, isn't it an outright felony to lie under oath in court? I know that it is for a Senate inquiry, what is the exact charge for this in a federal court? Perjury?
Re: (Score:2)
Perjury is surprisingly hard to prove. The defendant just has to make a reasonable case of being mistaken, misunderstanding the question or such.
There is zero reason to reenact a search (Score:2)
Re: Did the court know it was a reenactment? (Score:2)
...but if the officer attempted to pass-off the footage as legitimate then he needs to be found in-contempt.
As well as charged for fabricating evidence.
I sense a Tweet coming... (Score:3, Funny)
Overreaching courts again making it difficult for our brave heroes to do their job. Sad! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
The article is a mess (Score:2)
So, the cop offered the "fake" video to a judge to get an arrest warrant but when it came to trial it became clear the video was a "re-enactment" of the original event? I think that is what the article is trying to tell me.
While this seems to be a dirty trick on the judge to get the arrest warrant it does not seem the officer actually lied during the trial. Seems to me that the officer tried to let everyone assume the video was what happened in real time but when actually cornered and asked about it he wa
Re:The article is a mess (Score:4, Insightful)
"Seems to me that the officer tried to let everyone assume the video was what happened in real time but when actually cornered and asked about it he was honest about the re-enactment."
Even though he came clean when pressed, that is an attempt to pervert the course of justice and to mislead the court. Try doing that as a civilian and see how quickly you get contempt issued against you.
Re: (Score:2)
Because not everyone wants their interactions with the police to be available to anyone that wants them.
Re: (Score:1)
Because not everyone wants their interactions with the police to be available to anyone that wants them.
There is no reason that the video should be any more public than the report of the incident that the officer writes up. It is evidence, and evidence is not necessarily made public. Yes, you can subpoena the records -you cannot do it on a lark.
Re: (Score:2)
Both are subject to FOIA requests. If there is no ongoing investigation, the department would have trouble finding a good reason to decline.
Typical (Score:5, Interesting)
This story typifies what is wrong with policing in the US.
1) The cop did not plan on doing anything wrong, criminal, evil or stupid. He did what he did with the best of intentions (as evidence by the fact that he told the truth when questioned about it.)
2) The cop was so ignorant, so arrogant, so focused on getting the arrest, that he did not know it was wrong, why it was wrong, and probably still does not understand the principle (but I bet he knows not to do that exact same thing again.)
3) No real change will happen. They won't teach that cop, or other cops that "your job is NOT to get a conviction, but aid civilans, and honestly report what happened." They won't change the culture of being "in charge" rather than "of service". They will continue using the Dirty Harry (mean, angry, takes no crap, there to kill the bad guy) stereotype rather than the Columbo stereotype (self effacing, polite, there to ask questions)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can start by changing this:
"but aid civilans"
to
"but to aide citizens"
All police are civilians. The sooner we drop the paramilitary, standing army, rank-bullshit, the better things will become.
Re: (Score:2)
They will continue using the Dirty Harry (mean, angry, takes no crap, there to kill the bad guy) stereotype rather than the Columbo stereotype (self effacing, polite, there to ask questions)
I don't think people actually saw the Dirty Harry films. He was completely polite, if not curt, with law-abiding citizens. He even dresses down other officers whom are less than polite to victims. Violent criminals, on the other hand, he indifferently mows down.
You might be thinking more along the lines of the Bad Lieutenant.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The cop did not plan on doing anything wrong, criminal, evil or stupid. He did what he did with the best of intentions (as evidence by the fact that he told the truth when questioned about it.)
Can we know this is true? It is also possible that he knew what he was dong was wrong but only gave up on the ruse when it became clear to him that this could be evidence against him of contempt of court, falsifying evidence, and/or some other crime. It is also not beyond doubt that he planted the evidence against the suspect. Maybe this officer has a history with this suspect and he created the whole event to get this guy in jail. I know that sounds like it might be out of a movie plot but it has happe
Re: (Score:1)
Look at the video https://goo.gl/HmUxVA [goo.gl] . The cop was clearly trying to deceive the court. The cop is the criminal.
Re: (Score:1)
If the police officer did two searches that should have been clearly indicated in his written report.
something like..."I found drugs while searching the vehicle. I replaced them, turned on my body cam and then reenacted finding them."
If police were credible, it wouldn't matter. But so many have been caught lying by cameras (not just body cams) that we no longer extend police the default trust we used to give them if there was no apparent motive for them to lie.
Now we know they will lie simply to justify a
Re: (Score:3)
Before body cameras, what this cop did was probably protocol. Once he found something, he called for additional units and tried his best to document it, the body camera made a very nice tool for documenting the scene.
However procedural errors get suspected criminals released. That is due process at work.
I think it's a learning opportunity. Body cams are still in their infancy. Police need to learn how to properly use them to 1) provide transparency and 2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your point number 1 is incorrect. There is no reasonable assumption of good intentions on the part of the officer. Bottom line he attempted to misrepresent. Just because he ADMITTED the falsehood after essentially having been caught red handed in no way indicates any "good" intentions. It can just as well indicate a person who is well acquainted with the system and process and is trying to manipulate that system. Of course after being caught red handed it is better to admit to the act and somehow hope the b
Wait a second... why did he turn off the camera? (Score:5, Insightful)
Officer said he searched car, then turned on body cam to recreate it for "the courts."
What I want to hear is the explanation for why he turned it off in the first place. I'm sure it's total bullshit but I still want to hear the lie.
Re: Wait a second... why did he turn off the camer (Score:1)
That's why the cameras should be on at all times during the cops shift - including breaks. Turning it off should be a criminal offense subject to immediate dismissal.
And when that hapoens unicorns will fly out if my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy with the following setup:
If the police vehicle has a dash cam, then while in the vehicle, the body cam is off. When the officer exits the vehicle, the body cam automatically turns on. Use RFID or something to detect if they're in the vehicle or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The big thing there is the 2.5 hours of recording time. You have any device that you have to have hanging around you all day and ready at a moment's notice, you aren't going to risk getting too close to running out of power at a critical point.
The battery pack, if the department even springs for it, will be inconvenient,
Re: (Score:2)
If it's truly a matter of battery-life or recording capacity then there is a technological update that needs to be made. Purpose built hardware like this should be able to record 24 hours of video without interruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Hanging around the impound lot may not be somewhere that you'd expect to want keep records, but conducting a search that you may expect to present in court should seem important enough to record.
Anyway, if fixing the 2.5 hour record time is infeasible for whatever silly reason, then the cop cars and the stations need to have readily available chargers so that they're not limited to 2.5 hours of recordings per shift. Record the search, then plug the camera in while you drive away from the impound lot.
Re: (Score:2)
The big question... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Pueblo PD's policy is to run the cam during the search. Watch the video https://goo.gl/HmUxVA [goo.gl] . The cop is the bad guy.
Another cop lies (Score:2)
Putrid Pueblo Police (Score:2)
My wife and I once lived in Pueblo, Colorado. This was a decade and a half ago, but I suspect the police department has not ethically improved. We actually left the town because we decided living there would be too much of a legal risk. Basically, the cops lie. They say whatever they feel would make their case, and people go the jail frequently for fake charges.
We were victims of the police to a (legally) minor degree. We only suffered misdemeanors, but we could see how the same policing technique could be