In-car cameras open a window to truth about police conduct

A recent incident involving the high-speed pursuit and apprehension of a suspect by Charleston County Sheriff's deputies underscores the necessity of equipping law enforcement vehicles with video cameras as the best means of documenting the events surrounding police-citizen encounters.

The in-car videos of that incident have precipitated a firestorm of controversy about the actions of both the suspect and the arresting officers, and they will be scrutinized by various investigative authorities to determine the wrongdoing, if any, by parties on each side.

Unlike human beings, video cameras have no inherent bias and perceive the world without feeling or emotion. And while a human's memory is susceptible to change over time, a video recording -- absent intentional manipulation -- is not malleable. More than any other medium, videos capture not only events as they happened, but the tone and tenor of how they occurred. In short, the video recording of an event "is what it is."

Video cameras are ubiquitous in 2012. In the private sector they are found in smart phones, banks and fast-food drive-thrus, and they are used by homeowners and businesses alike to secure property.

The evidentiary value of video recordings in the criminal justice arena is immediately obvious. Law enforcement agencies routinely employ video cameras to record the purchase of illegal drugs by undercover officers, and prosecutors often rely upon surveillance videos to convict armed robbers.

Not surprisingly, a 2001 survey by the International Association of Chiefs of Police concluded that in-car video cameras are the most frequently used and most valuable video technology within their agencies, and a 2002 study by that organization and the United States Department of Justice found them to be an invaluable tool for law enforcement.

The utility of in-car videos perhaps is demonstrated most dramatically with arrests for driving under the influence (DUI). Since 1998, South Carolina law has mandated that arresting officers video record the events surrounding the traffic stop, incident site conduct and breath test of persons accused of DUI.

The Legislature enacted the law because it recognized the wisdom of memorializing this evidence on video in order to enhance every prosecution, to protect the rights of every citizen accused and to safeguard every officer against false allegations of misconduct. By so doing, the law also affords a judge or jury the opportunity to evaluate both the accused's demeanor and the fairness of any field sobriety and breath tests administered, thereby increasing the likelihood that justice will be served.

Why would anyone genuinely engaged in the pursuit of truth and justice not want a video recording of the events surrounding an alleged crime and arrest? Given the premeditated nature of traffic stops and the automatic activation of in-car cameras when a cruiser's blue lights are initiated, any "inconvenience" to officers in producing videos is minimal.

In-car videos should be required for every traffic stop -- not just those involving allegations of DUI.

After all, if videos are used by the National Football League to review the accuracy of calls made by game officials, why would we not enthusiastically endorse their use by judges and juries to review the weightier calls made by arresting officers when citizens' driver's licenses, livelihoods, freedom, and civil rights are at stake?

It has been said that "the truth fears nothing but to be hidden."

The mandated use of in-car cameras by law enforcement affords the best opportunity for the truth about the events surrounding roadside police-citizen encounters to be revealed.

As such, it is not an issue of defendants, defense lawyers, prosecutors or police. It is an issue of justice.

DIEDREICH P. von LEHE III

Attorney at Law

Meeting Street

Charleston