“The constant refrain from the courts cases was that the video was so clear and incontrovertible that it eliminated any genuine issues…and permitted only one reasonable conclusion.” However, when just partial video was available, law enforcement lost summary judgment motions in nearly 70% of cases. This is nearly 30 percentage points higher than the rate of summary judgment rulings in favor of the police in cases where no video evidence was available.
Defendants won summary judgment almost 80% of the time when the judge was able to watch the entire incident on one or more BWC videos, Zamoff reports. That’s what “moves the needle,” in his words. What matters is how complete the video is. “The mere existence of any bodycam evidence does not increase…defendants’ likelihood of success on summary judgment in excessive force cases,” Zamoff discovered. He then compared the BWC-involved cases with 66 other summary judgment cases, drawn from the same judicial districts during the same time period and sharing similar scenario characteristics, but without BWCs involved. He analyzed these decisions “to determine whether, from the court’s perspective, the bodycam video captured all of the pertinent events at issue in the lawsuit or whether it was only a partial recording.” In nearly one-third of the cases and for a variety of reasons, Zamoff determined, the video in question recorded “only a portion of the allegedly unconstitutional” police action. The jurists granted 45 defense summary judgment motions and denied 26, Zamoff computed. Zamoff compiled all such decisions made in US federal circuits between then and the beginning of last year – 71 decisions total, believed to be the first such database of its kind. The first published summary judgment decision at the federal level involving a BWC occurred in 2014. Zamoff calls these rulings “the moment of truth” in excessive-force litigation. If granted, summary judgment dismisses the case before trial. When officers and agencies are sued under federal civil rights law for alleged use of excessive force, their attorneys almost invariably ask the court for a summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on grounds that the contested action was objectively reasonable or was protected under qualified immunity or both. His report, “Using Wearable Technology to Increase Police Legitimacy in Uruguay: The Case of Body-Worn Cameras,” appears in the American Bar Foundation’s journal Law & Social Inquiry and can be accessed without charge here. Barak Ariel, an assistant professor and lecturer in experimental criminology at the University of Cambridge in England. The traffic stop study was completed by an international team headed by Dr. #AMBAUSB POLICE BODY WORN CAMERA DRIVERS FREE#
His report, “Assessing the Impact of Police Body Camera Evidence on the Litigation of Excessive Force Cases,” appears in the Georgia Law Review and can be accessed free of charge here. Mitch Zamoff, a former assistant US attorney in Philadelphia who now directs the litigation program at the University of Minnesota law school. The judicial study was conducted by Prof.
When the officer is wearing a camera, motorists are more likely to feel they are treated respectfully, fairly, and safely when being ticketed, notably improving “the perceived overall quality of police-public interaction.” On traffic stops, researchers found that the same officer tends to leave significantly different impressions on violators, depending on whether the officer is equipped with a BWC.Footage that’s complete tends strongly to favor exoneration in a case, while a partial recording usually proves worse for defendant officers than no BWC video at all. In court, whether BWC video captures a complete or just a partial recording of a force event has “a profound impact” on an accused officer’s fate.Some results from the two studies are surprising. One researcher recommends every patrol officer on a department is equipped with body cameras.
0 kommentar(er)
