Mike over at Crime and Federalism has an interesting post and link to a discussion about the recording of police interrogations. Alaska was the first state to require that all in custody interrogations be tape recorded in their entirety. As a practical matter, cops just tape everything, and I mean everything. I frequently get all of the witness interviews already recorded. One of the first things I do is to have them transcribed.
Mike discusses some of the benefits and I would say that he gets a number of the benefits correct. There is no dispute about what someone said. None. I have had clients swear up and down that the cops did not read them their rights. Playing the tape recording answers that question. In a previous post, most of my clients were very drunk when they wound up being charged. Playing a tape recording persuaded several of them that their drunken statements that "The f-cking bitch deserved to have her teeth kicked out" would probably not go over too well with the jury.
On the other hand, I have had several motions that resulted from the taping. In one case, cops were called to a local hotel because it sounded like two people were in a fight. Cops get there and the tape records them walking up to the room. There was just silence from the room. They stood there knocking for about 10 minutes. Someone in the room repeatedly said, "Go away". They did not but kept knocking. When the occupant finally opens the door, the cops notice signs of a recent fight. Since it was a domestic violence situation, they arrested the man. I got the evidence of the fight suppressed because the cops had no reason to enter the room once they got there and found that there was no fight and they were being told to leave.
I had another case where the client was charged with DUI, refusal to take a breath test, possessing marijuana (it was in her car, not her home, which is the protected zone under Ravin) and possessing a pistol while intoxicated. She asked for a lawyer before blowing into the machine. One of the cops says, "A lawyer won't do you any good. Just blow in the damn machine." I managed to get the DUI reduced to reckless driving despite a portable breath test (which are generally inadmissible but used to establish probable cause) of .17. The DA was a good guy and when I told him what was on the tape, he said, "Well, that sounds like I've got some problems." He then made me that offer. The stop was good (her driving was objectively bad), so the reckless was not too out of line.
Probably the most chilling recording I ever had involved a murder case. My client literally stomped somebody to death. He got in a fight and got the other guy on the floor. When the other guy was prostrate, the client pounded his heel (no shoes) into the guy's head, which would then bounce onto the floor. The floor was concrete covered with linoleum. Guy died from brain damage a few hours later. The audio tape starts with the cop pulling up to the scene and as he gets out, you can hear a steady pounding - BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM - a total of 46 times. To listen to that and to realize what was happening, coupled with the pictures of the room and the dead guy's ER pictures, was really creepy. Every once in a while, I hear something slam or drop and it sounds like that guy's head hitting the floor and I am instantly brought back to that case.
All in all, though, I cannot imagine why police resist recording. There are a number of people who absolutely sink their cases. The video also protects the police. I've heard clients say just unbelievable things to cops and the cops, knowing they are being recorded, are professional and unemotional. I have to hand it to a few cops that I know - I don't know that I could hear somebody say the things that have been said to them and not just beat somebody to a pulp. If most cops would just think about it for a few minutes, they would quickly see the benefits to taping everything.
Comments