Police Videos And The Power Of The California District Attorneys Association
The California District Attorneys Association has filed a brief with the court in support of Los Angeles Attorney General Edwards. The CDAA is the state’s lawyers’ guild. Recently, Gascido proposed changes to the Los Angeles Police Department’s pursuit policy that critics say violate the constitutional rights of persons being stopped and frisked. Gascido’s plan would require police officers to consider the subjective reason for a traffic stop before making any contact with an individual. According to Gascido, this new policy, if adopted, will ensure that all people being stopped and frisked are lawfully innocent of wrongdoing.
Gascido’s comments come at a time when many law enforcement agencies throughout the country are under pressure to demonstrate restraint after a series of controversial police shootings.
In one case in January, the grand jury failed to indict a former police officer who had shot an unarmed robber during a scuffle that happened minutes prior to the officer arresting the suspect. During the trial, the defense presented video evidence that the arresting officer had made a split-second decision that caused the unarmed man to be shot. The grand jury believed the officer’s perception that the man had fired at him was reasonable given the circumstances. The case ended in a vote of no confidence in the district attorney and he was later relieved of his duty.
Los Angeles County district attorney Mike Sims is attempting to follow a similar path after the Los Angeles Police Chief announced a review of the shootings by police.
Simonds is hoping that the audit will lead to recommendations that prosecutors are more willing to take civil liability cases away from police officers involved in shootings that result in deaths or serious injuries. The audit is expected to cost upwards of six million dollars. If the state auditor finds the audit to be inadequate, the state should reimburse the Los Angeles district attorney for the audit. A recent study by the Public Accountability International found that the state has a troubling problem with its investigations of police brutality, including hundreds of unfounded cases.
This audit is not the first in California by a Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.
Los Angeles already has a highly regarded criminal justice reform board and police brutality board. This new audit is part of a review that the district attorney’s office began after receiving public comment about its failure to prosecute cases involving serious injuries. State law requires a police officer to document any physical violence they witness or suspect while in the line of duty, but a lack of documentation may make it difficult for prosecutors to present such evidence in court. For these reasons, the audit is expected to help officials improve their practices with both law enforcement and the public.
The California district attorneys association has long advocated the use of video surveillance to help reduce crime and the number of injuries and deaths caused by police officers.
In response to a court ruling allowing the use of this technology in criminal investigations, the association went to work crafting model rules for law enforcement agencies nationwide. These state rules are now being adopted by nearly all major police departments. According to the association, this is “exactly what we were hoping for when California began the process of implementing its own system.”
The state’s largest police union is opposed to the idea of using video surveillance equipment to help police officers in investigations.
“The Los Angeles Police Department strongly believes that the use of video surveillance should be limited to investigations of current crime situations in which the element of surprise is not an issue,” said Capt. Tomacco of the La Mesa Police Association. The La Mesa Police Association also criticized the auditors for focusing on the enforcement of worker safety rather than worker exploitation.
During the course of the review, the state’s leading lawyers recommended that the state’s three largest district attorneys issue an amicus brief in support of their argument that the use of video surveillance increases the likelihood of an improper finding of guilt or a mistrial.
According to the recommended amicus brief, “video surveillance, when used in investigations, has been found to increase the chance of finding witnesses willing to give testimony against a defendant,” but the state argued that there is “no proven evidence” that this is actually true. The state further argued that the majority of felony cases result in a conviction, and that it costs thousands of dollars to prosecute a case that does not result in a conviction. The state further claimed that there is “little or no benefit to the defense in obtaining a trial before finding one’s self with a substantial doubt as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.” The full recommendation of the California district attorneys association reads like a textbook on police procedure: document every move, guard against hearsay evidence, and appoint a neutral third-party to make sure everything was done in the proper legal way.
There are several notable figures from within the California state government who are backing the proposal to give district attorneys more power in cases involving police activity.
Among them is state Governor Jerry Brown, who called the proposal “a major step toward curbing the abuse of police power.” Other state and local law enforcement officials have also indicated that they support the idea of giving district attorney’s more clout in determining what evidence is used in any given case. Although the bill has passed the California state legislature, it is expected to face a number of contentious battles in the courts, with the California attorney general arguing that the state’s existing statute of limitations for prosecuting police misconduct already takes care of any pending issues.