NJ State Trooper Feels The Best Part About The Required Dashcam Is The OFF Button

from the welcome-to-new-jersey,-here's-your-complimentary-beating dept

We've seen plenty of stories here dealing with law enforcement's general displeasure with having their actions captured on camera by citizens (with one rare, exemplary exception). An odd stance to take, considering most law enforcement officers are recording a majority of their interactions with the public -- except when it's more convenient not to. Scott Greenfield runs down the details of another case where a state trooper's camera was used selectively to "throw out" incriminating evidence.
The virtue of having a video of police encounters has been proven over and over, whether because it belies the allegations of a crime or proves them. But then, sometimes the guy with his finger on the dashcam's "on" button may not want evidence of what is about to happen. Via NJ.com:

Allen Bass, 50, sued Trooper Gerald Dellagicoma and others in 2009, claiming they punched and kicked him multiple times, causing him to urinate on himself, after he complied with their commands to get off his bicycle at Ellis Avenue and Clinton Avenue in Irvington a year earlier.

[Bass] was riding his bike July 10, 2008, in Irvington when Dellagicoma and other troopers who were on patrol in the area got out of their patrol cars and ordered him to stop. Bass claimed he laid on the ground chest-down and spread his arms and legs.

Troopers allegedly then punched and kicked him before arresting him. Bass was charged with drug possession, resisting arrest by flight and resisting arrest by force, court documents show.

Ultimately, the charges against Bass were dropped because the officers failed to show up in court. That, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily indicate any sort of irresponsibility or maliciousness on behalf of the troopers involved. But one of State Trooper Dellagicoma's actions during the incident certainly does.
Court documents show Dellagicoma, who joined the force in 2001, failed to activate his patrol car camera and was suspended without pay for 30 days, but only served 15 days of that suspension.
And this wasn't an isolated incident.
Records show Dellagicoma was reprimanded several times prior to the incident for the same infraction.
In fact, Dellagicoma is named in another federal civil suit for basically the same actions:
In another federal civil lawsuit, Salah Williams of Newark, an African-American, claims he was a victim of racial profiling, excessive force and malicious prosecution when Dellagicoma allegedly assaulted, maced, arrested and charged him for no reason while walking near his store in the city... Similar to the Bass case, Dellagicoma also failed to activate his patrol car camera and appear in court, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against Williams.
This is a big problem. As Greenfield points out, New Jersey State Troopers are required to record every interaction with the public.
What makes this special is that in New Jersey, there is a requirement that arose from the racial profiling scandal that rocked the Turnpike, that all encounters with State Troopers be videotaped. The state was kind enough to put cameras in cruisers. Never again would a trooper be falsely accused of profiling a driver just because he was black. (This is known as the "black plus" theory of profiling.)
The bigger problem is the handling of those who choose to grant themselves exceptions to this requirement. The offense is treated as a minor infraction, punishable by a written reprimand or a short suspension -- neither of which are severe enough to make troopers like Dellagicoma reconsider hitting the OFF switch when it suits them.
The only way an incentive system works is to make the cost of noncompliance greater than the cost of compliance. Apparently, a written reprimand and a few days suspension doesn't cut it. And when it happens repeatedly, it is clearly failing to serve as a deterrent. That's not good enough.

The efficacy of video depends on its actually being used, in every instance and including the entire encounter. Anything less reduces it to a game, where the police make the rules, and the rules will not be good for the other side.
Citizens aren't going to be on hand to record all of these interactions, although each passing day provides more and more documentation captured by the public, many of whom put themselves in harm's way to secure this footage. And it's a sign that the system is pretty screwed up if "recording the police" often equates to "putting yourself in harm's way."

This single incident cost New Jersey taxpayers $50,000 and did more damage to the already-questionable reputation of NJ state troopers. All it cost Dellagicoma was a single paycheck, leaving him free to "fail to activate" his camera again and again as the situation suits him. 


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 8:32am

    Banks have been bailed out and got only a wrist slap for fucking up with the financial system.

    Sounds familiar?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris-Mouse (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 8:40am

    Given the current state of recording technology and the requirement for the police to record their interactions with the public, why is there an "off" button on the camera system at all?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Aaron Von Gauss, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:01am

      Re:

      Agreed. I can't think of a single reason myself why a regular marked patrol car's dash camera would need an off button. It's far more likely to help the officer in the long run than capture an awkward moment.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Rob, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re:

        It's far more likely to help the officer in the long run than capture an awkward moment.

        But if the guy controlling the on/off switch is the same guy who's planning whether or not to create an . . . "awkward moment" . . . then it's the best of both worlds, right?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 3:14pm

      Re:

      > why is there an "off" button on the camera
      > system at all?

      If there was no 'off' button, they'd just work around it. You'd end up having a 'randomly' placed coffee cup on the dashboard that just happens to block the view of the camera.

      Or the cruiser will just happen to end up stopped so that the camera is pointing off to the side instead of at the car in front of the cruiser.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 8:42am

    Why the heck is there an off switch?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      New automatic assumptions- If the camera is turned off the officer is A)beating the suspect, B)soliciting a bribe, C) getting serviced... Nothing good comes with turning off the camera.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:08am

      Re:

      They need to be able to turn off the camera to beat suspects in private...I mean to protect the privacy of people not suspected of being beaten...or I mean a crime.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Paul Brinker, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 8:46am

    I would suspect the battery runs out at some point, if there was no off button then the cop would just run the battery out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 8:53am

      Re:

      It's connected to the patrol car which is always charging it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BeaverJuicer (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 8:58am

      Re:

      Wouldn't the smart thing be to hook the camera into the car battery, so as to prevent such a problem?

      I suspect it is more likely that the Police Union demanded it to prevent recording of "private matters" that happen on the job. On occasion, we all have to make phone calls home, etc while at work. Even the police, while on the job, have the right to some form of privacy during those situations.

      I recommend giving them a button to "redact" the footage by flicking a switch. Similar to commercial skipping technology in DVR's. Don't erase it, but mark it so that any normal monitoring of said footage would be "skipped" unless there was specific reason to go back and view it - such as a claim of excessive force.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:42am

        Re: Re:

        Or require them to make personal calls outside away from the vehicle if they need privacy. I don't have such privacy in my workplace unless I leave the building.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      bob, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:29am

      Re: batteries running out

      I'm guessing they wired the camera into the cars electrical system. there's plenty of battery.
      I don't know how much tape there is, but I would say it makes sense to make sure a tape can cover 2 shifts, and if there was any issue, the tape is turned in as part o the evidence at the end of shift, otherwise it is reused.
      haha. tape..
      hdd nowadays.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    pcdec, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 8:52am

    Mabey trooper Dellagicoma is just forgetful. He forgets to show up at court. He forgets to turn on the camera. He apparently also forgot that he can't just do whatever the hell he wants.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Kevin H (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 8:59am

      Re:

      He forgot the basic rights of the population he swore to protect. Sounds like a case of selective amnesia.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:59am

        Re: Re:

        It makes me wonder... Why do we give officers so much power if they can't use it responsibly?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Kevin H (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:03am

          Re: Re: Re:

          A problem I feel we have in this nation is that we romanticize and elevate the police beyond your standard citizen. This leads them to have feelings that they are better than most and are not required to play by the rules like the rest of us are expected too.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 12:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I agree. Personally, I think that criminal misbehavior by a police officer (on or off duty) should be automatically punished with a much greater level of severity than the same crime committed by an ordinary citizen. Cops are given extraordinary powers. They need to be held to an equally extraordinary standard of conduct.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              btr1701 (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 3:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              > Personally, I think that criminal misbehavior
              > by a police officer (on or off duty) should be
              > automatically punished with a much greater level
              > of severity than the same crime committed by an
              > ordinary citizen.

              You'd run into some 14th Amendment/Equal Protection issues with that plan.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:24am

      Re:

      He forgot he doesn't work for the UFC

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 4:05pm

      Re:

      As disgusting as the idea is, considering the 'punishment' he's faced so far for his actions, his apparent belief that he can in fact do whatever he wants seems to be spot on.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:08am

    OK now. Did he fail to turn it on, or did he actually turn it off?

    There's a difference. If he actively turned it off, he should be fired on the first offense. If he failed to turn it on, that MIGHT mean it was an accident, and a suspension and reprimand might be in order.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mr. Applegate, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:23am

      Re:

      Most of the police cameras I have seen are actually turned on by activating the lights / siren, and then run until turned off or a set amount of time after the lights sirens have been turned off.

      With current technology I would think they should have cameras running during the entire shift and the video stored for 30 days before overwriting. The technology exists, is cheap, and could even include a 'cop cam' worn by the officer connected via RF.

      In fact, if the car is a take home car it should record off duty use too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:05am

        Re: Re:

        Why store for 30 days, it should be a period of years. I'm not sure how many hours of video can be recorded on a 1 TB hard drive, but it's enough that they should be able to NEVER delete the footage.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Mr. Applegate, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I am thinking more along the lines of a 'black box' in an airplane. There really isn't any need to keep hours and hours of footage that, in most cases no one cares about.

          The number of hours depends on the storage method, resolution... However, police cars will not have the compression ratios that store cameras have because there is simply too much motion in the frame. This means it will take more space to store. Also you don't want to use traditional hard drives in a car (especially not high capacity drives) the jarring and motion will result in premature failure.

          30 days is enough time that requests could be made to hold onto the data, but not so much time that it would greatly increase the cost of the technology. Most security video is kept 7 or 30 days. (Yes there are many exceptions).

          Now it might be a good idea that any actions taken by the officer in relation to charges be kept until that case has made it's way through the court system. So for instance if a citation is issued, or arrest made that video is transferred to the court system and preserved until the case has reached it's end.

          But let's face it, most of the time the video is not going to contain anything of value, and as such there is no need to keep it forever.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Argonel (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:13am

    Make suspensions matter

    If each incident where he "forgets" to turn on the camera resulted in a mandatory 30 day unpaid suspension it might matter to the trooper. Of course the other half of that should be that troopers on suspension cannot trade on their membership in the state patrol for jobs. I.E. no moonlighting as a security guard or bouncer while on suspension. I'm not sure if acting as a stripper should count as taking advantage of their position as a trooper or not. If it actually hurts him in the wallet he may change his ways or he will have to start living out of his squad car.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:42am

      Re: Make suspensions matter

      Suspensions are worthless. I just read a story today about an officer in Seattle (Shandy Cobane) who was caught on video saying he would "kick the (expletive) Mexican piss out of you" to a Latino man and then proceeded to kick him for no reason. He was given 30 days of no-pay, but then allowed to do overtime to make it up. Just recently he was rewarded by being put on a more prestigious unit, even though the public was told he would be demoted to patrol duty. The police chief said he wanted to fire him right after the incident, but a few months later when people were starting to forget about the story, he decided against it.

      There is no punishment for police that isn't eventually rectified by the people supposedly punishing them. They wait for the story to blow over, and then make it all good again. Police look out for other police long before they look out for the public. It's why all cops get a deserved bad rap. They don't need to be bad themselves, they just need to harbor the bad ones and pretend that they are still good.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Andrew Norton (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:23am

    Indeed. There needs to be serious reform of punishments to both law enforcement, and politicians.

    I noted down some suggestions a months ago - http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/08/how-the-police-and-politicians-can-regain-the-public-trust/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:42am

    this is like giving a credit card to a shopaholic and saying 'you can go to the store, but you're not allowed to buy'! give me strength!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:12am

    All it cost?

    All it cost Dellagicoma was a single paycheck, leaving him free to "fail to activate" his camera again and again as the situation suits him.

    I don't know about you, but losing even one paycheck would be enough to change my behavior pretty quick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:19am

      Re: All it cost?

      You probably have the self-control to not kick and punch people laying on the ground about to be arrested.

      I'm sure you have a behavior or three that you wouldn't be able to stop if it cost you a paycheck.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:16am

    The cop needs an off switch...as in OFF the force, OFF the taxpayer's money, and OFF the streets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:20am

      Re:

      Unfortunately, they leave that switch in the hands of the individual officers as well.

      Perhaps if he were caught trying to solicit underage children they would ask him to retire with a full pension and we wouldn't have to deal with him anymore.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:06am

    Just store 7 days or so worth of data in the car and have it auto upload wirelessly to a server once they get back to the police station.

    The camera and storage should also be hardwired and locked so the officer can not disable or delete anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 4:18pm

    Providing motivation

    Want to give cops motivation to keep the cameras rolling while on the job? Make it so that if the camera is turned off, any statements/claims the police officer make are automatically considered false, while any statements/claims the suspect make are automatically considered true, as long as said statements are even remotely feasible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 5:51pm

    Just goes to show..

    that the states always side with the cops. The cops firmly believe that they are above the law and should be able to do whatever they d*** well please. They always say "if you have nothing to hide..", but they firmly believe that doesn't apply to them. The "internal affairs" departments exist solely to absolve cops of misbehavior and/or recommend mild punishment for criminal action. Plus the police unions are even more firm that cops do no wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 6:15pm

    3 strikes and you're out. Let em turn it off if they want to, then drum em off the force if they can't keep their finger off the off button.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2014 @ 3:57am

    The reason state trooper was there is that Irvington NJ police itself is under long term supervision for corruption. Both do patrols, and SP has permanent "temporary" station in the city. It seems that city is dumping ground for SP.

    Irvington is bordering Newark, and area in question is typical urban ghetto.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This