Indiana Supreme Court Declares An Officer's Testimony Is More Reliable Than Video Evidence

from the apparently,-LISTENING-is-believing dept

Seeing how often official reports by law enforcement are contradicted by video recordings, you'd think judges would have become a bit more skeptical about the supposed "superiority" of officers' recall powers. But that's apparently not the case, at least not in Indiana, where the state's Supreme Court has ruled that officer memory trumps video recordings.

Videotape evidence can be overruled by the testimony and after-the-fact interpretation of a police officer, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last week. In a 6 to 1 decision, justices overruled the state Court of Appeals which reviewed dashcam footage of Joanna S. Robinson driving her Chrysler PT Cruiser at around 1am on October 15, 2011 in Elkhart County and found no evidence of a crime.
In the case being discussed, the officer following Robinson's car observed it veering over the fog line twice, which gave him the reasonable suspicion he needed to pull her over. Once pulled over, Robinson blew a .09 BAC (.01 over the legal limit) and volunteered to the officer that she was also in possession of a small amount of marijuana. During her trial, she attempted to have the evidence suppressed on the basis that the officer did not have the reasonable suspicion needed to pull her over.

The Supreme Court reviewed the dashboard cam recording, concluding that while it may have not showed exactly what the officer claimed (or indeed, any solid evidence that Robinson's driving was impaired), it was clearly inferior to the officer's observational skills and experience.
Deputy Claeys, as he drove down County Road 4 on that October night, was observing Robinson’s vehicle through the lens of his experience and expertise. And when Deputy Claeys testified at the suppression hearing, the trial judge heard his testimony—along with the other witness testimony and evidence, including the video—through the lens of his experience and expertise. Ultimately, that experience and expertise led the trial judge to weigh Deputy Claeys’s testimony more heavily than the video evidence, and we decline Robinson’s invitation to substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court and rebalance the scales in her favor.
This conclusion was reached despite Claeys' "superior" observational skills observing things that didn't actually happen.
Deputy Claeys testified “both passenger side tires were over the fog line” and “completely off the roadway” “twice.”
As the single dissenting opinion notes, the previous court found Claeys' recall of the events suspect.
The trial court summarized the evidence presented, observing that “the officer in this case has testified that defendant drove off the roadway on two occasions.” The court further acknowledged that “[i]t is quite possible that the officer’s actual visual observation of the defendant’s vehicle was superior to the video camera in his car.” But the court recognized that the video did not reflect that the vehicle “actually left the roadway” but only that it “veer[ed] on two occasions onto the white fog line.”
Despite this disparity, the trial court still felt that "veering onto the fog line" was enough reasonable suspicion (for a "well-trained officer") to justify a stop. Judge Rucker points out how ridiculous this assumption is.
The Court of Appeals reviewed numerous cases from other jurisdictions as well as prior Indiana precedent, all of which support the proposition that mere “brief contact with the fog line or swerving within a lane”—without more—is ordinarily insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of impaired driving [...] I agree and would reiterate the observation that “if failure to follow a perfect vector down the highway or keeping one’s eyes on the road were sufficient reasons to suspect a person of driving while impaired, a substantial portion of the public would be subject each day to an invasion of their privacy.”
Despite the appeals court's conclusions and the deputy's faulty recall, the Indiana Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's finding.
The trial court found, as a matter of fact, that to the extent Deputy Claeys’s testimony conflicted with the video, the former was more reliable than the latter.
While it's certainly true that video itself can be open to the interpretation of its viewers (as is noted in the majority opinion), it's hardly as subjective as a single officer's portrayal of events. What is often depicted as superior instinct and training may actually be nothing more than self-delusion or post facto justification for rights violations. This sets a precedent for Indiana that suggests exculpatory video evidence will be given less weight than the "expert" testimony of law enforcement officers.

Filed Under: evidence, indiana, police


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Scott, 10 Apr 2014 @ 8:02am

    Hmmmm....

    I am sure that the deputy could make a mistake and think that the car swerved over the line when it was merely on the line. If you've ever refereed any sport where on or over the line is crucial, you know how difficult that judgment can be. I am also sure the video camera would record the incident exactly, and by stop-framing replay you could determine exactly where the tires were.

    But, I don't think the excerpt of the document that states "Ultimately, that experience and expertise led the trial judge to weigh Deputy Claeys’s testimony more heavily than the video evidence" is meant to imply that the deputy saw correctly and the camera did not. All it is saying is that the video is just one piece of evidence reflecting one element of a whole host of inputs, conditions, and events that the deputy had at his disposal and interpreted based on his experience and expertise.

    It turns out that Deputy Claeys' experience and expertise were absolutely correct -- the woman was DUI and who knows what else that was illegal.

    The point here is that Claeys made a judgment call based on his expertise and experience to investigate suspicious behavior. I also don't think that the dissenting judge would know better than an experienced police officer about what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" for pulling someone over on the Indiana by-ways at 1 AM. I doubt Judge Rucker has any experience as a police office, but that is an assumption.

    In any case, whether the car was over the line or on the line, the woman was swerving in her lane in a suspicious manner and may have been exhibiting other suspicious behavior we know nothing about.

    I think it's a good thing that Deputy Chaeys didn't first pull over to review the camera footage and say, "Well, she didn't actually CROSS the line as I thought, guess I'll let her go. Don't matter, she got away while I was reviewing this video anyway and I have no idea where she is now." I really don't see a dangerous precedent being set by this case. Seems to me the question isn't the evidence used for conviction (there was plenty more for that), it's about whether the deputy was justified in pulling her over based on what he saw.

    It looks to me like Deputy Claeys ought to be commended for getting a drunk driver (and possibly pot-head) off the road before she killed somebody. I don't understand why he'd be blasted for doing his job well. Looks to me like the case affirms his expertise and experience in traffic law enforcement.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.