Latest Guides

Opinion & Columnists

Guest Opinion | The Science Deniers on Body Camera Policy

Published on Sunday, November 13, 2016 | 5:57 am
 

The views in guest opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Pasadena Now.

 

High-Tech Body Cams

Pasadena police union President Roger Roldan recently defended to the City Council the Pasadena Police Department’s new body camera policy that was sprung on the City this week with little notice to the public. Mr. Roldan argued that “police policy is best left up to the experts.” He wasn’t specific as to who he thinks the “experts” are, but, since Mr. Roldan and his fellow police union negotiators got the City administration to cave in to the union’s policy wishes during secret negotiations, he presumably is referring to himself, his co-negotiators, the City Manager, and the police Chief. He certainly was not referring to the large number of police science experts who believe that allowing an officer to view the video of a police shooting before the officer gives his statement to criminal investigators is the worst practice.

To the police union, “experts” are those who prefer bad practices that favor the few bad apples among officers, not expertise grounded in science. Cognitive science research shows that allowing a witness to view video of a shooting incident prior to providing his recollection of the incident will create a permanent distortion of his memory. Because video is cognitively so powerful, it taints even an honest officer’s or other witness’ memory. By allowing video-viewing before witnesses give their statements, investigators will be deprived of the witnesses’ independent perception of what occurred. The present policy that the police union negotiated for the union allows them – alone among witnesses to shootings – to never give an unvarnished answer to the critical question of why an officer acted as he did.

Claremont University’s Dr. Kathy Pezdek, one of the nation’s leading experts on eyewitness science, says eyewitnesses, including police officers, are susceptible to being influenced by body camera footage. Post-shooting viewing of video makes eyewitness accounts less reliable, not more. “Once an officer has viewed the video, his account is no longer a reliable source of evidence about his perception of what transpired at the time,” Dr. Pezdek writes. “This valuable information is forever lost.” [Adachi, J (2015, December 2) Truth lost when officers view body camera footage, San Francisco Examiner]. Without even considering the potential for an officer with a bad motive to dishonestly tailor his testimony, the expertise of eyewitness science tells us the policy the police union negotiated with the City lacks expertise. Police and prosecutors know what is the best practice, as good investigators don’t show witnesses video or other evidence before getting witness statements – except for police officers.

The initial draft body camera policy that we saw in February required officers to first give their statements to criminal investigators before viewing video; it had the best practice that was supported by the best scientific research on memory that officers could not view the video before giving their statements. But then out of public view the police union negotiated what became the final policy and got the City’s negotiators to cave in to the union’s wish for the current bad practice giving officers the right to review video before giving criminal investigators their recollection. The process ignored the weight of scientific evidence; instead, the police union was handed a policy that only protects the few bad officers by allowing them to see the video of their shooting before giving their statements so that they can match their story to the video. The public gained nothing and lost the right to get a transparent and fair investigation.

There is no expertise involved in what Mr. Roldan is defending. Let’s honestly characterize what he is in this dialogue – the science denier. Mr. Roldan is making the false claim of expertise to defend the naked self-interest of some union members, not because he is truly using expertise for best practices. We don’t fault the union; by law, unions have a legal duty of fair representation of their members, even the bad apples in their midst. So the police union is doing what the police union exists to do. The problem lies with the City administration that caved-in to the union’s wish for bad practices and thereby sold out the public interest in good investigations.

The Public Safety Committee of the Pasadena City Council is going to hold a public hearing on the body-camera policy starting at 4:15 pm on Monday, November 21, at Pasadena City Hall. Join us and add your voice to ours demanding that the Pasadena PD use best practices on body cameras rather than capitulating to the police union.

 

Skip Hickambottom and Dale Gronemeier are civil rights attorneys who litigated against the police union in order to get public release of the OIR Group review of the Pasadena Police Department’s shooting of the unarmed African-American Kendrec McDade.

Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.

Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.

Make a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

 

 

buy ivermectin online
buy modafinil online
buy clomid online
buy ivermectin online