Top
Best
New

Posted by stevenhubertron 2 days ago

Police used Flock cameras to accuse a woman of theft, she had to prove innocence(coloradosun.com)
104 points | 56 comments
yogorenapan 1 day ago|
I imagine this technology is here specifically to force people to give up on privacy. In a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, you can't even do your own secure/private tracking as any local data wouldn't have attestation. Only solution is to be rich enough to fight it out in court.
advisedwang 1 day ago||
More importantly than attestation or local tracking vs cloud based is that you are forced to do tracking at all.

I shouldn't have to create documentary evidence of where I am at all times in order to fight spurious accusations regardless of how I do it.

giraffe_lady 1 day ago||
This is also blatantly an engine for parallel construction & evidence laundering at a massive scale. The only things holding law enforcement back from using it that way is the commitment of individual departments to following the rules of due process, or their fear of the consequences for violating them. So effectively nothing. And everyone involved in building, selling, buying, and using this tool knows that.
advisedwang 1 day ago||
I don't understand what process was going on here. Why was police showing up on her doorstep and having a back and forth if they had evidence? File charges and she can fight them.

Why is she supplying evidence to the police dept? If they haven't filed charges just ignore them? If they have, evidence goes to court.

keernan 1 day ago||
If I read the story correctly, he was delivering the summons. Therefore she was charged and a court date was pending.
advisedwang 1 day ago||
So that means the case has been referred to a prosecutor who has already started the criminal case, right? So why the hell is the police having a back and forth with the defendant about the case?

Why is she talking to the police and not the prosecutor, who at that point is needed for a dismissal on the law enforcement side?

It just all seems weird and contrary to my understanding of the system

keernan 1 day ago||
>>So that means the case has been referred to a prosecutor who has already started the criminal case, right?

I certainly do not know how every state sets up their Judicial system but in my experience most states have a County Court System where jury trials take place. Appeals are taken to an intermediate court (usually referred to as Appellate) and above that is the final and highest court (usually referred to as the Supreme Court; but interestingly enough, NY refers to their trial court as Supreme Court).

There is usually a separate local system commonly referred to as Municipal Court. I spent my career in the trial courts at the County or Federal District Court level, so I don't have intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of Municipal Courts. But, to the extent I had any interactions at that level, the majority of the cases in Municipal Court are traffic offenses (some can be quite serious such as DWI or when someone died in a car crash). But it has been my experience that most Municipal Courts do not have a jury box and do not handle jury cases (although I have a vague memory of being in a municipal court in a large city that had a jury box).

Municipal Court often have different Rules of Court than do the County Courts. Often appeals of Municipal Court are handled at the County Trial Court level with a brand new trial, instead of by the County Appellate level.

And Municipal Courts work hand in hand with the local prosecutor and local police (this is a local town court remember). Cases often are seen by the prosecutor for the first time when he arrives in Court (usually open just one night a week in towns, but during the day and perhaps every day for larger cities). Usually the police are free to dismiss charges on their own depending upon the seriousness of the charge and whether or not the prosecutor has become involved in the case.

In this case we know the charges were dropped by the police department, not the prosecutor, so that suggests to me the prosecutor was likely never aware of the incident or the charges.

dragonwriter 23 hours ago|||
This was specifically listed as a summons. Even in places with a normal rules for “filing charges” (requiring a prosecutor), police can often issue summons for non-arrestable offenses (and sometimes as an alternative to arrest for arrestable offenses). The prosecutor will still have to file charges before the arraignment, but the police may retain the ability to withdraw the summons (and cancel their request to the DA to file charges) unilaterally before that occurs.
advisedwang 23 hours ago|||
Wow I never new there were jurisdictions where the police could make charging (and dismissal) decisions themselves. That's wild
mindslight 1 day ago||
This isn't television where a bunch of attorneys immediately show up because they are actors paid by the production company. Going to court is an extremely heavyweight and expensive process. Retaining a criminal defense attorney will cost you a $10k retainer to start. Most people will talk to the police to try to head off the situation from escalating that way.
sidewndr46 1 day ago|||
I don't know where you are but a criminal defense attorney does not start at $10,000.

Also talking to the police is a great way to wind up in jail for a long time

mindslight 1 day ago||
> Also talking to the police is a great way to wind up in jail for a long time

Or it's a way to clear up a situation without incurring a life-altering debt and criminal record. We hear about the horrible stories, but people are generally people. If you're facing serious (felony) charges, actually guilty and they're building a case, don't know how to talk without spilling a bunch of possibly-incriminating details, think the cops have it personally out for you, etc, then of course shut the fuck up and assert the full extent of the process. But for many situations this can actually be terrible advice.

I was actually just on the other side of this with a juvenile first time offender (property crime). The kid was obviously guilty, open and shut evidence, and admitted it to the detective. The detective advocated for him (them), encouraging me to settle for a small informal cash restitution payment rather than insisting it go to trial. That kid has now been hopefully scared straight, without having a criminal record hanging over his head. I hope he can keep it that way.

Citizen8396 1 day ago||
They are not mutually exclusive. You can cooperate with police at a lawyer's recommendation. If someone tries to pressure you from talking to a lawyer, they're doing it to manipulate you to their advantage. In your scenario, first time youth offenders almost always will have diversion as an option. If the situation can be remediated so easily, then the cost would not be too great. It seems far more likely to result in a better (or at least neutral) outcome with a lawyer.
mindslight 23 hours ago||
> someone tries to pressure you from talking to a lawyer

add that to the list of when one should pull the ripcord on DIY and find/demand an attorney

> It seems far more likely to result in a better (or at least neutral) outcome with a lawyer.

So in my case the outcome was a restitution payment of a few hundred dollars. I don't know what the bottom of the market for attorneys looks like, but I would be highly surprised if you could find one to get involved for less than a two hour commitment (let's say $500). So right off the bat, that would have tripled the cost of the outcome. Never mind when the detective now sees mom, despite being ostensibly "poor", has enough money to afford that attorney (and make the detective's job harder!). So he stops telling me that I should be content with a few hundred dollars, and I instead claim a much higher amount of actual damages including the time I had to spend.

(Note that my comments on this matter are all modulo assuming the kid is guilty. There was pretty strong evidence left behind the scene, and yes, I am mostly just taking the detective's word for it. Obviously if the kid was innocent and being framed by some other kid, then the downside to not hiring an attorney becomes a bit harder to stomach, despite the same financial incentives remaining)

sidewndr46 1 hour ago||
Having spoken with criminal defense attorneys about this exact subject, speaking with the police if you are guilty is explicitly a bad idea. Guilt does not imply conviction. The two events are more decoupled than anyone in the justice system wants to admit
mindslight 31 minutes ago||
Criminal defense attorneys speak from a perspective of ignoring that they cost a lot of money. That was the point I made, and you completely skipped.
BizarroLand 1 day ago|||
$10k is a massive exaggeration. Many lawyers can be retained for $500, and if you can show that affording that is untenable they will work out a payment plan for your court appointed lawyer.
mindslight 1 day ago||
$500 is two hours of time for a very low hourly rate. You might luck into finding an attorney that is chummy with the right policy/prosecutor to clear something like this up that quick, but I doubt it. $10k has been the standard retainer for a few other legal issues I've dealt with lately, and I doubt most criminal defense attorneys are going to want less if they foresee any chance of the case dragging out.

> they will work out a payment plan for your court appointed lawyer

Have you actually been there and done anything like this? From what I've seen, the reality is much much much different than the marketing.

BizarroLand 23 hours ago||
It's been a minute, but I've retained a lawyer in the past. The $500 was just to have a conversation and to lay out the plan of attack if needed.

Fortunately, it didn't go anywhere after that and the whole matter was dropped, but I didn't have to roll in with $10k just to get started.

mindslight 20 hours ago||
$500 makes sense for a few hours conversation. Once they start talking to people on your behalf, writing letters, etc, that same hourly rate applies but its other people running up your clock. As you were discussing a plan of action, did that attorney give you any idea what costs you were looking at if the situation started to require serious work on their part?
BizarroLand 17 hours ago||
It was a simple criminal matter, dismissed for lack of evidence and I was innocent besides.

I work with lawyers now and the highest paid lawyer I know charges $1,200/hr. The associates charge $350/hr.

$10k is still insane unless you're getting a named partner to run your case or if you're in for a serious crime.

mindslight 13 hours ago||
Maybe criminal matters are much less time-intensive than I am used to? $350/hr matches my experience. I just figured attorneys would expect to use at least 20-30 hours on a criminal case, the same way they expect to use at least that much time on straightforward civil matters.
CrimsonCape 1 day ago||
When the detective says "I've got that (that = doorbell camera quality footage) on my phone right now of you taking that package."

This is clearly a police officer saying that she is a thief and felon. Isn't this slanderous/defamatory? The trial had not even occurred to prove guilt.

Does she have grounds to sue the police department for defamation?

duskwuff 1 day ago||
> Does she have grounds to sue the police department for defamation?

No. Defamation is an injury to a person's reputation. For that injury to occur, a third party has to hear (and believe) the derogatory statement - if there's no one else to hear that statement, it's not defamatory.

pavel_lishin 1 day ago|||
Police are allowed to lie during interrogations in every state in America:

- https://innocenceproject.org/news/police-deception-lying-int...

- https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-4974964/police-deceptio...

iAMkenough 1 day ago||
Intentionality matters in defamation cases.

She could spend thousands of dollars to sue the department for defamation, but she would have to prove without a shadow of a doubt "the speaker had a reckless disregard for the truth" when making the harmful statement, and then prove damages resulting directly from the statement.

The police department would then use her and her neighbors tax dollars to argue the officer followed procedure and did not intentionally lie with an intent to harm her reputation.

A jury would then determine if the police department fabricated the investigation or piece of evidence just so they could intentionally slander and ruin this woman's reputation.

Pfhortune 16 hours ago||
> “You know we have cameras in that town. You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing"

What a thing to say...

toomuchtodo 1 day ago||
Title is "After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence."
keernan 1 day ago||
While I'm not a criminal attorney, I'm not sure if this is much different than a prosecution based upon an allegation that the defendant being identified by a bank camera capturing an image of a bank robber. If criminal charges are filed, a preliminary determination of probable cause must be made.

In a case where there was no supporting evidence - e.g. literally the only evidence is a camera image of person, I would imagine the image would have to be close to irrefutable in order to meet a probable cause standard.

Since we now know that the person depicted on the ring camera was not the defendant - and that the police voluntarily dismissed the charges when confronted with evidence showing they were wrong, makes it pretty clear the police filed charges without evidenced that could have passed the probable cause test.

This isn't necessarily the problem of using an image as evidence of a crime. It's a problem with the police filing charges in a manner they know is an abuse of their authority, but not giving a sh*t because it was only $25 and that it would be heard in Municipal Court - a place where the local Judge and Prosecutor have to get along with the Police and therefore the local police know they will never be punished for their abusive behavior.

daotoad 1 day ago||
FTA: “We thought nothing of it, as common surveillance, that’s great,” Elser said of the cameras. “You’re watching for crime — not to wrongly accuse somebody.”

So, what did she learn?

Imagine if she hadn't been able to afford a Rivian or a lawyer. The police could easily have handcuffed her and put her in jail on day 1. Without a good lawyer, what chance of release would she have had? Bail? Sure, but if you can't afford it or don't have someone to put up a bond, guess what? You're not going home.

Had the victim of this police overreach been less privileged, she could easily have been convicted.

mindslight 1 day ago||
Police overreach that wantonly harms innocent people will continue to grow until police departments are made to routinely and predictably compensate their victims for the damages they cause - in this case, the costs of having to hire an attorney, time spent responding and collecting evidence, emotional distress, etc. These are all part of the cost of having law enforcement, but are currently being shirked by the municipalities deputizing the police departments and instead levied as externalities that fall onto unlucky victims.

Once the accounting is corrected, these issues mostly become cost-benefit tradeoffs. Should department policy allow officers to continue focusing solely on someone they believe is a perpetrator based on circumstantial evidence, but who insists innocence and immediately offers up their own evidence? Should a city adopt Flock even though it costs a bunch of money, both for the service and for the false positives it generates? Town/city government might decide they're willing to pay for these things. But at least it will be an honest decision, made by the people ultimately responsible for it.

potato3732842 1 day ago|
Until we get a SC ruling that reigns in the use of civil infractions as a revenue stream it'll continue. Most of these people being abused despite being innocent are just the rare bycatch of using police to generate revenue. You're always gonna have that bycatch because even if they have to pay out to make those people whole it's still worth it to run the system.
mindslight 1 day ago||
A Supreme Council decree would be one path to reform. State laws would be another. Even if this widely-scoped concept of sovereign immunity continues to exist, governments can always create laws to waive it.
rekabis 1 day ago||
Almost makes an 18-hr body cam worth it.
more_corn 1 day ago|
This is kafkaesque. “I know you committed a crime because I have video”. Can I see the video? “No”. I found the video. That’s not me and they don’t get into my vehicle. “We know it was you” here let me spend a week of sleepless nights collecting exhaustive evidence that it wasn’t me. “Good detective work!”

I wonder if the cops just picked a car at random and said that was the thief.

More comments...