Texas Appeals Court: Motorists Have No Right To Potentially Exculpatory Dashcam Footage
16 August A.D. 2013
More on the theme of evidence destruction. That´s the focus of the
story and the case below.
In addition to that, let´s look at this one from some additional
angles.
1. Where´s the definition of any "crime" regarding turn
indicators? There isn´t one.
§ 545.104.
Signaling Turns; Use of Turn Signals
(a)
An operator shall use the signal authorized by Section
545.106 to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes,
or start from a parked position.
(b)
An operator intending to turn a vehicle right or left
shall signal continuously for not less than the last 100
feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn.
(c)
An operator may not light the signals on only one side
of the vehicle on a parked or disabled vehicle or use
the signals as a courtesy or “do pass” signal to the
operator of another vehicle approaching from the rear.
"Shall" language is the statutory confession that there´s one and
only one way that language becomes enforceable: "by agreement."
("Federal" means "federal." At the level of the individual,
"federal" means "by agreement.")
For there to be a "crime" defined, the language has to be "shall
not." There is no crime defined with "shall" language.
If there were an exception to that, what would it be? Where the
relationship sounds in trust, then the fiduciary who doesn´t perform
the "shall" terms may be in breach. It´s possible for a breach of
fiduciary duty to constitute a crime.
2. Who has to use a turn indicator (properly)? Here, an
"operator." What is an "operator?" The person behind the wheel of
either a "vehicle" or a "motor vehicle." The disciplined
"transportation" code associates "operator" with "motor vehicle."
Not all "transportation" codes are disciplined. So, verify in your
STATE what "operator" is associated with.
3. When one gets sick and tired of this sort of bad faith, or at
least the appearance of bad faith, what´s the solution?
"THE" solution for "everything" "federal" is very, very simple:
Stop volunteering. Stop asking to be regulated. Stop agreeing to
be regulated.
Since this present system is 100% commercial, we have 100% control
over such matters.
Always remember that when one is behind the wheel, one of two lines
of conduct is in play: (A) one is exercising his "right to travel,"
or (B) one is exercising his "privilege" to engage in that regulated
form of commerce called "transportation." That "privilege" is known
popularly as "driving." It´s also called "operating" in some
STATEs.
How do the cops determine the distinction? How do the courts
determine the distinction? What´s the issue "worth" to those
thinking about engaging the debate?
It´s unknown whether the cops are trained to know to look for the
distinction. This author expects that there´s been enough
litigation over the "right to travel" that there have to be a few
cops here and there who at least know enough to know when not to
issue tickets. It´s unlikely that there´ll ever be formal training
on the difference. Once the cops are allowed to reflect on the
differences, they´ll come to the same conclusion we have, namely
that it´s all a big scam. Should they arrive at that perspective,
revenue tends to decline.
The debate exists only where the cops are not trained well enough to
know the difference. Thus, to be in court is to rely on what the
court´s look for in order to distinguish "traveling" from
"driving/operating." It´ll come down to the use of the "license" at
the time of the stop. This is an easy matter for those who have no
"license," for no mistake can be made when it comes to displaying
one. There isn´t one to display. While that should be treated as
the "best evidence" of the intent NOT to consent to being regulated
under the "transportation" code, it´s treated as the "best evidence"
of the intent to commit an offense called "driving without a
license." Those who have a "license" will, under the pressures of
the moment, be very tempted to display it to the officer. What this
author expects that act does is provide, at that instant, the
equivalent of this affirmative statement: "Please regulate me!"
One has to decide in his own mind whether he´s "driving/operating"
or "traveling" the instant that seat belt is fastened. "Travelers"
don´t need "licenses," because "traveling" is a right. It´s the
commercial activity called "driving" or "operating" that is
commercial and for which a "license" is required.
Bottom line, the "driver" who produces a "license" at the time of
the stop is very dependent on the "good will" and "good faith" of
those running this present system. The "traveler" doesn´t have to
depend on anything except the commitment to survive the coming
litigation activity. The courts do recognize the difference between
"traveling" and "driving/operating." The judges may, right now,
have an edge on the appreciation of that distinction, in that not
even very many defendants who can discern the differences
conceptually are in a position to make that distinction stick when
it comes to the debates in the public forums.
As we´re pushed more and more into "compliance," a "kiss our
jackboots" mentality, more and more people will come to questioning
the legal mechanism. Key to working through that threshold inquiry
is knowing that we do not now have and have never had a
"constitutional" system. We have a Monte Hall´s "Let´s Make A
Deal!" system. One "makes a deal" for purposes of "transportation"
code enforcement the instant that "license" is used/displayed/shown
at the time of the stop. Those who communicate, "Please regulate
me!" will get that, and more.
Whether or not the stop at the heart of the case below was in good
faith, "the" solution for such situations is not found in a
discussion on the merits. "The" solution is found in the preventive
stage. Those in a position to articulate the differences between
"traveling" and "driving" don´t ever get to the merits, because the
threshold question of whether the "transportation" code even applies
is where that conversation stops. Because the reality is still in
path-blazing mode, the obvious is not accepted judicially, yet.
But, to break through that glass ceiling, we have to know their
system better than they do. One demonstrates a commanding
understanding of the law by taking charge, ahead of time, over the
relevant FACTS.
Drivers have no recourse if police say the tape from a
dashboard-mounted video camera is not available, according to
a ruling Wednesday from the Texas Court of Appeals. Mark Lee
Martin wanted to defend himself against drug possession
charges filed in the wake of an August 29, 2008 traffic stop,
but he was told no video was available.
Travis County Sheriff’s Deputy Darren Jennings claimed that
he pulled over Martin that evening because he failed to signal
a left-hand turn. Within less than two weeks after the
incident, Martin’s attorney formally requested that the
department preserve video evidence from the stop. Subpoenas
were issued to ensure “all videos and dispatch calls” would be
saved. At trial, Jennings was asked why the camera evidence
had not been kept.
“Since I didn’t put it in my report it wasn’t preserved
because I didn’t believe it had any type of evidential value,”
Jennings told the court.
The dashcam is automatically activated when an officer turns
on his emergency lights. Department policy states that all
video must automatically be saved for thirty days. Jennings
could not say whether his machine was operating that night,
but he would have noted either at the beginning or end of the
shift if the device had not been functional. Jennings stated
that the only way to know for sure if the video had been taken
would have been if he had preserved the video. Martin argued
the police were obviously hiding evidence.
“The officers intentionally destroyed the video and thereby
put exculpatory evidence as far as the search is concerned or
evidence favorable to the accused out of the reach of the
accused,” Martin’s attorney claimed. “We feel that for no
other reason the search is invalid and any evidence found as a
result of that search should be suppressed.”
The appellate court found no merit in this argument.
“We agree with the state that the record supports a finding
by the district court that the police did not act in bad
faith,” Justice Bob Pemberton wrote. “The United States
Supreme Court has held that ‘unless a criminal defendant can
show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve
potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of
due process of law.’”
The court found no evidence of bad faith because the officer
testified that he had “no clue” whether there even was a
recording made.
Last March, Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot of the Second Court of
Appeals in Texas complained in a dissent that when defendants
accused of driving while intoxicated in Fort Worth challenge
the charges in court, dash-camera video of their arrests is
often missing or damaged. “At some point,” Dauphinot wrote,
“courts must address the repeated failure of officers to use
the recording equipment and their repeated inability to
remember whether the car they were driving on patrol or to a
DWI stop contained the video equipment the City of Fort Worth
has been paying for.”
Well I guess they are addressing it, now. They’re giving cops a
how-to guide when it comes to destroying dash cam footage that
makes them look bad, or that could exonerate a motorist: Just
make it look like you’re incompetent, not malicious.
“unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part
of the police, FAILURE TO PRESERVE POTENTIALLY USEFUL EVIDENCE
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.”
I’m trying my damndest to wrap my head around that sentence,
but I just can’t; it hurts too much.
#3 |
Mike Leatherwood | August
15th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
To be honest, the idea that a cop is incompetent is soooo
very easy to believe.
What it means, rapscallion, is that the justice system in
Texas has just admitted, in a rather unsubtle manner, that due
process is a mere optional nicety in their bailiwick.
The United States Supreme Court has held that ‘unless a
criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the
police,
The fox has stated unless a hen can prove exactly how many
angels can dance on a pinhead, the hen house will remain open
to foxes.
#6 |
Irving Washington | August 15th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Just FYI, that’s the Third District Court of Appeals. There
aren’t too many justices on it that have criminal law
experience. If they take their next appeal, it’ll go to the
Court of Criminal Appeals, which for a long time was where
defendants’ appeals went to be denied. In recent years,
though, it seems to have turned a corner, especially on
evidentiary issues.
A dash cam can show if a driver is driving recklessly,the
only reason someone show be investigated for DUI,unless
involved in a accident.It seems cops do not like any video of
their work,including bystanders on the own property.They’d
rather the courts just take their word.
“The United States Supreme Court has held that ‘unless a
criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the
police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does
not constitute a denial of due process of law.’”
I was caught up in a similar case once. It came down to
this:
if the (exculpatory) tape exists, and they don’t provide it,
then you don’t have to show bad faith (Brady), but if it gets
destroyed you do.
So they just destroy it. I think Bryant vs DC Appeals Court
finally addressed
this ridiculous situation. A court actually recognized the
fact that
cops might incinerate inconvenient evidence when it was in
their own interest to do so. Imagine a football game where one
side could always
throw the game.
***In United States v Bryant, 142 App DC 132, 439 F2d 642
(1971), on remand (DC Dist Col) 331 F Supp 927, affd 145 App
DC 259, 448 F2d 1182, the court attempted to reconcile the two
situations and found that such a duty existed. Implicit in his
analysis was that under Brady the government must at least
make “earnest efforts” to preserve evidence it has gathered
(Bryant, supra, 439 F2d at 651).****
#9 |
Anon for this comment | August 15th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
I had a bogus reckless driving arrest in Travis County (by
Austin Police Department and in Texas reckless driving is very
similar to a first-offense DUI) in 2007. I won’t go into all
the details, but basically, the officer had decided he was
going to arrest me for DUI before he ever got to the car.
After finding that I was stone cold sober and had not had a
drink in weeks, he decided to run me in for whatever he could,
which was reckless driving — an offense that is totally
officer’s discretion.
When my lawyer and I challenged the arrest, we found that the
tape from the dash cam was missing. It was not preserved in
cases like mine — no reason was given. As a result, I missed
out on presenting the evidence that the officer was biased
before he ever got to my car, that he was verbally abusive and
threatened me several times with physical injury because I was
“lying about being drunk”. Overall, it was a very bad scene
that the jury never got to see and never got to evaluate the
outright lies and fabrications presented in the police report
— lies that the tape would have proven.
In the end, my charges were dismissed and the arrest
expunged, so it worked out for me, but it could have easily
gone the other way. I was very dismayed to see that the
attitude was “we lost the tape, it’s really too bad.”
More Bryant:
“Were Brady and its progeny applicable only when the exact
content of non‑disclosed materials was known, the disclosure
duty would be an empty promise, easily circumvented by the
suppression of evidence by means of destruction rather than
mere failure to reveal….”
#11 |
Michael Chaney | August
15th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
It utterly frightens me sometimes that I have far more wisdom
(and have had since a young age) than men who are trusted to
be judges.
Another reason why we need to end government monopoly in
community policing (and security). Allow open, competitive,
free entry into that field that requires accountability.
Monopolists are not accountable, and, in this case, the
government-monopolists in community policing are allowed to be
above the law (commit fraudulent guilt verdicts based on
illegal searches, allowed to get away with destruction of
evidence). See Hans Hoppe:
Yeah, that’s f*cked. There is no reason why every police
encounter that leads to an arrest can not be recorded and
preserved until charges are dropped or a trial completed. The
standard should be that if the cops can’t produce a video,
then they should be presumed to be lying if their story
differs from the defendants. Give them some incentive to make
sure the video equipment is working.
I’d have a lot more respect for the state if they’d just
dispense with the hypocrisy and send the cops out to stick a
gun in my face and say “Stick ‘em up!”
#19 |
John C. Randolph | August
15th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Seems to me that the lesson here is: ALWAYS make your own
video recording of any encounter with cops.
In the end, my charges were dismissed and the arrest
expunged, so it worked out for me, but it could have easily
gone the other way. I was very dismayed to see that the
attitude was “we lost the tape, it’s really too bad.”
The State happened to you. Something to think about: did it
really work out for you? You had to spend time, energy, and
money to undo The State’s evil. Were you properly compensated
for this, and was the offending officer properly punished? I
will guess NO to both, in which case it didn’t work out for
you in terms of what is morally right, but it did work out for
you in terms of escaping The State’s clutches with only a
small amount of damage.
Sadly, the trend in the Supreme Court for at least the past
20 years has been to give the state a pass. Requiring a
criminal defendant/civil plaintiff to prove that the
government acted in bad faith is, as a practical matter, a
grant of immunity in most cases. In regular civil litigation,
spoliation of evidence results in default or a spoliation
instruction.
This case looks like a relatively rare scenario where a
default would be appropriate. There was a pre-existing
statutory duty to preserve evidence for a specific period;
before this period expired, there was an explicit demand by
opposing counsel to preserve the evidence; and the spoliation
apparently occurred almost immediately and without any
persuasive explanation (e.g., no fire, flood, act of war, etc.
that would have destroyed the evidence despite the state’s
efforts to preserve it).
These circumstances are so extreme that any criminal charges
should be dismissed and civil liability should be deemed
admitted. The sole remaining disputed issue should be damages.
In the more common case, where the inference of intentional
or negligent destruction is weaker, the jury is told that they
may (but are not required to) infer from the unavailability of
the evidence that it would have been unfavorable to the party
that had custody of it and was subsequently unable to produce
it.
I saw a youtube video a while back and a police officer was
saying how whatever the police record can be easily destroyed.
As long as the officer transcribes the recording, then the
transcription can be used. This is for any recording including
that in an interrogation room.
It might have come from flexyourrights.com but I think it was
another source. I will try and look for it.
NOTICE:
The information on this page was brought to you
by people who paid this website forward so that
someone such as you might also profit by having
access to it. If you care to do so also please feel
encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation
today. Thank you.
Freedom-School is not affiliated with the
links on this page - unless otherwise stated. This enterprise
collectively is known and generally presented as "Freedom-School.com"
- "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of Freedom-School.com
used throughout. "You" is in reference to the user / visitor.
This is the fine print that so important.
Freedom School and other information served is so for educational
purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it
intended to be, legal advice. Freedom School does not
consent to or condone unlawful action. Freedom School
advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support
and defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are
not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference
or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support
is not offered.
Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commercial
enterprise and operation as there is no charge for things
presented. Freedom-School.com site relies on this
memorandum and others in support of this philosophy
and operation.
The noteworthy failure of [the] government
or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything
appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission
of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented,
which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by
Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated
or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY
BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT
BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants
to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements
appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in
error, then they as the moving party have the burden of
proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof
under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d)
and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth,
and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE
there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated
and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented
claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular
claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be
"frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used
accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found
to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct
it in timely fashion upon notification.
Freedom-School.com
is not responsible for content of any linked website or
material. In addition, users may not
use Freedom-School.com to engage in, facilitate or further
unlawful conduct; use the service in any way, or manner,
that harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work
is presented; damage, disable, overburden, or impair
the service (or the network(s) connected to the site)
or interfere with anyone´s use and enjoyment of the website.
All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis
county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common
Law. All parts of this contract apply to the maximum
extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot
enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens,
then you and we will replace that part with terms that most
closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce.
The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire
contract between you and us regarding your use of the service.
It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding
your use of the Freedom-School.com site. If there exists
some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right
to that thing as we reserve all rights. We may assign,
or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part,
at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign
this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any
attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to
anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights
to use the Freedom-School.com site or material contained
within.
GOOGLE ANALYTICS: While
we do not automatically collect personally identifiable
information about you when you visit the Freedom-School.com
site, we do collect non-identifying and aggregate information
that we use to improve our Web site design and our online
presence. Visitors to this site who have Javascript enabled
are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of information
that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like:
the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating
system you are using; your screen resolution; the version
of Flash you may be using; your network location and IP
address (this can include geographic data like the country,
city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed;
the time of your visit to the Freedom-School.com site; the
pages you visit on the Freedom-School.com site; the amount
of time you spend on each page of the Freedom-School.com
site and referring site information. In addition to the
reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data
is shared with Google. For more information on Google´s
privacy policies, visit:
www.google.com/privacy_ads.html Here is Google´s
description of how Google Analytics works and how you can
disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously,
and much like examining footprints in sand, it reports website
trends without identifying individual visitors. Analytics
uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions. The cookie
is used to store information, such as what time the current
visit occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site
before, and what site referred the visitor to the web page.
Google Analytics customers can view a variety of reports
about how visitors interact with their website so they can
improve their website and how people find it. A different
cookie is used for each website, and visitors are not tracked
across multiple sites. Analytics requires that all websites
that use it must update their privacy policy to include
a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To disable
this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a
cookie is being sent and allow you to decline cookies on
a case-by-case basis."
Usually, when a party loses in court, they take their ball and go home: rarely are they instructed, step by step, on how to win.
“unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, FAILURE TO PRESERVE POTENTIALLY USEFUL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.”
I’m trying my damndest to wrap my head around that sentence, but I just can’t; it hurts too much.
To be honest, the idea that a cop is incompetent is soooo very easy to believe.
What it means, rapscallion, is that the justice system in Texas has just admitted, in a rather unsubtle manner, that due process is a mere optional nicety in their bailiwick.
The fox has stated unless a hen can prove exactly how many angels can dance on a pinhead, the hen house will remain open to foxes.
Just FYI, that’s the Third District Court of Appeals. There aren’t too many justices on it that have criminal law experience. If they take their next appeal, it’ll go to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which for a long time was where defendants’ appeals went to be denied. In recent years, though, it seems to have turned a corner, especially on evidentiary issues.
A dash cam can show if a driver is driving recklessly,the only reason someone show be investigated for DUI,unless involved in a accident.It seems cops do not like any video of their work,including bystanders on the own property.They’d rather the courts just take their word.
“The United States Supreme Court has held that ‘unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.’”
I was caught up in a similar case once. It came down to this:
if the (exculpatory) tape exists, and they don’t provide it, then you don’t have to show bad faith (Brady), but if it gets destroyed you do.
So they just destroy it. I think Bryant vs DC Appeals Court finally addressed
this ridiculous situation. A court actually recognized the fact that
cops might incinerate inconvenient evidence when it was in their own interest to do so. Imagine a football game where one side could always
throw the game.
***In United States v Bryant, 142 App DC 132, 439 F2d 642 (1971), on remand (DC Dist Col) 331 F Supp 927, affd 145 App DC 259, 448 F2d 1182, the court attempted to reconcile the two situations and found that such a duty existed. Implicit in his analysis was that under Brady the government must at least make “earnest efforts” to preserve evidence it has gathered (Bryant, supra, 439 F2d at 651).****
I had a bogus reckless driving arrest in Travis County (by Austin Police Department and in Texas reckless driving is very similar to a first-offense DUI) in 2007. I won’t go into all the details, but basically, the officer had decided he was going to arrest me for DUI before he ever got to the car. After finding that I was stone cold sober and had not had a drink in weeks, he decided to run me in for whatever he could, which was reckless driving — an offense that is totally officer’s discretion.
When my lawyer and I challenged the arrest, we found that the tape from the dash cam was missing. It was not preserved in cases like mine — no reason was given. As a result, I missed out on presenting the evidence that the officer was biased before he ever got to my car, that he was verbally abusive and threatened me several times with physical injury because I was “lying about being drunk”. Overall, it was a very bad scene that the jury never got to see and never got to evaluate the outright lies and fabrications presented in the police report — lies that the tape would have proven.
In the end, my charges were dismissed and the arrest expunged, so it worked out for me, but it could have easily gone the other way. I was very dismayed to see that the attitude was “we lost the tape, it’s really too bad.”
More Bryant:
“Were Brady and its progeny applicable only when the exact content of non‑disclosed materials was known, the disclosure duty would be an empty promise, easily circumvented by the suppression of evidence by means of destruction rather than mere failure to reveal….”
It utterly frightens me sometimes that I have far more wisdom (and have had since a young age) than men who are trusted to be judges.
Jesus. The Free State Project is becoming more attractive each and every day.
So the cops in this case are incompetent? Good. You can now start proceedings for removing these cops from duty due to incompetence.
Another reason why we need to end government monopoly in community policing (and security). Allow open, competitive, free entry into that field that requires accountability. Monopolists are not accountable, and, in this case, the government-monopolists in community policing are allowed to be above the law (commit fraudulent guilt verdicts based on illegal searches, allowed to get away with destruction of evidence). See Hans Hoppe:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe26.1.html
The state rules in favor of the state. Is anyone surprised?
Yeah, that’s f*cked. There is no reason why every police encounter that leads to an arrest can not be recorded and preserved until charges are dropped or a trial completed. The standard should be that if the cops can’t produce a video, then they should be presumed to be lying if their story differs from the defendants. Give them some incentive to make sure the video equipment is working.
You can now start proceedings for removing these cops from duty due to incompetence.
Do what now? You’re speaking English, but the words don’t make sense.
I’d have a lot more respect for the state if they’d just dispense with the hypocrisy and send the cops out to stick a gun in my face and say “Stick ‘em up!”
Seems to me that the lesson here is: ALWAYS make your own video recording of any encounter with cops.
-jcr
@9,
The State happened to you. Something to think about: did it really work out for you? You had to spend time, energy, and money to undo The State’s evil. Were you properly compensated for this, and was the offending officer properly punished? I will guess NO to both, in which case it didn’t work out for you in terms of what is morally right, but it did work out for you in terms of escaping The State’s clutches with only a small amount of damage.
BamBam “but it did work out for you in terms of escaping The State’s clutches with only a small amount of damage.”
Sadly, that’s the best we can hope in the freest country in the world.
Sadly, the trend in the Supreme Court for at least the past 20 years has been to give the state a pass. Requiring a criminal defendant/civil plaintiff to prove that the government acted in bad faith is, as a practical matter, a grant of immunity in most cases. In regular civil litigation, spoliation of evidence results in default or a spoliation instruction.
This case looks like a relatively rare scenario where a default would be appropriate. There was a pre-existing statutory duty to preserve evidence for a specific period; before this period expired, there was an explicit demand by opposing counsel to preserve the evidence; and the spoliation apparently occurred almost immediately and without any persuasive explanation (e.g., no fire, flood, act of war, etc. that would have destroyed the evidence despite the state’s efforts to preserve it).
These circumstances are so extreme that any criminal charges should be dismissed and civil liability should be deemed admitted. The sole remaining disputed issue should be damages.
In the more common case, where the inference of intentional or negligent destruction is weaker, the jury is told that they may (but are not required to) infer from the unavailability of the evidence that it would have been unfavorable to the party that had custody of it and was subsequently unable to produce it.
I saw a youtube video a while back and a police officer was saying how whatever the police record can be easily destroyed. As long as the officer transcribes the recording, then the transcription can be used. This is for any recording including that in an interrogation room.
It might have come from flexyourrights.com but I think it was another source. I will try and look for it.
DoubleU, that’s from part two of the the “Don’t Talk To The Police” video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912