Digital Tape Recorders

[Brendon]

Do you carry one with you for field interviews with suspects/witnesses so that you can play it back while writing reports? It seems like there are a lot of important little details to remember and that would be a good route to go. Just curious and thanks for answering in advance.

[PJMurphy]

We have a long tradition in this state regarding eavesdropping (thanks to the influence of organized crime) and recording voice requires an overhear warrant or two party consent. In most other states this is not a problem and a voice recording is an excellent investigative tool.

[GoDirectly2Jail]

As PJMurphy stated, officers in so-called "two-party consent" states may run into an issue.

Virginia is a one-party consent state.

[mythoss]

That seems like a potential can off worms for the patrol officer. Just take thorough detailed statements, and take notes. Works for me. I don't even think our detectives record interviews now that I think about it.

[SnapShawt]

We have dash cams that record both video and audio [edited to say "in Texas", at least at my agency and many/most others], and such equipment is also used for various investigative types of work. I cannot imagine laws in one-party states at all applying to law enforcement work. Most codes in such states have provisions built in excluding law enforcement personnel acting in the line of duty. Following is one from Massachusetts penal code, which states that it is NOT a violation for:

"c. for investigative and law enforcement officers of the United States of America to violate the provisions of this section if acting pursuant to authority of the laws of the United States and within the scope of their authority.
e. for investigative or law enforcement officers to violate the provisions of this section for the purposes of ensuring the safety of any law enforcement officer or agent thereof who is acting in an undercover capacity, or as a witness for the commonwealth"

Don't know if Illinios has such in their code. I just did a quick google search on the subject and found the one from Massachusetts. Dash cam audio/video is there for our protection and safety as well as to provide any necessary evidence during the interaction. I would imagine in a two-party consent state they MAY be required to tell the subject that the interaction is being recorded and continue on with what they're doing. Such devices are also important to good investigative work.

My dash cam has been a great thing. It's caught audio and/or video that has been vital to the interaction and has served as evidence. The subject (not "suspect" - subject refers to any person I'm dealing with) should also feel a sense of comfort that the entire interaction is being recorded.

[phantasm]

NYS is a one party state. That being said, most cops doing patrol taking reports never record anything on audio/video tape, let alone an interview for a police report.

[SnapShawt]

If I have to go code 3, that automatically triggers the recording. So when I light someone up and pull them over, it's automatically going. However, on standard calls, I start the recording a couple of blocks before I get where I'm going and stop it after I'm done and a couple of blocks away.

There are some things I do with that are very neat, but I won't discuss those on the public side.

[Brendon]

So basically I suppose most of you still prefer to write stuff down in notepads rather then digital recordings? I guess some things don't change. Thanks for answering!

[Creeker]

I worked Crime Scene for 17 + years.

Video has its pluses and minor drawbacks when it comes Court time. Among the drawbacks is getting the guys who aren't recording the scene to keep their jokes to themselves and stay out of the scene.

Aside from that, it can be a terrific recall assist device for writing reports later on.

[SnapShawt]

Brendon: "So basically I suppose most of you still prefer to write stuff down in notepads rather then digital recordings? I guess some things don't change. Thanks for answering!"

I don't see it as and either/or thing. I also take extensive notes on every call in addition to what my audio/video gets. True, it is an old habit that I just can't break, and I find it still very beneficial for a few reasons.

[retdetsgt]

Oregon has one party for telephone conversations, but not face to face. If we wire ourselves or an informant, we have to get an ex parte order from a judge. If you're stopped for a traffic violation, the first thing the officer will tell you is that the conversation is being recorded. He doesn't have to have your consent, but you have to be told.

At crime scenes, I'd rather take notes than sit in the office later and listen to tape recordings when I write my report.

The trouble with recordings is it's discoverable at trial. I never minded giving them my notes because my handwriting is horrible and I used weird abbreviations all the time. I couldn't even make heads or tails from them two weeks after I wrote them. I didn't even like recording suspect interviews until we were ready for a confession. Any recordings are just more for the defense to nit pick at trial.

[PJMurphy]

We can record without consent in Illinois as long as we record video at the same time and we are engaged in some kind of traffic enforcement. We just got a revision allowing overhear on undercover drug investigations but our liberal legislature is still reluctant to grant an overall LE exemption. Ironically, the same folks who stand in opposition to changing the law also demand that capital crime interrogations be recorded to combat police misconduct. Our Chief's association negotiated the ability to stop a car based on seeing an unrestrained (unbuckled) passenger in exchange for dropping our opposition to collecting utterly useless racial profiling data on traffic stops (a main Obama initiative) It's all about political give and take in Illinois. We'll get it right some day (maybe).

[Creeker]

We can record without consent in Illinois as long as we record video at the same time and we are engaged in some kind of traffic enforcement. We just got a revision allowing overhear on undercover drug investigations but our liberal legislature is still reluctant to grant an overall LE exemption. Ironically, the same folks who stand in opposition to changing the law also demand that capital crime interrogations be recorded to combat police misconduct. Our Chief's association negotiated the ability to stop a car based on seeing an unrestrained (unbuckled) passenger in exchange for dropping our opposition to collecting utterly useless racial profiling data on traffic stops (a main Obama initiative) It's all about political give and take in Illinois. We'll get it right some day (maybe).

That's kind of funny, considering that your politicians are literally bought and paid for... :D

[retdetsgt]

Our Chief's association negotiated the ability to stop a car based on seeing an unrestrained (unbuckled) passenger in exchange for dropping our opposition to collecting utterly useless racial profiling data on traffic stops (a main Obama initiative)

Ha! They did this bigass, expensive study on my old dept on racial profiling. It did show that more minorities were stopped in relation to population and the liberals were waving it around and crying.

Until our union pointed out that most of the traffic stops on minorities took place at night when you couldn't see the race of the driver before the stop.......:rolleyes:

[retdetsgt]

Video has its pluses and minor drawbacks when it comes Court time. Among the drawbacks is getting the guys who aren't recording the scene to keep their jokes to themselves and stay out of the scene.

I cleared everyone out of the scene when the forensics guys showed up for that very reason. In fact, the whole idea is to keep people away until you guys do your job.....

Outdoors, the only problem I might have would be uniform guys who aren't used to the drill. Before the forensics person started filming, I told them what was going on and asked them to be quiet until the filming stopped. They were always good about it.