Inherent and Systemic, Yet Unnecessary, Flaws With Palo Alto Police Video Policy and Camera Systems
A Palo Alto Police Officer repeatedly fails to turn his Mobile Audio Visual "MAV" system on during interactions with the public. The latest incident involving a teenager. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56685 What is interesting is the fact that this officer was able to deliberately turn off, tamper with, the recording device which apparently also disables a feature on the system called "Record After the Fact," RAFT. [Tampering with evidence in order to obstruct his superiors from investigating the incidents is called obstruction of justice. PC 148. (a) (1)] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=7.&article= This feature on the cameras' recording system allows police departments to obtain video footage even if the camera system is not activated to record during an incident for the camera is recording at all times that the camera is receiving power. Since the command staff in this instance imitated a prompt investigation into the missing the video, the command staff could have retrieved the missing video using the "Record After the Fact" feature had the feature been operative. Either the feature has been turned off deliberately or the feature was not powered because the officer removed all power to the camera system. The only other reason for the command staff not to have retrieved the missing video would have been that they deliberately chose not to retrieve the video even though it was available to them via the RATF feature. The PAPD command staff is well aware of the design problems with the camera systems which results in the cameras not recording important events due to either design flaws or the ability of officers to override the system and thus shutting the system down both problems of which the command staff could remedy by taking the control of powering the camera system out of the hands of officers and enabling the RATF feature. So the question is, why would Palo Alto Police Command staff not put in place the available policies and technology which would ensure that every time a Palo Alto Police Officer interacts with a citizen is recorded when it is within their ability to ensure that every encounter is recorded? There is only one answer to that question; the PAPD command staff wants to create a grey area which would allow for the destruction and or the purposeful non-recording and or the editing of events so the PAPD command staff can cover up the illegal actions of its own officers. |
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/06/05/palo-alto-police-departments-tech-guru-tapped-for-state-board
https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cullen-34a9494
https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cullen-34a9494
According to the Dog Mauling Victim Murray the Palo Alto Police confronted him and his friends with their patrol cars sirens on indicating that the camera's should have been automatically activated, unless of course the officers deliberately disabled this feature by not powering the cameras.
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/dog-attack.html
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/dog-attack.html