From the officers' point of view - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

From the officers' point of view

Coeur d'Alene Police now wearing cameras on their bodies

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:00 am

COEUR d'ALENE - The Coeur d'Alene Police Department has spent $36,500 on "body cams" for 40 patrol officers.

The Vievu brand "point-of-view" cameras, which run $875 each, are intended to record as evidence what an officer sees in the line of duty. The cell-phone sized cameras are worn on the front of an officer's shirt.

They are effective, said Kootenai County Prosecutor Barry McHugh.

"The video and audio recorded by an officer with these devices can provide the most accurate depiction of what happened and what was said," he said.

McHugh said the technology can provide critical information about a person's condition at the time of a discussion with officers, and minimizes confusion or conflict about what went down.

"All this information is valuable to prosecutors in evaluating cases and presenting cases at trial," McHugh said. "Also, the recordings provide information useful in evaluating accusations of officer misconduct by accurately memorializing the incident."

Coeur d'Alene police spokeswoman Sgt. Christie Wood said the cameras are used by police agencies across the country.

She said police studied the use of the cameras for the past two years, and tried out different types before selecting the Vievu model. Police technicians sought reliability, ease of use, and optimum audio and video quality.

Coeur d'Alene police have been using dashboard video cameras in patrol vehicles since the 1990s.

But, Wood said, there are times when an officer isn't directly in front of a patrol vehicle.

Maj. Ben Wolfinger of the Kootenai County Sheriff's Department said patrol deputies for the county are issued the cameras as a regular part of their equipment.

"We have had them for a few years," he said. "They are helpful" with prosecutions and for responding to citizen complaints.

Some Post Falls police officers have worn them for the past two years. The department has eight of the devices.

"From my perspective, body-worn cameras are an excellent tool that provides an additional layer of transparency for both the officer and the public," Post Falls Police Chief Scot Haug said.

He added, "We have plans, this upcoming budget year, to purchase a body-worn camera for all of our sworn employees."

He said every law enforcement agency should be utilizing the technology.

"The technology is tremendous in prosecuting criminal activity, it assists in protecting the officers from false accusations and also identifies shortcomings on the part of the officer and provides a framework for improving our level of service to our customers," he said.

Mike Berg, North Idaho College Basic Patrol Academy director, said, "It's a great idea and a great piece of technology."

Berg, who is retired from law enforcement, spent nearly 32 years in Napa, Calif., as a police officer and more than two years in Kosovo as an international police officer for the U.S. Department of State.

He said dashboard cameras in police vehicles, and audio recorders used by police have proved valuable for years.

"I would expect that the body cams would do the same," he said. "The uses are limitless."

Idaho State Police troopers don't use the technology.

ISP spokesman Bill Edwards said, "It's not anything that's on the horizon" for the agency.

For what state troopers do daily, traffic stops primarily, the body cams aren't practical, he said. In the case of a city police department, which would handle more of what he called domestic calls, the cameras would make more sense, he said.

"The dash cameras take care of most everything" for ISP troopers, he said.

Steve Lovell, managing director of Vievu in Seattle, said their systems have been deployed in over 2,000 law enforcement agencies.

He said the cameras "capture the 95 percent of police activity that occurs away from the patrol car."

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Rogue Cop posted at 9:06 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    OK so Wherley's argument has evolved again...Let's examine:

    He has a problem with cops wearing cameras on their chest because they violate people's rights, they violate Federal wiretapping laws, and they violate or circumvent the 5th Amendment. BUT if the cops wore cameras mounted on their caps or glasses there would be no such rights violations or legal issues.
    Now, however, there is no violation of anybody's rights anytime, anywhere as long as the "recordings were mandated to be stored for 5 years and be accessible by public records requests..." So even if they violate Wherley's 2 party-consent's OK if they're stored for 5 years.

    Oh and: "...any audio enhancement past the values of human auditory values, should be only admissible in court, with prior court consent or Reasonable Articulable suspicion, on the recording."
    Well, if that made sense, I might be able to deal with it. "Admissible in court with prior court consent"? Uh, WTHeck does that mean? You must get your talking points from the Democratic Convention. "Reasonable articulable suspicion on the recording"? So we can enhance the audio if we suspect something and we can articulate that.?

    Wherley's Law!

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 7:50 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    As long as they can be turned on and off selectively and erased selectively, They do not fall into the harmless category you argue for. If these Cameras were recording from the time put on to the time taken off, and the recording were mandated to be stored for 5 years and be accessible by public records requests and discovery. I would not be opposed to them, except that any audio enhancement past the values of human auditory values, should be only admissible in court, with prior court consent or Reasonable Articulable suspicion, on the recording.
    Personally I think our LEO and Public would be well served with a on duty babysitter that is constant and non-manipulable. But these come no where near that level.

  • Joshido posted at 6:05 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.

    Joshido Posts: 77

    Eh, if you are going to argue if wearing camera's violate's our rights well, its not really a point worth arguing because it dosent violate our civil rights. Why? because I can do the same exact thing and walk around like they do and it would not violate anything.

    If anything, these may help keep police officer's calm and more professional, let's hope so anyway.

  • Insider999 posted at 8:57 am on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.

    Insider999 Posts: 3

    Sooo we do not trust the skills of our officers to such a degree that they need camers? HMMMM..I guess that is on target since one local police department passively forces out/ or fails to promote, the employees that have the most education.
    Like wise, they force males out/ or will not employ males for any length of time... in dispatch positions.
    Of course when called on these issues they are investigated by other local LE investigators that they spend time rubbing elbows with.
    Remember IF they want to do something THEY dont want you to see they just turn the camera off or can say it ran out of batteries or whatever.
    They are trained in their classes to CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL.
    If your tired of the police they way they are vote for someone who will control their budget.....I suggest they TRADE THEIR BUDGETS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS . THERE is an organization that truely needs our money and who truely saves lives.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 7:11 am on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    The poor guy is just totally clueless. He hasn't got the mental capacity to figure out if 10 different people a month think he is messed up in the head. It's not their dysfunction he should be worrying about. But that is the problem with crackpots, they always think they are fine it's everyone else that needs help.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 10:58 pm on Fri, Sep 7, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Thank you Joey Jr. That was about your 20th amateur psychological analysis in the last 60 days. Fortunately for the general public, your opinion doesn't mean squat. The library called and said you're late returning their book, "Profiling For Dummies".

  • Rogue Cop posted at 8:43 pm on Fri, Sep 7, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Pushed your buttons there, huh Jeffy?

    So Wherthless has a problem with cops wearing cameras on their chest because they violate people's rights, they violate Federal wiretapping laws, and they violate or circumvent the 5th Amendment. BUT if the cops wore cameras mounted on their caps or glasses there would be no such rights violations or legal issues. OK, Jeffy...we got it now.

    Any more laws you want to cite and analyze for us.

    Oh yeah....and cameras on chests violate the Idaho 2 party consent laws but cameras on hats and glasses comply with "Wherleys Law."

    Jeffy, you're an enigma! Almost lovable, if you had a cerebral cortex.

  • Joseph Jr posted at 7:36 pm on Fri, Sep 7, 2012.

    Joseph Jr Posts: 512


    You are a megalomaniac and a danger to the general public . You undoubtedly have serious mental health issues. You should not be a law enforcement officer.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 3:52 pm on Fri, Sep 7, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Rogue wantabe Cop,

    If any of your dribble was true, then the cameras would be in some fashion be on the head so the camera did give Point of View imaginary, The Recording capacity would be long enough to cover the LEO entire shift, not just 4 hrs, and retention of the recordings would be mandatory for at least weeks if not years. An Officer never knows (in your words) "if a jackass like you, who lies regularly, files a complaint against an officer and there is a dispute as to the 'facts" of the complaint, supervisors can pull the tape and see who is telling the truth."

    Their are streaming cameras so no local control would be needed, cameras the fit in glasses frames for true POV imaginary or attachable to hats. There are so many better options for the type of Lawsuit Protection than the Chest mounted 4 hr recording with single button delete capability. What you are trying to sell as their goal for these cameras, would mean either a total idiot like you ordered these totally inadequate cameras, or your Full of shi-. (I believe the 2nd option, LEOs are much smarter than you)

    Oh and if you had a comprehension level above a 1st grader, you would have seen I have no problem with ease dropping.
    "If police or anyone want to sit nearby and try to ease drop, I don't have a problem with that, it's rude but that is why people learned to whisper," I guess their are a couple 2 syllable words you might be having a problem with at your Moronic level of comprehension.

    Do you have anything else you need spelled out? I hope not, children like you take forever to learn the simplest things. I think classifying your intelligence level from 7-12 Y/O might be an insult to the Moronic classification.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 10:56 am on Fri, Sep 7, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Jeffrey Wherthless...Law enforcement has had the technology and capacity to eavesdrop for 50 yrs or more. AGAIN, you're talking thru your a_nal orifice. These POV cams are designed to merely capture what an officer sees and hears where he has a right to be anyway. So, if a jackass like you, who lies regularly, files a complaint against an officer and there is a dispute as to the 'facts" of the complaint, supervisors can pull the tape and see who is telling the truth. Simple as that. The cameras merely capture events which heretofore have been written in reports, citations, etc. Now there is an electronic record of what occurred.

    For those of you who are constantly attacking the police for being thugs and liars, here's your technology for trying to prove it. It has nothing to do with interrogations, wiretapping, or any of the other supercilious bunk that Wherthless says it does.

    But if Wherthless wants to continue being a donkey, who am I to stop him? Carry on Jeffy!

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 7:00 am on Fri, Sep 7, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Those Cameras are very different, and you know it. One they have no audio Two they aren't set for recorders and three the video resolution and focus is so focused on a certain area they would be almost useless except for a person to be able to say they saw something, maybe.
    At 30fps that these "POV" cameras are set at, the focus area will be small or the resolution low I suspect a balance of both, but the audio COULD pick up a bird defecating 30 ft away if they want. They are not wanting to record what the eye or ear can pick up, they want a chance at picking up what the ear didn't hear and backed up with a poor quality of what the eye might have seen to reference only. Video is easy to refute in court, audio is easy to twist in court especially when it is transcribe an out of context.
    Same way RC likes to take thing out of context to obfuscate to create an argument away from the issues. Much as you have done with the red herring of backup cameras and your attempt at obfuscations. But yours at least have intelligence behind them, not just baseless babble.
    If police or anyone want to sit nearby and try to ease drop, I don't have a problem with that, it's rude but that is why people learned to whisper, but electronics, admissible in court, ease dropping should never be allowed in America without RAS, a court order or both. Electronics are capable of picking up what the ears can't (whispers, conversation behind doors or windows or voices 30 or 100ft away), which do have some expectation of privacy.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 11:48 am on Thu, Sep 6, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Wherley only has a problem with cops. My guess is he tried to be one but couldn't pass the entrance exam. Reading comprehension is essential to being a cop!

  • gggggg posted at 7:25 am on Thu, Sep 6, 2012.

    gggggg Posts: 206

    JW; if you still feel that the cameras are a violation of someone’s rights you need to go after the auto manufactures as well. Many of them are putting cameras in the vehicles and lets not forget the Motor Coaches and Campers with them. With all those cameras out there everyone’s rights must be being violated in your mind.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 10:01 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    BRILLIANT Wherley, just brilliant. You still don't understand the difference between eavesdropping, legal vs. illegal wiretapping, the 5th Amendment, or expectation of privacy. The eye cannot trespass.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 8:43 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    I agreed with you until "but also the criminals." Unfortunately those recordings are not open to public record requests, unless chosen to enter into evidence. You would be right if any of the recordings were open to public records requests and forced by law into discovery anytime they are taken when taken, like 911 calls in most states. When ALL law enforcement videos are held for public record for a time certain (5yrs) I'll trust what they are doing it for, not until.
    A justice system has to have equal access to evidence not selective. I'll encourage and take the advice of Defense Attorney's and Truthful LEOs that say, "the only safe way to talk to police, is never"

    "but when it comes to a criminal act.......perfectly legal." I agree here too. But we aren't talking about them using them only during criminal acts, they can use them anytime they are on official duty. That is not resisted to actually on duty, since LEO are considered sworn officers 24/7. What are their limits? When as citizens can we expect privacy? Can they were them while out of uniform? This is just another ounce of liberty and freedom removed from citizens anytime in public. Next they will want to do like New York City does and stop and frisk for public and police safety. It's not a large step from were we are now, and people like you will be all for it, if your for this. Because none of this will stop crime from happening, it only gets people used to giving away freedom for the illusion of security.

    Police line of duty deaths are at the lowest rates since records have been taken. LOE have dropped off the top ten most dangerous careers in America. Heath Care workers, fishermen and construction workers are higher rates than Police. So the idea it is for police safety is BS also. Sorry, but these cameras are just another set of electronic eyes, so something that may not actually have been seen might be caught later. And an additional way to make citizen nervous when talking in hopes to make them misspeak or act out of the norm so you can say you had RAS.

  • bionic man posted at 4:26 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.

    bionic man Posts: 347

    Jeff ole officer wearing a camera on his person while on duty is no different than the dash cam in their vehicle...and by the way, if I want to use the same apparatus, it violates no one's rights. Tell me that the survellance system I have at my home and the same as others violates anyone's rights. You're correct on wiretap and video used for other reasons, but when it comes to a criminal act.......perfectly legal. The only people that have to worry about being on camera are the ones doing something they shouldn't be doing. Next you will tell me that a PI working for a client is violating someones rights by photographing him/her????? Want to go after someone, go after the star chasers ( papparazzi ) they violate peoples privacy for profit. Do you really think the officers on the street are profiting by their body cams???? They are not only protecting themselves but also the criminals. Unfortunately we have a system that is called " criminal justice." It's exactly what is say's......justice for the criminals.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 3:30 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    I am always willing to see your proof to your argument. Unlike you I accept the possibility of being wrong, but I sure have seen nothing that could even remotely do that yet. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

    Didn't think so. You never do.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 2:32 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    OK Jeffy. Ignorance is bliss.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 2:18 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Actually, no one not even you have refuted my claim that this state is more duel consent than single consent, by practice. The law is convoluted enough that to assume single consent is the law can end you in jail. I stand by that claim and You only bluster and say I am wrong with no evidence to the contrary. Also not one of any of my other opinions have been refuted and since they are the important one, like the growing lack of trust in LEO and my advice to "shut up and lawyer up" to any LEO with a recorder. I think I stand on firm grown.

    As long as Government entities keep making rules again citizens recording and warning citizens they could be ticketed for recording, IN PRACTICE this is not a single consent state. So Bluster within your "Secretive" "Authoritarian" "Glib and superficial" "Grandiose" persona but you and I know you can't prove my statements wrong, and you can "not perceive that anything is wrong with" you.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 1:53 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Uhhhhh, nice try Wherley! You're good at cutting and pasting things you find on the internet like laws and definitions. The problem is you can't comprehend what you post so it makes you look dumber than you really that possible?

    Look, you're the guy who decided to lecture everyone on the the law with you're amateur analysis. You were corrected, not just by me, but by several people about your erroneous statement re:single-party consent vs. dual party consent. Then you tried to weasel your way out by saying that the law is confusing. You're the one with the problem here DOOD. Go psychoanalyze yourself instead of trying to deflect and distract. You and Joey Jr. are cut from the same cloth...professional victims and amateur, uneducated, psycho-babble, curb-side lawyers.

    Try as you will to make this about me, you bring it on yourself by being stupid. Then you don't like it when you're called out.

    So go ahead....make my day!

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 4:39 am on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    The word is Dissertate not Bloviating, My comments, unlike yours, almost always(you seem to bring out some enjoyable sidetracks) have an objective and either backed by commonsense, public opinion or proof. You Bloviate (Talk at length, esp. in an inflated or empty way), not I. :)

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 3:19 am on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Ah, Now your Childish behavior makes sense. You strike out at those that disagree with you because you can't kill the ones you work with.

    Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
    Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
    Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
    Conventional appearance
    Goal of enslavement of selective people
    Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the a selective persons life
    Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their selective person's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
    Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing person
    Incapable of real human attachment to another
    Unable to feel remorse or guilt
    Extreme narcissism and grandiose
    May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
    Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution
    Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
    Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
    Have a belligerent, bullying manner
    Lack any ability to empathise with others
    Their displays of human emotion unconvincing
    Glib and superficial
    Shallow emotions
    Poor behavior controls

    In Short RC, you exhibit all of these signs of a Sociopath very strongly, can't speak for other traits of Sociopath like Sexual Deviants, spousal and child abuse (none of which would surprise me), but you show enough here to see you're sociopathic traits run strong.
    All LEO have to exhibit some of these to preform their jobs, just like military, but sadly most today can;t put the professional persona down at the end o their shift, and like you are mentally disturbed. Police departments used to weed your type out, but Unions have made that almost impossible with the Special protections embedded into laws and contracts. You have often referred to these as "Due Process" as if the same as constitutional guaranteed, but are actual special rules outside of those. These special rules are a large part of the reason people like you gravitate to and fill the Law enforcement and other public service positions. AND back to my first and primary point, The growing distrust of LEO and public servants in general.

  • local res posted at 11:58 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    local res Posts: 1165

    Why do the police appear to be storm troopers today? Black uniforms and black glasses and black leather gloves? So many bad apples such as officers in Spokane. Will our officers now be caught?

  • Rogue Cop posted at 10:09 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Boy, you 2 girls are making me feel bad. Wherley, you just talk in circles and never say anything. You simply cannot justify your senseless remarks because you don't understand what the heck you're talking about.

    Joe Jr....What a whiney A $ $ weasel you are. You're still crying about the debate with floorist who is another know-it-all, and like Wherley, is full of beans. I know your a back alley psychologist and all and you have figured it all out but let me give you a lil free info...the reason the CdA Press allows me to post my opinion is because they allow you to post yours, moron. ALSO, they allow it because I'm telling the truth even if the truth hurts. You and your whiney, lying cohorts just don't like it because you think that public servants have to take you C R A P, and we might have to take some of it while on-duty...but off-duty we can give it right back and that drives you insane. It's called freedom of speech, Sherlock! Wrap your psychoanalysis around that.

    Tell the truth and you won't have to feel abused. Oh yeah, and like I told floorist, file your complaint with ISP, or the FBI, or the CIA, or InterPol if you want.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 5:52 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Still TROLLING?

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 5:52 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    My first Post, mentioned the lack of trust inLEO, and these Recorders being another cause of that lack of trust. My second Post added a solution, to this encroachment on or liberties, "Shut up and Lawyer up to any officer with a camera." Thus the Videos to back up , my opinion with Expert unbiased corroboration.

    But the little minds (like RC) offer nothing but opinion without solution or corroboration, and are more than willing to give up liberty for security. In such a Police State that they argue for neither liberty or security is guaranteeing or deserved.

    Strange I think a founding father said something like this. More corroboration.

  • Joseph Jr posted at 5:48 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Joseph Jr Posts: 512

    If Rogue Cop is really a LEO, then Idaho State has failed citizens miserably. Law enforcement officer's are suppose to be individuals of good character, morals and ethics. Rogue Cop has proven time and time again on this blog, his lack of ethics, morals and seems void of positive character attributes.

    Name calling is just one example. The CDA Press should read every comment Rogue Cop has made, and make a list of all the insulting "names" he calls other bloggers along with all his comments meant to intimidate the general public which pay his wages. This information should be forwarded to the Idaho State Police for investigation. Ggggg should also be included.

    I suspect Rogue Cop is a person filled with anger, hatred, low self esteem, and a strong desire to feel powerful and important. If he is an officer, he is most likely abusing the general public and other officers.

    Anyone reading the hate and anger filled comments, laced with juvenile junior high school age insults, can't deny this. Rogue Cop needs attention. Apparently our responses are filling his insatiable need and desire for attention.

    If Rogue Cop is telling the truth about his education and work history, he's likely in his mid 50's at the youngest. A man in his 50's who is desperate for attention, signals something deeply distrubing. Referring to or calling people names on a blog like this, is not someone who is mentally stable. Rogue Cop is likely a very real threat to the general public, in and out of uniform. I bet his neighbor's (if he has any) are scared to death of him. I would be.

    The CDA PRESS allowed Rogue Cop to publicly bully the person a blogger named "FLOORIST." Shame on the CDA PRESS for allowing such vulgar and abusive intimidation of the general public by a supposed member of Idaho Law Enforcement.

    Law enforcement officers have higher rates of Alcoholism than the general public. To think the statistics in Idaho are different, is wishful thinking.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 3:24 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    The difference being that Wherley went on the attack when he was exposed as a dolt for misstating the law and then trying to deflect and distract by posting videos which have nothing to do with this story or the law.

    Nothing hypocritical about telling the truth and exposing wannabe curbside lawyers.

  • Betrayer of Hope posted at 2:01 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Betrayer of Hope Posts: 135

    LOL. Rogue Cop does exactly what he accuses others of doing: going on the attack.

    Hypocrisy is very unbecoming of a supposed police officer. Or is it?

  • Always Curious posted at 1:53 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Always Curious Posts: 516

    I'm not LEO and I NEVER warn other drivers. Unsafe driving is a menace to all and if you are driving safely then you have nothing to be concerned about. An officer ticketing violators is doing all of us a favor - just look at the stupidity out there, rolling or no stops at signs and lights, unsafe following distances, turn signal usage - once again, if you aren't in the wrong you have no reason to be afraid.

    Just this morning a mother with a phone glued to her ear blew througha 4-way stop sign and would have t-boned us if I hadn't been watching them closely (that old defensive driving thing they teach, thank goodness).

  • Always Curious posted at 1:25 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Always Curious Posts: 516

    The cost of court reporters is chump change compared to what judges and lawyers take home.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 1:21 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Oh, it happens all the time, Coog. Nah I won't lay out the procedures. I'll let the experts like Wherley and Joey Jr. tell everyone how much they know about everything.

    Wherley has been bloviating about police work on these comment pages for years. Every time he gets caught in a lie or just being stoopid, he goes on the attack like a kid who just got caught stealing the teacher's apple. He knows everything...just ask him!

    I won't defend crooked cops but I'll defend the profession from jackasses who try to blow smoke up everyone's A $ $.

  • cougar posted at 1:02 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    cougar Posts: 230

    Rogue Cop

    We know localopinion's story in incomplete, but sometimes it's enjoyable just to play along.

    What he doesn't know and unlike the officer in Wherley's highly regarded video who likes to "talk to much," there are safeguard procedures and strict standards pertaining to logging in evidence such as money, drugs, valuables, etc.

    You may want to devolve the procedures ( to entertain the inquiring minds), but I think I'll keep that little secret to myself.

    How many times have you or one of your partners booked a suspect into jail and then later they say something like " I had six hundred dollars in my wallet when he arrested me and now it's gone."

    Makes you want to laugh.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 11:52 am on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Betrayer of Hope - "I would recommend NOT listening to Rogue Cop. IF he really is a cop it doesn't mean much. A big problem with our legal system is that cops have the most power and discretion and the LEAST actual training in the law. A political-science undergraduate (4-year) degree gives you more knowledge and training of the law than a police academy.
    It's scary to think about."
    Well maybe, but a 4 year degree in Administration of Justice, 2 years of law school, and 30 years of experience trumps a Political Science degree and Wherley's 4th grade education. So you go ahead and "listen" to Wherley and you may want to change your name to "Betrayer of Logic".

    localopinion: I thought your story was BS as well. First of all they just now got these cameras and your case has already been adjudicated which tells me that a significant time has passed since your arrest. Also, in drug cases (which this seems to be), a case can get dismissed but doesn't necessarily mean you get back all of your "hard-earned" money. Cases get dismissed for a variety of reasons but if what you are saying is true, and the "footage" supports your story and the "footage" was destroyed, and the cops violated your rights, etc. etc., then their reports are all that was left so if they lied in there reports...why was the case dismissed?

    Then you say "IF these officers are wearing these cameras....". Waddya mean "IF"? You said they WERE wearing the cameras and they destroyed the footage.

    Yup, I call BS.

    cougar: Wherley posted those video links to distract us from his inflammatory and moronic comments about wiretapping, and Miranda, and two-party consent. You're correct. The videos have NOTHING to do with the story OR Wherley's childish rant. Every defense attorney will tell his/her client not to talk to the police if they are arrested. If I was arrested, whether falsely or justifiably, I wouldn't talk to the cops either. Their job is to build a case against you so anything you say can be misconstrued and any admission can be used against you. Even if the officers are wearing body cams, they're under the same legal obligation for gathering statements pursuant to the 5th Amendment.

    Silly Wherley!

  • Thaddeus posted at 9:56 am on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Thaddeus Posts: 232

    Criminals = LEO Job Security

  • cougar posted at 9:37 am on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    cougar Posts: 230


    I call BS at this time on your post. If this indeed happened then disclose what city (town) state and case number so it can be verified. All criminals claim to be innocent and you are not by far the first one to claim money was taken when arrested when in fact the monies didn't exist at all. Just out of curiosity, was this a drug case?


    I watched your two youtube videos and I seen no relevant connection with this story.
    You have a has been defense attorney that apparently lost two many cases, couldn't make any money and became a professor for lessor money to make a living.
    Of course he will tell his law students that criminals shouldn't talk to police, because it makes the defense attorneys job harder and they might have to work.
    Of course they can always plea bargain to get their client back on the street to re-offend and start the vicious circle all over again.

    Then you have a 28 year LE veteran going to law school to become a defense attorney, ( probably under this same professor) talking about a few interview techniques.

    So tell me. What do those two videos have to do with body cams? Beside the fact like the officer stated, criminals are stupid and like to talk.

    Also like the officer stated. Quote : If you don't want to be cited for speeding, don't speed.

    If you don't want to be arrested, don't break the law. Pretty simply don't you think?

  • localopinion posted at 8:57 am on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    localopinion Posts: 44

    I was falsely arrested and robbed by the police, and the entire ordeal was caught on one of these cameras. My rights were violated, and I had a strong case against the the officers involved. When my lawyer filed for the discovery of the footage that would have proved that I was the victim of LEO, the footage was destroyed. There was no law which stated that LEO had to keep the footage. The footage was not in favor of the officers. The footage would have proved the police report inaccurate, therefore, it was destroyed. If the footage had been beneficial to the officers, it would still be here. 30,000 in cash was seized from me ... only 10,000 was returned. ... 2 counts of felony money laundering were dismissed with prejudice. If these officers are wearing these cameras, there needs to be an ordinance which forces the preservation of all footage where arrest results. .. Pass the ordinance, and I will support the police in this effort.

  • Betrayer of Hope posted at 8:29 am on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    Betrayer of Hope Posts: 135

    I would recommend NOT listening to Rogue Cop. IF he really is a cop it doesn't mean much. A big problem with our legal system is that cops have the most power and discretion and the LEAST actual training in the law. A political-science undergraduate (4-year) degree gives you more knowledge and training of the law than a police academy.

    It's scary to think about.

  • concernedcitizen posted at 6:07 am on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530

    Actually i think it will cut down on the ambulance chasin blood suckin parasites that have plagued this country all the way to the white house.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 10:53 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Grow up Wherley. You get caught being stupid AGAIN, and then you go on the attack. Now there's 4 stooges and guess who the 4th is. You know, your post count doesn't make you just shows that you don't have the capacity to learn from your mistakes...X3777.

    Any more laws you want to "analyze"?

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 10:10 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Yes, you would discount a youtube from a University Law school professor and Veteran LEO, when they disagree with your LIES. Such a shame the world doesn't work under your sole rule isn't it. LOL

    youtube may be clutered with allot of useless videos, but only jackasses like you throw the baby out with the bath water. It was a youtube video that Postfall Police used to try an mollify the public about the cul-de-sac shooting. I guess that was not where we wanted to go to find the truth?

    You truly are a moron.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 9:43 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Oh your welcome, but this LEO wasn't happy at all. The dust cloud he threw into the air when racing out of the ditch between the road and RR Tracks, and the car he almost hit trying to get behind me, showed his attitude. The Rathdrum LEO that came towards me and then pulled a fast U-turn to get behind the ISP, tells me he was called for whatever reason ISP might have had in mind. And the County LEO that followed me home, all tells me that YOUR platitude is, just that. Since, Law Enforcement agencies and organization fought against the decision in court, and it was the judges ruling, that you paraphrased. I know you really didn't mean that.

    OK, can I take a recorder into a police department lobby and record everything I want and publish it anyway I want, without worry of a wiretap law violation? Or any courtroom open to the public? or any public meeting? or in a public restroom? how about during a traffic stop (apps are now out to stream straight to the internet so LEO can't delete recordings anymore) or a Knock and Talk? OH and then of course a month or so ago, ISP warned that video taping or taking pictures as you pass by an accident is illegal and they warned they would start ticketing.
    I know the said it was for safety reasons, but that was BS too. Slow moving traffic past and accident is what they want, it's the picture floating around that they don't want. If it's legal under "single consent state" to take and distribute those pictures, why the harassment of the public. And if it's not harassment of the public, then it's not a "single consent state".

    The Line on the Single consent law is so fuzzy, it is, as I have said only for a FOOL to test. That is not only as it is written, but also and more importantly how it is threatened to be enforced. Just because Idaho likes to call itself a single consent state, with the muddled writing of the law, the selective and subjective enforcement of the law and the warnings to the public by Law agencies of breaking the laws. As I have said before, only a FOOL would act as if this is a single consent state.

    Oh, if it is a single consent state then, Why does the law even have an exemption for LEO recording in their official capacities, they could record without the exemption as everyone else can?????

  • Rogue Cop posted at 9:27 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    No Joey, it's not about intimidating anybody. It's about setting the record straight and not allowing morons to misstate the facts, or to flat out lie. It's interesting how the anti-law enforcement crowd all jump into these stories and can't wait to make stupid statements. And when the statement is FLAT OUT FALSE, as in Wherley's assertion that Idaho is a 2 party consent state, the other jackasses rally around to try and change the subject.

    Yeah...Youtube...that's where I go when I want to know the truth...NOT! But rubes use it to make their arguments for them. That's all you got when you don't know what you're talking about.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 8:56 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Watch part 2 the officer tells what they do to recordings if they are not helpful to their cases. And part one tells why the discovery process can't get the recordings even if they aren't destroyed.

    Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
    Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2

  • Joseph Jr posted at 8:45 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Joseph Jr Posts: 512

    As long as that person isn't a family member, friend, or family or friend of another LEO! :)

  • Joseph Jr posted at 8:39 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Joseph Jr Posts: 512

    I wonder if the PF officer's were wearing these, on the night Justin Todd was killed.

    If so, were the recordings disposed of, or discarded?

    I can envision how these might be "selectively" used, by law enforcement (for their advantage only).

    I see the best and brightest in Idaho LE are on the site again in hopes of intimidating those whose opinions differ from their own.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 8:20 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Poor Wherley. Whenever he tries to sound smart he makes a donkey out of himself. He's such a sophisticated chap. He knows all the laws and all the tactics that cops "should" employ when enforcing the law.

    YO Jeffy, your "analysis" fell short....AGAIN!

  • gggggg posted at 7:33 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    gggggg Posts: 206

    I really appreciate you warning the approaching traffic when we are working traffic. The more you do it the more we all (LEO’s) appreciate it as you are getting off your high horse and helping us out. The goal for working traffic is not to see how many tickets we issue but to keep the motoring public safe. Slowing the traffic down is one way to improve on safety and the more help we get the better. So I would like to thank you for your service. Please keep it up, the more the better.

    By the way it’s a single consent state no matter how YOU try and interpret the law.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 6:11 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Based on my "analysis" I said no such thing as your BS. The closest MY "analysis" came to YOUR BS is that the way our wiretap law is written it is so perilous and subjective , the use and method of acquiring or distributing of anything you record might be a violation of the law without you knowing till your in jail. Even a recording on a public beach.

    I know you like trying to put words in peoples mouths, as part of your little games, but try to understand what is said first, it might help to foresee the ease of their rebuttal. I do wish someone of great than 1st grade comprehension was wanting to debate this. Your mommy called and said it's past your bed time.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 4:57 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Nice try at dodging your erroneous statement, Wherley. You clearly stated that Idaho is a dual party state and now you're trying to back your way out of it. The section you posted deals with wiretaps, expectations of privacy, etc. Based on your "analysis" it would be illegal for someone to video-tape people swimming at a public beach because you don't have their consent. Before you try to interpret laws, you have to have a comprehension level beyond 4th grade.

    And I don't really give two hoots in a hollow log if you play games with the ISP warning other drivers. Knock yourself out. ISP doesn't give a hoot either, and neither does Rathdrum. You're like floorist, exalting yourself beyond reality. I'm sure you'd like to make yourself Public Enemy #1, but the truth is...the cops pay you no mind because you're a silly little man

  • IChoseNID posted at 11:58 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    IChoseNID Posts: 83

    You're exactly right, Denile's. Court proceedings should all be videoed. It would cost a fraction as much as using stenographers.

  • IChoseNID posted at 11:55 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    IChoseNID Posts: 83

    These types of camera's are far more sophisticated than a GoPro Bob, incorporating security software that maintains the integrity of the video. They can't just erase something if they want.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 11:35 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Your ears and eyes, intercept what is around you, and in most cases (yours questionable) transmits it to our brains. Any interception other than your eyes and ears falls into this wiretap law. Whether you like the legalize wording or not, is your problem, but this is the wiretap law that Idaho lives under.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 10:13 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    But by all means don't take my word for any of this. Listen to the teachings of a Law Professor (part1) and a Veteran Police Officers Rebuttal (part2).

    Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
    Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2

  • cougar posted at 10:13 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    cougar Posts: 230

    Jeffrey Wherley

    Once again you're showing your lack of brain matter.


    INTERCEPTION..........Get it JW? The " body cam " isn't intercepting anything. The " body cam " is RECORDING, not INTERCEPTING.

    Hate to burst your bubble, but there is a big difference between intercepting and recording.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 7:25 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Geeeeeeez? I figured this bone would hit one of your ilk.

    If I have any errors in what I said, None were "erroneous" do you even know the definition of such a long word (for you).

    With all your limitless (in your mind) knowledge, do try to show the line in the laws of Idaho how this is a CLEAR single consent state. At some cases times it's single at others it's not, there are no clear lines in Idahos laws, and any "authority" can at will seem to shut down that line and make it duel. Your harassment may not be officially for the recording, but if your on a legal setback or obstructing "official duties" or disturbing the peace or any number of other games that are played to make sure duel consent is needed, including just being a nuisance to recorders of public events by have one officer constantly standing in front of the camera and talking to another officer to make it seem plausible. but not believable, that the blockage is just coincidental.

    Law enforcement is so against recording devices in others hands they lie, cheat and even STEAL to shut them off. But the serfs are suppose to be quite in reverse? I am no serf and never will be. And this is just another step on the road to serfdom.

    RC, you try so hard at times to fight for Conservatism and Constitutionalism. I have seen it, but then at times like this your clear Nazism shines through, Hitler would be proud his legacy lives strong in you.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 7:03 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    18-6702. INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ELECTRONIC OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PROHIBITED. (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person shall be guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not to exceed five (5) years or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both fine and imprisonment if that person:
    (a) Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; or
    (b) Willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:
    1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
    2. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or
    (c) Willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication in violation of this subsection; or......

    I know Idaho is considered "a single-party state" but if want to test 18-6702 and its limits you're braver than I am. And I make a habit of testing the lines of laws, walking up to the line without crossing in full view of those that consider themselves "Authority" is always fun. But that is one law that the line is so muddled there is no clear line. Had great fun last week was followed for 8 miles by ISP because I watched him setup his speed trap in the shadows and then blatantly signaled oncoming traffic of his trap. I continued the warnings of his presents for the 8 miles he tailgated me to Rathdrum. Until I stopped and waved at him as he slowly passed me by, I am sure he thought he would catch me at something I would do wrong. Poor guy, his road rage must have been intense, he even called Rathdrum police to follow me too. I am so glad the question of lights being used as warnings to other drivers to slow down has finally been answered by the courts :) (I know RC will find great pains at this story, and what he finds as disrespect to "authority". ROFL, I ONLY tell of these thing for his angst, it is always fun too)

    This is neither a single or a duel consent state, it jumps back and further and is so subjective, anyone that works on the assumption that it is a single party state is a fool and will cross the line. Even Law enforcement don't have full immunity to the laws.

    Read the laws and do TRY and find a clear line, I sure can't find one.

  • rexaroni posted at 6:30 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.

    rexaroni Posts: 190

    Wherely, the Cop guy is correct. This is a single-party state.

  • IdahoMan posted at 9:17 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    IdahoMan Posts: 104


    The police are CIVILIANS too Caius.

    If the police want to wear cameras, that's great. But they need to take down the "BOSS" cameras off the highway. That Big-Brother junk should not be tolerated here.

  • Rogue Cop posted at 8:23 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Wherley, once again you suffer from cranial rectitus. This is not a duel consent state! And that's just one of your erroneous assumptions. Geeeeeeez!

  • Jill Heine posted at 7:58 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    Jill Heine Posts: 408

    In the aftermath of Gabriel Giffords, how soon before all guns are confiscated and all other rights are gone. Its against the law to even pass out water. Wonder who will get convicted offering a cop a drink?

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 7:19 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    That is not really true. The cameras are manually turned on and of with a 4 hour length before either deleted or upload for prosecution only. If they want to transcribe the conversation and delete the video or delete it all they can if it doesn't help their case. None of these records are available form public records requests or discovery unless the prosecution feels it helps their case.

    Most "interviews" are recorded on video and tape, but as soon as the interviews are transcribed the are deleted. The Officer was there and the words transcribed, "No need to have the videos scrutinized".

  • CaiusCosades posted at 6:59 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    I think this is great for civilians and probably stressful for the police.

    I know I would be stressed if everything I did at work was on video forever, especially being an officer is difficult enough as it is.

    All in all this is a great win for civilians. We don't have to worry about abuse of power, and the courts get to see exactly what happened not just our word against theirs type of scenario.

  • apathoid posted at 6:05 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    apathoid Posts: 211

    Lawyers are going to LOVE the cameras. Lawsuits based on alleged "abuse" will sky rocket. Remember how the Rodney King video was played? Just the snippets where the police over reacting, not all the parts where Rod was abusing them and violently resisting arrest.

  • concernedcitizen posted at 2:42 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530

    I can understand all of the comments and concerns on both sides of the issue posted except for one. And, as usual, that would be lola.

    To understand ANY issue one must look from both and/or ALL sides which it seems lola is incapable of. doing.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 1:51 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1

    Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 1:18 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    The problem with these body camera are:
    1. The camera is not a "Point of View" Camera and doesn't show what the officer is looking at. A camera in glasses or on the brim of a hat is a "Point of View" Camera. So these cameras don't show what the officer sees or doesn't see. If the cop turns his head to the right the camera is still point straight ahead from his chest.
    2. This is a duel consent state, and so a citizen with the same camera could face up to 5 years in prison for doing the same thing a Cop can do. Fixed Cameras can be avoided if a law biding citizen doesn't want to be video taped or in some religions have their souls stolen. (Just has to throw that one in there)
    but the worst is
    3. These tapes are said to be admirable in court somehow even though no Attorney is offered before questioning, and no right to remain silent. This is a blatant attempt to make an end run around the Miranda law. If the Officer has NO, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion to detain or arrest, any interview should be inadmissible as "Fruit of the poisonous tree" as in Miranda vs Arizona.

    Nope, I will Shut up and Lawyer up to any officer with a camera, then Sue for false arrest or Unlawful detention when they find their mistake, because I am a proud Askhole but very law biding. THEN GO ON "VACATION TO THE BAHAMAS."
    I see allot more frustrated Persecutors, angry COPs and lawsuits in the future especially since these are POV cameras in Name only, might even get more COPs perjurying themselves by saying that was their POV when they might have only seen something on reviewing the tape. Flipping off Cameras may become a new national pastime. Especially since it has been found by the courts a constitutional right(One of the few that seem to exist).

  • LTRLTR posted at 1:08 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    LTRLTR Posts: 1171

    That was a good one NONAME. Love the comment.

    Anyone not liking the body cameras must have something to hide. Remember the stupid lawsuits the people bring against our local police like the young woman with no underware on complaining about being searched!

    Good grief people. Cameras are everywhere. Your freedoms are being restored. Now if we could get the City to place cameras on every residential block, I could unload my gun.

  • DeNiles posted at 9:54 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    Here's a bit of irony. We have all of these surveillance devices and all of their recordings are considered evidentiary and admissible in a court of law. I mean why not, they're objective hunks of data, right? Still with all of this technology, the courts are still required to use human court reporters to document all phases of testimony under oath. And they're not cheap either. Full time employees, full benefits, year after year doing what a $10 worth of electronics could do.

    Wanna cuts some gov't costs instead of just incurring more and more? There are plenty of options in the legal arena........... But the laws are written by legal eagles and they protect their own.

  • lola123 posted at 8:54 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    lola123 Posts: 349

    As usualal another moronic comment from the ever so paranoid mr. wherley and mr myers.
    This is to protect the officer from bogus accusation from obvious guilty parties. This will also help in prosecution, and prevent bogus lawsuits. If you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about.
    What are you two afraid of?

  • oatster posted at 8:32 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    oatster Posts: 34

    what good are the "body cams" ,when they do catch a criminal in most case's the county prosecuter drops charges and the thugs are cut loose from jail,with a slap on the hand..and then go out and re-offend....

  • NoName posted at 8:29 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    NoName Posts: 253

    .....I was just thinking.... the only folks who aren't going to like the camera's are

  • NoName posted at 8:28 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    NoName Posts: 253

    I'm 100% in favor of the camera's- to protect EVERONE (police, civilians, bystanders, etc.) from everything from the abuse of police powers to abusive citizens. Perfect. Now if we can only get the camera's to capture 100% of the police activities.....

    Seems like the ISP still wants to play rough and tumble....... oh well, they are just one big lawsuit away from camera's too.

  • Bob Loblaw posted at 8:16 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    Bob Loblaw Posts: 413

    An HD GoPro cam is about $300. Why are we paying 3 times that? Oh yeah, it's the government.

  • voxpop posted at 6:27 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    voxpop Posts: 738

    What a moronic attitude. The only point to a body cam is to establish truth. OH wait, that's not what people like you want. You're the type who wants to use obfuscation, innuendo, and a video phone (as well as a lawyer of course) to fund their next vacation to the Bahamas.

  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 1:51 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Won't be long before people just don't trust any police officers. OH wait, that has already vastly happened, this is just a further example of why people don't trust and stay aloof of them.

    To bad they constantly prove they are not public servants or out to protect and serve but always on the lookout for their next victim to persecute and violate.

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard