cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/20380296

Medina offered two puzzling excuses for leaving his camera off. He “cited intermittent conversations with his wife, who was a passenger in his unmarked patrol vehicle at the time of the collision,” Ortiz says. “He claimed there was a right to privileged communication between spouses, which specifically exempted him from mandatory recording requirements.” But the relevant policy “does not provide for nonrecording based on spousal privilege.”

Even more troubling, Medina said he “purposefully did not record because he was invoking his 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate.” Since “he was involved in a traffic collision,” he reasoned, he was “subject to 5th Amendment protections.”

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Right, but there is currently a constitutional protection which makes it legally okay to exclude any and all self-incriminating evidence and I don’t see a police officer clause tacked below it so the officer is factually correct.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Theres an ongoing case against Nicholas P. Duty for a judge and jury to create precedent for future rulings. Got any past decisions?