Harold Medina made that argument during an internal investigation of a crash he caused last February.

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.”

  • blindbunnyOPEnglish
    14·
    2 months ago

    This is the same dude that got himself a 100k police cruiser because he wrecked his.

  • Steve@communick.newsMEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    He’s probably right from an actual legal standpoint.
    But he shouldn’t be right.

    It only makes sense to have additional laws setting a higher standard of conduct and accountability, for those making, interpreting, and enforcing laws.

    As a healthcare worker, I’m a “Mandated Reporter”. I could be held legally liable for Not calling the cops, if I see a kid being mistreated in the supermarket. And that makes sense to me. The nature of my job could make me liable and responsible in ways we wouldn’t expect from the general population.

    Yah, the 5th amendment has no carve-out for any specific jobs. But just like when a person pleads the 5th in court, you know it looks real bad if a cop refuses to turn on their camera.