Are there any posts about actual stories of how their cams have been used to help make their case? About how the LEOs react to the introduction of DC video when they appear? How about road rage? Can someone complain if they are raged and prove it or do the LEOs not even care? If you are stopped and know you are innocent would you have a chance at a hearing if you can prove you violated no laws or would you need a lawyer to introduce evidence?
In 2007, I was cited for driving 72 in a 55. I was flowing with traffic, albeit, one of the lead cars. It was a road I drove every day to get to work, and my routine was quite consistent - setting my cruise to match the flow. That day, I set it to 68mph. Now granted, I WAS speeding - 13mph over, to be exact. So when I was (rightfully) stopped, I had no problem accepting the citation for my actual violation.
The deputy asked me, "do you know how fast you were going?" I said, "No sir, but if you give me a second, I can rewind this video and it'll tell me."
"That is so cool! Our cruisers don't even have that" he said with the excitement of a 10 year old with a new toy. When I replayed the video, it showed I was doing no more than 68.5 mph for the 2min before I came into range of his laser gun, all the way up to when he got behind me. He said, "That's neat, but I trust my laser gun..."
Anyway, to answer your question, I ended up going to court with the video of the stop, with the GPS speed stamped in the corner. I also provided other videos of me going past those radar-based speed reporting signs. In each case, the speed displayed by the sign, and the GPS imprinted speed were exactly the same.
Further, I did some research on the laser gun that the county uses (LTI 20/20 - which incidentally was
banned in the UK due to a known, proven 'slippage' defect that causes erroneously high speed reading). I brought the operating manual for the laser gun to court, with the manufacturer's specification page. It declared the 20/20 gun as a velocity accuracy of +/- 1.0 MPH. I also brought the spec sheet for my GPS unit, which had a stated accuracy of 0.1MPH - a full 10x better.
In the end, the judge reduced the citation from 72 to 68. And that was fair. I don't have a problem with paying for my misdeeds. Paying more - especially when you consider that a 13mph over is treated as a minor speeding infraction, vs. the alleged 17mph overage, which is a major infraction - is not something I will take lying down.
Now on to my non-attorney spokesman perspective of 'evidentiary requirements' regarding admissibility of our videos...
When you are a defendant, you are entitled to submit ANYTHING into evidence that will help corroborate your defense. The video you captured on your camera is nothing more than a witness to the event. It cannot be dismissed or disallowed simply because you can't prove authenticity or accuracy. The judge/magistrate/jury may ultimately not believe it has value, or may question it's validity, but it's no different than witness testimony.
If the State/prosecution wants to use the dash camera video as evidence against you, then there IS an additional burden placed on them to verify it's legitimacy and accuracy. In other words, they cannot use it as they would the testimony of a trained and certified officer in the use of a certified and calibrated piece of speed detection equipment. If you challenge the calibration records of a laser/radar gun, for example, and the state cannot prove it was calibrated within an allowable time frame, it gets dismissed as evidence, and the case is dropped. Since your dash camera video doesn't meet state requirements for accuracy certification/calibration, and it has no security features that guarantee it hasn't been altered (therefore chain of custody cannot be verified), it is virtually impossible for the video to be used as a means of prosecution. Especially in civil infractions (speeding, running a red light, road rage, etc) where no accident or damage has occurred, and where typically an officer would have to witness (first-hand) the infraction in order for it to be admissible.
Criminal infractions (DUI crashes, hit and run, etc) where an officer doesn't have to witness the crime first hand for the prosecution to pounce, yeah, they'll use the video.
Sorry so long winded...
