EDGAR CO., IL. (ECWd) –
We recently reported on a lawsuit (here) where an individual claims he was wrongly arrested and the handcuffs were placed on his wrists too tight, causing injuries.
After receiving what is purported to be all the video from the incident, it is evident the deputy did not keep the camera rolling … or the Sheriff’s Department did not provide all of the video we requested under the Freedom Of Information Act.
What good are cameras if they can be turned off or do not record the entire incident?
Virtually useless videos provided to us:
.
.
.
Link to the radio traffic audio files provided – which has none of the interaction between the deputy and the alleged victim.
[documentcloud url=”http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3156523-Burgin-Accident-Report.html” pdf=false]
Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.
[wp_eStore_donate id=1]
Â
Â
7 Comments
Bozo the clown
Posted at 21:45h, 22 OctoberI talked to someone who was there and seen it. He said the guy went nuts on the deputy and came at him. He said the deputy asked him nicely several times to leave and the guy got worse every time. He also said the guy changed his toon and apologized numerous times for his behavior after he was taken out of the squad and un-cuffed. He said the guy never said anything about his wrists.
Person who was on seen says
Posted at 18:54h, 04 NovemberThe Deputy was never Nice at all. Rude as could be. All the guy wanted was a police report. MY GOD HIS Son was just injured. When He demanded it. The Deputy told him to get in his Fucking car and leave the scene. the Guy backed up and said NO! than got arrested?? When he asked why the Deputy uttered, obstructing a criminal investigation??
What criminal investigation?? Never once did I see the Deputy Lock the cuffs. But I did hear the guy yell in pain it hurt his wrist cuff was to tight. The Deputy had a Body Cam on. Where is the Video???
Jim Reed
Posted at 20:47h, 22 OctoberWell, I note that a report WAS apparently completed AND the officer duly noted a proper “double-lock and check for fit” in his report. I would naturally be curious to know when the report was actually completed…in relation to all of the brew ha ha and the Qs being aired as to whether or not he completed said report and actually double-locked and checked the cuffs for fit. The reason for such curiosity should be clear to all – without casting aspersions on the involved officer. I also noted that the officer said that the defendant was “interfering with my investigation” but the officer had just previously said, essentially, that there was no investigation, as at the time, he found no damage (exceeding $1,500), no property damage and no injuries. I guess I would be asking for a copy of the sheriff’s department’s policy on use of video, activating video, deactivating video and …hmm, I’ll save this suggestion until we see how these Qs are answered. Was he actually arrested and formally charged by the state’s attorney?
Person who was on seen says
Posted at 18:59h, 04 NovemberThe guy was released at the scene but he was deprived of his liberty and injured.
Warren J. Le Fever
Posted at 15:08h, 22 OctoberI thought cameras were the cure-all for police problems. That’s what the news people claimed.
Person who was on seen says
Posted at 19:05h, 04 NovemberThe problem is apparently in Paris you can turn them off when ever you want. or say you did and erase footage. Paris Sheriff Wood is Crooked so are most of his Deputies. We have a lot of bad cops our town needs a good law enforcement cleanout..Both County & PD My God Detective Terry Rodgers Smokes Dope. and is a crooked cop. yet somehow he is able to stay on the Force??? Amazing!!
Person who was on seen says
Posted at 05:47h, 05 NovemberAGAIN BURGIN VIOLATES THE LAW!!!
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
(50 ILCS 706/) Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act.
50 ILCS 706/Art. 10
(50 ILCS 706/Art. 10 heading)
ARTICLE 10.
(50 ILCS 706/10-20)
Sec. 10-20. Requirements.
(a) The Board shall develop basic guidelines for the use of officer-worn body cameras by law enforcement agencies. The guidelines developed by the Board shall be the basis for the written policy which must be adopted by each law enforcement agency which employs the use of officer-worn body cameras. The written policy adopted by the law enforcement agency must include, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) Cameras must be equipped with pre-event
recording, capable of recording at least the 30 seconds prior to camera activation, unless the officer-worn body camera was purchased and acquired by the law enforcement agency prior to July 1, 2015.
(2) Cameras must be capable of recording for a period
of 10 hours or more, unless the officer-worn body camera was purchased and acquired by the law enforcement agency prior to July 1, 2015.
(3) Cameras must be turned on at all times when the
officer is in uniform and is responding to calls for service or engaged in any law enforcement-related encounter or activity, that occurs while the officer is on duty.
(A) If exigent circumstances exist which prevent
the camera from being turned on, the camera must be turned on as soon as practicable.
(B) Officer-worn body cameras may be turned off
when the officer is inside of a patrol car which is equipped with a functioning in-car camera; however, the officer must turn on the camera upon exiting the patrol vehicle for law enforcement-related encounters.
(4) Cameras must be turned off when:
(A) the victim of a crime requests that the
camera be turned off, and unless impractical or impossible, that request is made on the recording;
(B) a witness of a crime or a community member
who wishes to report a crime requests that the camera be turned off, and unless impractical or impossible that request is made on the recording; or
(C) the officer is interacting with a
confidential informant used by the law enforcement agency.
However, an officer may continue to record or resume
recording a victim or a witness, if exigent circumstances exist, or if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a victim or witness, or confidential informant has committed or is in the process of committing a crime. Under these circumstances, and unless impractical or impossible, the officer must indicate on the recording the reason for continuing to record despite the request of the victim or witness.
(4.5) Cameras may be turned off when the officer is
engaged in community caretaking functions. However, the camera must be turned on when the officer has reason to believe that the person on whose behalf the officer is performing a community caretaking function has committed or is in the process of committing a crime. If exigent circumstances exist which prevent the camera from being turned on, the camera must be turned on as soon as practicable.