The police dept has no Facebook wall that the public can post to. They have no email address to email a link to Youtube. They have quite literally no way for me to get a video to them. They requested I "bring the file to them". In the year 2017.
I have a similar story.
In 2015, a car sped past me illegally on a two lane road approaching a blind curve. Solid double yellow line, ie: no passing. He kept speeding, maybe 50mph in a 25mph zone. 1/2 mile later, in the distance, I saw the car go off the road and crash through the guard rail, and ended up straddling the sidewalk. A pedestrian was 25 ft away at the time of the crash.
When I pulled over, the driver was still in the car, dazed. When asked, he said he was okay. Then he tried to start his car to drive away. I explained the crash had severely damaged the front of his car, and antifreeze was running down the sidewalk. The driver got out to take a look. He stood directly in the steam of anti-freeze, and tugged on the dangling bumper. I thought; "
This is strange, maybe he's drunk? But it's 7:30am. Maybe it's drugs? Maybe he's a few cards short of a full deck?"
My car was equipped with 4 cams and an NVR. I caught it all.
Later, I called the police, saying I was a witness, and I had footage. They said a detective would call me later. The next day, I got a call. The detective was interested in the footage. But couldn't visit me to view the footage. He didn't have access to YouTube from police computers (their IT dept blocks access). And he couldn't receive the video by email (I forget the reason). He asked me to drop off the video. Their location made that inconvenient to me, and frankly, why should a witness who is trying to
help them do their job, have to spend time & energy? The detective agreed that a DVD in the mail was acceptable.
I offloaded the video from the NVR. I chose the "self extracting, with embedded video player" file type. This is suitable to comply with "Chain of Custody" requirements, which prevents tampering with the video. Meaning the video could be used in court, ie: the "evidence is admissible"
My only stipulation was that my employer not be identified, unless they asked me first. My employer sold cams and NVRs to police, bus and train customers. (that was the system I had in my car). I didn't think it was my decision to get my company involved. If the police found the evidence was useful, then some higher-ups in my company would decide
how to get involved. (eg: the Legal Dept, Sr Mgmt, etc)
A few weeks later, I contacted the detective and asked about my video. He appreciated seeing the footage, and said the driver was charged with "speed in excess of conditions". The dangerous passing on a blind curve and his reckless driving warranted a "Reckless Driving" charge, the detective admitted. But my stipulation that I be contacted before the video was used in official documents made them decide to not use that evidence. Arrgh!
A head-on collision on the blind turn could have happened. A pedestrian could have been hit. The driver was clearly speeding, twice the speed limit. And I had the footage of the driver's very strange behavior after the accident, trying to leave the scene of an accident, and showing he shouldn't have been behind the wheel of a car.
Conclusions:
- The PD was unable to easily accept video evidence, they
- made it inconvenient for the witness (me) to submit evidence, and most aggravating,
- they didn't use the evidence.
- They pretty much let the driver off with barely a slap on the hand.
Fastb
