Albuquerque Police Chief Says Officers Have 5th Amendment Right to Leave Body Cameras Off

On February 17, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Police Chief Harold Medina drove his pickup truck “unsafely” when he ran a red light and crashed into a car, seriously injuring the driver, according to a recent report from internal investigators who looked into the shocking incident.

Duh, you might say if you’ve seen the surveillance camera footage of the crash, which shows Medina crossing Central Avenue, a busy four-lane street, against the light. He crosses the westbound lanes through a gap between two cars, forcing one of the drivers to slam on the brakes, before crossing into the eastbound lanes, where he slams into the side of a gold 1966 Mustang driven by Todd Perchert, 55.

While Medina’s recklessness seems obvious, the Albuquerque Police Department’s Fleet Crash Review Board (CRB) concluded earlier this year that the crash was “unavoidable.” How so? Medina, who was driving to a news conference Saturday with his wife when he detoured to check out a homeless encampment, said he ran a red light to escape an altercation between two homeless men that escalated into a shootout at the intersection of Central and Alvarado Drive.

While “the initial decision to proceed through the intersection is not in question,” Lt. James Ortiz said in the Internal Affairs report, “the facts and circumstances do not excuse department personnel from driving with caution to ensure no further harm is caused to personnel or citizens.” Medina, Ortiz said, clearly failed to do so: “By definition, driving in a crosswalk, weaving between two vehicles traveling on a busy street, and crossing an intersection with eastbound traffic were unsafe driving practices.” In this case, he notes, these dangerous practices “resulted in a vehicle collision with serious physical injuries to the victim, including a broken collarbone and shoulder blade, eight broken ribs (reconstructed with titanium plates after surgery), a collapsed lung, lacerations to the left ear and head, multiple gashes to the face, a seven-hour operation, and a hospital stay requiring epidural pain medication and a chest tube for nearly a week.”

Ortiz not only disagrees with the CRB’s conclusion on the Medina crash; he says the board should never have reviewed the incident because its mandate is limited to crashes “not involving death or serious injury.” Ortiz says CRB Chairman Benito Martinez violated department policy when he ruled that the board should make a judgment on the Medina crash.

Martinez acknowledged that department policy “prohibited the CRB from reviewing serious injury accidents” and that “allowing such a case to be reviewed would be a violation of policy.” Why did he allow it? “He explained that his reasoning for allowing the CRB to review the chief’s accident was based on his belief that someone wanted the accident reviewed,” Ortiz wrote. “Commander Martinez made it clear that he believed someone in Internal Affairs wanted the case reviewed by the CRB to ensure full transparency. However, he did not consult with anyone in Internal Affairs to verify the accuracy of this assumption.”

The CRB’s decision to review the crash and its implied exoneration of Medina are hard to understand. But Medina’s explanation for the third policy violation Ortiz identified—the chief’s failure to activate his body camera after the crash—is even stranger.

“After the collision, the victim approached,” Ortiz wrote. “The victim informed the Chief that he was okay and had not been shot. Chief Medina asked the victim to remain at the scene, but the victim refused and fled southbound on Alvarado. Another citizen approached the Chief and stated that he saw individuals exit a black truck and flee the scene. The Chief clarified to the witness that no one was in trouble. It is important to note that these interactions were not recorded and are mandatory recording encounters.”

Medina offered two baffling excuses for not having a camera. “He cited intermittent conversations with his wife, who was a passenger in his unmarked patrol car at the time of the collision,” Ortiz said. “He claimed that there was a right to spousal privilege, which specifically exempted him from the mandatory recording requirements.” But the current policy “does not provide for nonrecording based on spousal privilege.”

Even more troubling, Medina said he “deliberately chose not to record the incident because he was invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.” Since he “was involved in a traffic accident,” he explained, he was “subject to Fifth Amendment protections.”

Consider the implications of this argument. Body cameras are supposed to help document (and perhaps deter) police misconduct. But Medina suggests that officers have a constitutional right to refrain from recording their interactions with the public whenever that evidence could be used against them. By turning on their cameras in these situations, he argues, officers could be incriminating themselves. That’s the whole point.

Medina received two official reprimands for the camera violation and for the reckless driving that injured Perchert, a victim of the police chief’s desperation to save his own skin. Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller fancies himself a hero.

Albuquerque Police Chief Says Officers Have 5th Amendment Right to Leave Body Cameras Off appeared first on Reason.com.