Are Iowa law enforcement departments being allowed to destroy evidence?SteveL
IS AMERICA BECOMING A POLICE STATE?
Manchester, Iowa – Augustin “Gus” Mormann was on a motorcycle on December 10, 2020 when a police car came into contact with the bike he was operating. A police officer operating a police cruiser twice came into contact with the bike. Following the accident Mormann ended up alive but living for 36 days in a semi-conscious state and paralyzed.
“Yes. He knew it was artificial means keeping him alive and he had no movement in any of his limbs or body. He could only speak if they took the respirator out,” O’Brien says. “He chose not be kept alive by artificial means.”
WHERE DID THAT VIDEO FOOTAGE DISAPPEAR TO?
Following the collision, the video footage from the squad car was not immediately produced upon request. Instead, the claim was made the officer “forgot to turn on the camera”. The claim is being made that the delay was engineered into the police department procedures that would then allow later video footage to overwrite the squad car footage, thereby destroying what happened on December 10, 2020. After the December 20,2020 footage is overwritten, the excuse then becomes that the patrol camera was never turned on because the officer forgets to turn it on. The same reasons appear to have been stated about the officer’s body cam.
WHY WAN’T THE VIDEO FOOTAGE PRESERVED?
This is the problem with one Party politics in Iowa, when the dominant Party is by definition conservatives and could care less about getting to the truth. Where is the investigation by the Iowa State Patrol and the Governor’s office as to why that footage was allowed to be overridden? It doesn’t matter what you think about the guy on the motorcycle who is outrunning the police. That’s not the point. The point is if the police acted recklessly or intentionally and maliciously, or with excess force, then we as citizens should want to know so that we can protect Iowans against the use of excess force.
I have seen video footage where officers position themselves between the squad car video camera and the suspect being either detained or arrested. Intentional? Or, unintentional blocking the camera from recording the arrest? Shouldn’t really matter. If the officers have somehow prohibited or destroyed evidence the case should be dismissed.
WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESERVING EVIDENCE WHILE IN POLICE CUSTODY?
We are all witnessing just how political the Supreme Court appointments have become. I am beginning to doubt the high Courts are an independent third branch of the government. More and more they seem in lock-step with the Republican Party and an extension of that political party.
As for destroying evidence. Today it is a car accident. Tomorrow it is a police officer using his badge to shield him from some other more heinous conduct unbecoming an officer. The point is, using police procedures to intentionally or unintentionally destroy evidence should not be allowed.
WHO BENEFITS WHEN EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED TO BE DESTROYED?
Here are some pros and cons of body worn cameras for police.
- PRO: Footage can be used as evidence. This is probably one of the biggest benefits of body cameras for law enforcement — the ability to use the footage later on in a court of law if necessary. …
- CON: Restricted privacy. …
- PRO: Violence prevention. …
- CON: Video quality.
That from 10-8 Video, Digital Evidence Solutions
The Lombardi Law Firm is a West Des Moines personal injury firm that is selective about which cases we take. We do not shoe every horse that comes in the barn. Nor do we advertise on buses or on TV. We are the peoples’ personal injury lawyers. We help people.
And no, it doesn’t cost you anything to call and just talk to us. Call to schedule a Zoom.