Would Legislation Be Un-Social?

I read today that technologies are making our younger generations less equipped to do things on their own, i.e. use a paperback thesaurus, tie their own shoes, remove ice cubes from a tray. Is this because online wordfinders, velcro shoes and automatic icemakers have made these needs obsolete -- or is it that they spend so much time Googling, Facebooking, Tweeting, etc. that little time is left for real interaction and physical "doing"?

I would argue it's combination of both, born from a constant attachment to IPhone, Androids, Blackberries and some, still their laptops.

I am not here to judge whether time spent online is hindering or helping their socialization, common sense or educational progress. I am sure there is data to argue both sides of that debate. But when online time overtakes offline time -- we now text more than we call; we teleconference and online chat a whole lot more than we business travel-- we need to examine the law enforcement ramifications.

When an investigation is underway, law enforcement personnel utilize monitoring techniques and surveillance systems to record conversations and phonecalls. But when criminals elect to text rather than talk, or kidnappers Skype their demands, we are unequivocally behind the technology times. Presently, there is no way to access these types of communications in real time, severely hindering criminal investigations -- especially those involving suspected terrorism.

The Obama administration is seeking to remedy this disadvantage with its initiative to require social media and voice-over-technology companies to build in a way for law enforcement personnel to monitor these types of communication, when the need calls for it. As of now, applications such as Facebook, Twitter, Sykpe and others do not have this capability.

Always sensitive to the personal privacy versus public safety argument, the FBI, Justice Department and National Security Council, remind us that this is not a new, more expansive stance -- yet an extension of the already existing CALEA Act of 1987 which grants court-ordered access to telecommunications methods during criminal investigations.

I am not sure why this proposal has been bandied about for the past two years without any real movement taken. As the discussions have occurred, the prevalence of social media and encryption technologies has skyrocketed over the same time period. Law enforcement's reach into these media has been well outpaced by the actual media themselves.

So while some public safety software and equipment companies are utilizing these innovative and cutting edge technologies to prevent and report on crimes, shouldn't we also be able to monitor those applications that may be used to counter our very advancements? The technology should even playing fields -- and when there's an advantage to be given, shouldn't it be on the side of law enforcement, and not just on the side of the Velcro-wearing, ice-cube ignorant uber-online addicts?

Will Massachusetts Emergency Dispatch Services Ever Be Regionalized?

Massachusetts is one of the only states that has not, for the most part, regionalized its dispatch services. Granted, it takes years, serious investment and extreme dedication to accomplish such an undertaking. Case in point: the State of Oregon worked for 16 years to regionalize the dispatch of its state police services, but it was worth it. Now, there are two command centers that act as primary points of contact for all state police needs across the state - instead of 26. Tax payers' money is saved, scales of economies are realized, and updated technologies are enjoyed throughout the state.

It's not that the ideas and the benefits haven't been presented. In the last three years, Essex, Plymouth and Worcester counties have all brought up proposals for regionalizing emergency dispatch services. And with any Massachusetts proposal, there have been dissenters. Those opposed to the combining of services, site possible layoffs, lack of presence in overnight facilities to greet visitors, and varying degrees of dispatcher familiarity with towns involved, as main reasons to veto.

Even though finances shouldn't be the main reason to act on this trend, it is hard to overlook the hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money that could be saved. And now, when agencies are expected to do less with more, and budget cuts are forcing every department to look more thoroughly than ever at its expenditures, those savings could really be leveraged. If nothing else, then there are plenty of case studies to show us the way to regionalize emergency dispatch for our own success, and that may just be enough to lead us firmly in that direction.

Hunter Systems Group's Mugshot Capture System FAQ

Although our NIST-Compliant mugshot capture system, Hunter Smartshot, is easy-to-use and virtually maintenance and support-free we are still asked questions about our mug shot capture system. Three of the most frequently asked questions we will address below.

Question:
Our department has several officers taking mugshots with a digital camera and the photographs are all cropped differently. This has left us with a large database of mug shots that are inconsistently cropped and framed. Can we share these mug shots with other local or national departments?

Answer:
Whenever you have officers taking mug shots that are not aware of the NIST Best Practices, there will always be slight framing issues that go against NIST guidelines. If your department takes mugshots this way, just go back and compare your mugshots for the last 1 to 3 months, or more, to see how much they differ from officer to officer. These may be shared with other departments and larger databases, but using these mug shots for identification purposes may lead to their ultimate inadmissibility in courts of law due to bias, inconsistency or other factors.

Question:
We use software with pan-tilt-zoom features and our mug shots still come out inconsistently from officer to officer. How do we correct this to follow NIST guidelines?

Answer:
With this type of system, you will almost always experience inconsistencies because of different framing interpretations from one photographer to the next. To correct these inconsistencies, officers taking mug shots should be trained in NIST best practices found on our website.

Question:
Why are NIST standards not mandated by the Federal Government, or by our state?

Answer:
The Federal Government and several states are discovering the importance of consistent and standardized mug shots as an investigative and identification tool. We believe that these governmental bodies will soon start developing standardization that will be mandated across all jurisdictions. We advise you to constantly monitor your State's progress on standardization of mug shot capturing or to contact us for periodic updates.

For more information on our mug shot capture system, always feel free to visit our website at http://huntersystemsgroup.com/

New Type of Shooters Go to Jail...Videotaping police leads to time behind bars

iPhones, Smartphones, Dime-sized video cameras. Even kid-focused Nintendo DS's and candy-colored Nickelodeon-character video recorders. Personal videotaping devices are more portable and easy-to-use than ever. The primary purpose of these devices -- pure entertainment (though the woman caught on tape, who attacked a McDonald's worker over morning Chicken McNuggets may think otherwise). Videotaping amongst children doing pop-a-wheelies on their bikes is one thing. But what about videotaping that is far from child's' play -- like police officer encounters?

There have been several newsworthy occurrences of alleged illegal wiretapping of police officers lately. This recent trend can be directly correlated to the smartphone craze. Always handy, the cell phone has recorded police arrests, altercations, and police interrogations that otherwise would have gone undocumented. And when the police officers realize the recording is taking place, some situations become even more argumentative.

Take Tasha Ford, for instance, a South Florida woman who was jailed for "eavesdropping" when she, along with her video camera-phone, approached police that had handcuffed her son in a parking lot for allegedly trying to sneak into a movie without a ticket. The police told her it was illegal to record someone without them being aware. She quickly responded ,"My name is Tasha Ford and I am recording you." The police abandoned the trite charge against her son, and changed their focus to Ms. Ford, arresting her under Florida's electronic surveillance law.

"What's the big deal?" one might ask. If a police officer is doing his or her duty, that officer should have no beef with the fact that a recording is being made of the actions, right? After all, police and government work for US, the people. Not the other way around. It could be argued that the more transparent and out in the open the law enforcement exchanges are, the better.

But is that what is really happening? Or are these recordings problematic under the Wiretap Act, which prohibits all wiretapping of citizens without a warrant from a three-judge court? Mostly, this Act pertains to the videotaping of private matters, and without the other person's consent. It could be argued that police matters are always public matters serving the public interest. But what about receiving their consent? It is a murky area, that has been argued under many different circumstances in many state and federal courts.

No consent was given to Anthony Graber, a Maryland National Guard officer, before he videotaped his traffic stop from his motorcycle helmet and released it onto YouTube. He is now facing up to 16 years in jail for violating the state's wiretap laws, for recording the state trooper that pulled him over, without his consent. The fact that the recording shows the trooper cutting Graber off and pulling his revolver on him during the traffic stop could have added fuel to the fire. We also don't have the context of these actions to get the whole unadulterated story of the incident -- just Graber's video portrayal.

One of the arguments against videotaping of police activities by civilians is that no one can be sure that the original recording has not been altered after the fact. Editing software is just as easy and commonplace as the video recording devices themselves. It wouldn't take much for a grudge-wielding accessory to a crime, or any editing novice to completely change the sentiment or "evidence" within the recording, and then release it to news organizations to influence an ongoing investigation.

The major point seems to be the potential inconsistencies and varying points of subjective views that one civilian's video may have toward a police officer or ongoing case. And it seems the only satisfactory way to deal with these issues is to continue barring civilians from filming and capturing police scenes themselves. A government-sanctioned, police-endorsed product that records, that cannot be overridden or edited, and that expertly captures the entire encounter, both video- and audio-wise, needs to be the only acceptable media for such endeavors.

Hunter Systems Group's body worn video recorder, Hunter iCapture(TM) does just that. Its high quality picture, audio and remote operating capabilities make it a best-in-class alternative to grainy, inaudible and indecipherable recordings by civilians or lesser products. It's worn comfortably by officers in any situation, whether a routine traffic stop or a more active S.W.A.T-scenario, and is not susceptible to any after-the-fact rogue editing.

Because it is password-protected and technologically superior to any other handheld or personal video recording mechanism in existence, there is no reason to use anything but Hunter iCapture. Additionally, the camera device may be mounted in the police cruiser as an in car video or may easily be detached to act as a body worn video recorder. The more universal the operating system for police departments, security organizations, border patrols, and any other crime-prevention entities, the better and more useful the evidence.

If police wear these types of cameras, citizens like Ms. Ford and Mr. Graber wouldn't feel the need to pirate their own recordings, getting themselves into even more trouble than the initial instigation. In the meantime, let's save the iPhone and handheld cameras for what they were intended --the birthday parties and pop-a-wheelies. And the occasional drive-through debacle.

Mugshot Capturing - NIST Best Practices

Mugshots are one of law enforcement's most important tools in cataloguing convict information as well as obtaining convictions for crimes. Whether they be jail mugshots, funny mugshots or just the creation mugshot database, this photographic evidence, once obtained, may be shared by departments across the country to identify a repeat offender in the same or another jurisdiction. Another important feature of mugshots, an increasing focus in today fiscal landscape, is their ability to be used for photographic arrays and lineups for victim and witness identification. Not only do lineup arrays employing mugshots save time and resources, they present these tools without individuals even knowing that they are suspects

The problem with mugshots' usage as a lineup tool lies with the uniformity of mugshots taken from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Whereas similar looking suspects presented in an unbiased photographic manner leads to identifications that can influence judges and juries, carelessly taken mugshots, mugshots with different lighting, different colored-backgrounds, disparate poses or aspect ratios may lead to bias in identifying perpetrators of crime - oftentimes leading to prosecutors determining that this type of evidence would be impermissible or worse the successful suppression of this type of evidence in courts of law. Thus, to create photographic arrays that consist of similar photographs fall into the hands of individuals making subjective decisions.

The NIST has developed the Best Practice Recommendation for the Capture of Mugshots. These practices, developed over the course of several years, were introduced in 1997 to mandate uniformity and consistency in mugshot taking. To create and maintain uniformity, NIST suggests standardization of the following photograph specifications:

Types of Poses
Depth of Field
Centering
Lighting
Background
Exposure
Aspect Ratio
Minimum Number of Pixels
Color Space
Pixel Aspect Ratio
Compression Algorithm
File Format

Recently, to combat the disparate nature of mugshot-taking, many states have begun to employ the NIST standards of mugshot capturing. For instance, States such as Michigan, Indiana, New York and Virginia have implemented similar procedures on mugshot capture consistency. After all, if mugshots are different from user to user or department to department, their use as identification tool is practically worthless.

It is incumbent on other states and municipalities to begin following these standards. Even if you believe that complying with standardized guidelines for mugshot capturing is unnecessary, your mugshots may need to be utilized by another locality for identification purposes. As a law enforcement agency, do you want to jeopardize the conviction process in this way?

Campus Security - Updates to the Clery Act

On July 1, 2010, new regulations affecting campus security at institutions of higher learning took effect. These regulations address many areas, including changes to certain financial aid rules and regulations, changes to fire reporting requirements and file sharing. However, the most important changes that were implemented include updates to the reporting requirements and notifications under the Clery Act.

The Clery Act, formally known as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, was named after Jeanne Clery, a 19 year old college student who was murdered in her dorm room in 1986. In the investigation, it was discovered that her school had either misreported or failed to report numerous instances of crime on her campus. The 1990 Act helped increase of awareness of crime on campus and as a result helped increase information-sharing and notification of issues.

Schools that receive or participate in federal funding programs must submit to its students and faculty Campus Safety and Security Reports detailing crimes, such as homicides, burglaries, aggravated assault, arson, etc. in and around campus. The Clery Act also requires campus security officials to maintain crime logs for several years, including a two month log immedately available to anyone who requests a copy, as well as timely reports if there is imminent threat. Failure to do so could result in thousands of dollars of fines per violation.

The 2010 regulations, originally issued by the Department of Education in October 2009, require additional reporting in these Campus Safety and Security Reports. These additions include the following:

• Campus policies regarding law enforcement authority of campus security officials.
• Details of relationships with local law enforcement.
• Methods of incident reporting.
• Description of processes that lead to notification of emergency situations.
• Additional reporting of crimes if determined to be hate crimes.

If you suspect that your school/employer is not complying with these new requirements under the Clery Act, contact the regional office of the Department of Education that handles the state in which your school/employer is located. The regional office will then assist you and, more importantly, determine the next steps to take to ensure compliance.

Trusting Video Evidence in Courtroom Proceedings

I was remembering an old saying from Benjamin Franklin recently that I had first heard several years ago - believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. Franklin was merely trying to have us think for ourselves, trust our own judgments and not the judgments of others in forming opinions and taking actions.

Interestingly enough, this very quote came to mind after reading the cover story in the May-June 2010 issue of Evidence Technology about the use of video technology and the field of forensic video analysis. Putting aside the author's obvious aim to put his business in a better light, the question he poses is still a valid one - can video evidence be trusted?

First, video evidence may be used as primary evidence, but secondary evidence must also be gathered to strengthen a case against a perpetrator. Witness statements and scientific forensic evidence are just as important as video evidence in the accuracy of convictions. Reliance solely on video evidence is bad practice. Ultimately, it is merely one tool in law enforcement's arsenal and should be treated as such.

The author's anecdotes that seem to increase the need for specialized video analysts are inconsistent with current technology available to first responders. CCTV and time lapse photography are no longer the only tools that are available to law enforcement personnel investigating crimes, or perhaps even while those crimes are occurring. Technology has progressed to the point that police officers may obtain video and audio evidence that may not be tampered with or destroyed, includes GPS information stamp and a time and date stamp while the evidence is being collected. Analyzing video evidence is made much easier if judges and juries may review this type of evidence knowing that the evidence can't be lost or altered. Truly seeing is believing. There would be no need for experts in forensic video analysis with widespread use of this new technology. And the answer to the question posed above, while it remains just a piece of the puzzle, would be yes, video evidence may be trusted.

Hunter Systems Group is currently distributing its Hunter iCapture(TM) body worn video devices. Hunter iCapture(TM) combines state of the art video/audio capture with instant video display and playback that immediately becomes saved onto an accompanying hard drive. Employing both security software and camera technology that makes both day and night evidence gathering simple, the Hunter iCapture(TM) device is currently being used in 60 agencies worldwide. Visit our Body Worn Video homepage to find out more or email us at sales@huntersystemsgroup.com.