Medina offered two puzzling excuses for leaving his camera off. He “cited intermittent conversations with his wife, who was a passenger in his unmarked patrol vehicle at the time of the collision,” Ortiz says. “He claimed there was a right to privileged communication between spouses, which specifically exempted him from mandatory recording requirements.” But the relevant policy “does not provide for nonrecording based on spousal privilege.”

Even more troubling, Medina said he “purposefully did not record because he was invoking his 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate.” Since “he was involved in a traffic collision,” he reasoned, he was “subject to 5th Amendment protections.”

  • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    If he’s wrong (and I think he is) then doesn’t his turning off his camera become obstruction of justice? If not, what would this be considered?