phoenix police

Police departments opting for Taser International’s body-worn cameras may have financial ties to the company.

Officials in states like Utah and New Mexico where police departments have opted to purchase body cameras made by Scottsdale, Arizona based company Taser, are raising conflict-of-interest concerns as several police chiefs appear to be participating in endorsement-like activities.

Travel expenses, including airfare and hotel costs, for police chiefs to speak at promotional conferences were paid for by Taser, according to records recovered by The Associated Press, which is an issue in the eyes of public officials public who have trouble seeing the benefit these engagements provide to their cities.

Charlie Luke, a Salt Lake City councilman, warns that these speaking engagements may cause trouble for police chiefs.

“Department heads need to be very careful to avoid that type of appearance of an endorsement in a for-profit setting,” Luke said. “It opens up the opportunity for competitors of these companies to essentially do what we’re seeing here – complaining about that public process.”

Retired chiefs whose departments purchased Taser cameras have also been hired to work as consultants, such as former Albuquerque Police Chief Ray Schultz.

An investigation was brought on by Council members in Albuquerque when Schultz stepped down from his position and became a Taser consultant soon after. The U.S. Justice Department criticized the city for jumping into a contract with Taser and using the cameras before police were properly trained.

Body camera competitors, like Wolfcom Enterprises, are put off by the relationship between police departments and Taser as well.

“Every time I do a presentation, as I’m standing there looking through the room, I wonder, ‘Who is tainted by Taser?'” said Peter Onruang, president of Wolfcom Enterprises.

A recent report by The Police Foundation found that body cameras worn by police officers have led to a significant decrease in force-related complaints. The devices have potential to help mend the relationships between communities and law enforcement by keeping both parties accountable for their actions.

Several police departments are jumping on board with Taser, and the company announced that it has signed deals with 16 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. to use its cameras and software system.

However, not every police department has the resources to purchase cameras for hundreds of officers, sort through data from the recorded material, buy the storage software and distribute necessary clips to other agencies.

Phoenix Police Chief Joe Yahner said It would cost the department at least $3.5 million, a price that departments in cities of any size may struggle to afford.

Use-of-force complaints decrease significantly for police departments equipped with body cameras, but the cost could hold some, like the Phoenix Police Department, from taking advantage of this technology.

A year-long study evaluating the effect of body-worn video cameras in police patrol practices by the Police Foundation Executive Fellow, Chief Tony Farrar, found a 50 percent decrease in the number of use-of-force complaints against officers wearing the cameras.

It would cost at least $3.5 million to equip all first-responding Phoenix officers with body cameras, Phoenix Police Chief Joe Yahner said. That price estimate includes the costs to gather and store footage, but wouldn’t cover the cost of personnel.

Many small and medium-sized cities like Austin and Minneapolis are utilizing these cameras to increase police accountability and transparency in light of growing tension between communities and local police departments around the country.

Phoenix, the country’s sixth most populated city, is moving toward using body cameras after an Arizona State University study found that complaints against officers decreased when actions of both officers and citizens were recorded.

A study of Mesa police officers who wore body cameras saw a 40 percent decrease in total complaints and a 75 percent decrease in the number of use-of-force complaints over the course of a year.

In order for Phoenix to implement this technology, police would have to create a policy that dictates how to manage and edit mass quantities of data, then share it with prosecutors.

In the near future, supporters advocating for Phoenix police to wear body cameras say that both citizens and officers would benefit. Officers would be protected from false allegations and citizens could rest assured knowing that all interactions with police would be recorded.

In the United States, individuals who are suspected of a crime are supposed to remain innocent until proven guilty. But what happens when the evidence used to convict faces its own scrutiny years later?

That question will once again take center stage in Arizona this year as an Arizona mother is re-tried for a highly publicized crime committed almost 24 years ago.

On January 18, 1991, Debra Jean Milke was sentenced to death for her involvement in the conspiracy to murder her four-year-old son, Christopher. Milke was convicted and sentenced to death based on a verbal confession she gave to a police detective – a detective whose own actions would be called into question years later.

After spending 22 years in prison, Milke’s murder conviction was overturned earlier this year and she was ordered to be released. Less than three months later, a retrial of Milke’s case was ordered.

As defense attorneys and former prosecutors, we know that a retrial is difficult in a case like this simply because so much time has passed. People move away or die, and original evidence can sometimes be unusable. This case will be especially difficult because of the lack of evidence against the defendant when the case first went to court. Factor in the changed circumstances and motives for other witnesses and the ability to win a retrial becomes even harder.

A trip to visit Santa

According to court documents, Milke and her four-year-old son, Christopher, shared an apartment with James Styers. While Milke worked at an insurance agency, Styers watched Christopher.

In September 1989, shortly after beginning a new job, Milke took out a $5,000 life insurance policy on Christopher as part of her employee benefit plan. The policy named Milke as the beneficiary. Sometime between the time she bought the policy and the time of Christopher’s death, Milke and Styers discussed the policy and the benefits.

On Saturday, December 2, 1989, Styers, with Milke’s permission and use of her car, took Christopher from the apartment. Styers told Christopher they were going to Metrocenter so Christopher could see Santa Claus. Styers then picked up Roger Scott, and the two men and Christopher had lunch and ran some errands.

Later, Styers told police that he first dropped Scott off and then took Christopher to Metrocenter to see Santa Claus. Styers told the police he had to use the restroom, so he took Christopher into the men’s room at Sears and had him wait outside the stall.

According to Styers, that’s when Christopher disappeared. Styers reported this scenario to Metrocenter security; eventually the police were called. In this initial testimony, Styers claimed that he met Scott outside of Sears while looking for Christopher, that Scott told him that he had come to Metrocenter with a friend named Phil, that Styers and Scott looked for Christopher, and that Styers eventually walked Scott to the bus stop and Scott went home.

The Phoenix police interviewed Scott. His first story coincided with Styers’, but ultimately Scott led police to Christopher’s body. After that, a Phoenix police detective interviewed Milke. She was told that her son had been found shot to death in the desert and that she was under arrest.

Milke told police that she did not have a $5,000 life insurance policy on Christopher, but her father did. She denied that insurance money was her motivation, but admitted that it may have been Styers’ and Scott’s because Styers knew of the policy. Milke was taken into custody.

A question of evidence

A lack of physical evidence pervaded Milke’s case and trial. The only evidence that could provide motive for the murder were the inconsistencies in her testimony about Christopher’s life insurance policy: Milke initially denied having a life insurance policy on Christopher, which later changed. Milke later admitted to purchasing Christopher’s life insurance policy.

The inconsistencies of Milke’s statement lead the trial court to believe the insurance policy was the motive behind killing Christopher.

According to an article written by the New York Times, Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate said Milke confessed to plotting the boy’s death in an unrecorded conversation while they were alone. Milke denied confessing, making his account of what happened a case of he said, she said.

Based on this testimony, Milke was convicted of ordering Christopher’s death to claim a share of the insurance policy she had taken out on him.

“The credibility of Armando Saldate should have been called into question before now,” said an attorney. “Saldate has a documented record of perjury and tainting confessions, who is to say that Saldate’s account of Debra Milke’s unrecorded confession was accurate?”

Another source, Injustice Anywhere, states the warning signs that Milke was wrongfully convicted as defined by the Michigan Law University and Northwestern Law:

Co-Defendant Confessed (CDC) – A co-defendant of the exoneree, or a person who might have been charged as a co-defendant, gave a confession that also implicated the exoneree.

False Confession (FC) – The exoneree falsely confessed if (1) he or she made a false statement to authorities which was treated as a confession, (2) the authorities claimed that the exoneree made such a statement but the exoneree denied it, or (3) the exoneree made a statement that was not an admission of guilt, but was misinterpreted as such by the authorities.

Inadequate Legal Defense (ILD) – The exonoree’s lawyer at trial or on appeal provided obviously and grossly inadequate representation.

Official Misconduct (OM) – Police, prosecutors, or other government officials significantly abused their authority or the judicial process in a manner that contributed to the exoneree’s conviction.

Perjury or False Accusation (P/FA) – A person other than the exoneree falsely accused the exoneree of committing the crime for which the exoneree was later exonerated, either in sworn testimony or otherwise.

As Milke’s case goes back to trial, she faces being sent to death row once again. And the questionable confession used to convict her almost a quarter century ago will once again be called into question.

The right to remain silent is one reserved for those who are suspected of committing a crime, but what happens when the arresting officer is the one whose words are used against them?

A Phoenix police officer recently lost his job after allegations the officer was verbally abusive toward suspects. The initial claim that lead to an internal investigation came from the mother of a suspect the officer encountered in 2011. The mother made claims the officer was both physically and verbally abusive to her son during the police encounter.

A valley news source, AZ Central, said the footage from the incident captures officer Richard Greco cursing at suspects and witnesses, and making disparaging remarks about them to other officers, including referring to one as “retarded,” calling another a “jack*ss” and another a “b*tch.”

While Greco claims that the instances where he used inappropriate language toward suspects were isolated, an internal investigation decided to review 30 days of the officer’s camera footage. The video footage revealed multiple instances of the officer’s misconduct. The Phoenix Police Department concluded the officer’s repeated offenses and inappropriate tactics were used enough to validate his termination. AZ Central claimed the decision to terminate Greco also involved the 2008 disciplinary action Greco received for making inappropriate comments about female co-workers in the presence of other police officers.

So what does this mean now for other police officers?

“Police officers should always try to adhere to the policies and procedures set out,” said John M. Rhude, Esq. “Video cameras or no video cameras, law enforcement officers should be held accountable for their actions and professionalism.”

Big Brother is Watching

The investigation of Richard Greco has opened the door for questions and concerns about the constant and continued presence of video cameras. On one end of the argument, the cameras ensure police officers will comply with policies and any disputes can be solved with accurate evidence. On the other end, the cameras can be viewed as a tool to provide police supervisors with a way to isolate incidents of officers’ misbehavior.

In an AZ Central interview with Sgt. Trent Crump, the police spokesman brought up a compelling point in the argument of the hinderance versus helpfulness of police camera footage. He states cameras are out there, whether they are the cellphones of suspects, witnesses or they are worn by the police, and the technology is not going anywhere, so police should learn to work as if they are always being watched.

But are police officers really always being “watched”?

The answer to that question is no. In Arizona, dashboard cameras that are utilized by other states are very uncommon. In most cases there are no cameras in Arizona police cars. Why? In DUI cases, the video usually weakens the case. The field sobriety tests and the conduct of the accused driver is never as bad on video as it is when described in the words of the officer in a police report. So because of that reality, all of the dashboard cameras were removed from patrol vehicles”

“This type of case proves that cameras may be a necessary to ensure the fair treatment of all parties involved,” Christopher P. Corso, Esq. “It’s not necessarily about mistrust, it’s about doing what is right with or without supervision.”

Mounting a Defense

Another concern with these cameras occurs when you contemplate their role in a court case. From a defense standpoint, it can be very difficult to determine if the camera was used or not.

Since policies don’t dictate that the cameras have to be turned on even when available, the state can claim that there is no video footage and the defense may never get a chance to see the footage or any of the exculpatory evidence that might be contained in the footage.From a criminal defense standpoint, that means the defense attorney has to rely on the candor of the officer involved.

Lingering Questions

It’s easy to see the issues that can arise when camera footage is available for an incident. It’s yet another sign of changing times and it illustrates how important it is that your lawyer stay on top of changes in the law regarding such technologies.

One thing remains clear: though Greco’s trial is over, the question still remains: is it unfair to use specific instances of a police officer’s misconduct against them?