Moving security cameras legal concern in Andrews
Andrews – Most Americans do not trust the criminal justice system, according to national surveys that rank confidence in law enforcement officials at a record-low level.
For much of last year, cities across the country burned as Americans protested police actions and demanded change. That anger continues today, as decisions made by law enforcement officials are questioned on a daily basis nationwide.
Four Andrews police officers contributed to that distrust last week, when they reportedly moved at least two security cameras inside town hall, which doubles as the police department.
One of the cameras is angled toward the entrance to the chief’s office and covers a common area. The second camera covers a hall – which contains evidence lockers – and an entrance to at least one of the evidence rooms. There are no surveillance cameras located inside the evidence rooms.
Police Chief Colin Gillespie – plus Officers Logan Howarth, Coyle Olsen and Greg Shields – each have been suspended without pay pending a probe by the State Bureau of Investigation.
The Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office confiscated the Andrews officers’ guns and badges, then took custody of the department’s evidence room Friday. With no other Andrews police personnel on staff to cover the town, sheriff’s deputies will patrol inside town limits full time for the foreseeable future.
The decision to manipulate security cameras in the police department followed an article in the April 14 edition of the Cherokee Scout, which reported that Olsen reached a speed of 64 mph before wrecking a patrol car
on a downtown street. The report relied on data from the vehicle’s automatic locator, which was provided by the sheriff’s office in response to a public records request.
Several hours after the newspaper’s e-edition was available online, Andrews officers discussed whether to stop using automatic vehicle locators, according to a 911 call obtained by the Scout via a records request. The officers also reportedly moved the cameras in town hall because they felt they were being “spied upon” by dispatch personnel in the sheriff’s office.
The two security cameras remained faced toward different locations for more than 24 hours before a town hall employee noticed the surveillance monitor appeared unusual. After learning officers had turned the cameras on purpose, town attorney Holly Christy notified the District Attorney’s Office.
“I commend her for that because it was not the easy thing to do,” District Attorney Ashley Welch said, while crediting town aldermen for hiring Christy. “That speaks volumes about how seriously she takes her job.”
The camera covering the evidence room helps preserve the integrity of criminal cases, protect law enforcement personnel from false accusations of evidence tampering and protect the public from rogue police officers. Moving the camera is not illegal, per se, but manipulation of evidence inside the room could potentially be illegal.
However, law enforcement and legal experts say the officers’ actions had an impact beyond open criminal cases.
“They impacted the integrity of the chain of custody for their evidence, they reduced the security of items located within the room, and they actually degraded the security measures meant to protect the occupants of the building,” retired Bergen County, N.J., police chief Brian Higgins said after being briefed on the matter. “We see what happens in government buildings ... we just had another major active shooter.”
Moreover, the concern over being watched by someone in dispatch is pure paranoia. Employees at the dispatch center in the sheriff’s office on Regal Street do not have access to view or monitor the town’s cameras in any capacity.
The idea that someone outside town hall could watch officers inside the building stems from the fact that a dispatcher is married to an independent technician who manages the town’s security cameras. However, the town’s camera system is antiquated, requiring a version of Internet Explorer that is only found on Windows 7. Since most PCs today have been updated to Windows 10, the technician himself must use the town’s computer to access footage captured by its cameras.
Andrews police did not know this when they reportedly placed sticky notes – one of which displayed a hand-drawn smiley face – on the two cameras. Ultimately, the sticky notes were removed, and the officers turned the cameras to face different locations.
“They’re willing to undermine the security of a government premises that they are supposed to protect over a personal beef because someone else did their legal duty,” said Joseph Hoelscher, director of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. “That makes any reasonable person question whether these guys are professional and credible.”
The officers also contemplated whether to risk their own safety by disabling their automatic vehicle locators so they couldn’t be tracked. Dispatch typically uses vehicle locators to determine the closest unit to an emergency event or send assistance to an officer who may be in trouble, for example, if they drove over the side of a mountain or engaged in a shootout.
However, during a call with a dispatcher around 7:32 p.m. April 14, Officer Greg Shields said the police department discussed a change in policy regarding use of vehicle locators.
“We’re looking at different policy stuff and what we’re changing,” Shields said when a dispatcher asked if he would be driving a car with a locator in the future. “So we’ll go from there, and whatever we decide on and do the town council will go with.”
According to data obtained through a public records request, no Andrews officers used their automatic vehicle locator on Wednesday nor Thursday before being suspended for moving the surveillance cameras in town hall. Experts say the officers overacted to the newspaper article about the wrecked patrol car.
“Officers speed all the time, that’s OK; he’s going to an overdose. But to then retaliate and jeopardize criminal cases, murder cases and the effect on victims, that’s not just problematic, that’s potentially a crime,” Denver-based criminal defense attorney M. Colin Bresee said. “It’s gone from hurt feelings to potentially committing felonies.”
Making matters worse, the officers reportedly visited area businesses over the weekend to solicit support in hopes of staying employed. However, the officers are reportedly sharing half-truths about what happened.
“I was approached in Andrews by a man last night handing out stickers supporting Andrews PD,” Jymme Jo Gann wrote online after WKRK posted part of the story on Facebook. “He told a different story about the cause of suspension. I will not support police officers who were either up to no good or stupid enough to pull a prank.”
If the DA’s office determines the four police officers are publicly making untrue statements, prosecutors could issue Giglio letters stating the men will no longer be used as witnesses in criminal cases due to their credibility being questioned. Police are issued such letters when prosecutors believe an officer’s actions diminishes their credibility to a point where a defendant could use that perceived lack of integrity to their advantage in court. Cops who receive a Giglio letter are often taken off the streets.
Since the security of the evidence room has been compromised, prosecutors plan to notify attorneys representing defendants whose cases have been affected by the officers’ actions. The SBI probe could take at least two months, as investigators must not only determine whether evidence from open cases has been altered, but also whether evidence from recently adjudicated cases remain in the vault.
It’s too early to know whether any criminal cases will be dismissed due to the officers’ actions.
“At a minimum, this is going to increase the litigation burden and the costs to the county and the court,” Hoelscher said, while explaining how this issue will add to the backlog of cases awaiting adjudication. He added that it will likely affect trials, regardless of whether anyone directly tampered with evidence.
“Attitudes of the public are changing toward cops. If you wave these types of issues in front of a jury, the cops are not going to get the pass they used to get,” Hoelscher said. “As distrust has increased, we’re seeing judges holding cops to a higher standard, and we’re seeing juries less willing to trust an officer.”