Maryland DUI Case Demonstrates Need for Dash-Cams in Every Police Cruiser
Andrew Alpert
May 13, 2009
On May 6, 2009 the Maryland Gazette and Washingtonpost.com reported about a Montgomery County Police officer who now faces a perjury investigation related to court testimony regarding an April 2009 DUI arrest. According to the article, Officer Dina Hoffman, a three year veteran of the Montgomery County Police Department, testified in an April 2009 trial that a man she arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) was behind the wheel, and in control, of a parked car at the time that she approached him. However, according to a video recording from nearby security cameras at the location, the man Hoffman arrested was in fact lying down in the back seat with his feet outside the open passenger side door window and not in control of the vehicle.
It was reported that Hoffman was repeatedly asked throughout the trial whether or not the suspect was in the driver's seat when she initially approached him and she repeatedly indicated that he was in the front driver's seat, thus in control of the vehicle. Once the videotape was played, she recanted her testimony indicating that she was sorry and she must have been mistaken. The defendant was promptly acquitted by the Court.
The case is now being referred to the Howard County State's Attorney's Office for possible prosecution of the officer for perjury. The Montgomery County State's Attorney's Office will not handle the case because the prosecutors could be called as witnesses and the State's Attorney's Office in Montgomery County wants to avoid creating any appearance of impropriety.
Unfortunately, as a criminal defense attorney in Maryland, I have represented many individuals who relay facts about a DUI case to me that are completely contradicted by police officers in Court. For example, some police officers will describe certain performances on field sobriety exercises (which, by their very definition are subjective in nature) that are contrary to the claims of the client. In the Montgomery County case, without the existence of the security videotapes to disprove the police officer's testimony, it is almost certain that the Judge would have believed the testimony of the police officer and would have discounted the testimony of the defendant as self-serving. The defendant would have been convicted, and his attorney would not have been able to do much for him under the circumstances.
To me, this case reinforces my belief that the only way to have any integrity in the criminal justice system is to require that there be dash-cams installed in every single police cruiser. This way, when individuals are in fact stopped and/or accosted by the police, the police have the event on tape. An officer´s interactions with the defendant can be viewed in order to determine whether or not the defendant's version of events, or the police officer's version of events, is correct.
Field sobriety exercises can be viewed to determine if they were properly administered.
The dashboard camera serves three purposes:
It protects the police officer from false infringement of right accusations
One can review the videotapes to determine what actually took place at the scene, in case someone is injured as the result of a traffic stop, such as a police officer
The videotape maintains the integrity of the interaction between the police officer and the public
Despite the necessity for these recordings, there has been resistance by many Maryland jurisdictions to the installation of the cameras. The Maryland State Police are under a Consent Order, required by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, to have video/audio recording devices in their vehicles due to inappropriate stopping of African American motorists on I-95. The Montgomery County Police Department has resisted the installation of cameras in their cars despite the fact the Rockville city and many other jurisdictions have dash-cams in their vehicles.
One argument often made is that the installation of videotaping equipment in all county police vehicles would be a very expensive proposition. However, many states have dealt with this issue. In South Carolina, the legislature passed a law requiring audio taping and videotaping of all traffic stops. The equipment was paid for by a $36 surcharge on all DUI prosecutions. An added bonus is South Carolina's ability to upload all of the videos to a server to be viewed by attorneys for defendants, which facilitates dispositions. In the State of Maryland, several jurisdictions have received federal grants which allow them to have cameras installed in their vehicles and are operating those cameras on a daily basis. As one of the more affluent counties in the State of Maryland with one of the most well-equipped police departments, clearly the Montgomery County Police Department should be progressive and lead by example and install cameras now! We can only question then, why is it that the entire State of South Carolina can mandate video equipment in every one of their police cruisers, but the Montgomery County Fraternal Order of Police continues to oppose the installation of cameras in their vehicles?
Unfortunately we have now been exposed to the unfortunate reality that some police officers do not tell the truth. The majority of police officers that I interact with on a daily basis are extremely professional. I believe Montgomery County, in particular, has one of the most professional police departments in the State of Maryland. This makes it regrettable that Montgomery County Police officers run the risk of being viewed with a jaundiced eye by both the Judges and jurors.
It is unfortunate that it has taken an alleged act of perjury by a Montgomery County Police Officer to bring this issue to the forefront, but perhaps now officials in Montgomery County, Howard County, Anne Arundel County, and all the metropolitan surrounding jurisdictions, will have the courage to insist that cameras be installed in all of their vehicles. Prince George's County has cameras as well as Calvert County, Charles County and the Maryland Transportation Authority Police. The technology is available. It is simple to utilize and is the only way to maintain integrity in our criminal justice system.
It was reported that Hoffman was repeatedly asked throughout the trial whether or not the suspect was in the driver's seat when she initially approached him and she repeatedly indicated that he was in the front driver's seat, thus in control of the vehicle. Once the videotape was played, she recanted her testimony indicating that she was sorry and she must have been mistaken. The defendant was promptly acquitted by the Court.
The case is now being referred to the Howard County State's Attorney's Office for possible prosecution of the officer for perjury. The Montgomery County State's Attorney's Office will not handle the case because the prosecutors could be called as witnesses and the State's Attorney's Office in Montgomery County wants to avoid creating any appearance of impropriety.
Unfortunately, as a criminal defense attorney in Maryland, I have represented many individuals who relay facts about a DUI case to me that are completely contradicted by police officers in Court. For example, some police officers will describe certain performances on field sobriety exercises (which, by their very definition are subjective in nature) that are contrary to the claims of the client. In the Montgomery County case, without the existence of the security videotapes to disprove the police officer's testimony, it is almost certain that the Judge would have believed the testimony of the police officer and would have discounted the testimony of the defendant as self-serving. The defendant would have been convicted, and his attorney would not have been able to do much for him under the circumstances.
To me, this case reinforces my belief that the only way to have any integrity in the criminal justice system is to require that there be dash-cams installed in every single police cruiser. This way, when individuals are in fact stopped and/or accosted by the police, the police have the event on tape. An officer´s interactions with the defendant can be viewed in order to determine whether or not the defendant's version of events, or the police officer's version of events, is correct.
Field sobriety exercises can be viewed to determine if they were properly administered.
The dashboard camera serves three purposes:
Despite the necessity for these recordings, there has been resistance by many Maryland jurisdictions to the installation of the cameras. The Maryland State Police are under a Consent Order, required by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, to have video/audio recording devices in their vehicles due to inappropriate stopping of African American motorists on I-95. The Montgomery County Police Department has resisted the installation of cameras in their cars despite the fact the Rockville city and many other jurisdictions have dash-cams in their vehicles.
One argument often made is that the installation of videotaping equipment in all county police vehicles would be a very expensive proposition. However, many states have dealt with this issue. In South Carolina, the legislature passed a law requiring audio taping and videotaping of all traffic stops. The equipment was paid for by a $36 surcharge on all DUI prosecutions. An added bonus is South Carolina's ability to upload all of the videos to a server to be viewed by attorneys for defendants, which facilitates dispositions. In the State of Maryland, several jurisdictions have received federal grants which allow them to have cameras installed in their vehicles and are operating those cameras on a daily basis. As one of the more affluent counties in the State of Maryland with one of the most well-equipped police departments, clearly the Montgomery County Police Department should be progressive and lead by example and install cameras now! We can only question then, why is it that the entire State of South Carolina can mandate video equipment in every one of their police cruisers, but the Montgomery County Fraternal Order of Police continues to oppose the installation of cameras in their vehicles?
Unfortunately we have now been exposed to the unfortunate reality that some police officers do not tell the truth. The majority of police officers that I interact with on a daily basis are extremely professional. I believe Montgomery County, in particular, has one of the most professional police departments in the State of Maryland. This makes it regrettable that Montgomery County Police officers run the risk of being viewed with a jaundiced eye by both the Judges and jurors.
It is unfortunate that it has taken an alleged act of perjury by a Montgomery County Police Officer to bring this issue to the forefront, but perhaps now officials in Montgomery County, Howard County, Anne Arundel County, and all the metropolitan surrounding jurisdictions, will have the courage to insist that cameras be installed in all of their vehicles. Prince George's County has cameras as well as Calvert County, Charles County and the Maryland Transportation Authority Police. The technology is available. It is simple to utilize and is the only way to maintain integrity in our criminal justice system.