Tip the Scales

Can video evidence speak for itself?

The ever controversial police chase has once again withstood judicial review. The Supreme Court has granted summary judgment in the case of Scott v. Harris.  Justice Scalia agrees that the defendant acted reasonably when ramming 19 year old Harris’ vehicle off the road, resulting in quadriplegia.

Officer Timothy Scott’s use of deadly force was captured on his cruiser’s camera.  The footage is dark and out of focus and has been edited to some degree.  Justice Scalia’s opinion relies entirely on this footage and fails to consider many pertinent factors, which raises the question:  Can video evidence speak for itself?

What about the camera angle?  Field of vision?  In the absence of expert testimony and independent research, the inexperienced viewer must make too many assumptions about the nature of the video evidence.  Was it edited for content? Time? Does the speed of playback match the recording speed?

Lower courts denied the motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact; one being the outdated ramming technique, generally reserved for fugitives that pose a significant risk to public safety (less hazardous maneuvers have been developed and implemented and were available to the officers that caused the young man’s paralysis).

It is important that a foundation is laid for video evidence to ensure an objective viewing.  Would the court’s opinion change if the camera was mounted on Harris’ vehicle, the one being chased?

Video evidence must be tempered with perspective if nothing else.  Justice Scalia deferred to a grainy and out of focus video when rendering a decision that advocates police recklessness during vehicle pursuits.  His opinion clearly speaks for itself.