Videoing an incident - Was: Double fatality - Tandem - Jonesville, NC - 13 Sept 2008

[Skydivesg 6]

Does anyone know the rules on the ownership of the video footage during this type of incident?

If I were the videographer, I would dub the video to a DVD to give to the investigators and keep the original.
Anyone have first hand knowledge on if that would suffice?

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Does anyone know the rules on the ownership of the video footage during this type of incident?

If I were the videographer, I would dub the video to a DVD to give to the investigators and keep the original.
Anyone have first hand knowledge on if that would suffice?

In most instances, you can't. It's part of a "crime scene investigation" in terms of how the event is handled, at least in Utah. The original goes to the investigators. It may be different in other places, but the original in most legal "anythings" has to be delivered to the investigating body to not only assure that they have the first and best possible source, but to assure that nothing is tampered with. My company is a certified media forensics organization, and we often make copies for LEA's, with affadavits that state they are copies with identical timestamp/timecode information that does not vary from the original.
Again...it might be different in other places, but it would surprise me a bit.

[Skydivesg 6]

So is it legal to fire wire a copy for my personal ownership?

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[normiss 622]

Technically I would think that a MAJOR no.
Possibly even considered illegal.

[Skydivesg 6]

ALLrighty then.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[DSE 3]

Quote

So is it legal to fire wire a copy for my personal ownership?

Here in Utah...it would be illegal unless you disclosed it. In all cases *we're* involved in, we have to sign a chain of custody sheet that demonstrates not only where the original has been, but also identifies by number, all copies.
If you were on-scene, and made a firewire copy prior to handing over the original...not sure what would happen, but I do believe if you showed the video to anyone before the accident report came out, you might be at risk for obstruction of justice. That's a 'shoot from the hip' assessment, however.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Quote

Does anyone know the rules on the ownership of the video footage during this type of incident?

If I were the videographer, I would dub the video to a DVD to give to the investigators and keep the original.
Anyone have first hand knowledge on if that would suffice?

In most instances, you can't. It's part of a "crime scene investigation" in terms of how the event is handled, at least in Utah. The original goes to the investigators. It may be different in other places, but the original in most legal "anythings" has to be delivered to the investigating body to not only assure that they have the first and best possible source, but to assure that nothing is tampered with. My company is a certified media forensics organization, and we often make copies for LEA's, with affadavits that state they are copies with identical timestamp/timecode information that does not vary from the original.
Again...it might be different in other places, but it would surprise me a bit.

I think you may be confused about the law as it applies to individuals vs. the law as it applies to your profession.

If the police want my video, I can make them issue a subpoena to get it. I don't just have to hand it over because they say so.

So if a skydiving videographer makes a copy of a video before handing over the original, there's nothing to be done. "Chain-of-custody" procedures don't apply to anything until the police get their hands on it (whatever "it" happens to be).

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[normiss 622]

Evidence tampering at what may possibly be considered an active investigation would not be a fun charge to defend oneself against.

[goneswoopen 0]

Has it been established that the equipment used was Sigma ?

All wings are safe - until their given to pilots

[Skydivesg 6]

Let me be clear.

I would certainly not change anything on the video. And I would not make the investigator issue a subpoena. I would even volunteer to help interpret what is being seen on the video.

It's just that I film several things including jumps on one tape. Sometimes I do back to back loads before I can edit.

It just seems reasonable for me to keep a copy of my work before handing it over to the investigators.

If you have a signed contract for some work you are doing for hire and a police investigator says he wants it for an investigation. Doesnt' it seem reasonable to give him a photo copy of the contract. Or at the very least you keep a photo copy for your records. You haven't changed anything on the contract just like I would not change anything on the video.

I don't know. It just seems reasonable.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[normiss 622]

It does seem reasonable...but cops aren't considering that when they are collecting evidence.
No difference from surveillance video - it typically has to go to investigators as an original untouched piece of evidence. When I have had to submit surveillance video, it was required - no copies allowed.

[Synapse 0]

Quote

It does seem reasonable...but cops aren't considering that when they are collecting evidence.
No difference from surveillance video - it typically has to go to investigators as an original untouched piece of evidence. When I have had to submit surveillance video, it was required - no copies allowed.

When you submitted video surveillance, do you think the authorities would have filed charges against you if you had a system in place to duplicate the tapes for backup/archival purposes before they had even asked for it? What about systems that don't store on physical tapes, but instead use part of a SAN array? The officers aren't going to be able to take what could possibly be the entire infrastructure of the company to get the video, they just get the company to place the (still unedited) video onto a media they can use.

This is no different. Duplicating the tape before handing it over isn't evidence tampering anymore than any of the examples above. Now, IF the subpoena mandates that all copies be turned over as well, it is a different story, but why would they even write that in on a case like this?

-syn

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

It does seem reasonable...but cops aren't considering that when they are collecting evidence.
No difference from surveillance video - it typically has to go to investigators as an original untouched piece of evidence. When I have had to submit surveillance video, it was required - no copies allowed.

Did you ever get a legal opinion on that or did you simply cooperate with the wishes of the police because they were helping you accomplish your goal?

I think people oftentimes say yes when they have a perfect right to say no (because they want to say yes), and then later, the assumption is made, as here, that it's a requirement.

When my parents were robbed, the police needed my written authorization to access some evidence, because that evidence was my property. They couldn't simply take it without my permission. In the absence of authorization, their only recourse would have been to obtain a warrant or a subpoena.

Google "James Duane" and "George Bruch" and watch the videos. Do not talk to the police, and do not give them anything they ask for until you talk to a lawyer. It's your right.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[normiss 622]

Excellent question...the digital versions WERE "copies" in that either a DVD or a tape was created from the original file.
On surveillance video though there is always a time stamp/time clock always in the video to prove it isn't edited.
Suddenly unsure of what would happen in this case. The only time I've seen it in the past was when a friend of mine was part of a group of base jumpers from a tv station antenna. One of them went in with a video helmet on. The police were not made aware of the helmet as somehow he wasn't wearing it when they got there. This was the first time I thought this might someday be an issue though, as IIRC it was one of the first questions asked.

[pchapman 261]

In any case, whatever the law is, some skydivers will want to make a copy of any video because (a) there's no cop around yet to tell them that they can't do it, (b) maybe they don't want to screw over their other tandem customers who have unedited video on the tape, (c) they aren't planning to do anything fraudulent (notwithstanding chain of evidence issues), and (d) they just don't trust the cops.

When it comes to skydiving investigations, I bet a lot of us don't trust cops. Time after time one hears of cases where the cops dump all the gear in their car, take the video, disappear, and nobody hears anything for months.

There's no feedback to the skydiving community about things that might be learned from the video. And the cops totally destroy the accident scene and take forever to get outside riggers to check the equipment. Yet at other times cops do try to preserve evidence, such as shutting a busy city intersection for hours after motor vehicle accident. I don't trust them to treat skydiving with the respect we want.

So, in search of the truth, I'd certainly try to get to an accident before the cops and secure information before they mess it up -- even if they think they're trying to prevent me from doing the same.

[pattersd 0]

I don't know what the rules are. I do know from personal experience what one police department did in a similar situation. I was videoing a jump at a popular US base site, when there was a death, at impact I shut off the camera and set it down on the boat and got ready to go into the water to provide assistance, after getting the victim onto the boat I was left in the water to expedite getting him to help. when I got back down to the boat dock and retrieved my camera the police asked if I had video'd the incident, I answered honestly and they asked if they could have the tape. I told them they could have the tape if I could make a copy prior to giving it to them, since there was a lot of other stuff on the tape I wanted to keep. After some discussion about how to make sure they got the original and nothing was changed (took it out and set the record lock, I think it was also initialed) they agreed to my making a copy before giving it to them. they hung out nearby while the copy was firewired. they did not even mention restrictions on my use of the copy. your experience may differ.

[Synapse 0]

Quote

There's no feedback to the skydiving community about things that might be learned from the video. And the cops totally destroy the accident scene and take forever to get outside riggers to check the equipment. Yet at other times cops do try to preserve evidence, such as shutting a busy city intersection for hours after motor vehicle accident. I don't trust them to treat skydiving with the respect we want.

And this is exactly why I hate hearing "just wait on the official police report" in the incidents forum. Lord knows, they never get it wrong...


-syn

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[Skydivesg 6]

I can, without a doubt, tell you that my video does not show a time code on the viewable footage. (It does show on the camera screen).

And as I recall, any time I have fire wired footage to another DV tape, any and all things copy, including the time code. It's as if it were the original tape.

I personally don't know anyone who has seen firewired footage that can tell it's not the original tape.

Are you saying that you can tell if you are looking at an original tape vs a fire wired copy?

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[normiss 622]

I can't tell...don't think anyone can- at least very easily anyway. That makes it easy for a defense attorney to get it thrown out.
I completely agree with the other comments about cops screwing things up too! I have seen that before for sure!

[PharmerPhil 0]

If it were I,......

I sure as hell would make a copy (or three) ASAP and send them away from the scene to somewhere else and someone else safe. If at all possible, before any authorities show up. Hell, they could get a warrant or subpeona and take anything I have, or anything from my home/work, etc. If someone else has it, well then they'd first have to get me to drop a dime and tell them who has what...

Additionally, I'm not a lawyer but,...if it were a criminal investigation, and they declare the area a crime scene, I believe you would have a hard time getting anything out of there without their permission. They wouldn't even need a subpoena.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does anyone know the rules on the ownership of the video footage during this type of incident?

If I were the videographer, I would dub the video to a DVD to give to the investigators and keep the original.
Anyone have first hand knowledge on if that would suffice?

In most instances, you can't. It's part of a "crime scene investigation" in terms of how the event is handled, at least in Utah. The original goes to the investigators. It may be different in other places, but the original in most legal "anythings" has to be delivered to the investigating body to not only assure that they have the first and best possible source, but to assure that nothing is tampered with. My company is a certified media forensics organization, and we often make copies for LEA's, with affadavits that state they are copies with identical timestamp/timecode information that does not vary from the original.
Again...it might be different in other places, but it would surprise me a bit.

I think you may be confused about the law as it applies to individuals vs. the law as it applies to your profession.

If the police want my video, I can make them issue a subpoena to get it. I don't just have to hand it over because they say so.

So if a skydiving videographer makes a copy of a video before handing over the original, there's nothing to be done. "Chain-of-custody" procedures don't apply to anything until the police get their hands on it (whatever "it" happens to be).

No, I'm not confused at all. To support my belief, I just got off the phone with a person I know well in the Attorney General's office. *anything* that is believed to be evidence in a crime scene investigation (which death absent a physician is generally deemed to be) can be seized without a subpoena. I've never had to make copies of a skydiving death, but have been involved in several suicide/suspected suicide tapes, and in all cases, the tapes were seized from the families, as have been suicide notes.
It may be that the LEO in charge of the investigation will be cool and allow for a copy, but in the event of a death that requires investigation (again, in Utah), the tape is evidence that assists in the investigation. LE are also required to give the tape back if you request it, following the closure of the case (in Utah). I can't imagine our laws are much different than anywhere else.
If you make a copy and the copy in anyway hampers an investigation, ie; raises doubts about what happened, is tampered with, finds its way to YouTube...all are chargable offenses, I'm sure.
Yes, chain of custody relates to what happens after the tape is acquired and logged by LEA; the point was that evidence of the incident/crime/accident must be preserved and annotated from acquisition to disposition. In other words, don't screw with it. Making a copy raises doubts regarding the veracity of the content. Intelligent and experienced people know that a firewire dub is bit for bit the same as the original, but expecting a LEO to be aware of this is absurd.
Either way, why the hell would anyone WANT to mess with this?

[chuckbrown 0]

Any evidence that law enforcement reasonably believes to be evidence of a crime can be seized if its in plain sight of the officer and the officer has the right to be where he is when he sees it. Telling an officer that you have a video of the incident in the camera you're holding means he can seize that camera. If the camera's in your house & you don't want to give it to him, he has to go get a warrant to search your house and get the camera. Hiding the video to thwart the search for it exposes one to a charge of obstruction of justice.

Making a copy of potentially relevant evidence of a crime isn't obstruction of justice. What you do with the copy may be, e.g., show it to someone knowing that person will use the information therein to avoid the law.

But, my rule of dealing with law enforcement is don't f*ck with them. It rarely ever helps and usually causes you more problems than it solves.

[MomDaBomb 0]

This happens a lot in my husband's business. We always make copies before we turn anything over. We have to cover our ass. When dealing with the local police there were a few times where we edited it to show only what they were investigating. One time we were refusing to turn the tape over and we were told "You can either give it to us or we can take it". Our attny advised us to give it to them. The only time we have done it differently is when it's a federal agency investigating. They don't mess around. They told us straight up that nothing had better happen to that tape before they get there.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If you make a copy and the copy in anyway hampers an investigation, ie; raises doubts about what happened, is tampered with, finds its way to YouTube...all are chargable offenses, I'm sure.

It seems to me that crime scene evidence makes it's way to youTube and the local TV networks all the time. The police often will attempt to stop it from happening, but as long as the poster is not knowingly helping a perpetrator avoid justice I do not think there is an offense.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Google "James Duane" and "George Bruch" and watch the videos. Do not talk to the police, and do not give them anything they ask for until you talk to a lawyer. It's your right.

Brilliant.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.