I don't know? Is it possible that there could be another explanation? Do we have all the information at our disposal to come to a conclusion that the only explanation was that this cop planted the evidence? Or is it possible that we're missing something that could explain the actions in the video? Just playing devil's advocate...
To me it seems like a lot of trouble to plant evidence outside when there's probably plausible deniability by the suspect. All he would have to say is that his yard is open to the public and that he doesn't know if anyone has accessed it. Judging by all the crap in the back yard, it seems like a dumping ground of sorts. A jury would probably find there's sufficient doubt. Like I said, I don't know if this is good enough evidence for a US court, but it would likely not fly in a Canadian court.
In fact, when I look at the video again, you can see the cop dropping something... a baggie as far as I can tell and then covering it up with a ladder or something. Is it possible that the officers went looking for evidence without having their camera's on (or thinking they had their cameras on), found some evidence and then replaced it in order to find it again with their cameras on so they could document it properly for court purposes? This way they can show where they found the evidence. Not the best or the right method, mind you. They should probably document as they initiate their search so that any evidence found could be documented at the outset. Regardless, this kind of approach is quite common. There is no audio in the clip which is unfortunate since that probably would have confirmed if this was a nefarious planting of evidence or something else.
Yeah, it's possible that there is another explanation. The only thing I've heard is that type of body cam is always on and retroactively "saves" the minute before the record button is pressed. But since it was speculation I didn't include it in the article above. If you want more context to what was happening, I found this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/bodycam-video-appears-show-baltimore-police-officer-planting/story?id=48723372
And you're right about the evidence planted outside. A principled justice system would invalidate any evidence obtained as a result of the illegal search. I'm not sure why the police took that risk. Did they suspect that the justice system would overlook it? Did they expect their victim to be working with a bargain lawyer who would not pursue that angle? It's hard to tell. But I agree - if you're going to plant evidence, the back yard is probably not the best place to do so.
Sometimes cops just get lazy and do sloppy investigations. If that's the case here, then they have some explaining to do. Of course, cops have planted evidence in the past, and the will do so again - no doubt. It's entirely possible that they did in fact plant evidence here. However, my only concern is that people are quick to jump to conclusions when they get a hold of a video showing a police officer doing something seemingly wrong. Sometimes that is the case, sometimes it is not. Video is pretty good evidence, but it is rarely all the evidence in any given case. One can only form an accurate conclusion after having considered all the evidence.
Oh another point :) You might (or might not) be surprised that "illegal searches" are very common in policing. Whether you agree with it or not, it does actually serve a purpose. Sometimes police happen upon evidence (such as drugs) in the course of their investigation and can't legally seize that evidence. For instance, they searched something without obtaining proper consent from the suspect, or suspected that the culprit had drugs in the trunk of a vehicle and conducted the search without first obtaining a search warrant. The end result is that the police are unable to charge that suspect with possession of said drugs, however the drugs were removed from the streets. Now ask yourself this question: since the police knew of that evidence, subsequently searched it and located it, should they know ignore that information and let the suspect go with the drugs (or weapons, or whatever other evidence)? Or should they seize the drugs or weapons and then let the suspect go anyway since they can't charge him for it? What is the best solution?
Good point. As an attorney, I'm aware of this and of the pragmatic argument for this practice - which you laid out quite well. I'm a pragmatist, so I'm amenable to pragmatic arguments.
But pragmatism would also consider other factors and those are the ones which weigh more heavily to me. I think the bigger picture is preservation of the right to privacy, protection against search and seizure, and the integrity of the warrant system. For Americans, these are spelled out quite clearly for us in the Bill of Rights, which is the closest thing our country has to scripture. Just a small portion of the Constitution, but revered as the masterpiece that makes this whole endeavor worth doing. And it has some very limiting rules for the government. It includes protection against search and seizure, the right to a speedy and fair trial before a jury of peers, and the right against self-incrimination.
There are great dangers from handcuffing our government in this way - like when those drugs are not taken off the street. But there are great dangers from not handcuffing the government.
From my perspective, those problems that arise from empowering the government in this way are more concerning to me. The sociopaths who occupy high political office can accomplish great acts of oppression and violence. I prefer to keep their power in check as much as possible. And because the police are agents of the government who may legitimately use violence - they can be for great good or for great harm. But in a system of strictly enforced rules for our police that include transparency and deliberate constitutional action, I think we can mitigate the potential for 'great harm'.
I agree 100%. Very fascinating subject matter and something I love discussing.