In a case where there was no supporting evidence - e.g. literally the only evidence is a camera image of person, I would imagine the image would have to be close to irrefutable in order to meet a probable cause standard.
Since we now know that the person depicted on the ring camera was not the defendant - and that the police voluntarily dismissed the charges when confronted with evidence showing they were wrong, makes it pretty clear the police filed charges without evidenced that could have passed the probable cause test.
This isn't necessarily the problem of using an image as evidence of a crime. It's a problem with the police filing charges in a manner they know is an abuse of their authority, but not giving a sh*t because it was only $25 and that it would be heard in Municipal Court - a place where the local Judge and Prosecutor have to get along with the Police and therefore the local police know they will never be punished for their abusive behavior.
I shouldn't have to create documentary evidence of where I am at all times in order to fight spurious accusations regardless of how I do it.
Why is she supplying evidence to the police dept? If they haven't filed charges just ignore them? If they have, evidence goes to court.
Also talking to the police is a great way to wind up in jail for a long time
Why is she talking to the police and not the prosecutor, who at that point is needed for a dismissal on the law enforcement side?
It just all seems weird and contrary to my understanding of the system
Once the accounting is corrected, these issues mostly become cost-benefit tradeoffs. Should department policy allow officers to continue focusing solely on someone they believe is a perpetrator based on circumstantial evidence, but who insists innocence and immediately offers up their own evidence? Should a city adopt Flock even though it costs a bunch of money, both for the service and for the false positives it generates? Town/city government might decide they're willing to pay for these things. But at least it will be an honest decision, made by the people ultimately responsible for it.
This is clearly a police officer saying that she is a thief and felon. Isn't this slanderous/defamatory? The trial had not even occurred to prove guilt.
Does she have grounds to sue the police department for defamation?
No. Defamation is an injury to a person's reputation. For that injury to occur, a third party has to hear (and believe) the derogatory statement - if there's no one else to hear that statement, it's not defamatory.
- https://innocenceproject.org/news/police-deception-lying-int...
- https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-4974964/police-deceptio...
She could spend thousands of dollars to sue the department for defamation, but she would have to prove without a shadow of a doubt "the speaker had a reckless disregard for the truth" when making the harmful statement, and then prove damages resulting directly from the statement.
The police department would then use her and her neighbors tax dollars to argue the officer followed procedure and did not intentionally lie with an intent to harm her reputation.
A jury would then determine if the police department fabricated the investigation or piece of evidence just so they could intentionally slander and ruin this woman's reputation.
I wonder if the cops just picked a car at random and said that was the thief.
What a thing to say...
So, what did she learn?
Imagine if she hadn't been able to afford a Rivian or a lawyer. The police could easily have handcuffed her and put her in jail on day 1. Without a good lawyer, what chance of release would she have had? Bail? Sure, but if you can't afford it or don't have someone to put up a bond, guess what? You're not going home.
Had the victim of this police overreach been less privileged, she could easily have been convicted.
At least with the police you have rights. When the building inspector gets to rifle through the Home Depot camera records for the plate number of everyone who DIY'd an un-permitted shower renovation or the conservation commission asks Flock for every address the Sunbelt Rentals truck went you have no rights.
Hah!
But just wait until anyone else comes after you. It's beyond insane how you basically have no rights when the parts of the government who aren't gun toting cops are after you (the information gleaned in the investigation thereof.
And this isn't to say the police don't violate rights left and right, they do. But at least you have a shred of hope that the courts will pay out at the end of the day. You've got none of that with the rest of the bureaucracy.
> She later watched footage from the victim’s doorbell camera, which was posted on NextDoor, showing the package thief.
It seems like a package theft did in fact happen, and that the house owner themselves chose to put up cameras to record their door and posted the footage of it on the internet. In fact this footage was evidence the person in this article used to exonerate themselves, so this isn't even a general argument against surveillance cameras.
I wish this article explored more why the cops thought the thief was this person, or tried to suggest a better procedure for the police to use. Should the police have been legally required to just send the court summons and not try to talk to the suspect? Is there a better procedure than having a court case for incidents like this where a theft seems to have actually occurred and the police think they have a suspect? How ought the system to work here?
So, this story is about Flock peripherally, and a miscarriage of justice using their tools specifically.
It really doesn't seem like any surveillance camera system, Flock or otherwise, did anything wrong here. Flock (accurately) suggested her car was in the general area when the theft happened, a non-flock camera did record a person stealing the package who was apparently not her, and have no idea how reasonable it was for the cops to think that footage justified charging her (although the fact that they would not show her the footage is very suspicious).
It doesn't seem like there's any particular policy on use of surveillance cameras that would've prevented this false accusation, and this is purely about the cops (or maybe just this one cop) charging someone based on bad evidence; which is problem in and of itself and isn't directly related to Flock or any other brand of surveillance cameras in particular.
This whole story reads like:
"Something bad happened to Person A. They were accused by Person B of something they didn't do. They were the victim. The victim. Flock doorbell cameras were nearby. They're sort of similar to Ring doorbell cameras but they're Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Person A was a victim, and Flock cameras were nearby. Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Flock cameras were nearby..."
But maybe some people don't see the pattern, so (again, forgive me for writing this!) let me write another story using that same "journalistic" pattern:
"A group of people tortured, raped and killed (or allegedly tortured, raped and killed) a second group of people. The first group of people we'll call a "gang" or a "junta" or a "militia" (as opposed to "a group of people"), the second group of people we'll call "The Victims" (as opposed to "a group of people" -- which was probably another gang, junta or militia!). The second group were Victims! Victims! And during the time of their victimization, their intense victimization, a bunch of Oreo Cookies(tm) sat on the table near where the atrocities (or alleged atrocities!) took place! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Did we mention that Oreo Cookies were nearby when the victimization occurred? Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies were nearby when the atrocities occured! Did we mention Oreo Cookies? Oreo Cookies were on the table near the victims!"
(Again, forgive me for writing this...)
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
(AKA: "Guilt By Association")
The article explicitly claims that the police officer claimed that they had footage from a Flock camera:
> "The proof, according to Milliman: Footage from Flock surveillance cameras showing Elser’s forest green Rivian driving through the town from 11:52 a.m. to 12:09 p.m. on the day of the theft."
That's exactly what the headline describes. It's not clear why you're trying to downplay the role of the Flock camera, given that this seems to be the central piece of evidence that the police used, incorrectly.
> Forgive me for writing this
You would need to explain yourself first.
?
(It would have been the same story -- just less biased against a single equipment manufacturer in a product category (Doorbell Cameras)...)
So, why couldn't the journalist simply have said "Doorbell camera" every time they said "Flock camera"?
?
