sa国际传媒官网网页入口

By Colleen Heild and Matt Reisen

sa国际传媒官网网页入口 Police Chief Harold Medina is cracking down on when police officers should wear lapel cameras during interactions with DWI suspects under arrest.

The action comes after news reports, including a Journal story published Friday, revealed that an officer in the sa国际传媒官网网页入口 Police Department鈥檚 DWI unit removed his required lapel camera during his testing of a suspect for alcohol intoxication last summer, and left it off while the suspect was waiting to be booked.

That officer, now under federal criminal investigation along with four other current or former APD officers, is alleged to have recommended the suspect, Carlos Sandoval-Smith, hire a prominent criminal defense attorney for his DWI case while the two were out of sight of the APD on-body video camera.

A video of the encounter shows officer Joshua Monta帽o removed his lapel camera and positioned it on a countertop at a distance from where Sandoval-Smith was submitting to a breathalyzer at a prisoner transport center in Downtown sa国际传媒官网网页入口 June 25.

At several points in the recording, which was reviewed by the Journal, the conversations the two were having were mostly inaudible because of their distance from the recording device. For two minutes after the testing, neither man was in the camera鈥檚 view, and Monta帽o repositioned the camera toward Sandoval-Smith as he sat on a bench in another room awaiting booking.

APD standard operating procedure requires officers to wear a department-issued, on-body recording device while on duty. The device 鈥渟hall be worn facing at the beltline or above, in a position intended to maximize the (device鈥檚) ability to record,鈥� the policy states.

APD spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said Friday that the agency鈥檚 crime lab has found that police radios and on-body recording devices 鈥渉ave been known to interfere with the radio frequency of the breathalyzers, so officers turn off radios and place the (on-body devices) in a position where they can still capture the interaction.鈥�

Gallegos added, 鈥淲e have asked for more information about how they are interfering.鈥�

Nevertheless, Medina on Friday directed staff to place cameras and voice monitors at breathalyzer machines 鈥渟o they can capture all video and sound,鈥� Gallegos told the Journal.

In an interview with the Journal on Thursday, Sandoval-Smith, 42, contended Monta帽o recommended he hire defense attorney Thomas Clear III to get his DWI case dismissed. Sandoval-Smith was stopped by Monta帽o for speeding, and was charged with first-time DWI after his BAC was .05. The case was dismissed in January along with more than 190 others that involved the officers under investigation.

Clear is also under federal investigation into allegations that a group of DWI officers sent arrestees to Clear and/or his paralegal Ricardo 鈥淩ick鈥� Mendez and then helped get the cases dismissed by either not showing up to court for hearings or trial or by other means. The officers, who are on paid administrative leave, are alleged to have received payment or other consideration, such as legal representation, in return.

Shaun Willoughby, president of the sa国际传媒官网网页入口 Police Officers Association, said Friday it has been a common practice for officers to take off their lapel cameras during the breathalyzer testing to avoid interference. He said officers place the recording devices in different locations nearby.

According to the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance, video and audio recordings can be used by law enforcement to demonstrate transparency to their communities; to document statements, observations, behaviors and other evidence.

The cameras are also said to deter unprofessional, illegal and inappropriate behaviors by both law enforcement and the public.