One wonders if this was staged. And by staged I mean if there was a note out to officers saying "If you pull over someone for a violation add this charge if they are wearing Google Glass."
There are a bunch of unanswered questions (and by that I mean not yet litigated differences in opinion) with respect to glass.
For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? There have been stories of police officers being less than truthful in how a stop occurred, video makes that harder. There is also the infamous 'resisting arrest' charge which people of various demographics feel is used when profiling to hassle them. So if you can get it on record that it is illegal to drive with Glass, then you make it more obvious if someone reaches over and puts on their glass when they get pulled over.
Another question, is it a phone or not? It has a cellular connection capability so kind of. If its a phone are you 'texting' when it is showing text? Who knows, some would argue yes, some would argue no. Again, not yet litigated.
All these things are going to come through the courts eventually if this product gets any traction. So did the CHP tell their officers to add this if they stopped someone? I don't know but I can't think of any reason an officer would try 'watching tv' as the infraction.
For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court?
I wouldn't think so. It's a very short distance from here to "notice you are being tailed, slow down, say 'Glass record'"
Remember the cop also has a dash cam. It's trivial to sync timestamps on the two videos and show several seconds missing from the beginning of your video.
I have direct personal knowledge[1] of demanding 'dash cam' video only to have the police department tell the court it had become "lost and unretrievable". So the chain of custody is important.
[1] My sister-in-law is a public defender, and she demands it all the time and gets a variety of pathetic excuses why "this time" it is unavailable.
And let's not forget that traffic court isn't an episode of Law and Order. Walking in and dramatically demanding dash cam video over a couple-hundred dollar ticket is going to put a very annoyed look on the judge's face. For a simple traffic violation such as speeding, you'll never get to the point of "oh, but if you sync the timestamps between the two videos..." It's a rabbit hole that the judge just won't bother with.
If you're ever in this situation just hire a damn lawyer and listen to their advice.
As a hopefully humorous aside, this joke is as applicable to the way "nerds" view the legal system as it is to the way they view cryptography (though obviously in a more metaphorical sense): http://xkcd.com/538/
I had a feeling that was going on--to bad. For years, I
wanted cams on every Cruiser. They are cheap, but so
few police departments utilize the technology. I can
honestly say that I have been pulled over in Marin County
so many times, just because the vechicle I was driving
stood out(was old), or I was driving past 10 p.m. on a fri- sat. night. I can't imagine what immigrants have to go through.
I've even considered installing cams on my current vechicle.
reading (and watching on Youtube when available) about a bunch of recent beatings and shootings, i think it should be made into a law that a police officer may apply force only when the action is being recorded (by a helmet or Glass-style camera of the officer). Without recording on, police officers should be considered "off-duty" and be subject to regular rules just like any other citizen.
The reason evidence gathered in illegal searches is inadmissible in court is so there's no incentive for cops to perform illegal searches to 'get the bad guys'.
If the law said "the video has been lost" meant instant acquittal, the video technology would become radically more reliable.
Aren't there certain conditions for the camera to operate lights are siren both or perhaps? It's not on constantly from what I understand and it would make sense for a technical and privacy reasons.
There have been a number of rulings [1] that have made laws restricting the filming of police doing their jobs unconstitutional. So that aspect of it is on pretty solid footing.
There are a bunch of unanswered questions (and by that I mean not yet litigated differences in opinion) with respect to glass.
For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? There have been stories of police officers being less than truthful in how a stop occurred, video makes that harder. There is also the infamous 'resisting arrest' charge which people of various demographics feel is used when profiling to hassle them. So if you can get it on record that it is illegal to drive with Glass, then you make it more obvious if someone reaches over and puts on their glass when they get pulled over.
Another question, is it a phone or not? It has a cellular connection capability so kind of. If its a phone are you 'texting' when it is showing text? Who knows, some would argue yes, some would argue no. Again, not yet litigated.
All these things are going to come through the courts eventually if this product gets any traction. So did the CHP tell their officers to add this if they stopped someone? I don't know but I can't think of any reason an officer would try 'watching tv' as the infraction.