Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

Re:Ring has partnered with 400 police forces by hanniabu on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @11:11AM (#20820571)

I don't see why this is necessary. If it's on camera why would it matter who it belongs to? Is some legal letter not sufficient? Something along the lines of "I, name, live at this address and own the device that captured said footage". It's not like it was a witness account or anything.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ring has partnered with 400 police forces by Paul-ish on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @11:32AM (#20820793)

I wonder what a lawyer would say, but I suspect this has something to do with the right to cross examine evidence. It might be hearsay to just use a pre-recorded statement. If the defense thinks the evidence is bunk, they should be able to question 5440 about the camera. Cynically, this could also be a tactic using the right to cross examine to wear 5440 down. I'm not a lawyer though, so who knows.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ring has partnered with 400 police forces by derefr on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @11:37AM (#20820848)

Not a pre-recorded statement; a notarized declaration letter. “At some point I declared in person, to a reliable witness, that I own this camera, and they wrote that down.”

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ring has partnered with 400 police forces by refurb on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @11:44AM (#20820922)

How does the defense question the circumstances around the video if it's just a letter they sent in? Or should they just take the prosecutors word that the video is what they say it is?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ring has partnered with 400 police forces by hanniabu on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @11:47AM (#20820945)

It's a video, it can speak for itself

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ring has partnered with 400 police forces by 5440 on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @11:15AM (#20820612)

Exactly my point. The prosecutor told me its because the defense is trying to dispute everything and get the footage removed from evidence.

[ Parent | on HN ]