Originally Posted by
digger
I recently took a driver to court who passed me within a foot. He was charged $285.
He mentioned in court that the video should not be used because it could have been tampered with. I guess, like the popular YouTube video of the eagle lifting a small baby of the ground. The judge ignored him.
I'm wondering if this could become a viable defence, that the video should not be admissible because it may have been tampered with.
Best solution to this, is to immediately surrender your camera to the officer taking the report, to be admitted as evidence. If there's no chance to tamper, since it was immediately surrendered, then that defense falls flat on it's face.
Even CCTV systems with no crypto controls are admissible, if proper procedures are followed.