Originally Posted by
nycphotography
Some time ago I gave this considerable thought, and I ended up with the position that video evidence should be admissible only under certain narrowly construed circumstances....
Basically it should have to be a recordin specifically of a crime in progress. It should not be available for building a circumstantial case, such as wrong place wrong time. It should require a factory installed timecode, in GMT, which is encrypted and tamper proof. There was more, but those are some of the basics.
Kind of timely, but does this mean you disagree with the LAPD using people's personal videos of the riots after the Lakers game to make arrests for destruction of personal and public property? I personally want as many of those people arrested as possible, because they cost me tax money in all the public property they damaged and they cost my fellow human beings money in all their personal property they damaged. I'd hate to think these guys could enjoy fame on youtube with the immunity of a law that makes it inadmissible because it wasn't recorded with the right kind of camera.
Your considerable thought makes plenty of sense, and I can see plenty of cases where official GMT would be crucial to determining the facts (although those should be able to be argued by a half decent lawyer), but I think it still protects the guilty more than it protects the innocent.