Because the State has the entire burden of proof, should we not expect mandatory video in making DUI arrests? After all, what is the point of having video cameras in police cars if we don’t use them?
Mandatory Video in DUI Arrests
While many people are concerned about drunk drivers, few seem to care about individual rights. However, unlike the court of public opinion, the State still has to prove their case at trial. So what is the best way to do that? Why video, of course. Rather than the old “he said, she said,” video puts it out there for everyone to see for themselves. Whether you are a Tiger or just a regular Joe, video shows the truth, good or bad. In addition, it protects both the accused and the police from frivolous claims. Nevertheless, police still seem to prefer darkness to light and as little video evidence as possible.
So Why Do We Have Video?
While testifying on the witness stand, every officer states they have the burden of proof. Hence, they have to bring the evidence to make their case or lose. In addition, officers also confirm that the purpose of video is to collect evidence to present at trial. So if they don’t properly video record the arrest, have they not failed to collect evidence for trial. And isn’t that a problem for the State? After all, video recording is everywhere we go throughout the day. As a result, should we not expect the police to video something as important as a DWI arrest?
While other States consider options, South Carolina has mandatory video laws that require police to record arrests. And guess what? It works. Although groups like MADD think SC laws are too easy, who can argue with video evidence. With video, juries can decide for themselves with their own eyes and ears. Because we all know what truly drunk “sounds like” and “looks like,” either you are or you are not. So consider who benefits from video and who does not want it. And then asked yourself why?