posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:55 AM
I searched but hadn't found this covered. It seems like a pretty serious change in policy. Here is what one site had to say on it...
Effective in July, the Department of Justice will generally require agents to record — in full — statements taken while a person is in
custody. Defendants are still better off demanding a lawyer but at least there will be a record of exactly what was said. Recording will help both
sides, so long as they play fair: defendants will know where they stand and not be forced to call federal agents liars if there is disagreement over
what was said, the government will have an accurate record and not have to defend against a charge that the agents wrote down the statement wrong.
Both sides will be able to show the full context of the statement, which will assist judges and juries at reaching fair and accurate verdicts. When
agents fail to record, they will have to explain why they did not follow the policy.
Now what is most important about the source there is that the paragraph I quoted also links the original memorandum sent out to the States Attorneys.
Direct Link to D.O.J. Memorandum
Courthouse News had this to say....
Holder said in a statement that the new policy "will help to ensure accountability and promote public confidence in the institutions and
processes that guide the nation's law enforcement efforts."
The policy is to take effect on July 11, and will apply to the FBI, the DEA, the ATF and the U.S. Marshals Service.
This all sounds pretty good so far, and Holder's statement almost makes sense. Well, almost. It's the original memo where the problem comes in and
there are two areas I sense a problem here. Lets see what everyone here may think.
This is the first clause in the memo which caught my eye: (Please excuse the img format. The PDF wasn't reading as text)
Hey... That last part there is interesting. Covert eh? Isn't this about restoring confidence or something? Well...At least they'll be recording,
right? Umm.. Err... Maybe not so much.
So...by reading the actual memo sent out to the workers on this, it seems they don't have to let you know if they are recording or not. If they
don't really want to record, those are 3 of the 4 reasons they can say 'Nawww... Don't feel like it', by how I read it. That's some very wide
latitude those leave. The 4th one is a detainees refusal to be recorded being an exception.
It all strikes me as a story we need to be aware of for policy changes, especially in how cases in the future come up for what this indicates should
be there (well, in spirit anyway). I'm assuming of course, no ATS folks would need this knowledge in a practical way (I'd hope not guys!) but things
like this are always good to know the details on. They can make a difference at times.