Albuquerque's Police Chief Says Cops Have a 5th Amendment Right To Leave Their Body Cameras Off
Harold Medina made that argument during an internal investigation of a car crash he caused last February.

Albuquerque, New Mexico, Police Chief Harold Medina operated his department-issued pickup truck "in an unsafe manner" on February 17, when he ran a red light and broadsided a car, severely injuring the driver. So concludes a recent report from internal investigators who looked into that shocking incident.
Duh, you might say if you have seen surveillance camera footage of the crash, which shows Medina crossing Central Avenue, a busy, four-lane street, against the light. He crosses the westbound lanes through a gap between two cars, forcing one of the drivers to brake abruptly, before barreling across the eastbound lanes, where he rams into the side of a gold 1966 Mustang driven by 55-year-old Todd Perchert.
Although Medina's recklessness seems obvious, the Albuquerque Police Department's Fleet Crash Review Board (CRB) earlier this year concluded that the crash was "non-preventable." How so? Medina, who was on his way to a Saturday press conference with his wife when he took a detour to have a look at a homeless encampment, said he ran the light to escape an altercation between two homeless men that had escalated into gunfire at the intersection of Central and Alvarado Drive.
While "the initial decision to enter the intersection is not in question," Lt. James Ortiz says in the Internal Affairs report, "the facts and circumstances do not relieve department personnel of driving safely to ensure no additional harm is done to personnel or to citizens." Medina, Ortiz says, clearly failed to do that: "By definition, driving into a crosswalk, darting between two vehicles driving on a busy street, and crossing through an intersection with vehicles traveling eastbound were unsafe driving practices." In this case, he notes, those unsafe practices "resulted in a vehicle collision with serious physical injuries to the victim, including a broken collarbone and shoulder blade, 8 broken ribs (reconstructed with titanium plates after surgery), collapsed lung, lacerations to left ear and head, multiple gashes to his face, a seven-hour surgery, and hospitalization requiring epidural painkiller and a chest tube for nearly a week."
Ortiz not only disagrees with the CRB's conclusion about Medina's crash; he says the board never should have reviewed the incident to begin with, since its mission is limited to accidents "not resulting in a fatality or serious injury." Ortiz says Commander Benito Martinez, who chairs the CRB, violated department policy when he decided the board should pass judgment on Medina's accident.
Martinez acknowledged that department policy "prohibited the CRB from hearing serious injury crashes" and that "allowing such a case to be heard would be a policy violation." Why did he allow it anyway? "He explained that his reasoning for permitting the Chief's crash to be reviewed by the CRB was based on his belief that someone wanted the crash to be heard," Ortiz writes. "Cmdr. Martinez clarified that he believed someone from Internal Affairs wanted the case to be heard by the CRB to ensure full transparency. However, he did not consult with anyone in Internal Affairs to verify the accuracy of this assumption."
Both the CRB's decision to review the crash and its implicit exoneration of Medina are hard to fathom. But Medina's explanations for the third policy violation identified by Ortiz—the chief's failure to activate his body camera after the crash—are even weirder.
"After the collision occurred, the shooting victim approached," Ortiz writes. "The victim informed the Chief that he was okay and had not been shot. Chief Medina asked the victim to remain at the scene, but the victim refused and fled southbound on Alvarado. Another citizen approached the Chief and reported having seen individuals leaving a black truck and fleeing away from the scene. Chief clarified with the witness that no one was outstanding. It is important to note that these interactions were not recorded and are contacts that require mandatory recording."
That mandate is not just a matter of police department policy. State law requires that on-duty police officers wear body cameras and that they activate them when "responding to a call for service or at the initiation of any other law enforcement or investigative encounter between a peace officer and a member of the public." The statute adds that "peace officers who fail to comply" with such requirements "may be presumed to have acted in bad faith and may be deemed liable for the independent tort of negligent spoliation of evidence or the independent tort of intentional spoliation of evidence."
Medina offered two puzzling excuses for leaving his camera off. He "cited intermittent conversations with his wife, who was a passenger in his unmarked patrol vehicle at the time of the collision," Ortiz says. "He claimed there was a right to privileged communication between spouses, which specifically exempted him from mandatory recording requirements." But the relevant policy "does not provide for nonrecording based on spousal privilege."
Even more troubling, Medina said he "purposefully did not record because he was invoking his 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate." Since "he was involved in a traffic collision," he reasoned, he was "subject to 5th Amendment protections."
Think about the implications of that argument. Body cameras are supposed to help document (and perhaps deter) police misconduct. But Medina is suggesting that cops have a constitutional right to refrain from recording their interactions with the public whenever that evidence could be used against them. By turning on their cameras in those situations, he argues, police could be incriminating themselves. That is the whole point.
Medina received two official reprimands for the camera violation and the reckless driving that injured Perchert, a casualty of the police chief's desperation to save his own skin. In similar situations, other Albuquerque police officers have been fired. But after the crash, Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller hailed Medina as a hero who is "out on the front line…doing what he can to make our city safe."
[This post has been updated with information about New Mexico's statutory requirements regarding body cameras.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If he gets the right Judge, I can see it being upheld. It is an interesting question. I'm President of a small Social Club. There is a push right now to make it a requirement of our Liquor License that we have cameras installed in the Club and that the local Police have access to the feed from them. Under the Chief's reasoning those cameras would violate the Fifth Amendment. Pretty much any camera system would violate a Criminal's Fifth Amendment Rights. Funny how Reason is all for Police body cameras and against all other types of cameras.
Liars don’t want any evidence of the truth.
This demonstrates why the solution is to update the constitution to give EVERYONE the inalienable right to record what they witness WHEREVER we go.
We need this now more people than ever.
Indeed. cameras are every where in some cities, traffic cameras on the highways and even in public buildings.
Soon they will be in your home.
" Smith, Winston.....you are under arrest for the crime of bad speak.!!"
That’s what you’ll get when one vote every 4 years is enough democracy for you. Especially when that vote is necessarily for a puppet of unelected oligarchs.
If you don’t want to keep sliding down this dystopian slope it’s time to take action. We really have no other choice than the red pill or the blue. Ignoring this war is taking the blue pill to dystopia.
The establishment has millennia of experience lying to subjugate us.
Technology has provided us with one chance to get ahead of, and turn it around.
We need the inalienable right to record what we witness anywhere we are.
We need to double down supporting free speech opposing censorship, the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Then we criminalize lying which will force us to recognize and codify in law exactly how truth is determined. With correctly applied logic and science.
If we don’t act first to do this and reinforce our freedom, the establishment will make laws that prevent us from doing so.
Then it will require another civil war to be free.
Red pill or blue.
It starts with recognizing individuals who recognize right from wrong and actually talk about it publicly, actually saying something, without being refuted.
These are the intelligent ones who might be willing to act on their convictions.
Then they need to find each other, recognize a common objective, and use their individual strengths to develop and execute a viable plan.
That’s it.
The biggest obstacle to this is censorship of free speech on social media, our global town square.
This is how the founders did it and why free speech is 1A.
Police don't have rights. They have powers. They give up their rights when they take on their powers.
An overstatement if taken to extremes but certainly true for anything done in their official capacity. (And yes, this accident in a department-issued vehicle and all the surrounding activities were definitely in an official capacity.)
The Libertarian obsession with unlimited police oversight is myopic and outdated. I have no problem with camera requirements, etc for cops, but why are we pretending they're uniquely powerful in society? Why isn't Reason arguing for constant surveillance of the scores of groups with way more impact on our daily lives?
Why are teachers exempt? They're public employees in a unique and even more imbalanced position of power. Or college administrators? What about politicians? Why don't we get to see footage of their backroom negotiations where they express their actual policies, beliefs and desired outcomes? Their policies certainly have the capacity to do more damage than a single idiot darting through trafffic. IRS? FBI? BLM (the land management one, not the racist/Marxist one)? On and on and on.
Never a push for actual oversight of the groups that truly need oversight. Just the same 1960s Boomer shit about the pigs and free love and drugs, man. Maybe if the LP ever changed with the times they could manage to out-poll Kanye West.
The Bill of Rights is a set of limitation on the STATE. Police are the state. They are the government. The idea that Bill of Rights lets the government hide its normal everyday activities from the public is ludicrous.
Need moar woodchippers!
People who claim the Bill of Rights protects government may as well say government would be unarmed if not for the 2A.
It's tough when sarc is a voice of reason.
Made me do a take.
Medina, who was on his way to a Saturday press conference with his wife when he took a detour to have a look at a homeless encampment, said he ran the light to escape an altercation between two homeless men that had escalated into gunfire at the intersection of Central and Alvarado Drive.
You know in other places they arrest kids for playing on "dangerous" playgrounds that are far, far more safe than, apparently, this police chiefs' drive to work.
Cameras or not, the idea that fleeing from gun fire justifies putting someone else in the hospital is interesting, though probably to be expected from a "review board" rather than an "ethics panel".
The Crash Review Board consists of 4 cops and one appointed civilian. Their Guide defines a "Non-Preventable Crash" as:
"The Department driver exercised every reasonable precaution to prevent the crash, including making due allowances for road conditions, weather, traffic, and errors or negligence of others, and the driver observed applicable Department policies, procedures, and training, including the use of appropriate defensive driving tactics."
Yep, "non-preventable" all right. And the Mustang dented the pickup's front bumper, so hope he paid for the damage.
"consists of 4 cops and one appointed civilian", which means it consists of 5 CIVILIANS. Language matters, Folks. Members of the military aren't civilians; EVERYBODY else is. If you are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, YOU ARE A CIVILIAN. Pretending that cops and other government agents aren't civilians makes it more "acceptable" to militarize those agencies.
Who speaks for the 66 Mustang?
I DO!!!
The major crime here was damage to a national treasure!
25 to life!
OK Sullum, time for reporting 101.
1. Why was the sheriff FLEEING a crime in progress, the shooting that didn't happen?
2. Was the unmarked car using lights and/or siren as it ran away? If not, why not?
3. Why have an Albuquerque Police Department's Fleet Crash Review Board (CRB), if its mission is limited to accidents "not resulting in a fatality or serious injury."? Why isn't it called "The Fender Bender Review Board"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
1. His wife was in the car
2. His wife was in the car
3. FYTW (longer answer, I assume, is that they want to be able to say “no serious injuries or death, case dismissed” a lot or say “it’s a serious injury/death case, we can’t look at it, case dismissed”)
Fuck Medina. With a large cactus. In a public arena.
Little Nicky is really bad movie. The one redeeming feature is Hitler's daily pineapple up the ass from Satan.
https://youtu.be/42oucm_lj50
Isn't the whole point of making police wear body cameras to make sure they don't do something illegal or excessive? If they don't want to be on camera, they don't have to be cops.
Most cops are open to cameras because it protects them from false charges, which happens all the time. Not Albuquerque.
As a lifetime New Mexican. this is no surprise. APD has a long and well-documented history of murder, car theft and other assorted corruption. At one time they had more cops shooting suspects that Oakland. It's till the most dangerous city in the country, and their sole focus is not getting caught committing crimes. Most of us in NM avoid ABQ like the plague.
New Mexico is listed as one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation ...not as bad as D.C. though.
said he ran the light to escape an altercation between two homeless men that had escalated into gunfire at the intersection of Central and Alvarado Drive.
Wait. Stop. Stop right there. Why aren’t we talking more about that?
“By definition, driving into a crosswalk, darting between two vehicles driving on a busy street, and crossing through an intersection with vehicles traveling eastbound were unsafe driving practices.”
Man had his wife riding shotgun! There was active gunfire! “Oh gosh, I’d better remain highly cognizant of the rules of the road, while the escaped inmates I’m no longer allowed to arrest go berserk in the streets.”
Seriously. Why are we talking about the body camera, and not the shootouts in shantytowns where a guy can’t drive his wife from A to B without winding up in the line of fire?
Y’know, I would have accepted a sanction of this cop on one condition: the very next day, the bulldozers were out there to level tent city, and everyone living there was locked in a sanitarium.
But no. Instead we whine about the technicality of whether he should have turned on his body cam, and ignore completely the fact that we’ve got derelicts shooting at each other in the street in broad daylight while passing traffic just tries to get by.
Priorities, y’know?
Well, Clown World Jake doesn’t, that’s for damn sure.
ATF is a big fan of qualified immunity for cops who murder a busload of children. This here is chickenfeed for the Jesus Caucus standing at Armageddon and fighting for the Law-werd!
Oh, so now instead of a car crash, he’s murdering children wholesale?
But by all means, continue revealing your bigotry and prejudice, you sad, hate-filled little person.
Do you want people shooting at each other in broad daylight with civilians in all directions? Is that preferable to a cop – who’s in no position to help – who forgets his Axon while he’s busy trying to protect his own wife?
Put on the nose, Clown World. You're as bad as Jake.
Why is his wife in the police car with him driving around town? She should get herself to her husband's press conference herself, not using official vehicles for personal use. If he had not been transporting his wife in the official vehicle, he should have been expected to stop and involve himself in the shooting, with his camera on. The wreck (wasn't an accident) occurred specifically *because* he was driving his wife around. The camera violations were *because* he was driving his wife around.
Why is his wife in the police car with him driving around town? She should get herself to her husband’s press conference herself, not using official vehicles for personal use.
Careful, you're going to piss off the environazi's.
(But I get it, especially in context of the rest of your post. You are rationalizing so hard here to make your conclusion try to make sense. GLWT.)
So the police chief fled from an active crime scene unfolding, then broadsided a law abiding citizen?
Nothing of the sort. The citizen, by being in the path of a qualified immunity cop car, was obstructing justice. Just ask ATF. Auctoritas non veritas facit ordurama.
It is not the job of a police officer to abandon his family to their own devices in the middle of a sudden and unexpected active crime scene.
And don’t pretend you’d do any different if you were wearing a tin star. If you’ve got the wife and kids in your truck and suddenly the blasting starts – you’re getting THEM out of there first, and radioing for backup because you’re in no position at the moment to help.
You people and your ACAB blinders. It’s like you never stop once to consider what you’d do if you were the badge.
If I wore that joke of a badge I wouldn't have my wife in my unit in the first place. This egomaniac thinks he's invulnerable and nothing bad can happen to him so he stupidly subjects his wife to huge risks. He shouldn't be sheriff of Mayberry.
You realize that he wasn't on duty as a traffic officer, or a detective, or IA, or anything else right? He was on his way from A to B (B apparently being some function he was to participate in as police chief), with his wife in the company car - which millions of people do all the time - and then he found himself in an ACAB wet dream of people shooting each other in the street in broad daylight.
I get that you ACAB mouthbreathers hate cops to the point of incoherent belligerence (ironically the same mindset that ends up necessitating the cops) - but you're being intentionally stupid on this particular story. I mean, blame the victim a little harder why don't you.
But then there it is, isn't it. All ACABs are Marxists, and since ACABs always believe that the police are the "oppressor" - they pay no mind whatsoever to the violent lunatics shooting up the street. It's always going to be the cop's fault, no matter what.
Put it on, Dave. Put on the nose. You are Clown World.
If you are driving to an event to appear as police chief, then you ARE on duty, so get your family out of the vehicle. I don't care if your precious cops do it all time, they shouldn't. And it isn't a "company car", it's an official vehicle paid for by taxpayers like the guy in serious condition in the hospital who was put there while lawfully minding his own business.
If you are driving to an event to appear as police chief, then you ARE on duty, so get your family out of the vehicle.
Dude, even if it wasn’t his wife, if it was ANYONE in that vehicle (say, if he were escorting an abused spouse to a shelter or to hand off to a DVA after pulling her out of a domestic), proper procedure would be to prioritize their safety. Defensive action when you've got an innocent you've assumed responsibility for.
He’s not in a position to assist with the crime-in-progress right then and there. Call for backup and avoid engagement unless absolutely necessary. And if he abandoned them in a life-threatening scenario to go off and play Hero Cop – he’d be in even more trouble if she got hurt than for getting into a collision while trying to get her to safety.
But I get it. You guys are so around the bend on this ACAB thing that you think the cost of being a cop should be their family’s safety and lives. Because cops “deserve that” by virtue of AC’s being AB’s.
Grow up.
But it wasn't a DV victim. It was someone who never should have been in the vehicle...and he put an innocent man in critical condition.
Grow up.
Why should a DV victim be escorted in a police vehicle from A to B? Arrest the perp, take him away, and leave the victim to stand there and wait until a social worker arrives. Screw her. Cops should never have anyone but perps in their car, is that it?
You're being intentionally obtuse because of your ACAB prejudices. There's no reason for the wife NOT to be in the vehicle from this fact pattern. It sounds like a take-home truck, he wasn't on patrol duty, he was headed to a press conference - and if she was a guest of that function, which makes sense as his wife - why would they not carpool to it? Because of the off-chance they might run into a crime-in-progress, in which case proper procedure would be to prioritize the safety of any passenger anyway.
Your position is simply not reasonable. You're just looking for reasons to ACAB on this one, when there simply isn't a valid one. Because it's borne of prejudice and its resultant willful ignorance.
Welp, I've never read such twisted thinking for quite a while now but Medina's is simply beyond belief.
I Know cops tend to drink a lot but maybe this one should put the brakes on boozing it for a while and dry out a bit.
Maybe his brain will reboot and he'll begin functioning normally again.
Look, the Chicago police can pocket their badges before beating bystanders bloody. It follows as night follows day that ABQ cops can run down pedestrians and destroy evidence. These are just some of the perks that come with the looter Kleptocracy granting goons total immunity and a license to kill--then passing a bunch of victimless "crime" laws to watch it happen!
Any private citizen who did this exact same vehicular maneuver to avoid a shootout would still have wound up in a jail cell, at least until a bond hearing. Guaranteed. But, cops gonna cop.
If the chief wants to make such an argument, he should face the same consequences that the rank-and-file officers would face under these circumstances, i.e., firing! Instead, the pusillanimous chief declares him a hero! Outside of criminal prosecution there are consequences when one asserts the privilege. In a civil case, it gives rise to the presumption that the testimony would be adverse to the witness asserting the privilege.