Flores's Second Calls: A Case Study
FINDINGS REGARDING OFFICER RUTH FLORES:
ALLEGATION #1: 445.4.1(c) - REQUIRED ACTIVATION OF MAV: Any call for service involving a crime where the recorder may aid in the apprehension and/or prosecution of a suspect: Domestic violence calls (policy eff. 10-21-15).
During the investigation it was discovered that Flores failed to activate her MVS recorder even though the original call for service under 16-034779 came out as a 415 family with intoxicated subjects damaging property within the location. The second call came in as male assaulting a female under 16-034790. These types of call could be considered “domestic violence” and would require recording the event absent a rational basis otherwise.
Officer Flores was not noticed on this particular violation because it was not initially discovered that she did not intentionally activate her MVS. In her first interview on page 2, Flores states, “I didn’t activate, I usually just have it on. Parked, I always have it in so.” This appeared to mean that Flores thought her MVS was activated because it was just usually on and operating. Alternatively, it could mean that Flores had the audio device “on” her person but not actually activated and recording. …show more content…
Flores thought her MVS was automatically on whenever she wore the audio transmitter. This would indicate that Flores expected her MVS to be operating. In Flores’ second interview she is unclear but appears to claim that when she turns on the power to her audio device, it simply records and never shuts off. Flores also said that the Department had failed to properly train her on the MVS system and she only learned how to activate her MVS remotely after this incident took
ALLEGATION #1: 445.4.1(c) - REQUIRED ACTIVATION OF MAV: Any call for service involving a crime where the recorder may aid in the apprehension and/or prosecution of a suspect: Domestic violence calls (policy eff. 10-21-15).
During the investigation it was discovered that Flores failed to activate her MVS recorder even though the original call for service under 16-034779 came out as a 415 family with intoxicated subjects damaging property within the location. The second call came in as male assaulting a female under 16-034790. These types of call could be considered “domestic violence” and would require recording the event absent a rational basis otherwise.
Officer Flores was not noticed on this particular violation because it was not initially discovered that she did not intentionally activate her MVS. In her first interview on page 2, Flores states, “I didn’t activate, I usually just have it on. Parked, I always have it in so.” This appeared to mean that Flores thought her MVS was activated because it was just usually on and operating. Alternatively, it could mean that Flores had the audio device “on” her person but not actually activated and recording. …show more content…
Flores thought her MVS was automatically on whenever she wore the audio transmitter. This would indicate that Flores expected her MVS to be operating. In Flores’ second interview she is unclear but appears to claim that when she turns on the power to her audio device, it simply records and never shuts off. Flores also said that the Department had failed to properly train her on the MVS system and she only learned how to activate her MVS remotely after this incident took