Smile! You're on the TruScene TS-1L candid crash cam
Law enforcement has long known the benefits of aiming a video camera through the front windshield, but until now that kind of high-tech observation was too expensive and impractical for a consumer just looking to make his case in court. Enter the TruScene TS-1L camera that was unveiled recently at the British Motor Show. The single-lens camera unit records a 30-second loop, which it will continuously delete unless an impact above a certain g-force is detected. If an impact is registered, the system will transfer the last recorded loop of video to non-volatile memory for later review. The TS-1L also encrypts and watermarks the video to ensure that it can't be tampered with later on. The quality of the video is very high, above what you're used to seeing on COPS. You can check out sample clips of what the TS-1L records at the manufacturer's website, and also register to be notified when the product's released in the fall. [Source: TruScene via Fourtitude]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
naggs 8:24PM (7/28/2006)
I am curious if this could be used against you? Could you be subpenaed (spelling?) and forced to bring in the tape to prove your drunk driving/hit and run ect? Anyone know anything about law?
Reply
GhostDoggy 8:48PM (7/28/2006)
No one is asking you to do anything. They will simply take the vehicle and retrieve the video without permission. And I wouldn't put it past being Bluetooth-transmittable to law enforcement vehicles in the area like one responding to your drunken accident. lol
Reply
naggs 9:23PM (7/28/2006)
would it be obsturction of justice if you erased/deleted the file or can you plead the 5th?
Reply
John 9:56PM (7/28/2006)
I don't think you can plead the fifth when it's not you who is presenting the evidence that will be used. It'd be like pleading the fifth to prevent the feds from getting the shredded office documents from your desk at Enron.
I guess, if the video were encryped you could conveniently "forget" the password to view it, and then be coy about it. Or just don't drive drunk and be a winner.
Reply
GhostDoggy 8:40AM (7/29/2006)
If you are drunk driving and get involved in a hit & run I would hope the device is intelligent enough (hey, AI!) to just field-execute you. 'nuf said.
I like how some are willing to be so irresponsible and not accountable for their own actions. We should just air-drop them into the Middle East and be done with them.
Reply
anahit 9:36AM (7/29/2006)
If you get popped for H&R or drunk driving, they don't need to subpoena your video if it's in the car.
The car is evidence and subject to impound. It's also subject to impound as prisoner property if you get arrested in your car. Either way, anything in the car is fair game then for a variety of reasons. The cops get to search the entire vehicle because virtually every agency has an inventory policy regarding vehicle impound. If they find a video, they can take it.
Before you get worked up about it not being constitutional, it is. Don't worry, though--they'll give it back after legal proceedings.
And no, the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to the video.
Reply
toxshox 12:07PM (7/29/2006)
This is worth way more than some silly $1000+ DVD player in your dash. This would be really cool if they could adapt it for racing. Make an on off button for race day so you could record your runs and dl them to your computer.
Reply
Glenn 1:26PM (7/29/2006)
Actually, it would probably require a search warrant, just as happened when a local idiot killed 4 youths by doing 72 in a 45 and clobbering their Cavalier with his massive (GM) SUV. The on-board computer kept details of speed, acceleration, throttle settings etc. of the SUV and were taken from the SUV legally after a search warrant was put forward, and the driver of the SUV was successfully prosecuted and found guilty of vehicular manslaughter partly from the evidence his own vehicle kept on his actions.
So, is this a bad thing? I don't think so.
Reply
anahit 4:24PM (7/29/2006)
I'm not familiar with that Cavalier case but it doesn't change things. Unless a particular state's constitution significantly expands the federal Constitution's 4th Amendment Search and Seizure Clause(and is quite out of whack with the vast majority of states), a warrant isn't required.
The po-po can always get a warrant to be extra safe, and they often do, despite not being required under certain facts. I suspect that's what happened in the Cavalier situation if it's true. Especially because extracting digital info from cars is relatively new. See my above post for reasons.
You can look it up yourself. Google "automobile exception", "prisoner property", "search and seizure", "inventory policy", "search warrant" and the like. It's not an especially complex area of law and I'm sure plenty of quick summaries are available online.
Reply