"Undercover officers or confidential informants will not be recorded, unless requested by the undercover officer or their supervisor in the furtherance of an investigation."
"Officers should not record undercover officers or confidential informants, absent supervisor approval under limited circumstances."
"When knowingly in the ...
Do undercovers/plainclothes (ever?) wear bodycams?
Yes, but there are different reasons for doing so - it depends on the purpose for having a recording device, what its authorisation allows, and the role of the officer using it as there is are legal differences between a police officer who is:
in "plain clothes". Some officers, ...
Wearing bodycams is generally a decision made at a local department by department, or agency by agency basis, as a matter of policy, although there are five states that require them statewide (CA, CT, FL, NV and SC). About half of the states require agencies that use them to have written policies concerning their use but don't necessarily establish what ...
Your question is about the admissibility of expert opinion evidence. The applicable law in U.S. courts is called the Daubert standard. Under this standard, the judge is required to play a “gatekeeper” role by “ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand” before admitting it. Although the details ...
In principle, the evidence could be admitted. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows an expert to testify if
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine
a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of ...
Sorry. I know this will be downvoted.
Sovereigns are not bound by laws, they are bound by channels of obedience. If the sovereign says it is legal, then it is legal. If the sovereign says it is illegal, then it is illegal. This includes sovereigns composed of systems.
Not everything falls under lawful or unlawful. There is just and unjust as well as power ...
To what extent would such "sociological" information (and related
expert testimony) be allowed in a California courtroom? Would some
items be allowed and some not, all allowed, or none allowed? And how
might they be used; would they be mainly in "rebuttal" or in other
contexts as well?
There are multiple evidentiary rules that apply.
There is virtually no chance this would be admissible.
When a defendant argues that abuse at the hands of third party led to a mental defect that excuses her from culpability, the prosecution is free to rebut that argument.
However, the prosecution's evidence must be relevant, i.e., it must have a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less likely to ...