Opinion ID: 2508217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: In-Car Camera Policy

Text: The KSU Police policy regarding in-car camera recording systems, General Order 62.1.18, § B, Operating Procedures, provides in relevant part: 5. Officers shall record all traffic stops and pursuits, along with major accidents, where practical. . . . No officer may terminate recording an event of this type, until the event has been concluded. 6. Every traffic stop shall be recorded until the stop is terminated. 7. Incidents that generate reports will be recorded on the MVR tape log sheet. Although the Board did not specifically find that the policy was violated, it did note in its factual findings that the KSU Police Department discovered that Mr. Jones had turned off the in-car camera prior to the completion of the traffic stop. Jones does not dispute that he told Esping to wait, that he ordered the video camera to be turned off, and that he returned to her car and told Esping he did not care what she did after he left. Captain Beckom and Pharaoh Guice both testified that the traffic stop was not concluded when Jones ordered the camera to be turned off. Although Jones presented testimony that the stop was concluded, it is not the function of this court to reweigh this evidence. See In re Tax Appeal of ANR Pipeline Co., 276 Kan. 702, 723, 79 P.3d 751 (2003). The Court of Appeals majority begrudgingly admits that the opinion testimony of the KSU witnesses provided substantial competent evidence that Jones technically violated the policy. 32 Kan. App. 2d at 320-21. It appears that the majority attempts to downplay this violation as a technicality in an attempt to support its ultimate conclusion that Jones' conduct was not gross. The majority seemingly overlooks the fact that Jones admitted that he turned off the camera in order to protect himself from the consequences of what he was planning on telling Esping. Regardless of its characterization, we find substantial competent evidence was presented that Jones violated the policy by ordering the in-car camera to be turned off prior to the termination of the traffic stop. As substantial competent evidence supports the two grounds for termination, our next relevant inquiry is whether these actions constituted gross misconduct or conduct grossly unbecoming a state officer or employee under K.S.A. 75-2949f(a).