Opinion ID: 2982626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cameras.

Text: When Peterson died, there were approximately 300 video cameras at Big Sandy, located at various points throughout the facility. As the District Court explained, [t]he images captured on camera are transmitted into a VICON Kollector, a device containing six hard-drives designed for recording the camera images. A Kollector’s hard-drives hold a minimum of 14 days of recorded activities before reaching capacity, and once filled to capacity, the Kollector overwrites the oldest images.[5] Thus, to preserve footage captured on the Kollectors, the footage must be transferred to a CD. Selecting, downloading, and recording images to a CD is the function of SIS officers. The process of saving footage begins with an SIS officer pulling up the footage from the Kollector’s hard-drive. Next, the SIS officer views the footage from the Kollector and determines which portions 3 The original indictment also included charges for obstruction of justice—one of which was for intimidating Crawford into assisting in the alleged obstruction—against Gravley and Milburne that later were dismissed by the District Court. 4 Milburne pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced before Gravley’s trial. At Gravley’s trial, however, Milburne testified in Gravley’s favor. 5 Surveillance footage is saved on Big Sandy’s hard-drive for 15-30 days. -8- Case No. 11-6123 United States v. Gravley should be saved. The officer then transfers the selected footage to a computer tower located in the SIS office. From the computer tower, the footage is saved to a CD. Although the corridors of the SHU were equipped with cameras, the unit’s individual cells were not. During discovery, Gravley requested video footage from the SHU corridors for November 12 and 13, 2006. But, “[f]or reasons that are unclear,” the vast majority of the footage, which would have lasted approximately nineteen hours, was not preserved. Instead, “[o]nly 27 minutes of the footage survive[d]” and was disclosed to Gravley; the remainder was overwritten. Accordingly, Gravley moved to dismiss the charges against him, raising allegations of BOP wrongdoing. As the District Court recounted, however, “[s]everal people viewed the entire footage [from November 12 and 13, 2006] before it was overwritten.” “Warden Suzanne Hastings, members of the SIS, members of the After-Action Team, and Special Agent Schumacker reviewed the footage before it was erased. Both Agent Schumacker and Warden Hastings made time lines of the events based on the entire footage. Their time lines d[id] not corroborate Gravley’s allegations.” Additionally, Agent Schumacker had asked the BOP to preserve any video footage that was reviewed. Consequently, the District Court concluded, Gravley could establish neither that the lost footage was “materially exculpatory,” United States v. Wright, 260 F.3d 568, 570-71 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)), or that it had been overwritten in bad faith, id. at 571 (citing Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57-58). The court therefore denied Gravley’s motion to dismiss. -9- Case No. 11-6123 United States v. Gravley