Washington State sheriff used courtroom camera to zoom in on defense attorney and juror's private notes

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/02/06/sheriff-ron-krebs.html


“Wow, this is embarrassing. I don’t know how my hand got in this cookie jar. Accidents happen, right? What’s that, you have photos of my hand in the cookie jar on multiple prior occasions? Well, don’t mind me, I need to be off to plant…er, find some evidence.”


The Thin Blue Line is quite blurry!


This is why we can’t have nice things.


Somehow, my habit of taking notes in languages other than English seems much less paranoid than it did yesterday. :thinking:


You see, if this were private industry where nobody’s constitutional rights were on the line, the person in place of the sheriff would have gotten blackballed and have had to work in another industry.

But LEOs are held to a lower standard of conduct than the public.

Yet again proving that they’re just legally endorsed organized crime.


The sheriff was manipulating the camera from his office - why would he need camera control like that? And then, the doozy of the last paragraph:

Power, in filings seeking to make the courtroom video public, said the hearing raised still unanswered questions, including why the camera in the district courtroom has zoom capabilities at all or whether the cameras can be controlled remotely from other county terminals. The security cameras in the other courtrooms and elsewhere inside the courthouse do not have zoom, tilt or pan capabilities, according to the documents.



Ah the Joe Arpaio school of law enforcement.

Dividing the flag like policing divides America.


It would appear this sheriff has a long history manipulating the system. Check him out on youtube. How does this go unpunished for years? The locals even believe he manipulated the results of a recent election. Welcome to small town America!

Video # 1
He talks about how bad a brady cop is (a cop who is branded as a liar by the courts because they lied where it could have affected the outcome of a case) but it turns out he hired one himself Zachary Reimer, a Whatcom castoff. He tried to keep it a secret, but was busted on this video.

Video # 2
He is captured lying to a panel of commissioners regarding his knowledge of detective Stephen Parker who was boinking a victim. Apparently, he was warned by one of his own cops but he suggested his own deputy was the liar instead. This guy has to go!

1 Like

If evidence turns up that Krebs also zoomed in on cleavages, then his problems could take a whole new trajectory.

With so much on this guy (and therefore odd survivability), one has to wonder if (he apparently being sneaky and dishonest) has “something” on certain county politicos.

1 Like

It makes one wonder if there is anything to be found in a dusty and otherwise boring collection of RFPs, quotes, and statements of work from when the system was installed.

I’ve only dealt with wiring, AV; and access control system installers a few times(not my favorite part of playing generalist IT); but in the cases I was involved in the records related to the job were quite detailed: no discussion of context, the contractor was ultimately willing to run cable and mount cameras basically wherever we were willing to pay them to(though we didn’t request bathrooms or anything like that soaybe they would have pushed back against egregiously dodgy requests); but one part of what we were paying the vendor for was “we need camera coverage of X area; here’s the floorplan and site info; what would you recommend?” And after a plan had been agreed on both parties had an interest in a very specific breakdown of what equipment was being installed where and how configured(on our side so that we had a ‘spec’ to hold them to; plus documentation; on their side so that they had a ‘spec’ to point to for ‘project has been delivered to spec’ and likely to coordinate their own people and/or subcontractors on the job).

It’s hardly assured that there is a smoking gun there; the specs could simply state that PTZ units go in those places without further comment; or with some blanket ‘courtroom security’ reference that means nothing; but those records are likely to be atypically detailed and boring enough that Sheriff Due Process wouldn’t have even thought to try to scrub something so banal or keep the project off the books in the first place(compare to, say, the custom of silently purchasing stingrays out of civil forfeiture slush money).

He claimed he did not know the camera had a zoom function.

The PA’s notes were surveilled as well. Why was this not mentioned? Seems the author of this post needs to do a little due diligence.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.