As any prosecuting attorney will attest, physical evidence and eyewitness testimony are two of the most important tools in securing a conviction

Police agencies nationwide and here in Gilroy have evidence collection, storage, and preservation procedures and policies. Proper implementation of these policies is necessary because the time between the commission and adjudication of a crime can often be years. Ask any prosecutor if they want the actual murder weapon versus a photo of it.

Video is acknowledged as the absolute best eyewitness testimony. We've all seen or heard of the TV shows that document roadside tickets being written via a video camera mounted on the dash of a police cruiser. Many assaults on police officers during traffic stops have been successfully prosecuted because of cruiser video. Video has a memory better than a pachyderm, and is not intimidated by the trial itself or a defendant. Video is fairly inexpensive, easy to store and archive, and properly stored it lasts for nearly forever. It is a great tool for law enforcement.

It is so effective police departments in poor cities mount dummy cameras in cruisers to give the impression that video is in use as a further deterrent. Video is an agency and prosecutor's dream. It is unfathomable that any department with the means would not properly use, maintain, and store cruiser video. It protects officers, assists in conviction rates, and better protects and the communities in which it is used.

Police video, and the lack of it, might put a chink in the case of alleged attempted murder of a police officer against Pete Valdez, III. Valdez's defense requested from prosecution the video from the Gilroy Police Department vehicles involved in Valdez's apprehension and arrest. An email from Public Safety Systems Administrator Steve Baty said, "Even if the four patrol cars that responded to the incident last November did have cameras, the relevant video archives were removed as of February 2008."

Let's get this straight - both a police officer and Gilroy resident barely escape death on a November morning and somehow, someone somewhere decided to remove or otherwise make unavailable the video archive before case is even tried. How ludicrous is that?

Police don't get to decide which evidence they give to prosecutors, they are duty bound to give ALL evidence to prosecutors. It is a dereliction of duty at least and, of course, knowingly concealing or disposing of evidence is illegal. Look at how badly LAPD suffered due to bad evidence techniques in the Simpson-Goldman case. That any GPD officer, maintenance technician, or contractor removed what might be vital evidence in the attempted murder of anyone is reprehensible.

More chilling in Baty's email than the lack of video is the lack of management knowledge whether or not four cruisers had video.

I expect the GPD powers at be to be able to lay hands on a document detailing the condition of every cruiser in the fleet at any time. Maintenance costs money and there should be detailed records showing all changes made to a cruiser, firearm inventories, tool inventories, and the like. To not know if a particular cruiser on a particular night had video is unforgivable and testament to lackadaisical management.

Officers are used to documenting everything. You do not become a sergeant, lieutenant, or captain without first being an officer. If it isn't written down, it didn't happen. Police academy rookies are drilled continually with that one fact.

Maybe something did happen that shouldn't have. Without the video the truth is unknown. Here's what is known: "Missing" video smacks of cover-up. Or bad policy.

Chief Denise Turner should take heed as she starts taking out the trash!

Ben Anderson Columnist Ben Anderson is a long-time Gilroyan and father of two fantastic teens. You can reach him at heyben@bdkr.net. His column is published every Wednesday.