What our deep dive into Philadelphia police video surveillance discovered

Numerous drug cases built by a group of drug agents — who used Philadelphia’s citywide video surveillance system in their investigations but did not even disclose it to prosecutors — have failed after public defenders began subpoenaing the video.

This video exposed blatant falsehoods in the statements of Narcotics Strike Force (NSF) Squad 2 officers, proving that some of the alleged drug deals never took place and people were falsely accused. According to an investigation by the Inquirer, Philadelphia police are currently investigating.

It also highlighted gaps in the city’s policies to protect residents’ civil rights as the city continues to invest millions in an increasingly expansive, powerful and interconnected surveillance system.

This story is about the next generation of scandals for a police force that has been plagued by scandals for decades. But it’s also about the privacy rights of Philadelphia residents, who may now be subject to around-the-clock surveillance in their communities. Here are the takeaways:

1. The city’s video surveillance infrastructure was rapidly expanded and networked.

A decade ago, there were only 218 cameras in Philadelphia — and half were broken. Today, police and other city officials have access to an integrated network of nearly 7,000 cameras operated by the city, SEPTA and PennDOT. You can log in via a smartphone app to control the 4K resolution and 360-degree cameras, pan and zoom to follow the movements of targets, or rewind to view previous footage. Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel says the cameras, along with other new technologies like drones and license plate cameras, will be an important part of drug investigations in the future.

“I think people don’t realize how sophisticated camera systems are today in terms of resolution, size and ease of connection,” said Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a law professor at American University, who argues that the 24/7 -Video analysis is integrated Many newer camera models capable of tracking license plates or people over time represent an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

2. The city first introduced new technologies and later established policies.

In New York City, the introduction of new police technology must be preceded by a public comment period and then an independent review. Here in Philadelphia, transparency around police technology has been more limited.

The city has allowed 2,400 city employees, most of them police officers, to access the cameras, but did not release a policy on using that system until December 2023, years after its widespread use. Although the cameras are highly visible, the city considers the list of their locations to be confidential, non-public information and has largely violated a policy requiring visible police stickers on the cameras

There is currently no policy on disclosing video evidence from the cameras, but one is in development. Disclosure is important because prosecutors are required by law to disclose exculpatory evidence to people accused of crimes. The video is automatically deleted after 30 days – long before most criminal cases are resolved.

3. The video contradicted the testimony of drug cops who secretly used cameras.

An attorney for the Defender Association of Philadelphia subpoenaed video based on suspicion and found that NSF Squad 3 had been using cameras in surveillance since at least 2019.

The agency’s failure to disclose the video was problematic because it contained evidence to which many defendants were entitled. It emerged that officers had made false statements about observing some drug transactions. It also emerged that officers had failed to document potential witnesses who were searched and then released.

In some cases, the district attorney agreed that the officers had provided “inaccurate” testimony — and withdrew prosecutions. In other cases, judges reviewed the video and dismissed the charges. According to court records, prosecutors have dropped at least 70 cases against one officer, Eugene Roher. But other cases are still ongoing.

4. Chronic absences from court make it easy for police officers to evade cross-examination.

Because defense attorneys subpoenaed a video that contradicted the NSF Squad 2 officers’ records, some of them simply failed to appear in court when subpoenaed, thereby avoiding cross-examination. Some cases were delayed up to five times due to the absence of officials.

However, willful failure to appear rarely results in disciplinary action in a court system where officer absenteeism is widespread. Officers missed more than 10,000 court appearances last year, in part because of a chaotic scheduling system that cannot account for vacation days and may reserve an officer for multiple courtrooms at once. In the last three years, only one official has been punished for truancy.

5. Internal investigations have not yet identified a serious problem.

In early 2020, public defenders presented video evidence to the prosecutor documenting perjury by Ricardo Rosa, one of the NSF Troop 3 officers. Since there was no action until 2022, they handed the evidence directly to the police.

In 2023, the Internal Affairs Department finally presented its findings. She concluded that Rosa had not conducted a full and proper investigation – a relatively minor infraction – but did not address the perjury charge.

Internal Affairs is now investigating officers from NSF Squad 2 again, but a spokesman declined to provide details of the investigation.