ÂÒÂ×ÄÚÉä

ÂÒÂ×ÄÚÉä Police Chief Scott Dempsey said this procedure is “not uncommon to any law enforcement agency.â€�

“In this particular case, the officers at the time did not know all of the information we do now,� he said in a statement to the Gazette-Mail. “But at the time, the preliminary breath test did indicate a measure of alcohol but as stated before, they believe the test was not consistent with the other tests that were performed where Mr. Wriston passed.�

Faux state trooper

The ÂÒÂ×ÄÚÉä Police Department is still investigating whether officers followed proper policy and procedures when investigating Wriston.

According to news releases from the department, officers received a call around 11 p.m. that an off-duty state trooper had witnessed and was following a vehicle driving erratically in ÂÒÂ×ÄÚÉä’s East End.

Police later determined the person who made the call was not a state trooper. In addition, a criminal investigation has been opened regarding the caller.

“We have determined that information relayed to CPD regarding Mr. Wriston driving erratically does not appear to be accurate or truthful,� Dempsey said in a media statement.

Wriston not charged

Police pulled over the vehicle on the interstate and identified Wriston. Dempsey confirmed Wriston was driving a state-owned vehicle.

Wriston was not charged or cited for any traffic or criminal offenses. While a preliminary breath test indicated an odor of alcohol, he passed two field sobriety tests. The lack of evidence led officers to not charge Wriston, Dempsey said in a media release.

“To ensure safety, Mr. Wriston was provided with the opportunity to call a known friend to the scene where that person drove Mr. Wriston to an undetermined location,� the release said.

In cases like this, law enforcement officers err on the side of caution to ensure people get home safely, Dempsey told the Gazette-Mail.

“For safety reasons and to ensure Mr. Wriston arrived to where he was heading, they felt it was best to have another person take him home,� he said.

Body-worn camera policy

The CPD is also investigating whether officers followed the department’s body-worn camera policy during the traffic stop and if proper procedures were followed while investigating the situation.

The policy requires officers with the rank of sergeant and below to wear a body-worn camera at all times. Officers must activate the camera when acting within their official capacity in scenarios such as these:

• While responding to a call for service
• When initiating a law enforcement encounter between an officer and the public
• During contacts involving actual or potential criminal conduct
• During situations that become adversarial even if that situation normally wouldn’t be recorded

When immediate threats to the officer’s or other’s life or safety make activating the camera impossible, it should be activated at the “first reasonable opportunity to do so,� the policy says.

Turning cameras off

Officers should not deactivate their camera until the encounter has fully concluded — including recording statements — and the officer leaves the scene.

Cameras can be turned off in specific circumstances including:

• In a private residence at a non-emergency call
• During non-emergency duties such as traffic control and parade security
• While talking with a confidential informant
• While talking to a victim of sexual assault or a juvenile
• If an on-scene incident commander authorizes the stop

If an unintentional interruption of a video occurs, the officer should document it audibly when the camera is reactivated. They should also audibly document if it is necessary to turn off a recording.

Requests to delete unintentional recordings or recordings of anonymous sources must be made in writing. Officers are prohibited from altering the recordings. The master system administrator can only alter the recordings with authorization from the police chief.