|
In response to
"How do you not look at the video? Video doesn't lie. That is absurd to me. There is a hotel security video, want to see it? Nah nah, were good. -- nm"
by
Bacon
|
This is from SI. It discusses the legal implications.
Posted by
David (aka David)
Dec 2 '18, 09:31
|
"4. Shouldn’t the NFL or Chiefs have seen the hotel surveillance video long before Friday?
It appears that the NFL had not seen the Hunt hotel video until TMZ published it on Friday. This begs the question of how a private media company could acquire a disturbing video about an athlete before that athlete’s private sports league—even when that league was aware of the video’s existence.
It isn’t as if TMZ is a governmental entity with subpoena power. And it isn’t as if TMZ is a party to a litigation that would permit pretrial discovery into the incident and its evidence. TMZ and the NFL are both private companies that are subject to the same rules of engagement. Yet, like with Ray Rice, TMZ acquired a crucial surveillance video while the NFL watched from the sideline.
ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports that, according to sources, the NFL made “multiple attempts” to obtain the video but were denied by the hotel, the police and the persons who were near and around Hunt.
This is not surprising.
Hotels normally do not turn over surveillance videos unless required to do so by court order. Hotels, like any business, want to minimize their potential involvement in legal disputes. They will thus seek ways to evade participation in post-incident investigations. Hotels are also mindful of the risk of premises liability in the event someone is injured in an incident that occurs on the hotel’s property. Turning over the surveillance video—which is the Metropolitan Hotel’s private property—could make it more likely that someone in that ruckus claims an injury and sues the hotel.
As to law enforcement, while police departments are public entities and are thus subject to public records request, they are usually permitted under state law to reject such requests on account of an on-going police investigation. To that end, it remains possible that Hunt and others who were present could be charged with crimes. Ohio law generally provides for a six-year statute of limitations for felony charges and a two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanor charges. The fact that Hunt hasn’t been charged doesn’t guarantee he won’t be.
In terms of alleged victims declining to respond to the NFL, this too was expected. Those alleged victims have little to gain by cooperating with the NFL and may be concerned that their names would become public if they cooperated with the NFL (a league that is known to leak sensitive information from time-to-time). The alleged victims may have employers who strongly prefer their employees not gain national media attention for involvement in a hotel hallway fight with an NFL player.
The league should have been immediately aware that a video existed. The Metropolitan is a four-star hotel. A hotel of that caliber is highly likely to use hallway and exterior surveillance cameras. Hotels tend to use cameras since hotel insurance rates for the risk of premises liability are affected by the quality of the hotel’s on-site security measures. Even if the NFL wasn’t sure about the video’s existence, finding out would have been very easy: a league official could have called the hotel and asked or the league official could have simply visited the hotel in person. According to Schefter’s report, it appears the NFL was aware.
So what could the league have done to obtain the video? One approach would been to take the steps used by TMZ. Another approach would have been to demand the video from Hunt or his attorney. It’s not clear if Hunt or his attorney possessed the video, but there’s a chance the police would have shared it since the video relates to Hunt’s legal defenses should he be charged with a crime. Also, if the Hunt’s victim has notified Hunt that she plans to sue him, then Hunt's attorney could seek a court order demanding the video be turned over by the hotel.
If Hunt had the video, the NFL could have demanded that he share it upon threat of punishment under Article 46. Along those lines, the league could have taken an adverse inference from Hunt’s refusal to turn over the video and then suspended him for the refusal. Such a demanding approach would hardly have been unprecedented: recall that Goodell justified his Article 46 suspension of Brady in part because Brady didn’t turn over his phone.
Alternatively, if Hunt did not have the video, the NFL could have at least required he prove he and his attorneys made a good faith effort to try to acquire it."
|
Responses:
|