Dan Horn, and Sharon Coolidge

Cincinnati

Two things happened at the murder trial of Ray Tensing Thursday that showed how a homicide investigation of a police officer is unlike any other.

First, witnesses testified that Tensing's bosses at the University of Cincinnati Police Department allowed the officer to wait two days before sitting down with investigators to explain why he fatally shot an unarmed motorist on July 19, 2015.

Second, Tensing and his lawyer reviewed the video of the shooting, recorded by Tensing's body camera, before speaking to investigators. The video is now a key piece of evidence in the murder case against him.

Would police extend those courtesies to any other suspect?

It's unlikely. But policing experts say there are some good reasons why cases involving police officers like Tensing are handled differently.

The differences begin with the nature of police work. Because it's inherently dangerous to patrol the streets and catch criminals, police officers are given deadly weapons and are legally permitted to use those weapons to protect their lives or the lives of others.

No one else has that kind of responsibility written into their job description. So when an officer shoots someone, the investigation of that shooting is inherently more complicated than most other homicide investigations.

Video expert: Ray Tensing was not dragged

Testimony at Tensing's trial Thursday provided some insight into how those investigations unfold. In most cases, detectives might not be inclined to provide a suspect with crucial evidence, such as the video of the shooting, and allow that suspect to study it with his attorney before speaking to police.

But that's what they did in Tensing's case after he shot and killed Sam Dubose, according to a recording of Tensing's July 21, 2015, interview with Cincinnati Police investigators, which was played Thursday in court.

"When did you view your bodycam video?" asked Cincinnati Police Sgt. Shannon Heine.

"This morning with my lawyer," Tensing replied.

2 Cincinnati radio stations, 2 differing views of Tensing trial

Meanwhile, civil rights advocates and DuBose's family were demanding to see the video, too. Suspicions were high among some because of high-profile police shootings in other cities, in which video contradicted officer statements. The Enquirer pressed for release of the video and sued for its release several days after the shooting.

The video would not be made public until Tensing was indicted 10 days after the shooting.

Turns out, it's fairly common for officers to review video from bodycams or from their police cruisers before giving a statement or talking to investigators. One argument for doing it this way is fairness: The recordings exist, after all, because the officers wear cameras on their bodies or attach them to their cars.

"If you've got these police officers and you ask them to wear this body camera around, they ought to be able to review this video that they took," said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, which studies policing issues. "They should have all the available information to write their report."

Some have argued that watching the video might help officers shade their stories to align more closely with what's on the screen. Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters was so concerned about the possibility that he argued against releasing Tensing's bodycam video.

When The Enquirer sued for the release of the video, Deters said he feared supplying it to Tensing and to witnesses could taint the case.

Scott Greenwood, a prominent Cincinnati civil rights lawyer, acknowledged the potential pitfalls of allowing police to see the video first, but he said the benefits probably outweigh the risks. He said allowing officers to review the video helps them recall details about a high-pressure, traumatic encounter that might otherwise slip their minds when they write their reports or talk to investigators.

"I think it's a good idea," said Greenwood, who helped negotiate Cincinnati's collaborative agreement between police and local civil rights groups. "This shouldn't be about playing 'gotcha.' "

He said about two-thirds of departments nationally allow officers to review video before making statements. UC is one of them, but the Cincinnati Police Department is not.

A greater concern, Greenwood said, is the delay in talking to Tensing after the shooting. UC's police contract permitted Tensing to wait 48 hours before talking to Cincinnati Police investigators.

Greenwood said many departments still have police contracts that give officers some length of time – maybe hours, maybe days – before they are expected to give a written or oral statement about what happened. The argument for such a buffer period is the officer needs time to gather his or her thoughts after enduring such a difficult event.

While there may be some truth to that, Greenwood said, it doesn't make sense from a crime-solving point of view. Suspects in most criminal cases are questioned as soon as possible, so events are fresh in their minds and witnesses don't have time to get their stories straight.

"If there is a shooting in Over-the-Rhine tonight, the police won't let them go home and sleep on it," Greenwood said.

Cincinnati Police don't build a delay into their interviews, as UC did in the Tensing case. "Our standard practice is to interview officers almost immediately after," said Lt. Steve Saunders, Cincinnati's police spokesman.

Though Tensing's trial hasn't raised this issue, police officer interviews also are complicated by laws that protect officers from incriminating themselves when they provide their employers with information about serious incidents, including shootings.

If investigators run afoul of those laws, statements officers make could be thrown out and prosecutors might not be able to make a case.

"They walk a really fine line with these interviews," Greenwood said.

Columbus lawyer helping Tensing judge with media