Texas Cops Destroy Video Evidence of Colleague Killing Unarmed Man

RT reports:

A Texas cop is on restricted duty after killing an unarmed man, while other officers are on the hook for trying to destroy documentary evidence of the event.

A police officer in Texas shot an unarmed man before colleagues confiscated and deleted video and mobile phone evidence of the event, which is now under criminal investigation.

The victim, Michael Vincent Allen, was chased by police in the Mesquite area of Dallas, Texas for 30 minutes at speeds of up to 100 miles an hour in a pursuit that involved police forces from multiple counties.

Allen eventually pulled into a cul-de-sac, when cops say he tried to ram his way past two patrol cars that had boxed in his pickup truck.

The officer who fired the shots, Patrick Tuter, said that it was at this point that he feared for his life, leaving him with no choice but to open fire on Allen.

Allen was shot 41 times, which means Tuter had to have reloaded his gun at least once.

Mitchell Wallace, who saw the altercation from his house, was asleep when the gunshots began, but quickly woke up in time to see Allen’s female passenger, who miraculously was uninjured, being pulled from the truck and a police dog jumping into the cab, which then bit Allen in the neck and jaw before dragging him to the pavement.

Police then flipped Allen onto his front and checked his pulse, the witness said.

Autopsy results have yet to show whether it was the bullets or the German Shepherd that killed him.

Wallace took pictures and shot video of what he saw of the incident on his mobile phone, which was confiscated by police at the scene and returned three days later with the pictures deleted.

Mesquite police are now conducting a criminal investigation into Officer Tuter’s actions, and will determine whether or not he broke the law. Police are also conducting an internal investigation into the destruction of photographic evidence.

Texas law states that police need a court order to confiscate a camera unless it was used to commit a crime.

It was reported in the Dallas Morning News that local journalist Avi Adelman believes the confiscation and destruction of Wallace’s photographic evidence were illegal, and violated Wallace’s First and Fourth Amendment rights (which provides for freedom of speech and the press, and prohibits searches or seizures without a warrant, respectively).

According to Adelman, it’s not the first time Texas police have acted outside the law with regards to photographic and video evidence.

In this latest incident, a dashboard camera from a squad car proved that Officer Tuter’s statement that he acted in self-defense when rammed by Allen was a lie.

The camera revealed that Tuter himself had crashed his patrol car into Allen’s truck before opening fire.

Mesquite city councilor Rick Williams issued a statement to the Dallas Morning News, saying, “Some of the allegations regarding this incident do raise questions that need to be carefully examined.”



When you see “CopBlock” as the author it means it was submitted via our submission tab – you can share your story too. If you enjoy this content and/or believe “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights” get yourself some CopBlock Gear from our store or donate just $1/month to the CopBlock Network.

  • Ed

    “I feared for my life”. Gee, I guess that I can lie and kill someone too!

  • Common Sense

    I wonder if, had the officers not seized his phone/camera, sought a warrant, then returned to execute that warrant only to discover the photos/video now deleted.

    Would that not be the destruction of evidence?

    ..and there are clear exceptions to obtaining a warrant.

  • certain

    I don’t know, stupid, would they have been able to prove there was ever anything on it? They took it because they knew it had incriminating footage, which they deleted. A big fuss will be made about it, but in the end, since the jackass had a badge, he will get away with the murder.

  • BigPoppaAZ


    If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

    “I wonder if, had the officers not seized his phone/camera, sought a warrant, then returned to execute that warrant only to discover the photos/video now deleted.”

    Egad, once again that pesky 4th Amendment raises it’s head.

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    If Party A, a Private Citizen, records party B, a Servant of the People, does such recording constitute probable cause of a criminal event?

    “Would that not be the destruction of evidence?”

    Without a warrant, it’s considered illegal search and seizure, the ends doesn’t justify the means.

    As a matter of Defense, could the officer, whom seized said property, illegally, claim that his illegal actions, i.e, illegally seized “evidence”, constitute inadmissibility in court, due to the illegal nature of such seizure?

    Things that make you go hmm….

  • Real Sense

    If the police wanted the video, then call in warrant.

    This was a deadly shooting, while others are documenting the scene, a warrant can on its way. If they feel he person will delete the footage, then they can detain him until the warrant shows up.

    Cops can get a warrant in a few hours when they want to search a house, shouldn’t take any longer for cellphone and I’d bet cops would still on the scene still working the case.

  • JetClarke

    Since when are police dogs trained to bite ‘on the neck and jaw’? Are they not trained to go for limbs to help immobilize people, or prevent them from using a weapon? Or to maybe pull them out of a vehicle by a limb? These aren’t the German trained guard dogs of Dachau, are they?

  • Ed

    Stupid cops don’t realize that deleted video footage can be recovered.

  • rick

    Get video into the cloud ASAP!
    *TapIn–video cannot be deleted directly from app

  • Common Sense

    Its clearly a valid question. And yes, there are execptions to the 4th, many actually.

    Since the information can be quickly deleted (ie destroyed) there could be an argument for its immediate seizure without a warrant, thus exigent circumstances could be raised. Once seized, the police now have time to obtain one, knowing the data would be preserved.

    Where is the data? The cell has been returned, but do they (the police) have the data? One wonders as there is no information either way.

  • shawn


    Maybe you missed it, or are simply ignoring it, but the issue is they seized the video to DESTROY IT! If they had taken the video as evidence and kept it for availability to investigators, they wouldn’t be in this situation.
    They screwed up, by their own tape the cop lied, and now wanted to destroy evidence of his crime.

  • zon

    Common, the only ones destroying evidence were the cops themselves.

  • Common Sense

    No, actually, there are no reports that the police do not have photos or video from Wallace. Its only Wallace that no longer has the data but he does however have his ‘property’ back.

  • Yankee Fan

    The issue though on cell phone siezures is they always use an exigent circumstance and with the multitude of examples that you can find the police like to sieze the phone or device for the sole purpose of destroying the evidence. Not always but in the cases where they get caught doing an embarrassing act then you can bet it will not only be siezed but it’s contents deleted. this link is a good example why its dangerous to always calim an exigency.


  • shawn

    “No, actually, there are no reports that the police do not have photos or video from Wallace. Its only Wallace that no longer has the data but he does however have his ‘property’ back.”

    Common moron, data IS property. If you went to your place of business and started deleting files, you would be charged.

    “Mesquite police are now conducting a criminal investigation into Officer Tuter’s actions, and will determine whether or not he broke the law. Police are also conducting an internal investigation into the destruction of photographic evidence.”

    Did you even read the article, or do you need help with the big words?

  • spirit of 46

    Common Sense says “There are clear exceptions to obtaining a warrant”-except in the Constitution

  • Common Sense

    I could list the exceptions, but I’ll let you discover them. You’ll have fun, I know it…

  • gabriel

    Common sense is the only one that thinks that way…hes unique as a pile of shit on an orchid garden.

  • Common Sense

    …well, me, and all State and Federal courts, and the Supreme Court.

  • Yankee Fan

    There are 13 known exceptions to the 4th amendment. Here is the link that I have used before.


  • Pigsticker

    I felt compelled to link this article to all the folks, (not nearly enough), who realize there is a pervasive problem, an all encompassing problem, with our LEO system. Not the isolated instances of disgust/treachery/evil posted on all similar sites but a basic numbing stench of them as a whole that dates back ATLEAST to the ’60’s when they began using oath bound officers to illegally infiltrate peaceful protest groups, perpetrate criminal acts to give themselves the excuse they needed to attack and to systematically violate not only our constitutional rights but, (according to human rights groups from around the world evaluating their behavior towards OWS), our human rights as well;


    May news stories/actions like this bring down EVERY department across the land so we, (the victims of their treason), can watch their whole world turn into a financial hell as they collapse under the strain of their fomer masters burying the knife into their backs like they did to us and our country!

    Read it and love it, you traitors! All the treachery/violence you imposed on your own people and country is coming back to bite you all on the ass. Hopefully the “New” cops will be very serious about their oath to serve/protect not only ALL the people but our constitution/bill of rights as well. In my opinion, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving 5th column than this and hopefully we’ll soon see them losing their homes/dignity/families to the same plutocrats they so ardently defended. ain’t Karma a bitch guys!?

  • fedup

    The photos were his property also assclown.

  • John Q Public

    Pigsticker, that was an article about Camden not being able to afford a unionized police force and nothing about police corruption. They plan on hiring more officers back after they disband the union. I bet the same cops will be rehired but not under union contract. Actually, due to there being LESS police, there is rampant crime there. It also said Camden will be able to hire even more police after that. It said nothing about corrupt cops.

  • Winston

    The witness was not breaking any laws; he had absolutely no obligation to hand over the camera.

    But then again, it’s probably a bad idea to disobey someone who just committed a murder…

  • nedmorlef

    only the police can interject himself into a situation and claim he was the one violated. It really gets me when, this happens in a private home.The cops break in and claim their lives were threatened by their own actions and can legally kill.

  • Common Sense

    MESQUITE, Texas (AP) — Cellphone videos and pictures allegedly recorded at the scene where a police officer killed a suspect by firing more than 40 times are in the hands of investigators.

    Garland police officer Patrick Tuter allegedly said he shot in self-defense at Michael Vincent Allen following a high-speed chase near Dallas last month. Authorities initially reported that the 25-year-old Allen struck the officer’s cruiser with his truck, but a dashboard camera video showed Tuter’s patrol car ramming Allen.

    Investigators obtained a court order to confiscate the memory chip from a cellphone that may have taken more videos and photos. Mesquite police are handling the criminal investigation and did not immediately return a phone message Thursday.

    Tuter has been put on restricted duty.

    ….wow, I was right, yet again.

  • shawn


    You wouldn’t know right if it punched you in the face. Officer under investigation for DELETING video. What part of that did you miss? Collecting evidence is one thing. Destroying evidence is another.

  • Common Sense

    Poor shawn, the data (photos/video) are safe and sound in the hands of the police and were collected after obtaining an order from the court.

    Completely legal.

  • Yankee Fan

    It is good they obtained a court order to get the information they needed. They actually did it right if what you linked is true!

  • Advice to All

    Do not address the police who comment here on copblock.org. Let them try to lead you astray with insults… yet do not reply or acknowledge their words. They have hatred and egos that smell terrible when they defend against…the articles on copblock.org. Your replies to these tacky individuals are less inflammatory than the articles. Let it remain…stop responding to these injured babies. I read what is written occasionally and leave. Most of us don’t look at the comments section. I won’t respond to the insults or replies this receives…watch. Why? Better, more productive shit to do.

  • KentMcCord

    This is why it’s important not to let the police see you videotaping them. “illegally obtained evidence can not be used in a court of law” if there was evidence on the camera that would exonerate the officer, best believe it would be all over the news. The fact they destroyed it should be evidence in it’s own right. “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” or something like that.

    If a cop tries to get my cellphone or camera that has evidence of his or her wrongdoing, best believe I will be shooting more than pictures to keep my private property safe. I’ll just say I feared for my life and I know the track record of bad cops or all cops in general. ARM YOURSELVES.

  • Richard

    If you surreptitiously record and it is discovered, even at a later time because a Youtube video was posted, you would be breaking wiretapping laws.

  • RealCommonSense

    Simply put: “Cellphone videos and pictures allegedly recorded at the scene where a police officer killed a suspect by firing more than 40 times are IN THE HANDS OF INVESTIGATORS.”
    The data that is confiscated is to be returned unaltered.
    The data WAS NOT RETURNED UNALTERED. It had been deleted from the device.
    “Whoever knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer.” -Computer fraud and abuse act

    In other words: Through the course of the police investigation they willingly and knowling deleted the data without prior approval of the owner of the data, thus violating the computer fraud and abuse act!

  • RealCommonSense

    A 32 year old cop shoots a 25 year old suspect 41 times and then lies about the whole incident. It takes 6 months to make a decision to simply fire him. Someone should 411 this guy and tell hime what they think
    this should get you started

  • Jason Lederfine

    Tuter was my partner in Iraq. This does not surprise me at all.

  • Pingback: Garland Texas Cop on Trial for Shooting Unarmed Motorist 41 Times After High Speed Chase | Cop Block()