More North Coast police officers using body cameras
Body-worn cameras are quickly becoming standard-issue equipment for North Coast peace officers alongside batons, guns, protective vests, radios and other tools of the law enforcement trade.
But many questions about how the technology will be used are unresolved - from how much discretion an officer is given on when to hit the record button to whether the public will ever see the footage. Police chiefs, sheriffs, Sacramento lawmakers, lobbyists, civil-rights advocates and others are still debating how video of law enforcement actions should be captured, kept and distributed.
“Things are moving fast in camera policies,” Sonoma County Assistant Sheriff Rob Giordano said. “We are paying close attention to the laws and what’s changing. Our policy has been worked over immensely.”
Can an officer review footage before writing a report? Should an officer ask permission to record when entering a private residence? Is it appropriate for officers to use the cameras when responding to domestic violence calls?
“There are a lot of issues, and privacy is a huge one,” Santa Rosa Police Chief Hank Schreeder said.
The Santa Rosa Police Department, which has begun to train its officers in a gradual camera rollout to its patrol force, expects next month to ask for public input on a preliminary body camera policy. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office has worked on its camera policy over the past year through the Community and Local Law Enforcement Task Force. Giordano said they will release the policy once it’s finalized in the next several weeks. Most sergeants and deputies will have cameras by mid-summer, Lt. Greg Miller said.
Outfitting officers and deputies with body cameras was one of the first concrete ideas Sonoma County government leaders, community activists and law enforcement seemed to agree on amid calls for greater transparency and accountability after the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a deputy in 2013.
From the White House to city governments across the country, elected officials have touted officer-worn cameras as a tangible way to make police practices more transparent in response to controversial shootings involving police and unarmed black men.
In September, the U.S. Justice Department’s Community Oriented Policing Services program released a detailed analysis of body camera policies and 25 specific recommendations to agencies on issues such as allowing officers to review footage before writing reports and establishing random internal audits of footage for performance evaluations.
Most agencies expect officers to activate the cameras during the majority of encounters. They also give officers discretion on recording some crime victims, anonymous tipsters, confidential informants and undercover officers. Many policies allow that turning on a camera may not be immediately possible during fast-moving dangerous situations and that officers should explain the reason in a report when a camera was not activated.
Petaluma Police Lt. Ken Savano said the department has 22 cameras that have been in use for about three weeks. Savano said officers have been using audio recorders for years, so they are already adept at using the technology.
A slew of bills introduced by Sacramento lawmakers this year deals with body-camera issues, such as a proposal in the Assembly to create a fund to support camera programs. The most talked-about bill on the topic this year aims to establish statewide guidelines for how body cameras should be used.
Assembly Bill 66, proposed by Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, included a hotly debated provision that would have prohibited an officer from reviewing the video before providing an initial statement or report. Oakland Police Chief Sean Whent testified in support of the bill during an April Public Safety Committee hearing.
But the bill also faced forceful opposition by some law enforcement groups, and it was eventually amended with an about-face change to instead permit all officers in the state to review footage first - unless their city or county has a pre-existing policy stating otherwise.
“To have a statewide one-size-fits-all approach is going to be problematic,” said Shaun Rundle, a lobbyist with the California Police Officers Association, which opposed AB 66.
A spokesman for Weber said that the assemblywoman felt the change weakened the bill and was a “disservice to the communities looking for more accountability and transparency in the use of (body worn cameras).” Weber decided to delay the bill for a year instead of having it advance with the amendments, and hopes to fight to revive the original version.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: