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.

Assemblyman Jim Wood, D-Healdsburg, said he strongly supports the presence of cameras on police, but he isn’t yet sure if or how state lawmakers should get involved in how cameras used.

“Do cities and counties get to set the policy by which cameras are used, or does that come as part of a statewide mandate? That’s where the challenge is,” Wood said.

Striking a balance with privacy and transparency while still gathering valuable video evidence is no simple matter, several local law enforcement leaders say.

Take the case of an officer who is called to a private home to investigate a report of domestic violence.

Domestic violence calls are some of the most unpredictable and potentially volatile encounters for law enforcement, local officials said. Video evidence gathered when a deputy first responds to the situation can provide crucial evidence of abuse.

“If there’s a domestic violence call for service, when we respond to that home, the body camera is recording audio and video - and for good reason,” said Cotati Police Chief Michael Parish, whose officers have been wearing cameras since 2013.

But Sonoma County’s Community and Local Law Enforcement Task Force recommended deputies ask residents for permission before recording inside homes except in the case of emergencies or raids. And last week, the American Civil Liberties Union announced a template body camera policy that also included the recommendation that officers must ask permission in private residences.

Giordano, with the Sheriff’s Office, said victims of domestic violence who have called for law enforcement help often later decide against cooperating with an investigation because of the complex dynamics of interpersonal relationships. A spontaneous statement given at the scene of a domestic violence incident may still be admissible in court.

“If it can get us a conviction on the batterer and help us do good work, wouldn’t that be a golden statement for a camera to record?” Giordano said.

Nancy Palandati, chairwoman of Sonoma County’s ACLU chapter, said that policies should set clear expectations for when the camera should be recording and remove unnecessary obstacles for public inspection of the video.

The Sheriff’s Office initial policy discussed last year during a task force meeting “left a great deal of discretion up to officers; that’s obviously a concern,” Palandati said.

Lake County Sheriff Brian Martin said civil liberty groups and law enforcement share many of the same concerns about privacy when it comes to releasing recordings to the public. The civil liberties group recommends limits on public release of the recordings, including when a complainant requests recordings related to the complaint not be made public.

“We deal with people in very intimate situations, very tragic situations, and we certainly don’t want anything we do to cause any undue anguish,” Martin said. “That will probably be one of the very rare occasions where the ACLU and law enforcement agree.”

Martin said cameras are “useful every time they’re used” and he believes the presence of a camera can encourage good behavior by all individuals involved, including deputies and members of the public.

For typical daily report writing, local law enforcement officials said that video footage should be accessible to officers so they can produce accurate reports.

“We want the best information we can get,” Giordano said. “We tell them to record, take notes, interview people. The better your notes are, the better the document you produce at the end. Why would we restrict them from another way of taking notes?”

In Lake County, deputies may review footage in most situations.

“We already listen to 911 recordings and radio logs, and I don’t know why (body camera footage) should be treated differently,” Martin said.

But policies vary in the immediate aftermath of officer-involved shootings and deaths.

The ACLU recommended departments prohibit an officer from viewing the footage when force was used or an encounter generated a complaint. That is the policy of the Oakland Police Department.

But that question has not been resolved locally.

Part of the reason is an agreement among Sonoma County law enforcement agencies that an outside agency will be brought in to investigate a fatal incident.

In Petaluma, officers may review body camera recordings in the case of internal administrative reviews, including those involving fatal shootings. But the department lets the law enforcement agency investigating a critical incident involving a Petaluma officer - in most cases the Santa Rosa Police Department or Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office - decide whether that officer may review the incident video.

Giordano said that members of the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs’ Association are discussing how to incorporate body-camera recordings into its current countywide critical-incident protocol agreement so all agencies agree on a policy.

“We wrestle with all of these things; it’s not black and white,” Giordano said. “We’re working to find good lines that protect privacy and protect what we’re trying to do.”

You can reach Staff Writer?Julie Johnson at 521-5220 or?julie.johnson@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @jjpressdem.