Body-mounted cameras on Santa Rosa officers pose questions for City Council

The next time you're stopped by a Santa Rosa police officer, you may find yourself on camera.

After years of study, the city is set to begin rolling out body-mounted cameras on patrol officers by the end of the month, Chief Hank Schreeder told the City Council on Tuesday.

See the draft policy here.

But just what happens to that video after it is captured and how, when and with whom the footage can be shared are some of the issues the city hasn't fully resolved.

Other unanswered questions include whether people involved in interactions with officers will have access to the footage, whether the videos can be released to the media, and if so, whether technology will be used to obscure identities.

'The issue is trying to balance transparency and privacy of the people who are on the recording,' Capt. Craig Schwartz told the council.

The city has been studying the issue since 2012, but accelerated its efforts after the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a sheriff's deputy in late 2013. The incident spurred many community members to push for greater transparency and the accountability that videos can provide.

'We recognize that the video adds an unbiased view of the incidents between public safety and the community,' Schreeder said. 'Ultimately, it's in the best interests of the community and the department.'

The council earlier this year agreed to spend up to $536,488 for cameras, software and licenses it would need to outfit all 120 of its patrol officers with cameras from a company called VieVu.

The department decided against a cloud-based model that stored videos on distant servers in favor of housing the data on its own dedicated server in the department.

Ease of operation was one of the benefits of the VieVu cameras.

'It's a very simple camera to operate. All you have to do is slide the door down, and it starts recording. Slide the door up and it stops,' Schwartz explained.

Officers are expected to turn their cameras on whenever they are engaged in enforcement or investigative activity, such as traffic stops, witness interviews and serving arrest warrants. They are being trained to think of them as something as routine as clicking their seat belts on or off, Schreeder said.

But there will be exceptions. When officers are interviewing informants, discussing tactical situations or responding to domestic violence calls, they will have the discretion to turn off the cameras, Schwartz said.

In general, the videos will be treated like other investigative records. They'll be retained for a year and a day, unless the issue involved the use of force, in which case the footage can be preserved for up to 27 months, or longer if required by the courts, Schwartz said.

Videos can be deleted by a superior officer in cases where it is deemed appropriate, Schwartz said.

That policy gave Councilmember Julie Combs pause. She said she understands that sometimes a video could be accidentally taken, such as if it were left on by an officer using the restroom. But she said she thought there should be at least two superior officers involved before videos are deleted.

Schwartz, however, noted that the department's data management system will track whenever someone logs in to view or work with a video. In the case of something being deleted, the system would show who did it and when, he said.

The videos could be used to help officers write reports, as evidence in criminal proceedings or to help train officers.

But whether and when such videos would be released to the public or press was far from clear. Schreeder and Schwartz said they could think of many reasons why videos would not be released to the public, such as ongoing investigations, personnel matters or privacy issues.

But they were harder pressed to think of scenarios where videos would be released. That would be up to the records department officials and applicable state law, and would be handled on a case-by-case basis, they said.

Such videos would be essentially be treated as evidence, and such documents are exempt from disclosure under the state public records laws, Schreeder noted.

That raises the question of how the videos will improve public transparency if the public is never allowed to see them. Schreeder said this may be a case where the law has yet to catch up with the technology.

'The public thinks that putting body-worn cameras on officers will automatically increase transparency, but that's not necessarily the case,' Schreeder said.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @srcitybeat.