PD Editorial: Who has right to see police body-cam video?

The question was simple enough. “Can the public view the body camera video taken during the June arrest of Petaluma teen Gabbi Lemos?” Nobody should be happy with the answer.

As Press Democrat Staff Writer Julie Johnson responded as part of the new CrimeBeat Q&A feature in Wednesday’s paper, the answer is no - at least according to the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office.

For those who don’t recall, Lemos is the 18-year-old girl who was arrested June 13 outside of her family’s Petaluma home on charges of resisting arrest and committing battery on a police officer. She tells a different story, however. In a lawsuit filed on Nov. 12, Lemos alleges that the officer used excessive force against her and, in the process, not only caused extensive injuries to her but violated her civil rights. Lemos says that she was just verbally defending her sister at the time the deputy allegedly threw her onto a concrete driveway, grinding her face into the ground with a knee to the back of her head.

So why can’t the public see the video and judge for themselves? That’s what The Press Democrat asked in filing a Public Records Act request with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office for a copy of the body-cam video. The request was denied. In a letter from the Sheriff’s Office legal staff, the county said the recordings are exempt from public disclosure. “The recordings are confidential records of investigation … and contain privileged and confidential official information,” the letter stated. “The public interest served by not disclosing the recordings clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recordings.”

In its answer, the Sheriff’s Office is employing what is referred to as “the balance test,” a means of helping judges and others decide the merits of public disclosure vs. confidentiality. It’s true that in many cases, particularly those involved routine patrol duties, responding to a domestic argument, etc. concerns about confidentiality and citizen privacy should outweigh those of disclosure. But this is not a routine case. It involves allegations of aggressive force by a sheriff’s deputy.

Furthermore, given that the individual in this case is not a juvenile and does not oppose the release of the videotape - and that there is abiding public interest in keeping track of police conduct in situations such as this - the public interest in disclosure clearly should outweigh the interests in confidentiality.

The idea that recordings are exempt from disclosure is unsettled. Chicago has been rocked by allegations that a video of an officer-involved shooting was deliberately kept from public view for 13 months before disclosure was required by a judge. Only then was the officer involved charged with murder.

Meanwhile, states across the nation are developing policies to lay out the rules for when body-cam videos will be released. In Seattle, for example, body camera videos are routinely released with the faces of private citizens redacted. California’s rules are still a work in progress.

Whatever the guidelines, the rules on disclosure of body-cam videos should be designed to defend the innocent not protect those guilty of misconduct. At the moment, it’s not clear whether the county’s policy is passing that balance test.