SAN JOSE — A pilot program finally underway to outfit San Jose cops with body-worn cameras is a big step for a city trying to stay ahead of the police accountability headaches plaguing other parts of the country.
But the city’s civilian police watchdog worries a recently minted use policy, as written, gives so much discretion to officers that it undermines the public transparency that the cameras are meant to bolster.
“If this is not changed, I have serious problems with the use of body-worn cameras,” said LaDoris Cordell, San Jose’s independent police auditor.
It’s an ironic revelation for the retired judge, set to leave the police auditor position in July and who in the past five years has tirelessly pushed the police department to implement the devices as a protection for both officers and citizens. Two weeks ago the mayor pledged guaranteed funding, and last week the police union and city ended months of talks and agreed on a policy that satisfied concerns including protecting officers’ privacy rights and prohibiting the recording of free-speech demonstrations.
To those who crafted the policy, there are reasonable in-the-field scenarios that inform each provision. And they have given themselves unprecedented room to adjust to unforeseen issues by pledging to revisit the guidelines twice a year.
“At a time when there are really drastic changes sweeping police work across the country, many police unions are strongly resisting those changes. In San Jose, we are moving forward with those,” said Officer James Gonzales, vice president of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association. “There shouldn’t be any outrage over any particular item. Both sides have agreed that in this unique situation, this may need to be continually tweaked.”
SJPD is testing three types of cameras, two made by Taser and one from Vievu, a company headed by a former Oakland police sergeant. The cameras cost between $400 and $600 apiece. Once they choose, the city estimates it will spend about $1 million on the camera equipment.
Cordell said she received assurances that her office’s input would be gathered and considered before the policy was hammered out, only to see it signed before she got a chance to send over notes for suggested revisions. Particularly troublesome to Cordell are guidelines for deactivating the cameras, which include a clause permitting deactivation when “the encounter no longer holds evidentiary or investigative value.”
“Why bother if you’re giving that much discretion, that you can turn it off when you feel it has no value?” Cordell said.
The final section of the policy sets guidelines for when the video is viewed after an officer-involved shooting, death, or major injury: Officers can view the footage only after giving an initial statement, to guard against them tailoring their reasoning to match what’s recorded. But it lets the chief or his designee allow an officer to see the video beforehand, which Cordell contends negates the safeguard.
Gonzales said there are routine situations where deactivating the camera is prudent, such as accompanying suspects or victims at the hospital, where officers would not be allowed inside or are guarding a room.
Cordell also takes issue with a provision that allows police supervisors to use the video to “immediately” resolve citizen complaints, in most cases without the complaining party viewing the footage. Left intact, she argues, the provision effectively cuts out civilian oversight over the police complaint process, the core purpose behind the formation of the police auditor’s office more than 20 years ago.
“The police are policing themselves,” she said. “That’s not how it’s supposed to work.”
Gonzales said a distinction needs to be made between formal complaints and everyday complaints that officers receive on the street. The provision, he contends, addresses conflict resolution in the field, not with complaints about officer conduct.
Some of Cordell’s concerns are shared in other cities that have implemented or are in the process of installing body-worn cameras. In releasing a suggested camera-use template this week, the ACLU voiced concerns that Seattle’s pilot program — which posts the body-camera video immediately online — allowed officers to view footage before filing initial reports and that in Los Angeles, there are sparse avenues for public access to the video.
On Friday a District Attorney’s Office report that cleared two San Jose State officers in a fatal 2014 shooting embodied much of the work-in-progress state of police body cameras. The officer who opened fire did not activate his camera prior to the encounter, owing it to being “caught in the moment” of rushing to a dangerous call involving a reportedly armed man. Prosecutors allowed for a limited viewing of the footage to the deceased man’s family and advisors, but made no plans for public release because no charges were filed.
That will continue to be a sticking point for transparency advocates, because under state law the video is police evidence typically exempt from disclosure except in limited circumstances, including litigation.
Broadly, San Jose officials have committed to relatively swift actions in the realm of police accountability. Spurred in part by police auditor recommendations, the police department is considering expanding the scope of its investigations of racial-bias complaints and opening up internal probes to civilian oversight. Last year officers began collecting detailed demographic information about street stops, which led to an analysis by this newspaper finding stark racial disparities in who was being detained and searched, then let go without arrest or citation.
But Gonzales said the department deserves credit for its transparency efforts.
“We’re a cooperative police department and progressive police union,” Gonzales said. “We are held to a higher standard and we should constantly do better, but we are not the bad guys and should not be treated like that. It’s shameful to make us out to look like resisters of change.”
Cordell remains heartened by the fast-tracking of the cameras, after a years-long string of limited test runs and stalled pilots. But she says the current policy needs to be shored up to avoid eroding much of the public trust gained from adopting them in the first place.
“Our revisions are not outrageous at all. My hope is that we can have some process,” she said. “These cameras are going to build trust between the community and police. These provisions defeat that purpose.”
Contact Robert Salonga at 408-920-5002. Follow him at Twitter.com/robertsalonga.