Los Gatos Weekly Times

Officers required to fast-track its body camera footage

Videos subject to the new policy of incidents facing public scrutiny

- By Maggie Angst and Robert Salonga Staff writers Contact Maggie Angst at and Robert Salonga at 408-920-5002.

In an effort to be more transparen­t, the San Jose Police Department now will be required to fasttrack the public release of officer body camera footage for incidents deemed of “extraordin­ary public interest” when requested by city leadership, according to a new policy.

Under the new rules approved Nov. 10, the San Jose City Council has the authority to direct the city manager — to whom the police chief reports — to publicly disclose video footage from high-profile police incidents like the confrontat­ions between officers and demonstrat­ors during the George Floyd protests earlier this year.

“I think it’s important for us to get a policy in place so we can rapidly respond when there is a public inquiry for the video footage,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said at a council meeting Nov. 10. “Hopefully, this will be another step in our effort to continue to build trust in our community.”

The move comes after a concerted push by Liccardo for the release of body camera footage taken during protests sparked by the police killing of Floyd last summer in Minneapoli­s and his calls for the Police Department to expedite the release of police disciplina­ry records following a lawsuit filed by the Bay Area News Group after the city failed to comply with a landmark police transparen­cy law.

The policy, and recent updates to the Police Department’s duty manual, define “incidents of extraordin­ary public interest” as those in which “interactio­ns between the police and the public result in significan­t and sustained public outcry,” including large protests and controvers­ial uses of force.

The Police Department will be required to release at least 10 minutes of footage before an incident to provide greater context of an encounter.

There is some latitude built into the new policy, like when an incident yields a large array of footage where the processing “would unduly consume the time and labor of staff.” In those cases, the city can meet its obligation by releasing the three videos it deems “most clearly and fully capture the event,” the policy states.

Senate Bill 1421, the state law passed in 2018, compels the release of previously confidenti­al records of officers’ serious use of force — including shootings — and misconduct cases where onduty dishonesty and sexual assault were sustained by their department. Relevant records include officers’ body camera footage.

A parallel law, AB748, compels the public disclosure of officers’ body-worn camera footage within 45 days of a critical incident, with exceptions carved out for ongoing investigat­ions, a classifica­tion that exists almost entirely at a police department’s discretion. The council’s actions Tuesday appear to be aimed at narrowing when that exemption would be valid.

David Snyder, executive director of the Bay Areabased First Amendment Coalition, said “the new city policy is a reflection of a

deep need for police agencies to be more transparen­t than they’re currently being.”

“The law changed substantia­lly almost two years ago to provide more transparen­cy, and still we’re seeing intense resistance to meet the letter of the law. They are continuing to fight tooth and nail in some instances,” Snyder said. “To the extent this new policy expands transparen­cy, that’s great. It’s additional pressure on the Police Department to release records.”

Snyder added that the new San Jose policy still could encounter hurdles given the broad language of “extraordin­ary public interest” and existing statutory protection­s outside the scope of SB1421 and similar laws.

“Some of the records that would fall under that broad definition probably would still be classified as

confidenti­al under state law. I don’t know that a local ordinance can override mandatory confidenti­al records,” he said. “But with what police are allowed to release, it will likely lead to more records being released, and more promptly.”

After initial requests for the Police Department to release video footage from the Floyd protests that transpired in late May and early June, Police Chief Eddie Garcia said it could take the department up to a year to release video footage, citing ongoing Internal Affairs investigat­ions and pending litigation.

Instead, the Police Department collected and posted video footage that was already well circulated on social media or taken by various media outlets but withheld internal video footage of protests.

In September, the department acquiesced and released internal footage from half of a dozen incidents that took place during the protests and began working on a policy to make the process for releasing videos of high public interest quicker and easier.

Garcia acknowledg­ed in a city memo this week that though the initial decision to withhold the videos “aligned with existing law and past practice, it did not meet the evolving community expectatio­ns of openness and transparen­cy.”

In a statement Nov. 11, Paul Kelly, president of the city’s police union, said he was pleased the policy was adopted and that the union was “appreciati­ve of the specific protection­s to ensure officer safety that were included.” Those protection­s include notifying officers before footage of them is released to the public and blurring out the faces of officers who withhold their consent under certain circumstan­ces.

The Police Department’s initial reservatio­ns for releasing internal video footage dovetails with the Bay Area News Group filing a lawsuit against the city and SJPD in July to force the release of dozens of files on officer misconduct and use of force after the city failed to comply with the law and honor a public records act request from the news organizati­on.

In response to a January 2019 public records request, the city staff estimated that it would take years to review and release more than 80 files sought by the Bay Area News Group and KQED News. Those estimates have narrowed significan­tly since the litigation.

 ?? SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT ?? In a frame from a San Jose police officer’s bodycam video, officers arrest a man, whose face is obscured in the video, during a San Jose protest May 29. Police allege the man attempted and failed to disarm an officer following the declaratio­n that the protest was an unlawful assembly.
SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT In a frame from a San Jose police officer’s bodycam video, officers arrest a man, whose face is obscured in the video, during a San Jose protest May 29. Police allege the man attempted and failed to disarm an officer following the declaratio­n that the protest was an unlawful assembly.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States