GAP IN HANDLING OF POLICE VIDEOS IS TELLING

In 2018, the California Legislature approved two bills in response to public criticism about long law enforcement delays in releasing surveillance and body camera videos and other evidence from “critical incidents” in which officers shot at or badly injured or killed someone. Lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 748 so that in most circumstances, footage of critical incidents would have to be released within 45 days. Then they passed Senate Bill 1421 to limit the powerful privacy protections for officers that for years had let agencies block the release of records relating to critical incidents, alleged sexual assaults and acts of dishonesty. Both laws took effect in 2019.

Four years later, two very different cases show the divergent ways local agencies have responded.

The first case involves the San Diego Police Department, which reacted constructively to AB 748, setting a goal of releasing critical incident videos within 10 days. The department met this goal on Jan. 26 when it released an edited video nearly 10 minutes in length showing officers fatally shooting Christopher Dearman, 37, after a Jan. 20 traffic stop in Logan Heights that began close to midnight.

The video shows Dearman repeatedly refusing to exit his truck after two officers pulled him over for a broken tail light and one said there was “probable cause” to inspect his vehicle because he smelled marijuana. Dearman is also told that a police database showed he has a history of being a felon in possession of a firearm, further creating a probable cause for inspection. The video then shows Dearman driving off after an officer reached into his vehicle and unlocked and opened the driver's side door. Soon after, surveillance footage shows Dearman pull over, get out of his truck and point a gun at pursuing officers. The police video included footage it said showed damage to the hood and frame of the police cruiser caused by a bullet from Dearman's gun. The video showed police returning fire and Dearman falling down. He died later at a hospital.

Some people may suggest the video was edited to hide crucial facts from the public. The San Diego Union-tribune Editorial Board is not suggesting that. But we can't help but wonder if its polish will fuel the same sort of suspicions that greeted long delays in releasing videos, with some people being wary that they are being fed what amounts to propaganda pushing them toward a specific conclusion.

An SDPD spokesperson, Lt. Adam Sharki, says that supporting source material is also released so that the accuracy of the edited videos can be judged. That hasn't happened yet. The release of this evidence takes longer than initial edited videos because the Sheriff 's Department and the District Attorney's Office, which investigate critical Police Department incidents, have a much greater volume of information to vet for possible effect on unfolding criminal investigations before it can be made public.

A July 2022 report by the Office of the City Auditor on the department's use of body cameras urged the department to do a better job of ensuring body cams were being used as often as intended. It also evaluated the critical incident videos and supporting materials in five cases and found no evidence of editing or redacting of information “that would have interfered with the viewer's ability to comprehend the incident.” The audit's nuanced evaluation underscored the importance of video evidence.

Which brings us to the other end of the spectrum and the San Diego County Sheriff 's Department. Late last month, the department finally released body camera footage and internal reports from a violent incident that took place in December 2019 in Imperial Beach — more than three years ago. The video shows a confrontation involving a man who had come to a DUI checkpoint to pick up his son, who had been detained after being among a group of teenagers in a car in which the driver was unlicensed. An internal report said the man did not have identification and was told he couldn't take his son home without it, then was arrested when he refused officers' instruction to leave the area and retrieve his ID. When he allegedly resisted, he was tased — which started a fire when the Taser hit a lighter in his pocket — and tackled. As KPBS reported, he can be heard saying, “I can't breathe” on body cam footage. He was transported to the hospital and charges against him were dropped.

If the Sheriff 's Department believes the handling of this matter was appropriate, than it should have put out the nearly two-hour video within 45 days and defended itself. Instead, according to the First Amendment Coalition, which worked to make the video public, the department declined to do so for years on the grounds that the man didn't suffer the “great bodily injury” necessary under SB 1421 for disclosure of public records. The coalition says this was contradicted by evidence in a civil lawsuit.

The department did not respond Friday to a request by an editorial writer to address the matter. Its oversight agency — the Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board — must do so. CLERB'S mission is “to increase public confidence in and accountability of peace officers,” so it should focus in this case on the officers but also on an agency bureaucracy that used a strained interpretation of state law to suppress release of public records.

Such scrutiny would serve the public. It would also serve officials at the San Diego County Sheriff 's Department and the San Diego Police Department. Going forward, both agencies should comply with openness edicts in a way that strengthens public trust. That means releasing videos of these tragedies in a timely way, neither excessively edited and produced nor only made public in response to pressure after years of delays. It's clear that such videos have the potential to narrow or widen a public trust gap — just as all the agencies' public interactions do.