San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
Body Cameras—the Reel Truth Issue | Summary | Background | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations Requests for
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 5 findings
F1
Page 15
The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Menlo Park Police Departments have deployed body-worn camera systems.
F2
Page 15
The Sheriff’s Office and five of the city police departments that have not deployed body- worn cameras all expressed similar concerns regarding the implementation of these systems, the cost of equipment, the cost of data retention, and policy development.
F3
Page 15
The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Menlo Park Police Departments have budgeted sufficient funds to manage the cost of equipment, data retention, and training.
F4
Page 15
The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, and Menlo Park Police Departments have developed written policies regarding the operation and data retention of body-worn camera systems as well as the protection of the rights of the community and police officers. Hillsborough is in the process of developing a similar policy.
F5
Page 15
Many local law enforcement agencies that currently do not employ body-worn cameras acknowledge that these systems are beneficial and will likely be implemented in the future either voluntarily or by mandate.
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 15The Grand Jury recommends that the councils of those cities/towns that have not adopted body-worn cameras direct their respective chiefs of police to develop an appropriate body-worn camera implementation plan and advise the public of their plan
-
R2Page 15The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff develop a plan to implement body-worn cameras and advise the public of his plan
-
R3Page 15The Grand Jury recommends that the police departments of those cities, towns, and the Broadmoor Police Protection District that have not adopted body-worn cameras implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017.
-
R4Page 15The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017.
Conclusions 6
-
CL1 Page 14Costs are containable.
-
CL2 Page 14Many hardware, software, and storage options are available to accommodate individual agency requirements.
-
CL3 Page 14Workable operational policies are readily available and easily modifiable to accommodate specific agency requirements.
-
CL4 Page 14Training needs are minimal.
-
CL5 Page 14Patrol staff rapidly accepted body-worn cameras.
-
CL6 Page 14The behavior of both residents and police officers improves when their actions are being recorded on video. As with all new technology, best practices are in the process of being developed as each of these five departments gains experience with its body-worn camera system. These departments can serve as role models for other police agencies as they implement their own camera systems, which many acknowledge as inevitable. Finally and most importantly, body-worn cameras clearly state to the public that its police force has nothing to hide, that their encounters with the public are transparent, and that these encounters are subject to internal and, when appropriate, external scrutiny.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Broadmoor Police Protection District
Special District