📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
Body Cameras—the Reel Truth Issue | Summary | Background | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations Requests for
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 3 findings
F2
Page 71
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 ofequipment, the cost of data retention, and policy development. Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. While we agree that equipment and data related costs and policy development are areas of concern, we also wish to acknowledge that there are unsettled legal issues regarding the use and release of the data and how the daily practices of the San Mateo Police Department would be affected.
F3
Page 71
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 . Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. The ongoing process of budgeting for a comprehensive Body Worn Video (BWV) solution that encompasses equipment, data management, policy & training, and additional labor costs related to relaying the digital evidence and records through prosecution & litigation requests and Public Records Act requests is yet to be fully developed, and requires additional study beyond the implementation period.
F4
Page 71
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. Respondent agrees with this factual statement. Respondent notes, however, that although most policies have similarities and consistencies, Body Worn Video policies are unique to each agency. That necessary uniqueness creates a landscape of equipment and data usage, data retention, and video production which will result in (sometimes great) variations in overall costs for implementation and maintenance from one agency to the next. FS 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. Respondent agrees with this factual statement. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations:
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 72The 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 by November 30,2016. The recommendation has been implemented. The respondent, after hearing a staff report from the San Mateo Police Department, has directed the City of San Mateo Police Chief to develop an implementation plan no later than November 30, 2016.
-
R2Page 72The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff develop a plan to implement body-worn cameras and advise the public of his plan by November 30, 2016. This Recommendation is not applicable to this respondent.
-
R3Page 72The Grand Jury recommends that the police departments ofthose 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. This recommendation will be implemented in the future, with a time frame as follows: Respondent has recommended complete implementation of body worn video technology with a targeted implementation date of November 2017, providing all policy, practice, and equipment related matters have been satisfied.
-
R4Page 72The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriffs Office implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017. This Recommendation is not applicable to this respondent. This response to the Grand Jury was approved at a public meeting on August 15,2016. The City ofSan Mateo continues to support the ongoing work ofour San Mateo Police Department to be leaders in the area of transparency, legitimacy, and community engagement. We see Body Worn Video as a key component of our Police Department's continued leadership in these important areas, and applaud the County's endeavor to support our local law enforcement agencies' leadership in that regard. Respectfully, j-;: G~-Lscv (J Mayor - City of San Mateo