The Chula Vista Police Department has deployed its more than 100 patrol officers with body worn cameras.
Police officials say the cameras will help provide accountability on both sides of the law.
While the department has created policy, the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties still has enforcement and privacy concerns.
CVPD’s body camera policy gives officers leeway as to when a police officer can turn the cameras on to record.
“There has to be a level of discretion for the officers,” said Police Capt. Vern Sallee.
However, when police officers deal with the public, the ACLU wants the cameras rolling at all times.
“We want to limit the discretion that individual officers have on when to turn off and on the body cameras,” said Kellen Russoniello, staff attorney with the ACLU.
Russoniello said there are incidents where a recording wouldn’t be needed, but he added that cameras should still record at all times because ordinary encounters can evolve very quickly, leaving little time for police officers to react to turn on cameras while worrying about their safety.
“Which is why we feel that it’s in the best interest to have the body camera recording whenever an officer is interacting with a member of the public,” he said.
Sallee said officers are required to only record when they are in situations where they need to take enforcement action, such as traffic stops and domestic violence calls.
He said other interaction with the community like a citizen asking for directions doesn’t have to be recorded.
The policy states that the video camera should be activated with all anticipated enforcement actions and investigative contacts to include field interviews and traffic stops. The policy also states that “when practical, all suspect,victim, and witness statements” should be recorded.
Lastly, the policy specifies that a recording should be on when “any other contact that becomes adversarial after the initial contact in a situation that would not otherwise require recording or in the event the member believes the recording would protect the interest of the department.”
The policy does outline special circumstances in which an officer does not need to record.
Officers should not record other public safety personnel without their consent, the policy says.
The policy says that officers are not required to record non-enforcement related contacts with the public.
Victims of child abuse or molest shall not be video recorded, however, audio recording of such victim’s statements is encouraged, the policy states.
Officers shall not record victims of sexual assault without consent but audio recording of such victims’ statements are encouraged, the policy outlines.
The last encounter to not require a recording is with victims who are partially unclothed or nude, however, audio recording is appropriate.
The police department has a five-year, $501,293 contract with Evidence.com, the cloud based storage the department is using to store its footage. The TASER brand cameras and its equipment costs about $77, 395 for five years.
The chief’s advisory committee, which consists of citizen leaders who help the chief with police related issues, helped formulate the policy. Sallee said police officials also met with and sought feedback from the ACLU, as well as adopting recommended practices from the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Before officers were outfitted with the cameras, they had to complete a training on how to use the cameras. The training took part in three phases.
Russoniello also expressed concerns about citizens’ rights if they chose not to be recorded.
“If somebody had concerns or wanted to give information but wanted to remain anonymous they can ask for the camera to be turned off but that request should also be recorded so that there is no question whether or not the person asked for the camera to be turned off,” Russoniello said.
Sallee said officers do not need consent from citizens to record.
He also said officers do not have to stop recording at the request of a citizen.
“They (citizens) have a right to say they don’t want to be recorded but that doesn’t mean we will stop recording because it is in the interest of our investigation,” he said.
Sallee said he understand that there may be some privacy concerns for both the officers and citizens.
The ACLU sent out a letter Feb. 17 to the police department outlining its concerns.
The letter states that the department is making good efforts in advising the public that they are being recorded. But they can further accomplish this by adding a sticker or plate on the camera noting encounters may be recorded.
ACLU also stated in the letter that recordings should be released when the public right to know outweighs privacy concerns.
“We encourage the department to adopt clear, standardized policies of releasing video in a manner that balances the public’s right to know with privacy concerns and other legal protections,” the letter sates.
“When the privacy interests of the subjects are great, the video should nor be made public. Conversely, when the public interest in transparency is strongest, if not while an investigation is pending, then as soon as it is concluded. Capturing what occurred in these circumstances is the very goals behind adopting body cameras. “
Sallee said the police chief will have sole discretion as to which videos will be made public.
“He will only do that (release video publicly) with an incident involving high level public concern about the police department,” Sallee said.
