Police groups have long supported allowing officers to review their footage in the interests of coming up with accurate incident reports. However, many watchdog groups say watching camera footage can lead to officers adjusting their recollections of events based on video — in particular for incidents involving investigations of police misconduct and use of force.
In more than six months of public hearings and rule drafting since Mayor Ed Lee said he wanted San Francisco police to use body-worn cameras, a working group to the seven-member Police Commission was unable to agree on a recommendation. So on Wednesday night, the panel will have two basic versions from which to choose.
One would allow officers to view footage for “any legitimate investigatory purpose” — including before they file incident reports. They would have to coordinate with the department’s internal affairs unit to view the footage if they are under investigation for use of force, an in-custody death or a possible crime — but they would be able to view it before they were interviewed by investigators.
Another version would prevent officers from viewing footage if they are involved in a shooting, in-custody death or criminal investigation.
Lee announced in May that he was setting aside more than $3 million in the city’s budget to equip 1,800 officers with body-worn cameras. Police Commission President Suzy Loftus said the department would not be permitted to use them until the panel put in place policies developed by people who would be most affected by the technology.
That resulted in the formation of a working group whose members included police officers, the Bar Association of San Francisco and the public defender’s office. They agreed on a majority of points, taking cues from other police departments’ experiences with the cameras, but left the footage-viewing issue to the commission.
Commission split
The commission itself appears to be split heading into the 5:30 p.m. meeting at City Hall. At a Nov. 4 session, three commissioners said they were in favor of allowing officers to view their video footage, two said they were opposed and two were undecided.With the vote approaching, groups opposed to letting police view the footage ramped up their lobbying efforts. At a news conference Tuesday, representatives of the Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union joined Public Defender Jeff Adachi in arguing that officers’ recollections of events can be skewed by video footage.
“Officers are often witnesses — they are perceiving an event and reporting on it,” Adachi said. “What we’re afraid of is we’re going to lose the officer’s independent evaluation of what happened. You would never under any circumstances show video to someone accused, or to a witness. You would not want to affect their statement with the video. All of the studies have shown that the officer is going to alter their recollection of an event if they’re exposed to the video.”
View of police groups
Throughout the process of developing the proposal, police groups spoke in favor of permitting officers access to the video before filing reports. At one community meeting, retired and off-duty officers, some still in uniform, spoke about how the heightened stress of the job can distort memories when it comes to filing reports.They accused opponentsof being less interested in learning the truth than in catching officers in a “gotcha” moment. Police Officers Association President Martin Halloran said if officers are not allowed to view footage, the union would probably advise them not to cooperate when they are at the center of an officer-involved shooting investigation.
Adachi countered Tuesday, “If you are doing your job correctly, you do not have to worry about a gotcha moment. If there are discrepancies — that’s normal. What we don’t want is a situation where officers are encouraged to change their testimony or statement in the police report in order to fit what is in the video.”
On other parts of the proposal, Police Commission members appeared to be in agreement.
Under the plan before the panel, officers would switch on their cameras for most public interactions. The exceptions would be when officers are investigating sexual assaults and child abuse, and when interviewing confidential informants and conducting strip searches.
Officers would be required to upload all footage immediately at the end of a shift, and that video would be stored on a server for 60 days. If it became part of an investigation leading to an arrest, or was part of a use-of-force probe, it would be kept for two years. It could be kept longer if it became part of a criminal case, lawsuit or disciplinary action against an officer.
The public would have access to the footage through public records requests “in accordance with the provisions of federal, state and local statutes and department policy,” according to the proposal.
Process is praised
Commission President Loftus, who has indicated she favors allowing officers to view footage, said Tuesday she entered into the process “with a full appreciation that not everyone would agree on every issue.” Despite that, she said she was proud “of how this process has engaged diverse voices from the beginning.”“However we come down Wednesday, I know we’ve set an example for others on how to create a public and collaborative process that builds trust and accountability,” Loftus said.
©2015 the San Francisco Chronicle Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
