No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD Grand Jury Report on Body Worn CamerasSAN RAFAEL Agenda Item No: 6.c THE CITY WITH A MISSION Meeting Date: July 16, 2018 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Police Prepared by: Diana Bishop, Chief of Police City Manager Approval: $ TOPIC: GRAND JURY REPORT ON BODY WORN CAMERAS SUBJECT: Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the City of San Rafael Response to the 2017-2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled "Body- worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed response (Attachment 1) to the Grand Jury report and authorizing the Mayor to execute the response. BACKGROUND: The 2017-2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury has issued its report, dated June 1, 2018 entitled "Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report" (Attachment 2). The Grand Jury has requested that the Marin County Sheriff and the governing bodies of the County of Marin, San Rafael, Sausalito, Ross, Tiburon, Belvedere, the Central Marin Police Authority, Novato, Fairfax, and Mill Valley respond to its recommendations. The City of San Rafael has been requested to respond to Recommendations R2, R3, R4 and RS. The Grand Jury's findings and recommendations are set out on page ten (10) of the nineteen (19) page report. ANALYSIS: The City is required to respond to the Grand Jury Report. Penal Code section 933 states in part: "No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report ... the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations ... [contained in the report]." To comply with this statute, the City's response to the Grand Jury report must be approved by Resolution of the City Council and submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and the Foreperson of the Grand Jury by September 1, 2018. A proposed Resolution is attached that would approve the City's response. Council Meeting: 7•16·2018 Disposition: Resolution 14552 FOR CITY CLERK ONLY SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT/ Page: 2 The Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement agencies in the Marin County do the following: R2 -Marin law enforcement agencies that have not posted their body-worn camera policies to their websites should do so by October 1, 2018. R3 -All Marin law enforcement agencies should seek to employ automated activation of body-worn cameras based on that agency's choice of activation modes. R4 -All Marin law enforcement agencies pursuing new or improved technology should explore cooperative negotiating and resource sharing with other agencies to reduce cost. RS -The County of Marin should work with the law enforcement agencies to form a county- wide buying group to reduce the costs of video technology. Staff agrees with Recommendation R2 and has posted our policy to our website at www.srpd.org/policies. Staff partially agrees with Recommendation R3. The second generation cameras recently deployed by the San Rafael Police Department (SRPD) have an automatic "pre-record" feature. It is set to record the 30 seconds prior to the camera's activation by the officer. Our policy describes when the camera should be turned on. Automatic activation of cameras with no officer discretion is not warranted or desired. The technology currently available for automatic activation is expensive and mostly untested. Our policy states in part, "Supervisors are authorized to review relevant recordings any time they are investigating alleged misconduct or reports of meritorious conduct or whenever such recordings would be beneficial in reviewing the member's performance". Supervisors conduct random audits of camera usage. Since body worn cameras became standard equipment at SRPD in October of 2014, our officers have embraced the technology. There have been no incidents of discipline arising from misuse, or non-use of the BWC technology. Staff does not agree with R4 and RS. While the goals of cooperation and resource sharing are good ones, it is not practical in a County with disparate law enforcement needs. Agencies in Marin County have different financial restrictions and vastly different needs for staff ranging from seven (7) officers to over 300 deputies. Each law enforcement agency chooses the platform that works best for its budget, staffing, and needs. Some Marin agencies pair their BWC with in- car video, some rely on a local server for storage, and some use cloud based storage. Each agency decides which camera and software features are the most important to them. Cooperative negotiating and resource sharing would be better served county-wide for technology that has not already been in place in all but one agency. FISCAL IMPACT: None OPTIONS: The City is required to respond, however, the Council could make changes to the proposed response and then adopt the Resolution and revised response. Alternatively, the Council could return the response to staff for further response and return to the Council at a later meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed response to the Grand Jury report and authorizing the Mayor to execute the response. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT/ Page: 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution with attached proposed response 2. Grand Jury report dated June 1, 2018 RESOLUTION NO. 14552 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 1, 2018 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "BODY-WORN CAMERAS AND MARIN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOLLOW UP REPORT" WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933, a public agency which receives a Grand Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency's operations must, within ninety (90) days, provide a written response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, responding to the Report's findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, Penal Code section 933 specifically requires that the "governing body'' of the public agency provide said response and, in order to lawfully comply, the governing body must consider and adopt the response at a noticed public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael has received and reviewed the Marin County Grand Jury Report, dated June 1, 2018, entitled "Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement Follow-Up Report'', and has agendized it at this meeting for a response. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby: 1. Approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the City's response to the Marin County Grand Jury's June 1, 2018 report, entitled "Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement Follow Up Report'', copy of which response is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Directs the City Clerk to forward the City's response forthwith to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Marin County Grand Jury. I, Lindsay Lara, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council held on the 16th day of July 2018, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: Gamblin '2x:'fX~ LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk DUPIJCATE O~~~l~Al RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Report Title: Body-Worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement Report Date: May 24, 2018 Public Release Date: June 1, 2018 Response By: Mayor Gary Phillips and San Rafael City Council FINDINGS: • I (we) agree with the findings numbered: N/A • I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: • The City agrees with Recommendation R2 and has implemented it. • The City has partially implemented Recommendation R3. The second generation cameras recently deployed by the San Rafael Police Department (SRPD) have an automatic "pre-record" feature. It is set to record the 30 seconds prior to the camera's activation by the officer. Our policy describes when the camera should be turned on. Automatic activation of cameras with no officer discretion is not warranted or desired. The technology currently available for automatic activation is expensive and mostly untested. Our policy states in part, "Supervisors are authorized to review relevant recordings any time they are investigating alleged misconduct or reports of meritorious conduct or whenever such recordings would be beneficial in reviewing the member's performance". Supervisors conduct random audits of camera usage. Since body worn cameras became standard equipment at SRPD in October of 2014, our officers have embraced the technology. There have been no incidents of disciple arising from misuse, or non-use of the BWC technology. • The City will not implement Recommendations R4 and RS at this time.While the goals of cooperation and resource sharing are good ones, it is not practical in a County with disparate law enforcement needs. Agencies in Marin County have different financial restrictions and vastly different needs for staff ranging from seven (7) officers to over 300 deputies. Each law enforcement agency chooses the platform that works best for its budget, staffing, and needs. Some Marin agencies pair their BWC with in-car video, some rely on a local server for storage, and some use cloud based storage. Each agency decides which camera and software features are the most important to them. Cooperative negotiating and resource sharing would be better served county-wide for technology that has not already been in place in all but one agency. With that said, we will look for future opportunities to work with the law enforcement agencies in Marin County to share purchasing opportunities and resources. Date:~/i?J Attest: ~ 'f:}(_ A./V- Lindsay Lara, City Clerk Number of Pages Attached: O 2017-2018 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement Follow Up Report Report Date: May 24, 2018 Public Release Date: June 1, 201 8 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report SUMMARY The 2013-14 Marin County Civil Grand Jury's report on Marin law enforcement's use of audiovisual technology, published in February 2014, recommended that all Marin law enforcement agencies acquire and use body-worn cameras (BWC). 1 Since that report was published all Marin law enforcement agencies, with the exception of Sausalito, are now using this technology. The Grand Jury continues to recommend that Sausalito acquire and use body- worn cameras. To enhance public trust and transparency, body-worn camera policies should be available to the public, which may be accomplished by posting them on the agency's website. Fairfax, Novato, and Central Marin Police Authority have done this already. The Grand Jury recommends that all other agencies do this as well. Cameras can only record when they are turned on, and there have been problems associated with manual activation.2•3 Much of the adverse publicity about body-worn cameras stems from the consequences that result from the failure to activate cameras during critical interactions, especially those involving use of force. Because many of the new camera systems feature automatic activation, the Grand Jury recommends that all Marin police agencies acquire camera systems with this capability. Law enforcement agencies are under increasing pressure by community groups and legislative bodies to promptly release video images of enforcement actions to the public. Before public release, images must be "redacted" -edited to hide or blur images to protect the privacy of people peripheral to the action, or to prevent identification of victims, witnesses, and minors. Editing capability of the simpler systems, particularly redaction, is largely manual and requires substantial manpower and expertise to accomplish. The inexorable trend is toward liberalization of public release criteria of police video. To accommodate the increased demand for editing that this would bring, the Grand Jury recommends acquisition of advanced camera systems that have semi-automated editing fean1res to simplify and speed up redaction and indexing to events. Local government will need to provide financial support to their law enforcement agencies for these technology upgrades, as well as for the costs of increased video file storage. To address the substantial cost of acquisition, maintenance, storage and processing of video data, the Grand Jury recommends that Marin agencies investigate sharing of resources. A county-wide purchasing group might allow smaller jurisdictions to employ more advanced technology than they could afford on their own. 1 "Gi::t The P1ct11n:'! /\mhov1su,1I Tcchnolo!.!v <111d Mann Law Enforcement." 2013-14 Muri11 Civil Grund Jwy Report, 18 Feb . 2014 . ~ Pasternak, Alex , "Pnhce For!.!ct To Tum On Rodv Camcrns. Cun Tascr ·, Conn.:ctcJ Holster Fix Thut'1" Future f.!f Policing. 02 .28 .17 Accessed 27 Mar . 201 R. 3 Ariel, B., ·'SutherlanJ. A .. H.cnsluck. D . .:t al. Report: incrcus.:s in pulic.: use or force in the pn:scm:.: ,,rbuJv-worn -=~uncras arc dn,cn by ulfo:.:r d1srn:11u11. ,1 prulucul-bascd sub!.!ruup unalysis ul'tcn randumizcJ .:xpcrimcnts ." J Exp Crimi11ol (2016) 12 : 453. Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report BACKGROUND The issue of police-community relations has always been important to public safety. In this age ofreal-time news and nearly universal possession of video technology by the public, the issue has been brought to the forefront of public perception in an unprecedented way. Many instances of officer-involved use of force have been the subject of widely publicized news stories in recent years. With the goal of increasing transparency and trust, the 2013-14 Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommended the use of body-worn video cameras for all Marin law enforcement agencies. Given the sensational reports from around the country on the use and misuse of police video, the current Grand Jury wanted to assess how Marin police agencies have responded to the 2013-14 Grand Jury recommendation to implement county-wide use of body-worn cameras. APPROACH The Grand Jury surveyed Marin law enforcement agencies to determine: • What brand of body-worn camera is currently being used. • If there are plans to acquire new or updated equipment. • The costs of a body-worn camera system. • Whether or not the use of body-worn cameras has resulted in a decrease in citizen complaints. This survey was augmented by interviews with law enforcement officers and general research conducted on the subject. DISCUSSION Although body-worn cameras are widely promoted as enhancing the law enforcement mission and improving the public interface, acquisition or updating of BWC equipment is not as simple as buying cameras and storage. The policies that guide the use of this technology are vitally important. Without well thought-out policies that are publicly available, and adhered to, the perception of transparency can be undermined. Most Marin police departments use pre-formatted policy templates available through Lexipol,4 which offers vetted policy elements and options that departments can select from a menu. While the Lexipol policies have been analyzed to provide legal protection and wide applicability, they allow the chief executive officer (normally the Chief of Police) considerable latitude in the handling of public release and disposition. Legislation being considered (SB 1186, see Appendix A for details) will make law enforcement surveillance policies (including body-worn camera policies) subject to review and approval in a public hearing by the responsible elected body. 4 "!.s.~12!1..I-" ll!xipul. Last Accessed on May 2. 2018 May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report Whether or not this proposal becomes law, the desire for public input to law enforcement surveillance policies is robust and not likely to abate. The Grand Jury surveyed all of Marin's law enforcement agencies and found that, with the exception of Sausalito, all now employ body-worn cameras as recommended in the 2013-14 Grand Jury report. All the agencies using body-worn cameras have reported either a decrease or no change (about 50% in each category) in complaints against officers. Only three of the ten agencies have posted BWC policies on their websites. The cost for Marin agencies' camera systems vary considerably, from negligible to $1,927 per unit per year.5•6 The costs noted as negligible (some listed the cost as unknown) represented small departments that acquired first-generation cameras and accessories featuring manual on- site storage. The highest figures reported were, not unsurprisingly, for the largest departments with the latest-generation camera systems and their associated storage cost. Five agencies are exploring acquisition of new cameras at the present time. The substantial cost of body-worn camera systems remains a barrier to both acquisition and upgrades. A Primer on Body-worn Cameras Figure I. Front-mounted body-worn camera 5 Johnson, Nels. "Bud1.?et provides Mann ,hcriffwith budv cameras." Marin Independent Journal. 25 Mar. 2016. & Halstead, Richard. "Munn shcnfrs dcputics will soon bi:!!111 w.:,ll'inµ body cameras " Marin !11depe11de11t Journal. 14 May 2016 . May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report --- Figure 2. Body-worn camera mounted on uniform epaulet The sophistication of the camera systems varies considerably. They range from basic devices with manual activation and output manually transferred onto local storage media (i.e., CDs or DVDs), to the latest in camera systems with advanced features and editing capability. Such advanced systems not only allow automatic activation of recording and better image quality, they also support more convenient processing of video images, such as tagging a video to a particular event, automatic uploading to storage media, and more convenient editing. Components of a BWC System BWC systems typically include several elements: • Cameras • Video data storage • Image processing software (including redaction and tagging) • Chargers • Database management programs • Officer training The simplest systems have low-cost cameras that are similar to those found in an older smartphone. These have video storage and battery capability of 8-10 hours (a shift's worth). The data can be unloaded at the station onto storage media or placed on compact disks. The definition is usually medium at best. Docking stations for recharging batteries are typically included. With these simple systems, minimal data storage costs are offset by time spent preparing video for court proceedings and possible public release. (See Appendix C, Public Release for more detail.) Manual redaction (blurring) of images for required privacy mandates is difficult and time- consuming, usually requiring expert assistance. Public release that is mandated by state laws May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report currently being considered (AB 748) would place additional pressure on agencies that use less sophisticated systems. (See Appendix A, Current and Proposed California State Laws, AB 748, for further details.) In more advanced systems, the camera is only part of the cost. Video data storage and processing systems are substantial additional costs. Sophisticated cameras are now available that feature HD (High Definition), ultra HD and automatic transmittal to remote secure data storage platforms (such as iCloud). These newer camera systems offer a host of features such as: • Advanced security and audit logs • Automatic activation • Advanced editing software that tags data to a specific event • More convenient editing (redaction and other advanced post-processing) • Longer running times due to more efficient batteries • Image stabilization • Video buffering that records and saves a portion of video prior to activation (selectable by the department-usually 30 seconds to 2 minutes) Systems featuring automatic activation are capable of being switched on by a number of preset law enforcement activities rather than having to be manually started by the officer. These activities include turning on the vehicle light bar, opening the patrol car door, unholstering a weapon, concurrent activation of nearby cameras, and officer position. They can even be set to activate with accelerometer readings from physical struggles or foot pursuits. Body-worn cameras themselves vary considerably in cost, ranging anywhere from $50 to well over $500. The storage cost associated with the dramatically increased data can be many times higher than the cameras themselves . 7 What About Marin? Most of Marin's law enforcement agencies (7 out of 10) use the Vie Vu camera systems, which might be considered first-generation technology. They have the advantage oflow initial and maintenance cost. Storage costs are minimal since the video data is transferred .to CD manually. Aside from the obvious lower quality images, one big drawback of these systems is the difficulty of processing the video for public release and/or court use. As mentioned above, the manual post-processing would require a considerable amount of employee time and likely expert assistance, and if proposed legislation requiring public release with extensive redaction becomes law, this is sure to become a major issue. Although this legislation is still in committee, the national trend has been to call for more liberal public release of police video. Three agencies use the more advanced Axon/Taser camera systems. 7 Bakst, Brian an d Foley, Ryan J . "I-or Police Ami" Camcrai.. Big Co~l Loom in Stora!!c." Associated Pre.vs . 6 Feb. 2015 . May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report Figure 3. Example oflmage Redaction Another drawback to the older systems is that they do not allow for automatic activation and there have been problems with manual activation that jeopardize the usefulness of video evidence. (See Appendix C, Camera Activation and Public Release for further discussion of the topic.) Impact of Body-Worn Cameras Beneficial Impacts Better Behavior by All: During a 12-month study by the Rialto, California police department, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% compared to the previous year's figures.8 These researchers say the knowledge that events are being recorded creates self-awareness in all participants during police interactions. Individuals, both police and citizens, tend to modify their behavior when aware of "third-party" surveillance by cameras. The employment of any technology that reduces use-of-force and improves citizen behavior can pay big dividends in officer safety by reducing incidents that might incur liability. Body-worn cameras, while not guaranteed to lower liability exposure, have been demonstrated to reduce use of force by officers against members of the public as well as assaults upon officers,9 especially if the discretion to record is removed from the officer's control.10 Better Use of Time: Video evidence, especially from body-worn cameras, can be a great time- saver for law enforcement. The presence of a video record saves significant officer time in report-writing, case evaluation and preparation for court testimony. Prosecution time is also saved in preparation of cases for court. Police departments also note significant time savings in resolving complaints against officers. 11 M Ariel, 8., Farrar, W .A., and Sutherland, A., "The .:I"li.:ct orpulicc bodv-wurn cJm1:ras on use or luu:..: Jnd citiz..:ns' wmplaini, auainst th..: polic1::: A nmdomiz.:J controlkd trial." Joumal of Quantitative Criminology. Volume 31, Issue 3, 2015 , pp . 509-535. 9 Ariel, 8., Farrar, W.A. & Sutherland, A. "The EITcct of Poli<.:1: Bodv-Worn Cameras on Use ol'Fcm.:c anJ Citizens' Comphunts Against the Pol kc: A R,m<lomi~i!d ControlleJ Trial." J Qua111 Cri111 i110/ (2015) 3 1: 509. 10 Ariel , 8 . et al , "[{..:port. increases in police use of fore.:: in the presence ,1fb0Jv-worn cameras arc driven bv oflk.:r J1screti,m: a pnlhh.:ol-bascJ sub!!roup Jnalvsis of ten rJndomizcd experiments." J E.tp Crimi110/ DOI I 0 .1007/s I 1292-0I6-9261-3 (2016). 11 Miller, Lindsay, Jessica Toliver. and Police Executive Research Forum . "lmplc111cnrin!! a B,,Jv-\Vorn Camcrn Pn,!!ram: Rcco111mcnJa11ons and Le,,,,ns Learned." Washi11gtu11, DC: Office uf Comm1111ity Orie11ted Pu/icing Services. 2014. May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report Better Training and Evaluation: Video recordings of officer interactions have obvious value in training and employee evaluation for department supervisors. Improvement can be directly observed as well as demonstrated by the decrease in citizen complaints and use of force mentioned above. Potential Negative Impacts Costs: Law enforcement agencies must balance the cost of body-worn camera systems with the likelihood that public/police relations will improve and liability risk will be reduced. A'S mentioned above, the purchase of the cameras and the associated hardware and software is only part of the financial outlay. The cost of storage is typically many times the equipment cost.12 There are also costs of training, maintenance, officer time in managing access, ensuring appropriate distribution and maintaining documentation. ln addition, there is a high likelihood that outside (and expensive) expertise will be required to prepare unredacted material for public release with older systems, as previously mentioned. Since many of the large judgments seen in the last few years have involved use of force and officer misconduct, 13 acquisition of technology that can mitigate these elements would seem to be a sound investment. Effects on Initiation/Evaluation of Activity: There are suggestions that some officers may be reluctant to engage in a law enforcement activity if they feel that the camera's video will not be supportive, or conversely, that the presence of the camera might lead to a lower threshold for use of force if the officer feels that the camera will vindicate the activity.14 Also exerting an effect on evaluation is camera perspective bias. Camera perspective bias is a feature of video viewing wherein the viewer identifies with the point of view of the camera wearer (typically a law enforcement officer), and tends to subconsciously discount those of video subjects. (See Appendix B, Camera Perspective Bias, for further discussion of this phenomenon.) Altered Community Dynamics: The nature of the law enforcement mission in a particular community may bear on the decision to use video as well. ln small communities where the crime rate is low and the relationship between citizens and law enforcement has historically been close and more informal, the employment of video might result in formerly relaxed interactions becoming uncomfortably officious.15 However, regardless of the size of the department, the widespread use of body-worn cameras creates an expectation that video of police/public interactions would be available in case of litigation. The absence of such video would make it more difficult to refute assertions of misconduct on the part of an officer if the matter were to come before a jury or disciplinary board. 12 Kotowski, Jason. "Mum:v. Stora!!c Primary Obstacles 111 Pulte.: Budy Camera lmpll:mcmauon ." The Bakersfield Californian, R Mar. 2015 . 13 Wing, Nick. "We Pav A SlllJckimr Amuunl Fur Police Misconduct, And Cups Want Us Jus1 Tu Ace..:pl IL W..: Shouldn't." Hujfi11gto11 Post. 29 May 2015. Accessed 18 Apr. 2018. 14 Doleac, Jennifer. "Du Rody-worn C'arncr.i, lmpro\c ('11!11.:c Behavior"!" Brookings illstitllle website. 25 Oct. 2017 . Accessed 15 Dec. 2017. 15 Miller, Lindsay, Toliver, Jessica, and Police Executive Research Forum. "lmpl.:mcntin!! a Bodv-Worn Camera Prol!ram: Rccommcmlations and Lessons LL"arncd." Washi11gto11, DC: Office ofCom1111111ity Oriented Polici11g Services. 2014. May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report While there are some conflicting opinions about the effectiveness of body-worn cameras in promoting improved rapport between law enforcement and the community, 16 body-worn cameras are generally seen by the public to be a good thing. In one survey, 93% ofrespondents felt that police officers should be equipped with body cameras.17 Similar results can be found in almost every public survey on the subject. Body-worn Camera Policies The use of video (especially BWCs) in law enforcement must be supported by clear, publicly- available policies to be an effective tool. As mentioned above, it is widely believed by the public that body-worn cameras enhance the transparency and accountability of law enforcement. However, this belief can be undermined by policies that are seen to be either not available to the public or not perceived to be aligned with community expectations if they are available.18 At the heart of the body-worn camera policy debate is whether cameras are law enforcement tools that enhance the officer's ability to perform his or her mission in an efficient and accountable manner (policy groups referred to below as "law enforcement"), or are public tools to assure police exert their authority consistent with community ideals (these groups are referred to as "community-centered"). Until these two views can be reconciled, resolution of this debate seems unlikely. A number of policy recommendations have been generated by various groups in recent years. There are law enforcement groups such as: • PERF/COPS 19 • IACP 20 There are also groups that promote community-centered policies, such as: • The Constitution Project21 • The Brennan Center2 2 • Uptum23 16 Yokum, David, Ravishankar, Anita and Coppock, Alexander, "Evalumin!.! th e Efk cts ur Pol 1cc Budv-\\ orn C ,uncr,h \ RanJon111cd l onlrolh:J Trial." The Lab@ DC. Office of the City Administrator, Executive Office of the Mayor, Washington, DC, 9 Oct. 2017. 17 "Sharp R,1c:1ul Dmsinn, in Rcucrions t,i Bro wn. Game r Decisions." Pew Research Center. December 8, 2014. Accessed 6 Oct. 2017 . 18 White , Michael D., "P u lice Ollicc r Body -Worn Cameras : Ass.:ssin!.! the Ev 1Jcnc.:." Washington , DC: OjJic:e of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2014 . 19 Miller, Lindsay, Toliver, Jessica and Police Executive Research Forum. "lmp km.:nLi n!.! a Budv-\Vurn Cum c:ra Pro!!ram: .Rcco111 m.:mlatiu 11 s an d L.:ssons Lea rn ed." Washington. DC: Office of Community O1·iented Policing Services. 2014 . 20 "Bodv-\Vu rn CJrn.:ras Cunc.:pls und Issues Paper." IACP National Law Enforcem ent Policy Center. April 2014. 21 "G uidelines l'u r Lili.' Use ot' B,1dv -w orn Cam.:ras bv LU \\' Enli..•nx 1rn.:11L : A Gu1 d.: to l'roL,:.:t in!! Co111111u niLi1.:s and Pn.:sL•rvi n!! C i\'il LibL'rt i.:~." Tl,e Co11stillltio11 Project. December 2016 . 22 "1\t:<:o unta bil itv." Bre1111a11 Ce11terfor Justice at NlV Scliool of'law. 8 Ju l. 2016 . !l "Polil:c Bn dv Wo rn L umc ras: A r c,11 cv S..:o r,card." The Leaders/zip Conje renc:e 011 Civil and Human Rights & Uplllrn . Nov . 2017 . Accessed 15 Apr. 2018 . May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of L9 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has proposed a model law for state legislatures to use to put body-worn camera policies on a statutory footing. 24 This model features many of the elements espoused in the community-centered policy groups. Other than the recommendation to phase in auto-activation technology, the Grand Jury is not making specific policy recommendations. The individual police agencies that possess BWCs already have policies in place. These policies would be amended as new equipment is acquired or if there are changes in departmental philosophy or state/federal law. A proposed law actually codifies this notion of amending departmental policies and making them subject to civilian review. (See Appendix A, Current and Proposed California State Laws, SB 1186, for more detail.) Policy Elements -A Brief Overview Policies generally contain the following elements: • Camera activation criteria • Protection of privacy guidelines • Policies regarding pre-report viewing by officers • Requirements for retention of video files • Policies for protection of video from tampering or misuse • Public release criteria (See Appendix C for a detailed discussion of these policy elements.) While the groups studying policies (Constitution Project, Brennan Center, Upturn PERF/COPS IACP and ACLU) differ in detail, their recommendations are broadly similar. All support the use of police video technology and the importance of clear policies. Whil~ the actual policies used by law enforcement agencies around the country vary considerably in how closely they conform to model guidelines presented by policy analysts, it is likely that these policies will be amended, either voluntarily or as a result of statutory requirements, to more closely resemble the ideals presented by policy models. The technology component of modem law enforcement has grown from two-way radios to complex data systems that provide real-time information on a scale undreamed of just a couple of decades ago. While this augmented capability may be a concern to civil libertarians, it is unlikely that there will be any rollback of technology in the foreseeable future. Despite its potential downside, new technology is helping to raise public safety standards. Marin County has the responsibility, as well as the wherewithal, to keep our law enforcement agencies up to date . 2~ "A Mu1kl Ai;t fur R..:!!ulalin!! Thc: Us..: of W..:arabl<: Budv Cameras by Law Enlun.:c:1m:nl." American Civil Liberties U11io11 . Accessed 6 Aug. 2017. May 24, 20 18 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report FINDINGS Fl. With the exception of Sausalito, all Marin County law enforcement agencies are now following the 2013-14 Marin Civil Grand Jury's recommendation that body-worn cameras be used. F2 . Video camera policies published on law enforcement agency websites enhance transparency and help gain public trust. F3. Although all agencies have policies regarding police video technology, not all agencies have posted policies on a public website. F4. Automatically activated body-worn cameras reduce the occurrence of failure to capture critical events when compared with manually activated cameras . F5. Data storage and data management costs are often many times the cost of the cameras themselves with the newer camera systems. F6. Platforms that allow sharing of information technology resources exist and can lower individual agencies' costs. F7. Half of the reporting agencies in Marin have experienced a decrease in citizen complaints against officers since deploying body-worn cameras. F8. No Marin agency has reported an increase in citizen complaints . F9. Agencies have reported that the time required to investigate citizen complaints has decreased with the use of BWCs. RECOMMENDATIONS R 1. Sausalito should implement body-worn cameras as recommended by the 2013-14 Marin County Civil Grand Jury and by this Grand Jury. R2. Marin law enforcement agencies that have not posted their body-worn camera policies to their websites should do so by October I, 2018 . R3. All Marin law enforcement agencies should seek to employ automated activation of body-worn cameras based on that agency's choice of activation modes. R4. All Marin law enforcement agencies pursuing new or improved video technology should explore cooperative negotiating and resource sharing with other agencies to reduce costs. R5. The County of Marin should work with the law enforcement agencies to form a county- wide buying group to reduce the costs of video technology. May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of I 9 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: • Central Marin Police Authority (R3, R4, RS) • City of Belvedere {R2, R3, R4, RS) • City of Mill Valley {R2, R3, R4, RS) • City of Novato (R4, RS) • City of San Rafael (R2, R3, R4, RS) • City of Sausalito (RI, R2, R3, R4, RS) • County of Marin (R3, R4, RS) • Town of Fairfax (R3, R4, RS) • Town of Ross (R2, R3, R4, RS) • Town of Tiburon {R2, R3, R4, RS) The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code section 933 ( c) and subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. From the following individual: • The Marin County Sheriff (R2, R3, R4, RS) The following individuals are invited to respond: • Chief of Belvedere Police Department (R2, R3, R4, RS) • Chief of Fairfax Police Department (R3, R4, RS) • Chief of Mill Valley Police Department (R2, R3, R4, RS) • Chief of Novato Police Department (R3, R4, RS) • Chief of Ross Police Department (R2, R3, R4, RS) • Chief of San Rafael Police Department (R2, R3, R4, RS) • Chief of Sausalito Police Department (Rl, R3, R4, RS) • Chief of Tiburon Police Department (R2, R3, R4, RS) Note: At the time this report was prepared information was available at the websites listed. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report GLOSSARY Evidentiary: describing that which is capable of being used as evidence, especially in court proceedings. Exculpatory: that which tends to show innocence or a lesser degree of guilt. Redaction: the process of making video elements unreadable or unidentifiable. This would include the blurring of facial images and other identifying features of a video. Probative value: the value of evidence in proving or demonstrating an element of an investigation or court case Exigent: requiring immediate attention; pressing. Often used as a softer word connoting an emergency. Transparency: in the context of institutions, openness to public scrutiny. Vetted: selected for specific desirable characteristics. Tainted evidence: evidence that may not be admissible or the jury can be instructed to devalue in their deliberations because issues with the manner in which it was obtained (i.e., an illegal search). May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report APPENDIX A: Current and Proposed California State Laws California law AB 69(2015) requires police agencies to consider best practices when developing policies for downloading and storing body-worn camera data. A list of best practice elements is presented without requiring that they be actually put into practice. These refer to such matters as developing standards for downloading, categorizing, storing, and preventing misuse. The law does require that police departments retain ownership of the cameras and explicitly forbids uploading camera data to social media. Cali fomia law AB 93 (2015) appropriates $1 OM for police-community relations improvement projects including one-time costs associated with body-worn camera acquisition. Cali fomia law SB 424 (2015) exempts body-worn camera use by law enforcement from prohibitions on eavesdropping, recording, or intercepting certain communications. Cali fomia law SB 85 ( 7015) requires the California Highway Patrol to develop a plan for implementing body-worn cameras by January 1, 2016. This plan includes many of the recommendations outlined in AB 69. California law AB 1953 (2016) makes specific the best practices referred in AB 69. The law does not require adoption of body-worn cameras but presents a number of considerations police agencies should keep in mind when developing body-worn camera policies. Points presented in the measure include: • specifying practices for downloading and safeguarding data from body-worn cameras (BWC) • recommending retention times (from 60 days to permanent) for various categories of video data • specifying practices for the storage and access to BWC data, and providing sanctions for violation of policy Proposed -Calt form a law AB 748 (2017-2017) proposes that the policies for BWC data regarding release to the public be liberalized such that release is assumed if the video depicted use of force or possible violation of law or policy (presumably on the part of the police officer), subject to privacy and safety caveats, instead of being the sole purview of the chief executive of the agency. The released video may be withheld for up to 120 days if release would substantially hinder an ongoing investigation or be withheld permanently if such release is deemed (by whom is left unstated) not to be in the public interest. Most real-world policies leave decisions about public release to the chief executive. This law would prohibit the application of biometric scanning/identification routines except in "exigent" circumstances (these are not defined in the proposed law). With the enhanced public release characteristics of the proposal there are numerous conditions placed on the non-law enforcement contents of video that would preclude unedited release, such as financial information, results of engineering studies, bidding information, etc. -anything that may give someone an financial advantage if viewed. There are numerous restrictions on release for video subject's information such as address, phone numbers and other personal details. Essentially, by mandating release of video data, most other types of information revealed by the video are subject to redaction or outright withholding and only the officer's conduct is to be widely available. The law is in committee (Judicial) currently. May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report Cali fomia law AB -+59(2017) prohibits the public release of video depictions of victims of rape, sexual assault, child abuse, incest, or domestic violence. Proposed -California law SB 1186(2017-2018) requires that police agencies submit Surveillance Use Policies to the responsible elected bodies in a formal hearing, subject to the Brown Act public notice, for approval. This would occur whenever the agency acquires new technology or anticipates a new use. If the policy is disapproved, the police agency has 30 days to cease using the technology until approval is obtained. There are other provisions of the bill which reflect existing and proposed limits on use (see AB 748). This bill has been reported out of committee. May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report APPENDIX B : Camera Perspective Bias Video technology is everywhere. The prevalence of smartphones with video uploading capability make video of even mundane nature available to almost anyone via Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms. With the emergence of law enforcement video as well as the ubiquity of personalized video content from civilian sources, a phenomenon known as camera perspective bias has been widely recognized. 25 Camera perspective bias arises from the tendency to regard video as an objective (therefore unbiased and presumably unassailable) record of an event. The fact is that video only presents one view of the situation --that of the camera holder/wearer. That view is constrained by the scope of the camera and is necessarily incapable of depicting the entire event in all its complexity. Another characteristic of camera perspective bias is that the viewer of a piece of video tends to identify with the individual on the camera side. It is as if the viewer is seeing with the eyes of the camera operator. This is especially true of body-worn camera video (as opposed to dash-mounted cameras) because of the personalization effect of having the camera reflect the movements and audiovisual orientation of the wearer. This has the effect of subconsciously rendering the accounts of video subjects as less objective. Underlying all of this are inherent biases which operate subconsciously when viewing video. So, while the use of video technology in law enforcement has the well-demonstrated potential to improve the relationship with the public through accountability and transparency on both sides, camera perspective bias must be taken into consideration when camera data ( especially body- worn camera data) is evaluated. ~5 Sankin, Aaron. "H()w Polic.: BoJv Cameras Chan!!c Our P.:rccption ()f R1ghl and Wrong." Tire Daily Dot website. 29 June, 2016. Accessed 16 November, 2017. May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report APPENDIX C: Policy Elements -An Overview The following broad categories outline areas of policy recommendations offered by groups studying the implementation of body-worn cameras. These recommendations differ in details but are broadly similar. The utility and desirability of body-worn cameras is acknowledged by all of the policy groups. Substantial areas of disagreement are pointed out in the discussion of individual categories where appropriate. The policy proposals assume that issuance of cameras is to duly sworn or authorized peace officers with the authority to make arrests and conduct searches and that proper training in the use and maintenance has been provided and documented. All the recommendations stipulate that security and accountability for data must be of the highest order. The details of mounting location, camera type, issuance and maintenance, data security, location of data processing equipment, and other matters that would be specific to individual departments are left out of recommendations other than to say these things should be attended to with utmost diligence. Most groups studying best practices for body-worn camera policies agree that the following practice categories are the most important. Camera Activation Ideally, the best policy would be to record all enforcement interactions with the public except those that present a clear privacy or victim protection concern. Recording would start upon the beginning of the encounter and continue until the encounter is complete . As discussed above, leaving activation and cessation of recording entirely up to the individual officer can lead to problems. Results from eight UK and US police forces in 2016 reveal rates of assault against officers are 15% higher when officers choose when to activate cameras, perhaps because officers begin recording when the situation becomes confrontational and the subject may view the activation as a provocation. This finding illustrates the need for cameras to be recording at all stages of the encounter.26 Most real-world policies list situations that require activation ofbody- worn cameras specifically, with the provision that other situations may arise that are not listed. Automatic activation removes the concern that an officer will forget to tum on the camera in any situation. Recording would not cease until the end of the encounter or at the request of witnesses , victims, or incidental participants, provided that the initial encounter is complete. Officers are usually allowed some discretion in deciding when to cease recording, but these instances are to be documented either on the recording or in the official report. Officers would be required to inform anyone involved that they are being recorded, provided such notification is consistent with officer safety. Interaction with victims, witnesses, minors, or confidential informants generally requires advance consent. Protection of Privacy The widespread use of video technology has raised privacy concerns. Subjects who are victims, witnesses, minors, informants, and bystanders may not want to be recorded. Any good policy would allow the officer to cease recording where there is an identifiable privacy issue. Some policies would have the officer cease recording upon request of the subject, as long as its value :!(, 0 Hih.\1.'-\1,:nl'n C:il111,'l',J :, ::..;;-,(~('1,llt..'J \\·1th l lh .. r1..·~t ..,i..'tl ,h '-i...ll!·l..._ ,l!!,l!lhL nlll!l:l. ,l ih.! 11t1..:1";.'~l.:-il' :11 J'iC ll l -{.H1,.'C 11 L)J't il·cr ..; ..:ho11,·c \\ hi.:11 \ll : .. :.-. .:ri ~-~~ll n l'r,l~." l ·.,u1 ·1 ·, ,u, 1,/ L ·J;nh, ul.;t.. !~t.'~l' 1n h . 17 May 2016. May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 16 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report as evidence would not be compromised. There is disagreement among policy analysts regarding this issue with some advocating mandatory cessation of recording on demand or requiring advance consent (The Constitution Project) and others leaving it up to the officer (most real- world policies, PERF/COPS). In non-exigent circumstances or routine entry into a private home (or any area where there is an expectation of privacy, such as a restroom), policy analysts would typically require the consent of the subject before recording. All policies prohibit surreptitious recording both of non-involved subjects and other departmental employees without judicial permission in the form of a court order. The use of facial recognition is also a concern. Most policy analysts would prefer to limit use of advanced analytical techniques on police videos, requiring it to be subject to a judicial review. A major concern is that law enforcement not compile databases based on video of protected activities such as protests or simple unrelated proximity to law enforcement activity that may lead to a guilt-by-association presumption. The capability of video databases to be enhanced with artificial intelligence software is a matter of concern for civil libertarians. 27 •28 The Constitution Project, seeking to speak for communities of color who already feel they are experiencing an oppressive police presence, is particularly concerned about the use of advanced recognition technology. Most real-world policies do not prohibit such use; indeed one would imagine that most law enforcement agencies would be reluctant to give up such a potentially powerful tool. The issue of whether the probative value of advanced recognition technology outweighs the privacy concerns is a matter of debate. Although increased surveillance of public spaces is a fact of life that has been redefining the very meaning of privacy, the application of this type of technology to relatively ordinary public interactions may well represent a significant erosion of privacy. Pre-Report Viewing by Officers The majority of policy analysts would prefer that officers not be able to refer to video recordings to make an initial report. After the initial report, an officer could review recording for accuracy before filing an official report. The access to the recordings would be subject to custodial procedures that would vary by department but would be carefully controlled and documented. Most actual policies allow review of the video if the use of force is involved or if the officer is required to make an official statement. PERF guidelines (and most actual policies) specify that, in the interest of accuracy, the officer should be allowed to view video prior to composing a written report. The assumption that video of a particular event constitutes an unbiased record may be overly simplistic according to studies conducted to evaluate this question (See Appendix B, Video Bias for more detail on this subject.) Biases are always present in the evaluation of video evidence . Policy recommendations that advocate against officer pre-viewing (Constitution Project, Upturn) are concerned with both personal biases and biases inherent to video (as discussed in Appendix B) that would affect conclusions after reviewing the video. On the other hand, personal biases, as well as inaccuracies in human memory in general, are also present in written reports from memory, providing justification for allowing pre-report viewing. 27 Fussel, S idney ... Th.: New T .:ch That Can Tum Polic.: Botlv Cams Into Ni!!hlmarc Sun..:111.inc.: Tools." Gi.::modo . 9 Mar. 2017. 28 Brey Philip. "Cthical ,L~pc.:Ls of facial rc.:oimitiun :;vstcms m public olao.:o.:s." Jo11rnal oflnfonnatio11 , Co111m1111icatio11 and Ethics i11 Society. Vol. 2 Issue: 2, pp. 97-I09, (2004). May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 17 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report Retention of Video Policies generally define retention times for video depending on circumstances. At the end of the retention time the video would be permanently deleted. Recordings that depict use of force, have evidentiary value in ongoing investigations (including allegations of police misconduct), or in trials that may result in appeals require longer retention times. Recordings of traffic stops and other routine interactions would generally be retained for a minimal specified time, such as 45 or 60 days. Below is a sample ofretention times for the Novato Police Department:29 450.4.5 VIDEO FILE RETENTION Digital video recordings shall be downloaded and stored within the Department's video retention system. The use, duplication and/or distribution of video/audio files for anything other than booking a physical copy of a video into evidence for the use in a criminal case requires prior authorization from the system administrator. It shall be the responsibility of the individual officer to download all files that are evidentiary to the assigned server prior to the end of their shift. Video/Audio files which are not of evidentiary value shall be downloaded to the server as soon as practical. The officer is responsible for filling in and completing the category and comment section for each evidentiary video recorded. (a) Any video/audio files downloaded to physical media, including but not limited to CD-ROM, DVD, and or thumb drives, shall be booked into evidence prior to the end of the shift. (b) Employees are prohibited from attaching video/audio files to email. (c) Employees shall not post video/audio videos to the internet (i.e. YouTube or another website or social media) (d) Employees shall not electronically forward or physically remove any video/audio video from the police department, unless a video is being signed out from the evidence section for use in a criminal court case or downloaded for use in traffic Court. (e) Digital video files not associated with an investigation are automatically deleted after one year There is general agreement among policy analysts that the shorter the retention time for ordinary interactions, the better. This would also assist in managing storage costs. Protection of Video Against Tampering or Misuse Policies should be structured to carefully safeguard data from video technology with appropriate data security protocols. Access and editing capability should be strictly defined so as to prevent misuse. Chain of custody (including viewing) should be documented carefully. Third-party contractors (i.e. those managing storage or maintenance) must adhere to the same procedures. All of the policy recommendations prohibit sale or use of video for private purposes or entertainment. All agree there should be penalties for violations of safeguards. Public Release Some policy analysts (ACLU, Upturn, The Constitution Project) feel that video should be available, more or less without restriction, to subjects depicted in the videos, interested parties (counsel , parents/guardians of minors , interested family, subjects recorded, interested press, etc.), and to persons alleging misconduct on the part of the police . Some (PERF/COPS , IACP) say only that video should be subject to a "broad disclosure policy" to promote transparency. Laws on the books that deal with disclosure of public records (the Freedom oflnforrnation Act and many similar state laws) that were enacted before the widespread use of video te chnology are quoted in policies that advocate less restrictive availability. The actual laws that address !9 "Novarn P,)li ~c Portublc \uu10 \ 1tko R,·cn 1 uer\," No vato Police Departm ent. Accessed 25 Apr . 2018 . May 24 , 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 18 of 19 Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report video technology often exempt them from such laws, however. If video is to be released, and if release is considered to be in the public interest, it should be edited so that incidental subjects, victims, minors or confidential informants depicted are not identifiable. If the video is used in trials, the defense must have access to it, just as it would have access to any evidence possessed by the prosecution under the rules of discovery, but the original, unedited video would remain the property of the originating law enforcement agency. In addition to broadening the accessibility, the ACLU policy guidelines assert that exculpatory video that a defendant can reasonably claim was not recorded could be considered tainted evidence even if circumstances can be reasonably shown to account for the failure to record.30 This can be rebutted by the prosecution, so it does not necessarily result in inadmissibility as would be evidence obtained from, say, a patently illegal search. The jury would have to decide on the question. Tf a policy similar to the ACLU model becomes law, it puts additional pressure on the initiation of recording to assure successful prosecutions. This considerably enhances the value of automatic activation of recording. The ACLU guidelines are presented as a model statute however, and there are specificities in detail that exceed most policy guidelines. There is a substantial likelihood that something resembling the ACLU guidelines will be enacted in time. Some states (Washington and Minnesota, among others) have already enacted such laws. The implications of broader public relea~e on the process of editing are substantial and are discussed in the body of the report. 30 ".\ ,vloJcl ;\ct for R.::gulating th.:: Use of Wearable BoJv Cameras bv Law Enforcem<:nt ." ACLU. Accessed on 25 Apr 2018 . May 24, 2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 19 of 19 July 24, 2018 The Honorable Judge Paul Haakenson Marin County Superior Court P.O. Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 Honorable Judge Haakenson Mr. Brown Ron Brown, Foreperson Marin County Civil Grand Jury 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room #275 San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled: "Body-worn Cameras and Marin Law Enforcement: Follow Up Report." We are forwarding to you the following documents: • A copy of Resolution No. 14552 adopted by the San Rafael City Council on July 16, 2018, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the City's response; • Original of the "Response to Grand Jury Report Form," executed by Mayor Phillips on July 23, 2018; • Copy of City Council Staff Report dated July 16, 2018. Should you need further assistance, please contact me at (415) 485-3065. Sincerely, LINDSAY LARA City Clerk cc: Gary 0. Phillips, Mayor of the City of San Rafael Jim Schutz, City Manager Robert Epstein, City Attorney Diana Bishop, Chief of Police CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 1400 FIFTH AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL. CALIFORNIA 94901 ! CITYOFSANRAFAEL.ORG Gary 0. Phillips, Mayor• John Gamblin, Vice Mayor• Kale Colin, Councilmember • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Andrew Cuyugan McCullough, Councilmember