During its Oct. 20 meeting, the Signal Hill City Council discussed and considered approving the police department’s policy on portable audio/video recorders, also known as body-worn cameras.
In introducing the topic, City Manager Charlie Honeycutt presented background information on the Signal Hill Police Department’s (SHPD) use of recording devices, stating that the department has utilized in-car cameras and portable audio recorders since the 1990s and that the use of body-worn cameras is a logical next step to increase transparency and accountability for both police officers and members of the public when the two entities interact in certain circumstances.
“As you will hear in the report,” Honeycutt told the council, “the policy establishes best practices, such as required by state law, and incorporates recommendations by police chiefs associations to address such issues as when the camera should and shouldn’t be used to protect privacy, when to activate and turn off recordings and how video can be used.”
Police Chief Michael Langston then presented the details of the policy, saying that the use of cameras to record officers performing their duties has become part of the culture of the department and has shaped it.
“It was a natural progression for the police department to move to the use of body-worn cameras long before nationwide events…called for law-enforcement officers to wear body-worn cameras while on duty,” Langston said in addressing the council. “That is why today we are ready to fully employ body-worn cameras out in the field, pending your approval of the body-worn camera policy.”
Langston explained that the policy was crafted based on best practices recommended by multiple professional organizations, including the California Police Chiefs Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
He said IACP’s model policy was drafted through a collaborative process involving: law enforcement; prosecutors; defense attorneys; privacy, victim and juvenile advocates; labor and community stakeholders; and numerous federal agencies. Langston also noted that the policy adheres to Assembly Bill No. 69, which Gov. Jerry Brown approved on Oct. 3.
AB 69 requires law-enforcement agencies to consider specified best practices when establishing policies and procedures for downloading and storing data from body-worn cameras, including, among other things, prohibiting the unauthorized use, duplication, or distribution of the data, and establishing storage periods for evidentiary and nonevidentiary data.
The police chief added that the city attorney had also reviewed the policy.
Signal Hill resident Maria Harris sought clarification on a particular section of the policy that states that police department personnel may review footage recorded from one of the cameras as part of “a non-criminal incident.”
“I’m wondering then what a non-criminal incident could be, in the context of this policy,” Harris said.
Langston replied that officers do not always know when a non-confrontational contact with a member of the public will turn into a more confrontational interaction.
“But, generally speaking, out in the public, when there is no real expectation of privacy, they’re going to probably have them on all the time, even with something that’s not specific to a criminal investigation,” Langston said. “That’s a legal statute…allowing officers the ability to record contacts during their duties.”
Councilmember Edward Wilson inquired whether the data will be uploaded automatically or manually, whether additional storage capabilities will be required and whether the data can or will be edited.
“The download is automated,” Langston said. “Essentially, at the end of the shift, the officer will dock the camera into a port, and it will automatically upload into our own servers. We manage our own servers. Regarding servers, we, in planning for this program project, sometime back, added additional storage space and capabilities into those servers. We have plenty of storage space to keep and store all of those data files in house, by ourselves. There is no editing. It’s a tightly controlled system. There is a system administrator with full access. The officers do not have full access. They can’t edit anything on it. Other than adding a tag or a case number to a file at the end of it, they can’t change anything in the file. If there is a need to redact something, the system administrator would do any type of redacting in that regard.”
Councilmember Tina Hansen asked if it will be noted in police reports that the officers were donning the body-worn cameras and if the resulting data will be submitted as discovery evidence.
Langston responded by saying that police reports do indeed note when officers use body-worn cameras, in-car cameras and audio-recording devices. He also said that data from the cameras are submitted as evidence when requested.
Councilmember Lori Woods asked Langston if the department is implementing the cameras as a trial or distributing them to all field officers for use now.
Langston said that currently all officers are using them but the implementation is in a field-test phase so that any IT problems or “bugs” can be worked out.
“Our understanding at this point is that we are likely to be the very first agency in Los Angeles County to have body-worn cameras fully deployed to all of their field personnel,” Langston said.
The city council unanimously voted to approve the police department’s policy on portable audio/video recorders.
Bond expenditure agreement
The former redevelopment agency (RDA) had issued a bond called the Signal Hill Redevelopment Project No. 1, 2011 Tax Allocation Parity Bond in March of 2011 in the amount of $8,835,000 to be used for the construction of the Civic Center Phase 2 project. With the dissolution of redevelopment, RDAs were not allowed to spend bonds.
Because the State Legislature approved SB 107 on Sept. 11, the Signal Hill Successor Agency to the RDA may now use the bond funds for its intended purpose. On Tuesday night, the Successor Agency voted to transfer the bond funds to the City so that it may administer them for the Civic Center Phase 2 project, which includes the construction of a new library.
Verification of quorum
Staff sought verification of whether a minimum of three city council members would be present for the scheduled Nov. 24 council meeting, since it occurs during Thanksgiving week. Three council members did indeed indicate that they would be present for the meeting. Therefore, the Nov. 24 city council meeting will remain scheduled.
