tv Police Commission 102115 SFGTV October 24, 2015 2:00am-4:01am PDT
really what's underneath the surface . that's what i try to get at when i do my clay. the camaraderie that we have here. we have students that have been for for many many years. we have students here for the first time. we share our skills, our formulas. this is how we learn. how did you do that? let me show you. that's the attitude that the students and the teachers have here. it's a really wonderful nurturing place. ladies and ge chair called the meeting to order. please have a seat. thank you. can we all please rise for the pledge of
allegiance? >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> madam plez president may i call roll? >> parenthesisdants lofts, here. vice prez dns therman, here. commissioner marshal, here. commissioner dejesus, here. commissioner wang, here. commissioner mu larta. madam president you have a quarm. also with us this evening is chief of police, gregory suhr
and joyce hicks andgeny kim >> welcome to the october 21 police commission meeting. i want to thank the salvation army crock sents frr allowing us to be in this beautiful space. and given all of us have day jobs and this meeting starts at 6 a shout out to the tenderloin station folks and [inaudible] catering. for those catching at home you don't get to avail yourself for the sandwiches but those who just got here it is wonderful. [inaudible] i also have to say this is the second community meeting we had the tenderloin in the last few months but these are the meeting specifically dedicated to 1
subject so want to let you know we were here on redistricting and now on body worn camera. we'll come back to have a tenderloin focus meeting purely. we have been here but it is always on specific subjects so anxious to come and hear about the issues in theteneder loin but grateful you are hosting us. since this is a community meeting my colleagues will share a little about their background and who they are before we get starte. i'll start with commissioner mazzucco >> thank you very much. ime rar partner in a law firm in san francisco called [inaudible] prior to that i spent 19 years as a state and federal prosecutor and native san franciscan and been on the commission all most 8 year jz my wife and i have raised our 2 children in this great city so
look forward what you have to say >> my name is victor wong, for those here from the tl i am known as mr. ivy league. i am the deputy director of legal out reach, we are the largest provider of the legal service in immigration, domestic violence and human traffics. i also worked as a da in san francisco and as a public defender in la >> pet prudejesus and also a attorney and work with the plaintiffs firm now and used to be a public defender in san francisco and also a native. i am always glad to be in the >> can you hear? >> native san franciscan and on the commission about 7 year jz always glad to come to the tenderloin and having din rb so thank you for coming and hearing your ideas regarding
the body worn cameras >> my name is julius turman. i wish i could say i'm not a lawyer, but i am. i am a partner at the law firm of read smith and practice labor and employment. thank you for having us here. >> commissioner marshal >> you met all the lawyer jz can meet the 2 that are not. [inaudible] former employee of san francisco unified school district. >> sonia melara and the executive drether director [inaudible] at saint francis haupt and on the faculty of san francisco state university and live in the tair vel. >> suzy lofts and work at the california attorney generals office. i used to a prosecutor
in san francisco and worked at bay view helping to speak to children as [inaudible] i am a native san franciscan and my husband and i are raising our 3 kids in the outer sunset. so, today just wanted to orient everyone to how we got here. many know-thank you everyone who is taking time to share your opinion. this is what this is about. the process started some months ago where the commission asked the defarmt to convene a working group that had a bunch of stake holders to look at the policy paper squz various policy squz make recommendations about what body worn camera policy we will adault. that work happened over summer and met 6 times and presented to us september. we had a community meeting in the western addition in september
and this is our second and final meeting. now we are hear to listen, the policy is on the website. you will hear a presentation so if you are not expert you don't have to be because the demarmt will present on the evolution of the policy and what some of the igues are and will hear from the folks on the working group where there wasn't agreement so you will hear both sides and we continue to hear from that. for those here sharing your opinions we will not deliberate or act on the policy. we are plang to dliperate and talk about it on the november 4 meeting and hopefully have a final action squejed for the meeting in december at which point the policy goes fl to the labor and negotiation process. just by way of orientation that is where we are. iologist shared one update with my colleagues which is ab 69 was passed and signed by the
governor which does implicate guidelines for body worn cam raw policies. the city attorney will advice us and work with the department to know how that implicates the policy we have and it is our charge to comply with state law. commissioners you have that in the packet and with with that i like to invite [inaudible] from the tenderloin. thank you captain >> hello thank you for coming. [inaudible] i like to welcome [inaudible] police commission. president loftus, commissions, chief suhr. director hicks of the office of citizen complaints, supervisor kim. i like to thank the salvation
army for allowing us to the use the facility and [inaudible] for providing the food and copy and water. i will not make a presentation regarding body cameras but january 20 of next year we'll have the presentation again and promise i get to talk again a lot. at this time i would like to turn it over to commander mozeier for his presentation. >> thank you. thank you captain. presidents loftus, commissioners, supervisor kim, chief surh, director hicks and members of the public. i'm commander mozeier and was one of the 3 cochairs of the body camera working group that worked to give the draft policy
that we have here tonight that we will discuss. what i will do here is just give a overview of the process, how the group was formed, what we did in terms of the methodology in developing the draft policy and walk you through the meetings and some of the issues we discussed throughout the meetings and some of the areas where we didn't have consensus, so hopefully you'll get a idea how the process played out. next slide, please. on april 30, 2015 mayor lee, chief suhr and president loftus announced additional funds over the next 2 budget psycholts are set aside for body worn cameras for the deapartment. on may 13
president loftus directed the department to establish a working group for the purchase of developing a bodty worn cam raw policy. president loftus also gave the department and working group the task of presenting a policy for consideration by the commission within 90 days. it was a very aggressive timeline and we knew we had a lot of work. present loftus additionally directed the group to vet any potential or potentially consenshs issues and provide alternative viewpoinlts where they might exist. we realize going through a complex policy there will be areas where the group may not come to consensus and in those cases, we were directed to present both sides to the commission for the consideration. next slide, please. on may 13, the working group was formed and it
included representatives from the police department, the office of citizens complaints, the public defenders office, the sf bar association, aclu rks human right commission recollect department of human resources, a community representative, the s f police officers association, the officers for justice, sf pride alliance, the national latino peace officers association, the asian peace officer slgz and womens police officer association. i like to point out severeral members of the working group are here tonight. they have been at this meeting and several were at the first public meeting of the body camera in the northern and they were also at the police commission meeting as well. i ask any member nofz working group that participated if you can stand up real quick so the group can see you. [applause]
again, that thank you for coming and thank you for the hard work and time you put in on the process to get us where we are today. next slide, please. on june 2 the group met for the first meeting. we put out several documents to the group prior to meeting for consideration so we would have a background on some of the model policies and issues out there prior to coming to the table. some of the policies we put out were oakland police department, la policy, san diego pd policy, the aclu white paper on body worn camera jz puff doj model policy. we also came to the table with
basically a draft document that included what we felt were some the main components of a body worn camera policy to start discussion among the group. our first meeting we talked about the purpose and policy and you go through the body worn cam raw policy which is posted on line, it is on the police commissions website and the link from the police department website. you see the sections that i am referring to. we talked about the purpose of the body worn camera was or should be. we went into the policy which talked about the use of equipment that basically it was going to be depermanent issued and approved body worn camera and who would administer the training and the program
administer in the department who is the administer for the body worn camera program and what that entails such as tracking and training and inven tory of the cameras and [inaudible] in addition in the first meeting we scheduled future meetings to comply with president loft ust timeline of 90 days. at that time we scheduled our meetings for every other tuesday for 2 hours. it important to note these were allope toon the public. all of the notes, minutes and draft policies from each step of the way in each meeting we had were all posted on the commissions website and available for the public to see at each step of the way. next slide, please. on june 16 the body worn camera working group
met for a second time. we adopted the minutes from the previous meeting and talked about section 3 of the policy, which covers the set up and maintenance. basically talks about when a officer or member was starting his or her shift what their responsibilities would be, what they would do if they found a damaged to a camera, so on and so forth. then we talked about ken consent, the idea of cunl sent from a citizen to film. we talked about authorized use, when officers shall record and turn them on can be found on page 2 of the body worn camera policy. then we talked about when officers shouldn't record as well in that meeting and that is found on page 2 and 3
of the body worn camera policy. next slide, please. also on that same meeting we discussed the idea of continuous recording. basically there are 2 viewpoints, one was that body worn cameras should be on all times or body worn cameras should be only in certain times. [inaudible] the officers should not be required to have a bodo worn camera on for the entire shift. what the group felt is the listed circumstances presented in the draft policy would be essential to cap chrture what the group felt was necessary information or footage that officer should capture without compromiseing public safety. we looked at the balance of privacy right
and individual community members with obtaining footage in the essential areas and felt the policy strauck a balance and if we maintain for those services that would susuffice. june 30 was the third meeting and in that meeting we worked off the previous draft as i mention before. each meeting we ent along we revice the draft policy and then work off the previous draft, put our draft up from the previous meeting on the website as well as our minutes and notes. in that meeting we talked about more about-we went back to the purpose and we changed-made a change in the actual wording; we referred to body worn
cameras as [inaudible] and moved to the body worn camera, with the current vernacular. if you look at previous draft policies from the first you notice the difference and that is the reason, it was to keep up with the currents vernacular. in that meeting we again talked about the termation of recordings. when a officer could turn off a camera in a incident opposed to actually not toning it on at all. that would be also on page 3, section e. then we got into the discussion of the viewing of the footage of body worn cameras. basically we had the discussion if officers should be allowed to view the recording prior to writing a incident report. this is the first time in the process we
did chbt get complete cuns snss from the group in keeping with president loftus and commissions directives we presented both sides of the issues in our note section and in the accompany minutes of that particular meeting. next slide, please. july 14 we met for the 4th time. again, we again discussed the viewing of body worn recordings. again at that point we still hadn't come to consensus. we moved on to the documentation when and how officers document the usage of body worn cameras. we talked about the use of recordings and duplication and distribution
under what circumstances would camera footage be duplicated, whom it is distributed to and also talked about retention time and misconduct and procedures that the department would follow in those cases. also, in that meeting the day prior i received a letter from the aclu that day prior to the meeting and invited to attend had meetings the aclu was unable to participate but sent a letter with thoughts and concerns. being we just received the letter prior to the meeting we put that on the ajnda for the next meeting so the group has sufficient time the read the letter and digest
the contents. july 28 we all our 5th meeting and in that meeting again we discussed the issue of the viewing of body worn cameras and discussed again, whether a officer should be allowed to view the video before writing a routine or basic incident record and number 2, prior to being interviewed for a administrative or crimial investigation. next slide, please. technical difficulties i think. there we go. in the -we discuzed the aclu letter dated on the 13th. in that letter one the main concerns
that the working group had was there was a comment that the aclu felt the working group hadn't delivered transparency in full debate. invited to the working groups, the aclu wasn't able to attend and the group felt given the format and set up the meetings and they were public meetings that all our materials were made public each step the way we felt that we had in fact fully complied with the public process. next slide, please. on august 11 we met for the 6th time and in that meeting again we had the discussion regarding the viewing of the footage. again, we had discussion on what an
immediate investigation would entail, how that would play out in terms of viewing of video by officers prior to making a statement or writing a report. again, after that meeting we had not come to consensus and we included notes in the draft policy that we presented to the police commission as well as our minutes. another area we had discussion is regarding retention. the majority of the working group felt a 2 year retention time for recording should be a minimum. the original recommendation was 1 year retention time, but the group also recommended that a comprehensive cost benefit analysis should be conducted prior to determining any type of retention length because that is definitely important for including in the equation when you talk about how long to keep a video as storage cost
are directly related to become expensive from year to year. it is important to get actual cost benefit analysis and determine that prior to making that decision. next slide, please. also in that meeting director hicks presented a report that had just been released by the office of inspector general, the nypd and it was suggested and mentioned that this recommendation in this report also be added to the packet of information we present today the police commission so they could include that when they make their decision process. during that meeting we updated the draft policy to reflect changes we made on the final day which was august 11 and we all agreed upon the changes that woe made
that change in that meeting and you see the final draft was dated august 11 which is that day we met. next slide, please. on that day we took a vote and the members of the working group votedue maninously to present that draft policy to had police commission. the members present as you can see were commander osullivan, myself, officer boothd from the pride alliance, lieutenant night knight from womens peace officer [inaudible] officer mar cez from latin peace officer nob [inaudible] deputy public defender rebecca young and martin grant from department of human resources. next slide, please. so, in summary, there
were two main areas as i mentioned where the group didn't have consensus and it really they actually incompass one another. those were whether officers should be allowed to view the video prior to writing a police report and before being interviewed for administrative investigation and also what determines immediate investigation and what a immediate investigation is and how they plays into the viewing of the video so they were one in the same of those 2 areas. next slide, please. the formal presentation of the draft policy to the police commission occurred on september 2 of this year and as a result of that presentation the commission had a few areas of concerns and question. some of those areas i'll highlight.
one was section c and that is under authorized use and the question was, should language be included that directs a officer to activate the body worn camera prior to the listed circumstances? whether vehicle pursuits should be listed in section c under the specified instances when auchser shall turn on the camera. whether officers are required to make notifications to citizens when they turn on the camera. next slide, please. commission also had questions regarding the retention time for the body worn recordings. public records [inaudible] sunshine ordinance request adding language to the policy that identify the
circumstances when body worn cameras are released pursuant to public records act. in addition, whether or not consequences should be added into the policy regarding any lack of compliance to had policy that is specifically outlined within the body of the policy above and beyond the departments discipline process established. section e, termation of record squgz the fact that language may need to be more specific about the circumstances when a officer can terminate and turn off a camera in certain instances. next slide , please. that concludes the formal powerpoint presentation to give a over view how it policy was crafted and some of the main issues of
the policyism at this time i invite the commissioner tooz return to their seats on the podium and i am going to call forward two members the working group for a very brief 3 minute presentation a piece and each member the working group will discuss each side of the issue of the viewing of the video and i would like to start first with marty [inaudible] president of the poa. [applause] >> thank you commander. presents loftus, can you hear me? my name is marty halren and president of san francisco police officers association. the position the poa has been and continues to be the members shed be allowed to view the
footage prior to writing a incident report or provide a statement to a investigator. it comes down to this, the members of the poa want to produce the most accurate, thorough and complete report before submitting it. the policy in the sfpd is members shall seek out videos whether it is be from citizens on i phones or buildings or any other type of video that is fixed on a building or a public place. they need to view the footage before they write the incident report and conduct the interview the victim jz witnesses and sus spects. we believe that is the best practice in san francisco, so having the members actually view the video from the camera they are carrying on their person makes complete and total sense. i don't understand why it should be done differently. i do there are organizations
out there that believe the footage should not be viewed by the officer before they submit a incident report or statement. the problem that will arise here in srf especially at the most critical ensdant, officer involved shooting or in custody death, thaes are statements the members provide to the investigator squz the is practice to provide the voluntary statements to give a most complete, transapparent and thorough statement to the investigators so they can submit the proper report. if they are not allowed to view the footage they will be advised by the counsel not to provide that voluntary statement. i believe this will be les transapparent, it will take a step backwards here in san francisco, our members are afforded their rights under the peace officer bill of right so having this in the policy where we view the footage before
submitting report we believe is the best practice. the largest police department in the state of california that have body cameras in place, including la, oakland, san josay [inaudible] they rulowed to view the footage or shall view the footage before they submit a incident report chblt lapd never provide a voluntary statement in a officer involved shooting which sends the investigation over to administration and the administration investigation could chempel a interview but thatvert view cannot be used against the officer if there was wrong doing by the officer. we have a better policy in place in san francisco and we are more open and transparent and believe we need to continue down that road. there are a number of official reports out there on both sides. i do want to mention one that has
implementing body worn camera program. this is jointly authored by the u.s. department of justice office of community ornted policing services and the police executive research forum. this is a extensive study that included over wn00 law enforcement agencies throughout the country on a local, state and federal level. i will read one section out of this. the rational for reviewing footage prior to submitting a report. reviewing footage help officers remember the incident clearly which leads to accurate documentation of events. the goal is to find the truth. by letting officers have all evidence at the event. we believe that makes sense. i also had submitted this to the commission at the last meeting, this is a report from university of southern
california professor dan sumoan . believes officers should be allowed to view the fotage. i won't read the whole report but there are a number of reports out there that indicate it is sth best practice and we believe it is best practice and have a number of the members from the poa here that will speak under comment. we don't want to take a step backward and want to continue to let the officers view any and all footage including body worn camera footage. thank you >> at this point i would like to ask director hicks to come forward. >> welcome director hicks. >> thank you and someone can
adjust this microphone down a little bit for me, please. yes. thank you. good evening, joyce hicks direct of the office of citizen complaint and good evening to the police commission and members the audience, chief suhr. i was a member of the body worn camera working group and you heard me recommending officers not review the video footage before giving a statement. prestatement video review has been a subject of debate in many jurisdictions that have considered adoption of body worn cameras. i would like to [inaudible] reviewing body worn camera footage prestatement or interview. the first [inaudible] review when the perception of theophorouser is in grl to the investigation.
if a officer is allowed to revooa video prior to giving a statement or interview in a critical incident where physiological changes like tunnel vision or situational deafness could occur, the video then becomes incorporated into the auchsers memory and the officers memory of what occurred is contaminated. the officers not lying about he or she experienced, instead the officer is unintentionally provided misinformation due to memory contamination. this is the science of memory addressed in research in articles by among others. elez beth loftus and articles by cathy [inaudible] both social psychocallgistment this has nothing do with the gotia game. i provided a index of article and references on body worn
camera jz how officer review of video footage can impact the memory of event. today i provided the commission with 3 articles one a article by attorney [inaudible] entitled what happened to perception of the officer. he conclude allowing a office to view the video prior to writeic a report or participating in a interview in serious use of force cases in particular is a serious mistake particularly for the office and his or agency. the most important part of a investigation is the officers ability to articiate his or her perception of the incident not match his or her perception to a recorded video. eric daigal is a former defective with connecticut state police and as a lawyer he represents police
officers. the second exception to officers reviewing videos is when the officer is subject to crimial or internl investigation. developing the body camera department order i sedge the police commission review the oakland, fullerton and san jose police department body worn camera policy. each of those policy prohibit officer from reviewing the video prior to making statements or giving a interview in critical insden. san jose policy giveathize chief discretion to permit prestaimentd or [inaudible] unless authorized by either internal affairs or the criminal investigation division personnel. that concludes my remarks. thank you. [applause]
>> anything further? >> in this point in the presentation i believe we'll open up to public comment so i would ask members the public to line up on this side of the room and--2 minutes? >> so, thank you commander for the thorough presentation how we got here. appreciate it. sergeant can you call the next line item? >> public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding iletms that do not appear on tonight ajnda and within the subject matter jurisdiction. speakers shall address remark tooz the commission as a whole and not individual commissioners or
departments or occ personnel. under police commission rules of order, during public comment neither police or occ personnel nor commissions are required to respond to questions presented by the public, but may provide a brief response. individual commissioner squz police and occ personnel should refrain however, from entering into any debate or discussion with speakers during public comment. please limit your comment to 2 minutes. >> good evening and welcome >> police commissioners i like your permission to present a plaque to the police commander.
so, the north of market murnants residence and property owners congratulation the officers and command staff of company j on 15 years of community service and the creation the tenderloin police station and police district. the reason why we are congratulating is because of crime decreasing and the community policing policies that have a positive impact within our community. thank you. representing the plaque on october 21 on behalf of north of market business association and again back in 2000 of october is when we opened up the police station on eddy street, 301 eddy so hope you can find somewhere in the place station wall for this. i kept it in plastic so i don't
get my finger prints on it. [applause] >> michael is very-since i took over 4 months ago he gives me a lot of props, but he is very important to tenderloin and in the area around eddy. thaupg thank you very much. it is very sweet of you and for all the officers at the tenderloin station. >> welcome and good evening. >> commissioner members of the command staff, i stand before you as the president of the officers for justice. the position of the [inaudible] is we are in full support of police personnel viewing the video captured by the body worn camera prior to doing police report [inaudible] another form of evidence for the officer squz the citizens. most
midgeer law enforcement agencies do allow police officers to view the video prior to writing their police reports. this policy insures that the first time the public receives the accurate account of a incident. you called for transparency and that is what we seek is transparency for all. under conditions of heightened stress which can happen to many of us at any time at a incident the accuracy and articles of memory tend to get distorted. it isn't intentional or a attempt to deceive the public, it is human instinks and how we associate and deal with trauma. as a member of the critical response team for the san francisco police department i personally tell you there is a variance in time, visual, hearing and memory, when we go to calls that are traumatic incident.
our coping mechanism is that we try to disassociate in those stressful events so we can go to the next one. the video serves as a secondary eye witness allowing grating accuracy in the police reports and assist in softballing crimes far more quickly than we have in the past. if you truly support transparency you will support the trance paerns to insure your police officers are also able to utilize all evidence that is available the first time we write the report. thank you very much. >> thank you sergeant. >> my name is paulette brown. i'm here concerning my son abrey [inaudible] he was murdered august 14, 2006. it is 9 years since he has been
murdered and his case is still not solved. it is a cold case. i still am as a mother seeking justice for my son. next year will be a decade for me and i have been out on the battle field for 9 years. 9 years for a mother to be out there doing the job of others. but i will continue to do this. i also fight for other mothers and fathers who lost their children to homicide. we stand together. there are too many unsolved cases here in san francisco. people like myself need to heal. these cases need to be solved. i always carry my pictures with me because i want people to see how i feel.
i can talk it all the time but if you see how i feel you understand what i talk about. you don't want to stand over your childs casket grieving. this is what the murdserings left me with. my sons body decaying on a table at a funeral home. if i have to come up for the rest of my life and continue to do this until my sons case is solved if it ever gets solved, i don't know, but i think there should be more evidence. instead of someone saying we are waiting for more witnesses. what about probable cause? there are other ways we can have the witnesses come forth so i with heal because i'm in pain every day and die daily. >> thank you mrs. brown. anyone watching at home has
information for obruobcosa there is a anonymous tip line, it is 415-575-4444. please use that and share information you have. thank you mrs. brown. good evening mrs. young >> good evening members of the commission, police command staff and memberoffs the public. >> can you speak into the mic? >> a speak tont as a member of the body worn camera work group which presenting this draft policy to had commission. i spoke at the first police commission public hearing on this and speak tonight again in favor of subdivision f of the draft policy which specifies carve outs for when a officer may not view a body worn camera video prior to either providing a statement or writing a report. it is with some dismay
tonight i listen to people comment without detail and without specifically making a distinction between a officer involved critical incident or officer involved shooting or where a officer is subject of administrative investigation and knorue teen police call. there must in the mind the public as well as the commission have a distinction be drawn between these things. there are limited carve outs in the draft policy for when a officer should not be permitted to view the body worn camera video prior to making a statement or write agreport. these are narrow and specific, they are carefully throughout through and sent to the police commission unanimously. so, what is the point of having
body worn cameras at all? why is there a cry for this to be implemented in police departments across the country? is it merely to satisfy the public fl transparency and accountsability in the police department or provide the community a more open accountable public servants in the police officers? the draft policy sent to the commission opens with the line, the use of body worn cameras is effective tool a law enforcement agency can use to demonstrate commitment to transparency insure accountability of the members >> thank you. >> thank you. >> feel free to submit additional. >> i ask the commission be
committed to the opening statement in the draft policy. >> thank you. [applause] >> good evening. [inaudible] san francisco public defenders office and chair of racial justice committee at the san francisco public defenders office. i also served as a alturninate on the task force. what i like to narrow my focus is on subdivision f and address the concerns of the poa and police department in that this isn't a got you type form of addressing the writing after viewing the video. what needs to be focused on is there can be supplemental report written in response to viewing surveillance video after the original report is written.
that gives a perfect tonight opportunity to give a full report and doesn't take away perceptions the officers have without video. when you look at the studies mentioned before by the occ with regards to elizabeth loftus and individuals that look at memory, officers lose out on a lot of information that is missed because they have reviewed video prior to writing. there is nothing wrong with a oser writing a supplemental report to give a full stailt of what aaoccurred with their own percension squz viewing video later. it won't be abuseed by the defense attorneys to get them in a got you situation. we deal with this all the time. they will be fairly treated in the sense of present agfull report at one time even after viewing the
video at a later circumstance. i also thank the carve outs in subdivision f are a reasonable compromise of the situation between no video at all or under certain circumstances. thank you. [applause] >> good evening clyde >> this vexing between the poa and the occ. i side with the poa. the officer should be allowed to view the film. there are cameras out front. if a crime happens out there the officer gets to look at it before they make a decision what to do. he should be able toview to bring back exactly what happened. i side with you marty. >> thank you. good evening and welcome mr. frost
>> thank president loftus, commissioner, chief sur, director hicks, command staff and member thofz san francisco police department and ladies and gentlemen. i would like to apologize for appearing before you like this. i am a retired officer from the san francisco police department and did over 31 years and retired as a lutenent at central station. i'm on 3 boards and president of the [inaudible] presidents of law enforcement bay urarea and a entertainment commissioner but tonight i'm here speaking object on behalf of myself chblt i did 10 years on the swat team and about the same amounts of time with the critical response team going out to the scenes where officers were involved in
traumatic incidences. as part the swat team after every incident we did a debrief and there were times i realized i had done something that fsh different than the original plan and couldn't figure why. during the debrief i bring that up for a trainer purpose so maybe the time it won't happen and it is brought to my attention that someone saw something and it remind me that is whoi i made that room. that is why i think it is important officers have the right to view the video footage to help them write that report because i'm sorry, but when a lawyer says they won't use this, prosecutor squz defense attorneys will be remisif they didn't point out the inconsistencies between prior testimony or video from what they officer says. the
officers are in a traumatic experience when they go through this stuff and they need to be able to write that accurate report and the way they can do that is viewing the video. thank you. >> thank you and good evening. >> alan frame. i don't have particular affiliation just here as a citizen. i am here to speak about the policy again about officer writing a initial report before viewing the camera footage when there is a allegation of improper use of force, misconduct or in custody death or officer involved shooting. after taking statements before viewing footage is critical and pornts for the accountability and community trust. viewing the video before writing a report allows for potential
manipulation even accidental. even if this were never to happen, [inaudible] help insure it dozen and thereby increase the publics caufds in the police force. a officer statement of what happed will not always perfectly match the video footage every time. occasionm honest mistake or misinterpretation och events are likely. humans make mistake. a policy that prohibits prior review doesn't mean disciplining officers for any omission or discrepancy between a officer first account and the camera footage. sfpd should not deal with the natural discrepancies by allowing officer to review the footage to taylor the statements. there is nothing in this proposal that reduces the visibility or transparency. the officer can always make
and probably will be expect today make a follow up report after view thg video. this in fact is another aspect of transparence. whautd was on the officers mind as they took the action that they did? without this policy we don't know that. i firmly believe the vast majority of videos will show officer acting properly and demonstrating professionalism, brave yae and restraint in the process. [inaudible] >> thank you. we want to make sure there is time for everyone. thank you. [applause] good evening. my name is bruce glassner. i'm not a member of any organization that is represented here tonight. i have never been arrested, i only had positives experiences with the police mpts i am a attorney but a civil law attorney. that said, i have
sued police officers, i also represented police officers. i have no agenda here tonight. i oppose the preview policy that is being discussed tonight and the basis for my opposition is that the issue is what the officer interpreted at the time of the event. the video camera foodage won't help with that interpretation. the video camera footage will help with the reinterpretation of whether the officers construction of those events and reaction to those events was ree reasonable. officers involved in such incidents are not permitted to canvas the scene and collect witness statement before writing report. neither are complainants and that is as it should be. the body camera
is one more witness. the camera shows much but it doesn't show all and allowing officers to view the footage first before writing reports to conform their reports deliberately to what the camera did or did not record is wrong. a officer is more candidate if the officer doesn't know what was or was not picked up by the camera. it seems unfair to deny the officer access to footage when trying to give a complete and accurate account and for this reason the officer should be allowed to view the footage after completing the report and amending the rortd as necessary. thank you. >> thank you so much. good evening and welcome. >> hello everyone. my name is rebecca. it is very important
that the official police report exists independently of the body camera footage. they should not reflect one another. i studied documentary film in college and one thing i kudied is documentary film inherently is is not 100 percent truth. just because you are taking the 3 dimensional world and put it am to a square it is 2 dimensional there are things that are pick pd up by moo rophone and is important to me police give their report from their memory and the footage exist independently and both compared in a supplemental report drawn up after the fact. i don't see why it is big deal to do it that way. [applause] >> good eve chck.
evening. >> hi. thank you. my name is chelsy dakota i'm a member of the public. i in favor of making officers job easier, but not at the expense of justice. now more than ever people want transparency from police officers. allowing officers to review footage prior to writing their reports may seem harmless but this leaves the mechanism originally intended to keep officers in check open to abuse. it runs counter to the image of transparency. mostf the officers don't abuse the position of authority and xhilt today keep us safe, hounch it, it only takes one individual to destroy live jz drag sfpd's reputation in the dirt. when the officers has chbt committed wrung doing the body camera
footage should be presented as separate account of events. i'm teeured of this environment of police auchsers versus the community. i want to know a officers report which is taken as a true and accurate depiction of devents isn't taylored to fit what is on the video footage. it is because of loop hopes like that that allow for a few bad apples to abuse the position of power and instill a deep lack of trust in the community. i want traens paerns and accountability and know sfpd is doing everything they can to have the most upstanding individuals. i believe [inaudible] bridge the gap between police officers and the community. [applause] >> welcome to the next speaker and good evening.
>> good evening commissions and members of the pub look. my name is star child, out reach director for city of san francisco. i have problemwise the report as written. i think that the criticisms voiced by the members of the public defenders office you heard and members of the public are well taken. i also have concernwise the process. the committee clearly stacked in favor of law enforcement. the working group. the public was clearly not given adequate opportunity to participate in the working group or knowledge this was go ogen. in fact, one other member the public who spoke tonight signed up for e-mails from the police commission to be notified of meetings and neither of us got a notice orphthis meeting. i don't think there is adequate transparency. to the officer from the officers for justice group who says she wants transparency, i ask whether she
would support and her group would support making the videos available to the public. if she wants transparency the videos should go to the public right away and anybody who wants transparency should be in favor. if you are not in faiv of the public to see the vid yoze you are not in favor och transparency. there is also other poins in here tat are raised by rebecca young at the september 2 meeting. one of which i feel is important in particular. there is no riteria given for when a superior officer can order a officer to turn off a camera. the public i think is justly concerned not just in this city but across the country about police abuse and it is more and more of a problem and adopting body worn cannel rus will do nothing to address the concern squz ameliorate anger and
distrust in the police nms we have a strong policy that is absolutely clear even to those concerned about cisc libertys and mistrust for police up front there is full transparency and accountability. thank you. >> thank you star child. >> hell o. my name is [inaudible] with the counsel on american islamic relationsism we are pleased for thudaupgds of bod ecams and in doing so you xhilt yourself to be open with the public and insure a honest police departments. body cameras are a step in the right direction we recommend 2 provisions be added. prohibiting police review of footage before making a statement after-a officer vaurfbed shooting or
misconduct. the second suggestion is provide clear guide lines for release oof camera footage to the public. the concern with allowing police officers to watch the video before the initial statement is it could potentially intepgzly or unintention lael change the offices memory of the event. cities of san jose and [inaudible] ban seeing the footage [inaudible] we recommend that the sfpd should adopt the policy that prohibited prestatement review of the camera footage and establish clear criteria for release of footage as well. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. truese a[inaudible] i also a member of
the working group and representative from had san francisco bar association and i also sit on the task force and criminal justice reform for san francisco bar association. i want to say i think all the comment so far have been thoughtful from both perspectives. one thing i thing that has gotten lost is conttrary to what you heard is there was consensus among the working group. we started from position where some folks believed no officer review ever. versus what i think has to become a [inaudible] position in those limited circumstances where some may say a all use of force cases or at least in the carve out where there is a officer involved shooting and death or the officer is the subject of a crimial investigation. i think that is really the point is we have to come to a compromise and should look to the jurisdictions we are most like.
richmond, oakland, who do not allow review before write agreport. i won't repeat what the other folks said. the last point i do want to make is that if there is a lot of talk about the gotio moment and sometimes i think we have it be careful where fr what you wish for. if you think there should be officer review, i have been a defense lawyer for a long time and there are pit falls for allowing officer review because once the officer reviews the video if we come to a compromised position that office is subject to a details cross examination of is that what you saw or what you think you saw. this isn't rocket science [inaudible] i think the
public at the end of the day does believe there shouldn't be review in those situations. thank you. >> next speaker. >> speaking as a citizen of san francisco, business owner and astrophysics degree from san francisco state. not bias about the situation more just a pragmatist. if the problem is looking to protect those that protect and serve in order for them not to feel pigeon holed and if there is evidence for what the video is showing and maybe there is discrepancy with someone under a lot of pressure, sure that is a risk, but those officers we care about and understand the stress they go through and have been represented fully by our money and by the system in place and
have seen that indeed most of the time a lot of the you could say, a lot of the favors giveren to the police officers hands. so, what is the point of having body cameras if the police office will be able to look at it? it doesn't give dimension or anymore to the situation to be able to see if this is a bad apple and the police officer shouldn't be protecting and serving. if the goal is protect and serve why don't we try to weed out the office rbs have a obvious discrepancy or bias not having the intentions of being a true officer to serve the people and protect the people. it becomes very obvious and should make a clear distinction to not allow office rb tooz view the video
if they are a part of a allerication of violence or under question for being brought to court. we should make that distinction and certainly should absolutely not allow officer tooz see the video if they are in question. thank you. >> thank you. good eerfbening >> good evening. my name is brian nukeer a san francisco police officer and [inaudible] served as a member of the panel of body worn cameras. currently [inaudible] now, one thing field training officer teach new officericize part of police work is prepare a
complete and accurate police report. how can we prepare the reports if we can't review all information for the reports? dollar thereis no difference to a officer taking on a subject trying to arrest them and that subject throwing punches at the officer, there is no difference season surveillance footage of the wall to the camera on the officers chest. it is evidence that needs to be seen immediately fl those reports. we need to be teaching new officers that if you prepare a report all evidence needs to be in the initial report, not a supplemental report. i hope the citizen thofz city are prepared to pay with lack of officers if you want us to write supplementing reports because that is less officers on the street because we keep writing report y. urge the police commission if you want
accurate and complete reports please let officers review all evident such as body worn cameras. thank you 6789 . >> matthew cal hann from mern civil [inaudible] counsel on islamic american relations and asian americans advancing justice urge the commission to make 2 chairchgs to the the draft policy mpsh first we urge a prohibition on the statement of camera footage of officers involved in [inaudible] including a categorical commitment to hanner request fl subject of the footage and proactive xhilt to release footage such as officer involved shootings. turn toog the first change, we urge the commission to prohibit
prestatement review of footage by officer because critical incidence such as officer involved shootings, serious use of force and misconduct are moments between the police and public require the most care and attention. without the perception of fairness and without treaticophorousers the same as we would a witness or someone giver agstatement in any other case we risk the public trust irfb favor of a perception the police are getting a special streelt and the police statements are aumentered intentionally or unintentionly to match what they see in the footage. that combined with clear guidelines for public release would realize the goals of accountability and transparency and insure the hard work of the working group and police commission put into had camera policy isn't entirely wasted.
thank you so much. [applause]. >> good eerfcken. [inaudible] walter scott [inaudible] can you tell me your sons name again? i say these names because this isn't a bloodless conversation or policy. you need to be aware what we are diss cussing now. i want to repeat the recommendations-my name is nodia [inaudible] activist with electronic frontier foundation and my office is down the street from here and live in san francisco in the mission district and i see police interacting with the public daily. i want to just first of all say that i agrie where the other suggestions you have gotten, the 2 suggestions there needs to be a clear path
for public access to the the video and no review the video before a statement is given when there is a serious incident [inaudible] body camera recommendation policy board this is something we looked at a lot and the fact is body cameras can be a useful tool for accountability but they need to have very strisk policies. striking the balance isn't easy and without policies enplace body cameras can be used for [inaudible] and police cover up. in addition to the concerns about the public access to the video and access to video is not a settled matter of law. saying it is released is insufficient. you need to get rid of officer review. there need to be clear rules in place to use the cameras for surveillance and
there needs to be failure without turning on the camera. [inaudible] look at the oakland police department and independent monitor review and what they have said. they said without consequences they don'ts see thecome rus used. it is only recently they have consequences for not turning on the ram rus. >> thank you for holding this hearing. my name is art [inaudible] san francisco residence for 29 years. member of bay area civil liberty union coalitionism retired teamster and former political coordinator nob since my retirement over 10 years ago a major focus of volunteer work is civil liberty and social justice. i hope san francisco can be a national leader on this issue and can maintain its
reputation as a city that values and upholds human rights including civil liberties for all. let's do the right thing and add 3 draft apolicies that strengthen civil liberty in san francisco. make sfpd policy to require aophiluser to make a statement or write a initial report before viewing body camera footage of a critical incident. two, sfpd pride clear guideline frz release of camera footage to the public and three, body cameras should never be use frd surveillance. used only for interaction between public kwr the police. all these of these policyerize important for community trust and police accountability. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is [inaudible] i
didn't come here because i did chbt know about the meeting, i came to complain about profiling. i had 6 tickets written this year alone on bogus things. [inaudible] protection to keep the cops from totally hurassing me. the body camera thing is a major ixue and if you talk anything about whether or not they get to look at it or before or after i am not concerned about as long as you use it or have it and it is accessible to the public. they need to have body cameras because [inaudible] they bold face sell lie after lie about what i had done in order to get that ticket to hold. so, i am all for the body camera, period. if this meeting is whether you choose
to have body cameras don't let that be the reason whether they get to see it before or after. get the body cameras and make it accessible to the public. just make it happen. thank you. >> there is a senior investigator from the officer of citizen complaints if you have a specific complaint by a officer. you can speak with her fwt your specific concerns. next speaker. >> good evening predants loftus [inaudible] i have been a proud member of the department for the past 15 and a half years specifically in the tenderloin for 14 of these. [inaudible] i have had the honor serving the good people of this great community and city. i ask you to place yourselves in the shoes of the line officer. is
it appropriate for had officer and the community we serve to document the report wruzing the best evidence available? [inaudible] new policing style you must consider the officers point of view when making the final decision on not viewing or reviewing the best evidence. if you were officers would you want to place everything in your police report if dwrou know someone would take days, weeks or months to twist what you wrote if it wasn't on the video? if the video is best evidence everyone has the right to view what occurred. [inaudible] please review video at the echbd othe report. this prevent the officers from potentially placing themselves into a gotio situation. kernly when video evidence is reviewed by dist rbt attorney
recollectish public defender and law enforcement and attorneys is reviewed for days, weeks if not months and dissected frame by frame [inaudible] if best evidence is the goal reviewing the video provides that ability. if gotio is the goal then shorter reports the officer will invoke the 5th amendment right shall be a normal course of business. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good evening and welcome. >> good evening, thank you. good evening chief, director and ladies and gentlemen of the ublic. [inaudible] assigned to the homicide detail. the mu jorlt of my work assign today the homicide detail in addition to investigating deaths is also investigate officer involved
shooting and in custody deaths where officers are presents and the individual dies. one oof the more valuable resources we have in the police detarmt here in san francisco is the practice of officers providing statements. my fear and my call iges if officers are unable to view footage captured on the body worn cameras we lose the ability to elicit statement of evidence from officers due to the fact that they are not able to view the body worn camera footage. i personally have been involved in critical incidents and did not have body worn camera footage to view prior to giving statements. i can say that the
job of the police department and mine in particular is get all pieceoffs the puzzle and re-create the event the best possible. my fear is if officers are unwilling to give a voluntary statement i will be unable to in a timely manner re-create an incident with available evidence. i personally am a advocate from body worn cameras and don't feel statements after viewing footage influence the evidence that we get from the investigation of the scene, the statements of the officers and the video footage. thank you so much. >> good evening commissioners.
john evans with the san francisco police detarmt and representative of the san francisco police officers association. ateneding the meeting tonight i'm struck with a sense of history. being a babely police officer in 1991 i recall the occ and aclu howling when video footage collected by the san francisco police department of interaction with between police officers and demonstrateers was used. i'm glad now that the aclu and occ joined our view that this is valuable. i have been vaufed in training with police department in 20 years in one form or another. in all that time it is a constant basic common sense article that police officers must review all
evidence carefully before preparing any police report. it is common sense. failure to do so or policy requiring to do so is ridiculous. it comes down to that. it is born i believe by a idea of some that have fantasy got you mument will be achieved. as some of those people stated, a supplemental can be made, a liar is going lie whether they see video or not. being able to prepare a proper police report requires the person preparer that report to review all evidence carefully prior to prep operation of that report. thank you. >> next speaker. god evening and welcome.
>> good evening mrs. loftus and commission, chief sur and cuman staff. many of the [inaudible] i am a police officer in the mission station. i make an appeal tonight in regards to body worn cameras. when a officer requests to review the video of the body worn camera before documenting the report he is neither trying to manipulate change or delete the vid yofement the video is a locked and secure visual chronicle of the incident. the video record cannot be changed. i know from many years of investigation victims, witnesses involved in critical incidence crimes and events give varyaeg statements to the police with regards to the
event to the best of their recollection. when there is video to report the incident and review it. i also find the video differs in detail from the victims recall and memory due to the horror orfore of the experience. this isn't that the victim isn't trying to tell the truth, it is just that it is a typical human characteristic that during a incident site, hearing speech and pain changes and diminishes. police reports orwriting a police report changed over the year. in the past the officers wrote from memory or from a note pad. officers today write reports and have supporting documents,
audio tapes, photos and written statement tooz complete their reports. officers review these supporting documents photos and audio recording to complete reports because they are valuable for accurate report writing. just to say, i'm just -thank you very much. >> next speaker. good evening. >> my name is [inaudible] sfpd for 20 years and a surgeant assigned to central station [inaudible] i like to speak on the policy issue of whether a officered sh be allow today review footage. i am proud to be a san francisco police officer and believe the vast majority of my [inaudible] also i like to say i personally have the desire to have a large portion of my working time recorded to be reviewed later by who knows who or who knows
when for what reason. this is probably true for not only most police officers but most people in the room. none the less, i recognize body worn cameras can bow a effective tool for police work. i recognize the usefulness in conducting thorough and acrlt reports. i recognize that it can give valuable feedback for developing professional and effective interwackz the public. i also recognize the information in the video will serve to support auchsers decision squz action than not. it is my discomfort with being recorded i welcome body worn cam raws as a tool that will make me better at my job. policy that determines whether body worn cameras are a tool officers they welcome or burden [inaudible] all the ways body
worn cameras can be effective tools. these policies will praid a valuable tool in a burden and liability. i don't see how anyone shares my goal of fl creasing professionalism and effectiveness och the office rbs can view the restrictive and birdb some policy as as good thij. i am familiar with the [inaudible] false view of police work as a [inaudible] where individual aspects of [inaudible] >> next speaker. good evening and welcome. >> good evening. i think i have seen you in a meeting before. just a member the public, i am randle and go to a lot of meetings and been apreached by a lot of officers.
my background is transit and technology. i think body worn camera is a technology solution. this is just a piece the puzzle and just part the situation and heard that said a little bit but it is part of the overall investigation and think it is important. the thing i do see when i see cameras used it would like to see technology used and record aman or 2 before that way you capture what happens before you. i hear that a lot in what i do. the other thing to point out is this video can't be edited or changed. it is there. it can't be changed. it helpwise the officer and retention and when it is a emotional situation. dealing in transit we get emotional things all the time and it hard to recall things when and have 5 or 6 or 9 people yelling and
screaming at you which i seen in the commission meetings. it is hard to get everything in your mind so the camera helps. i agree with the carve outs. there are a good compromise and think it is reasonable and a lot of people put a lot of time into this policy. the decision has to be made and hope we go forward because as many decade year residence the city there is a lot of controversy and this is one thing we need to figure out and make it work for everything that way when we put the puzzle together the puzzle is most complete and accurate. the video needs to be release today the public. we need to see what is going on because the account ability is what we ask for. i think the is a good thing and in the right step. keep up the good work. >> good evening and welcome.
>> ladies and gentlemen of the audience, chief surh, commissioner and president susan loftus, good evening. for the record, my name is ameal lawrence and rezance of san francisco for 45 years. i have spoken before the board, board of supervisors sfmta, civil service commission and the police commission on numerous occasions. i hope you list toon what i have to say this evening. very briefly about a year ago we have based on gun violence on the police side and the public side i requested a copy of the police report from the police
[inaudible] i have yet to get that report. i have 7 copies the flier from city college. that's item 1. two is based on gun violence in the city where a police officer had to shoot a citizen. i cut out a article out of a magazine that relaets to the police officer in western germany. germany had what a population of 85 million equivalent of 4 officers shootings somebody over a period of 12 year or 12 months versus in the united states 400 officers shooting somebody. for the majority of the police aufshers in western germany today have a college
degree. iq is above 125. they are very well trained. i have recommended that for the sfpd for it past 2 years. the oakland police department lowered their standards [inaudible] >> thank you. >> i think that is a waste of time so i submit articles to [inaudible] on the policies in western germany where the police do not pull guns. i think it enhance their training and think for the public at large to do so. [inaudible] >> thank you mr. lawrence. >> thank you for your time. >> next speaker. you can--
>> hello. thank you so much for giving me and us the opportunity to come and share our perspectives. my name is [inaudible] i am a buddhist minister here in san francisco. i support the aclu's position. but for me the issue is the under lying tensions that are being expressed in my own community, especially among the people of color, the latino and african american people in the population of my community because they don't feel safe in the way that the white people in my community feel safe. they feel they are being targeted and so i'm here because i want to speak to the
feeling of insecurety and that in the discussions we had in my community, i see my own racism as a white person even though i have very good intentions to be equal in my respect to everyone. i want to note that the discrepancy that might happen between the body camera and the report is the very place that we should be so interested in because it is that discrepancy that gives us the opportunity to learn about the conditioning that we received or the education we received even though we are good people that impacts how decisions and our reports. feels like a pornts educational
opportunities for all of us in the community how to repair our relations. thank you. >> good evening. i just want to say that is exactly what she just said is so amazing. what so many people said has been really powerful and don't know if i have much more to add, but i am here at my first police commission meeting. my name is anna [inaudible] 15 year resident of san francisco and a mom and care deeply about engding institutional violence and discrimination and believe trance paerns through body cameras is a small but first step toward that. i am here to have my voice heard and
gratitude to those who spoke out about opposition to have the officers to see the footage before writing the report and also i agree with director hicks recommendation and the importance of footage publicly accessible for the events of public interest and not to be used for surveillance purposes. thank you. >> thank you. next speakers. >> my name is mj [inaudible] large community organizer in the tender line. i probably wouldn't be up here but heard someone saying there is discrimination of people of color by the police force and that we have uneasy relationship with the police force. that is a lie. in the
tender line just like any oretd place in american the affric american community is divided into groups. we have middle class african americans just like middle class white, middle class hispanics. my family comes from a criminal justice background. my mother was one of the first police officers in the settee of chicago. i do not fear the police. what i have witness in the years of libing in the tenderloin which is over 15 is the abuse of police by citizens in the community under the guise that the police are racist. we need to look at our community and how we educate our children in terms of this being a cuntsry of laws and this being a cuntsry where we have to have ord er. i want police officers
to have everythingt their disposal to be what they need to be. sth people protect and serve us. i do not agree they should visually see the tape before they rin cort. maybe whime they are in cort they should see the tape and answer foowhat they see because i know you can be prejbus prejudice by what you eyes see. i want juss for everybody because that is the only way we can make it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good evening and welcome. >> good evening president loftus, commissioner, [inaudible] member of san francisco police department for 17 years and resident for 21 years. i am a socialgist and
you off. is there further public comment? >> i will be brief and recap a lot of [inaudible] commissioner president loftus, [inaudible] and members the community. my name is tony mon toya a san francisco police sarge squnt a police officer for 28 years the last 22 with san francisco and a member of the san francisco police officer association. in my 28 years we have seen lots of changes but the one thing that hasn't changed is officers need to prepare the most accurate and complete statement in a police report. we heard tonight is transparency, accountability and best practice. what you have
here is well thought out policy present today and on behalf of the police department. it is a very thorough and comp hnsive policy and all these things i mentioned are covered in the pos. the policy is transparent. there is accountability and it does follow best practices as you herds tonight from some of the testimony. i hear supplemental report and that is true, what i don't want people to misunderstand is sup lltal report covers new information. a cam raw is real time information captured at the time of the incident. i know people are concerned about the caught you, that isn't our concern here, our concern is being transparent, accountable and follow breast practices. by allowing officers to review the video prior to report uget
a more accurate, detailed and neuro accounting that is what is taught day one. the video is what the video is. the officer dudant taylor the testimony on the video. they can't manipulate or change it. >> is there further public comment? now is your chance. okay. hearing none, public comment is closed. i'll see if commissions want to thank-i'll just say i am grateful for the thoughtfulness the comment and the amount of time taken and resunch done. we will go at the next meeting november 4 and deliberate the issues. we are not taking action but you can watch on sfgtv on line. final comments bf we wrap up?
>> i may not be on the november 4 meeting. i am scheduled to be out of town and hear the community member jz police officers and reading this stuff. i have to say the body camera issue is bringing clainge to the department and to the public and change can be difficult but it is the new 41 tear and struggle to find where we start with the policy. i understand also when officers act quickly on the street that there-it is adrinian and quick decision making and it is dark but they have been doing that for a long time and make the split second decision. i think in a way we sell the officers short in terms of their experience and their memory and they are the first person witness. i think it is important as the primary first witness we have a report from
these officers from their own independent memory and it sounds like the secondary witness is the camera and the camera dependented where it is focused and what it captures is limited. there are good arguments about whether you catch with a thch video and adopts the camera and leave out his own independent recollection. there is something to be said both sides but we sell the officers short their their own memory isn't as [inaudible] the other thing i want to say is usually the initial report is it. it is the primary report and supplementals don't normally come along but that may be the new realty of a initial report and supplemental report back to back after the incident unfolds. it is something to think about. that is not a dire thing just maybe a new thing. what i don't understand is auchser given
voluntary statement or called in internal affairs, weknow they can be compelled. so i guess i need clarity. if i understand this right right now there is a voluntary statement and may not make a voluntary statement in the future y. think we are projecting on that because every case is different and the officer are represented by attorneys i imagine the attorneys ropet the officer to the best oof their ability and what is best for the interest of that officer so that argument for the future of projecting isn't very clear how that falls here. the only thing i can deem from that is whether or not the district attorney can use the voluntary statement in a investigation and/or crimial investigation. i don't think that is our focus here. our focus here is what is best for the department, what is best for the public in
termoffs the new technology we are using and the trarns paerns we seek so we don't have misunderstanding between the department and public so not that concerned what the da can do the voluntary statement. the issue is transparency and it is this new and challenging horizing we are looking at, so those are just initial comments on those thoughts. the other thing i want to say is the officers can view the camera accept for dwocircumstances, possibly 3. officer involved shootings, criminal investigation and perhaps use of force. 3 very explicit carve outs we are talk about and very serious carve outs so i think we need to give thought about having the primary witness statement and a supplemental report if one is necessary. those are my comments. >> i think commissioner dejesus
brought up a good point. given the issues arisen are around viewing the video foot mg and how that may impact the a investigation i sent a letter to the district attorneys office and asked for their opinion on that as well. just for folk tooz know they are invited to give feedback. other closing comments? >> i want to thank commander mozeier for leading a excellent task force and the thank the members of the working group. a lot attended the meetings and come out to all the meetings and delivered a excellent product for us to work on and just want to emphasize, i think we from everybody and want to thank for expressing their opinion but think the difference going forward are smaller than we think because i think in essence we agree on
what to do on 99 percent the cases included public defender office. 99 percent the cases officer should be allowed to view the video. i dopet think that is in dispute. we are talk a small percentage of the critical incidence where the officererize not the rorbting officers but the victim or a witness to the the crime. those are the times we look at perceptions should be recorded and i'm back and force on this because i thij transs paerns is a big issue and the challenge for those that thing they should view the vid you in all cases there is a feeling from the public of a lack of traens paerns. if we feel the reason we are doing body cameras is prove the public the excellent work they are doing, how do we
address the lack of traens paerns if they are able to view the video prior to the investigation. i am struck by mr. halrens comments and think it is reasonable to say officers will not give the voluntary statement. i think the idea of giving a supplemental statement may not pan out because the auchs officers have no incentive to give the voluntary statement. i think that is there challenge to folks not to view in advance to work athround idea officers won't give statements as they have done in san francisco and san francisco is the exception to the rule nationally and perhaps a model for officer cooperation in these incidence. that is the challenge and see going forward. >> thank you commissioner. doctor joe >> the only thing i will say is we appreciate the public for
everything they said. appreciate the task force [inaudible] delved into this. we have a binder full of reports from everybody so look forward to the discussion and will craft something should we hope will satisfy everybody. >> any closing comment from my colleagues? okay. sergeant call the next line item >> line item 3 ajunment. >> do i have a motion to adjourn? all in favor? motion passes we are adjourned. thank you everyone.