How Soon Will Pasadena Police Body Cameras Be in Use Out on the Streets?

The Pasadena City Council is expected to approve the purchase of a $1.5 million body-worn camera system for the police department from Taser International at tonight’s meeting, but lacking approved policies on their use the department won’t be able to deploy the cameras. How will those policies be determined? Who decides, and when?

According to Interim City Manager Steve Mermell, the police department has already developed a draft policy for use in actually implementing the video system.

The policy and procedures are now subject to the “meet and confer” process with the bargaining unit, the Pasadena Police Officers Association (PPOA), said Mermell.

‘We are currently in that process to develop that policy. It will take time to develop, so we can go ahead and make the purchase and I’m confident that by the time we’re ready to use them, we will have a policy in place,” he added.

The implementation process for the actual use of the camera system is about four months, said Mermell.

Ultimately the policy will be reviewed by a city committee and the City Council for final authorization.

According to a recent study by the Major Cities Chiefs Association and Major County Sheriffs’ Association, consensus varies among at least 70 US law enforcement agencies as to how to actually implement their systems.

Only 18 percent of agencies considered their body cameras “fully operational” last year, according to the survey, and almost half of the agencies surveyed had started or completed pilot programs.

Five percent of agencies surveyed indicated that they either don’t intend to implement body cameras or chose not to do so after completing pilot programs, according to the survey.

The San Diego Police Department, for example, lists the following directives among its policy for body worn (BWC ) cameras: “Only authorized personnel shall use or be in possession of a BWC device, and “all officers issued a BWC are required to wear and use their BWC while working in any uniformed assignment. This applies to overtime assignments, out of class assignments and special details.”

The policy adds that “the use of any other personal recording device for the same purpose is not authorized without permission of the Chief of Police or designee, and that all digital evidence collected using the BWC is considered an investigative record for the San Diego Police Department and is for official use only.”

Also, “Accessing, copying, forwarding or releasing any digital evidence for other than official law enforcement use and contrary to this procedure is strictly prohibited. Public release of digital evidence is prohibited unless approved by the Chief of Police or designee.”

The San Diego policy also notes that “personal computer equipment and software programs shall not be utilized when making copies of digital evidence. Using a secondary recording device such as video camera, cell phone or other device to record or capture digital evidence from Sdpd.evidence.com is strictly prohibited.”

Meanwhile in the City of Rialto, the first U.S. city to implement body worn cameras, a study found that the use of BWCs reduced use-of-force incidents by 59 per cent and reduced citizens’ complaints by 87.5 percent.

The research was conducted by Rialto’s Police Chief Tony Farrar in his graduate thesis, “The Inescapable Panopticonic Gaze: The Effect of Body Worn Cameras On Police Use-Of-Force.” Farrah wrote the thesis while a graduate student at Cambridge University in England.

According to Farrar’s study, the City of Rialto saved about $400,000 by reducing the number of citizen complaints. The Rialto Police Department paid $90,000 for 70 complete video camera units and training, and according to the study, the benefit to cost ratio was approximately $4 saved for every $1 spent on the cameras.

Farrar also added that “there are hidden social and ethical costs to the inescapable panopticonic gaze itself. If BWCs become common, it means more electronic surveillance, more digitized tagging of individuals, and arguably more challenges to privacy rights.”

The policy, after union review, is expected to move to the City Council’s Public Safety Committee for public input and review. That Committee next meets on July 18.