A police force that’s faced a barrage of misconduct allegations and concerns about its internal controls wants you to trust those controls as it outfits officers with body cameras.

About 300 San Diego officers are now mandated to record arrests and enforcement-related interactions with the public and the police department plans to equip all its officers with cameras by the end of next year.

But Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman, who has been a proponent of the camera program amid misconduct and racial profiling scandals in an effort to increase the public’s trust, said Tuesday night the footage they collect likely won’t be released to the public anytime soon.

“The video footages are considered evidence,” Zimmerman said during a panel discussion organized by the San Diego chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. “And at this point, in the policy, I don’t plan to release any of the video with it because it is considered evidence.”

Legal experts have said SDPD could legally keep the video footage private indefinitely, even after an investigation wraps.

The department’s policy was revealed when Voice of San Diego requested footage from two police shootings this spring. The department didn’t release the videos, citing ongoing investigations.

We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?

Many other police agencies across the nation have decided otherwise. They’re releasing footage of fatal officer shootings and other incidents.

I moderated the Tuesday event at Lincoln High School and pressed Zimmerman and four other panelists on SDPD’s policy, particularly given allegations of sexual assault and concerns about racial profiling within the department in recent history.

Police in San Diego and elsewhere have purchased cameras to add accountability. But if the department isn’t releasing footage, aren’t they just expecting residents to take them at their word?

Zimmerman and officials from the San Diego American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial counties, the local NAACP branch, the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the San Diego Police Officers Association said privacy for both officers and citizens who encounter them generally outweighs the public’s right to see footage.

For example, local ACLU policy director Margaret Dooley-Sammuli said, footage of a person acting silly while an officer checks on whether they’re intoxicated wouldn’t serve the public interest.

But it’s not even clear whether civilians directly involved in an incident captured by police cameras can see the footage — for now their ability to do so largely hinges on whether their attorney has subpoenaed the footage for a case and whether they’ve filed a complaint with the department, though SDPD is still weighing how the latter scenario would work.

Zimmerman said there is a potential exception to the general rule against releasing the footage, though it’s totally up to her whether it comes into play.

The department might release the footage if it faced a crisis like the one police are experiencing in Ferguson, Mo., where massive protests erupted after an unarmed black teen was shot and killed by an officer.

“(In Ferguson, Mo.), they’re seeing the property damage, assaults that are going on there, and so I think the public wants information on exactly what happened, so if you take a situation like that and that body-worn camera can tell exactly what happened then that would be something that would be very positive because right now in that situation, no one really knows what happened,” Zimmerman said.

But again, the latest version of the Police Department’s policy leaves that decision up to Zimmerman or the next chief.

There’s no way to know for sure whether the department avoids releasing video footage that shows its officers acted inappropriately, or if it’s holding onto footage that might reveal serious problems. Zimmerman said police supervisors are checking to ensure officers record interactions per department rules and that the footage will be reviewed when residents file complaints against the department.

But a general policy not to release footage means police are simply asking us to trust them on this.

    This article relates to: News, Police, Police Misconduct, Share

    Written by Lisa Halverstadt

    Lisa writes about San Diego city and county governments. She welcomes story tips and questions. Contact her directly at lisa@vosd.org or 619.325.0528.

    rhylton subscriber

    Videos can and will be defeated by clever manipulative prosecutors who wish to nullify the evidentiary value that they contain. In New York we had 5 fat cops involved in the take-down of a big fat guy. Four are given immunity in exchange for their testimony against the one who applied the choke-hold.  The video shows some fat cops on top of the fat guy, pinning him to the ground, while one has the choke-hold applied,

    The Grand Jury is asked if Pantaleo, the choke-holder, caused big Erics death.  The video shows that Pantaleo AND others contributed to Garner's death. Moreover, big Eric suffered from asthma and a heart condition and his obesity was obvious.

    Well played Mr. Prosecutor. That the Grand Jury could not conclude that Pantaleo ALONE caused Garner's death was a foregone and prosecutor-engineered conclusion.  

    rhylton subscriber

    The video that I would like to see is the one(s) associated with these 6 stops of this 25 year-old Black man at 1:50 AM

    Michael Robertson
    Michael Robertson subscribermember

    The chief says the department will review video footage. The police supervising the police is not sufficient as several recent cases show. The sunshine of public viewing should be shone on the department.

    If anyone asks for the video clips I expect the department to claim everything is part of an ongoing investigation as they're claiming now when I asked for scans of my own license plate. That case is in the courts now. I suspect sometime will have to sue to get the department to do the right thing and make video publicly available.

    Mel Shapiro
    Mel Shapiro subscribermember

    The whole point of spending taxpayer money on these cameras is to show the public how the police act townrds

    the public. The chief's attitude makes one suspicious  about the  Police Dept. What are they so anxious to hide ?  If  the photos are evidence in a case, the defense  has the right to see it.So does the public. If there is no case, its not evidence-its public record.

    Patrick Flynn
    Patrick Flynn subscriber

    That is a ridiculous position for the Chief to take.  What is the footage evidence of exactly; crimes perhaps?  If the video footage is evidence, it belongs before the Judge and Jury, and should be part of the public record (unless sealed), just like other evidence.  If the video footage is not evidence, it should be subject to public records act requests.