Oakland cops disciplined 24
times for failing to turn on body-worn cameras
Punishments ranged from
"written reprimand" to suspensions of a few days.
OAKLAND, Calif.—Over the last
two years, the Oakland Police Department (OPD) has disciplined police officers
on 24 occasions for disabling or failing to activate body-worn cameras, newly
released public records show. The City of Oakland did not provide any records
prior to 2013, and the OPD did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for
comment.
The records show that on
November 8, 2013 one officer was terminated after failing to activate his
camera. Less than two weeks later, another resigned for improperly removing the
camera from his or her uniform. However, most officers received minor
discipline in comparison.
Obama wants to buy 50,000 body
cams for police, monitor military gear handouts
An extra $263 million in
funding would be used toward training cops to use the tech.
The OPD has used Portable
Digital Recording Devices (PDRDs) since late 2010. According to the
department's own policy, patrol officers are required to wear the cameras
during a number of outlined situations, including detentions, arrests, and
serving a warrant. At present, the city has about 700 officers.
This year the issue of
body-worn cameras on police officers came to the fore after the tragic killings
of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City at the
hands of local cops. In the aftermath of grand jury decisions to not indict the
officers responsible, the Obama administration released a review of how local
law enforcement agencies use equipment, proposing that the federal government
spend $263 million over three years to "expand training for law
enforcement agencies (LEAs)" and "add more resources for police
department reform." The review included a proposal to dedicate $75 million
over three years to buy up to 50,000 body cameras for local LEAs.
Because body-worn cameras are
still relatively new, there aren't any published studies on rates of
non-compliance, according to John DeCarlo, a professor at the John Jay College
of Criminal Justice and the former chief of police of Branford, Connecticut.
"You may have a legitimate
excuse [for not turning it on], but if it was nefarious, that's a different
story," DeCarlo told Ars.
What happened on November 22,
2013?
In Oakland, the cameras were
acquired largely as the result of a federal lawsuit alleging abuse by four
officers known as "The Riders." In 2003, the City of Oakland and the
OPD agreed with the plaintiffs to a settlement, which required the authorities
to pay more than $10 million in fines and impose numerous reforms. The four
officers were subsequently fired from the OPD, although one remains a federal
fugitive after fleeing to Mexico. None of the other three officers were
convicted.
Promises to get data retention,
privacy policies in place later.
The new data shows that the
most common punishment for officers who did not comply with their own
department’s policy was a "written reprimand" or a suspension of one
to three days. One officer was even suspended for 20 days in December 2013 due
to an allegation of failing to activate his body-worn camera.
On November 22, 2013, there
were five separate incidents where officers allegedly "improperly
removed" or "failed to initiate their PDRD." One of those
officers, none of whom were named, appears to have resigned as a result of the
incident. Ars has filed another public records request to learn more about
these incidents.
Watching the watchers
As a result of the city’s
settlement in the Riders case (formally known as the Negotiated Settlement
Agreement), an independent monitor is required to prepare a quarterly report
detailing the OPD’s compliance record. Its most recent report, dated October
30, 2014, notes that in three cases, PDRD "recordings directly
contradicted" statements made by witness or complainants against OPD
officers.
However the report added:
During our last review, we
found that there were no cases in which the failure to activate a PDRD went
unaddressed. There was one case, however, in which the discipline was
sufficient but follow-up was needed. In that case the officer had failed to
activate his PDRD on three separate occasions. While we felt that the
discipline imposed was adequate, we commented that the officer’s supervisor
should more closely monitor his activities. A key responsibility of sergeants
is to ensure that the officers they are supervising are complying with OPD
policies. In the future, the supervisor could easily compare and review the
officer’s activities with his PDRD recordings to ensure that he is in
compliance with OPD policies. An additional benefit of review of PDRD
recordings would be that the sergeant would be able to evaluate the officer’s
tactics and interactions with citizens. We learned that OPD has followed up
with this officer to ensure that he remains in compliance with the PDRD policy.
His current supervisor conducts monthly audits of his PDRD use and submits
audit forms up his chain of command.
On November 18, 2014, OPD
supervisors were reminded that they are required under department policy to
conduct random reviews of PDRD footage.
.jpg)