My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2016-07-25 Closed and Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
AgdaPkt 2016-07-25 Closed and Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2016 5:31:02 PM
Creation date
7/21/2016 5:14:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
7/25/2016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
499
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8 <br />Reasons for County Law Enforcement Not Implementing Body-Worn Cameras <br />Even law enforcement leaders in San Mateo County whose agencies have not adopted body- <br />worn cameras agree that body-worn cameras will likely be beneficial.21 A representative from <br />one local law enforcement agency commented, “Not only are they [body-worn cameras] <br />expected, it's almost required by our citizens.”22 <br />They also concede it is highly probable that body-worn cameras will be adopted either <br />voluntarily or by statute. These agencies that have not implemented body-worn cameras, <br />however, have cited similar reasons for waiting. These reasons include: <br />• Cost of system hardware <br />• Cost of data storage <br />• Development of standard use policies <br />• Limited case law affecting policies regarding the use of body-worn cameras such as data <br />retention time and privacy and civil rights concerns among other issues <br />• Concern that technology developments will render existing equipment obsolete within a <br />few years <br />• Concern that state or federal law may dictate use of body-worn cameras with specific <br />features or technology <br />Each of the five law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County currently using body-worn <br />cameras has addressed these six issues. While the Grand Jury acknowledges that there are <br />several concerns raised by those agencies that have not yet adopted body-worn cameras, the <br />critical question is whether these concerns are sufficient to delay implementing a body-worn <br />camera system. <br />Cost and Technology of Body-Worn Camera Systems <br />Five San Mateo County law enforcement agencies have deployed three different manufacturer's <br />systems with varying features including mounting options. A commercially available off-the- <br />shelf system used by one department is by far the most economical. The specified functionality <br />of this camera system indicates it offers an exceptional value when compared to other brands <br />and models. <br /> <br />21 Officials from local law enforcement agencies: interviews by the Grand Jury. <br />22 Local city police chief: interview by the Grand Jury. <br />6.1.J. - Page 13
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.