AgdaPkt 2020-11-23 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.D. - Page 47 of 179 4. How long should recordings should be retained? State Law: California Government Code §34090.6' requires that all recordings be retained for one year, after which they may be destroyed. Federal Law: The statute of limitations for bringing suit under a Federal Civil Rights complaint under §1983 is two years (in California), plus notifications? MPPD Policy: There is no statute of limitations within the policies of the MPPID for citizen complaints. With various legal requirements and periods for citizens bringing suits or complaints ranging from one year to infinity, few people argue in favor of infinite storage of such records. So what is a reasonable compromise between a minimum of one year (as required by state law) and infinity? The MPPD recommends a period of 2.5 years as a means of protecting both the City and individual police officers from significant financial liabilities should either or both be successfully sued. A clear majority of the Committee agrees with this recommendation. Experts in risk management would generally agree as well.3 1 34080.6. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090, the head of a department of a city or city and county, atter one year, may destroy recordings of routine video monitoring, and after 100 days may destroy recordings of telephone and radio communications maintained by the department. This destruction shall be approved by the legislative body and the written consent of the agency attorney shal I be obtained. In the event that the recordings are evidence in any claim filed or any pending Iitigatbn, they shall be preserved until pending litigation is resolved. (b) For purposes of this section, "recordings of telephone and radio communications" means the routine daily recording of telephone communications to and from a city, city and county, or department, and all radio communications relating to the operations of the departments - (c) For purposes of this section, "routine video monitoring" means video recording by a video or electronic imaging system designed to record the regular and ongoing operations of the departments described in subdivision (a), including mobile in -car video systems, jail observation and monitoring systems, and building security recording systems. (d) For purposes of this section, "d apart in ant' includes a public safety communications center operated by the city or city and county. 2 Every person who, under celor of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding far redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia - 3 A minority of the Committee suggests that financial risk is not the only factor that should be considered in determining the length of data retention. The privacy rights of citizens, one could argue, are priceless. Sir William Blackstone famously wrote that `the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer." And while the amount of video data held by the IMP PD on any individual citizen may be relatively small, the accumulated data held by other government bodies and corporations is huge. And it is the aggregate of such data that concerns many civil liberties advocates, and aggregation that can be completed surreptitiously without the knowledge or consent of the hundreds of entities that each hold a piece of i[. The existence of such technology and parties willing to use it therefore argue that each piece of data be held for the absolute minimum of amount of time to mitigate against such risks. 4 ol6 2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 43 :.