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

Browse Search

6.D. - Page 55 of 179 ELIZABETH MACIAS CHIFF OF POLICE. July 14, 2016 Honorable Joseph C. Scott Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 Old County Road, 2nd Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 BODY CAMERAS — The Reel Truth Dear Honorable Joseph C. Scott: This letter is in response to the 2015/2016 Grand Jury report of May 24, 2016, which contained findings that pertain to the City of Brisbane. Listed below are the Jury's findings and recommendations followed by the City of Brisbane response. The Brisbane City Council reviewed and approved the below recommendations at a public hearing on July 14, 2016. The City of Brisbane responds to the Grand Jury's findings, conclusions and recommendations as follows: The San Mateo County 2015-2016 Grand Jury makes the following findings to the City Councils of the cities of San Mateo County: 1. The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Menlo Park Police Departments have deployed body -worn camera systems. RESPONSE. The City of Brisbane Agrees with the finding. We have no reason to disagree with the inforination contained in the Grand Jury s report. 2. The Sheriff's Office and five of the city police departments that have not deployed body worn cameras all expressed similar concerns regarding the implementation of these systems, the cost of the equipment, the cost of data retention, and policy development. RESPONSE: The City of Brisbane Agrees with the finding. We have no reason to disagree with the information contained in the Grand Jury's report. 3. The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Menlo Park Police Departments have budgeted sufficient finds to manage the cost of equipment, data retention, and training. RESPONSE: The City of Brisbane Agrees with the finding. We have no reason to disagree with the information contained in the Grand Jury's report. 50 PARK PLACE: . BRISBANE;, CALIFORNIA 94005 - (415) 508 -21ST • FAX (415) 468-4641 94