Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

Re: California Public Records Request & discussion Re: PERF on implementation of body worn camera policy

From: domainremoved <Aram>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 22:35:50 -0700


Hi Mark,

Thanks so much for your detailed and thoughtful comments re the critical
importance of having a fully transparent-community friendly- body-worn
camera policy.

We must continue to push the Palo Alto Police Department, and other local
law enforcement agencies, to allow the alleged victims of police brutality,
community activists, and other interested members of the public, as well as
the press, to view body-worn camera footage, without undue delay, police
bureaucratic obfuscation, and other nefarious maneuvers designed to
frustrate the public’s right to know.

Let me end with the following quote:

*Law enforcement officers carry upon their shoulders the cloak of authority
to enforce the laws of the state. In order to maintain trust in its police
department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of
its [52 Cal. App. 4th 105] peace officers. (Bradbury v. Superior Court
(1996) **49 Cal. App. 4th 1108



Aram thanks for including me in on this important exchange. As you know
video from Body-Worn cameras including MAV feed play’s a critical role in
building community trust, accountability and transparency.

Body-Worn Cameras

Citizen complaints of officer misconduct in one city fell by 87.5 percent.
Their is nothing more compelling to a judge or jury in viewing actual
events in analyzing alleged irrefutable testimony.

However, police have the upper hand in all cases in disallowing the
complainant / victim(s) the unfettered opportunity to review video first or
simultaneously for potential exculpatory evidence. All policy’s I have read
to date, *have this much needed provision exclude*.

Any police policy impacting the interaction of its citizens should be fair
and impartial and developed jointly, involving members of the community and
not, not by a body of police bureaucrats looking to gain the legal upper of
the citizens it serves..

Lastly, I look forward to the release of the remaining photo’s of the
officers involved in the killing of Marcos Antonio Carlos


Mark Petersen-Perez
Editor: Palo Alto Free Press
Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 12, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Aram James <abjpd1_at_(domainremoved)

Hi Gary,

Thanks for your detailed response re your background ( and your command
staff’s) with the 2014 PERF report- on the various perspectives re how
individual police departments might implement policy regarding the use and
implementation of this important technology. I have read the report several
times, since its release, and still could benefit from a reread. I’m most
definitely a slow learner!

I am embarrassed to say that I have not recently kept up with when or if
our department ( Redwood City Police Department) has yet rolled out
body-worn cameras.

I recall attending one RWC council meeting, where you attended as well,
where the subject was addressed. I recall personally addressing the
subject, and voicing my support for body-worn cameras, depending on the
policy our department ultimately adopts.

Can you update me re the proposed timing, re the roll-out for body-worn
cameras here in RWC? Can you send me the policy, or proposed policy for
their use? Please consider this request, for this information, a California
Public Records Act request. I understand you are always very busy, so if
you need more then 10 days to respond, no problem, just let me know.

By the way, in addition to copying in the powers that be in RWC, I have
also copied in Mark Petersen Perez, the owner
and publisher of the Palo Alto Free Press.

I’m sure you remember Mark. Mark and I used to attend meetings of the San
Jose City Council, mostly around Taser issues, and other police practices
issues, when you were almost the Chief in San Jose.

Of course, you were always very gracious with the two of us, when we had
questions and concerns with the taser issue, and related policy.

Just this last Thursday, the two of us attended the monthly meeting of the
Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. The PAPD’s command staff presented a
draft policy, re body-worn cameras, to members of the HRC and the
community. Both Mark and I addressed the commission with our concerns that
the proposed PAPD policy lacks transparency is several regards. We are
hopeful that some of the issues and concerns re their policy, raised by the
two of us, in additions to questions posed by several members of the HRC,
will be taken seriously by the PAPD command staff. In other words, we are
hopeful the policy ultimately adopted by the PAPD reflects critical input
from the community and is not simply a policy dictated to us by the
department. I look forward to an on going discussion with you regarding all
of the above issues.

Best regards,


On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Aram James <abjpd1_at_(domainremoved)

Hi Gary,
Thanks for responding, hope you are well. Mark Peyersen

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:37 AM, PD Gary Kirby <GKirby_at_(domainremoved)


Thank you for thinking to forward the PERF report on Body-Worn Cameras. I
am quite versed in the contents of the document as well as all of my
command staff who were provided a copy of the study when it first came out.



*Gary L. Kirby **| *Deputy Chief of Police

Redwood City Police Department

1301 Maple St. Redwood City, CA 94063


(650) 780-7123 Office

*From:* Aram James [mailto:abjpd1_at_(domainremoved)
*Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2018 3:59 PM
*To:* minka.vanderzwaag_at_(domainremoved)
GRP-City Council; citycouncil_at_(domainremoved)
*Subject:* PERF on implementation of body worn camera policy


Shared via the Google app <https://itunes.apple.com/app/google/id284815942>

Sent from my iPhone
Received on Mon Mar 12 2018 - 22:38:13 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)