It is laudable for the Community Development Department to develop and implement safety standards for code enforcement officers as mandated by state law. (SB 296, 2021; Penal Code Sec. 829.7). Presumably, the use of body cameras could be authorized for that limited purpose by means of ordinance or resolution, since the board is the decision-making body of the local jurisdiction.
However, the departmental policy presented to your board goes well above and beyond the use of body cameras for officer safety. It allows use of cameras for evidence gathering in a manner very similar to body cameras worn by sworn peace officers. (Penal Code Sec. 832.18). It purports that code enforcement recordings may be subject to release under the California Public Records Act, when law enforcement agency records are exempt from disclosure with limited exceptions. (Gov. Code Sec. 7923.600 et seq.)
Penal Code Sec. 832.18 declares the Legislature’s intent “to establish policies and procedures to address issues related to the downloading and storage data recorded by a body-worn camera worn by a peace officer.” By legal definition, code enforcement officers are not peace officers (Penal Code 830.7), and the Legislature to date has not passed any statute authorizing use of body cameras for investigative purposes by code enforcement officers. Nor has it authorized code enforcement officers to utilize third-party platforms (e.g. Axon) to upload, store and disseminate body camera recordings. Your board has not duly considered the likelihood of frequent public records requests; costs for data storage, editing and redaction of requested records; the public’s well-established right to privacy on private properties and businesses; nor the potential for citizen complaints and/or litigation.
While no action is requested, your board may give direction to delay implementation of this policy unless and until it is fully vetted by county counsel, along with any third-party contracts. Using body cameras for the limited purpose of improving officer safety is one thing, which I fully support. However, I oppose using body cams and third-party vendors to gather and store evidence during civil and/or administrative investigations, absent clear legislative intent to authorize such activities by code enforcement officers.
Honorable board:
It is laudable for the Community Development Department to develop and implement safety standards for code enforcement officers as mandated by state law. (SB 296, 2021; Penal Code Sec. 829.7). Presumably, the use of body cameras could be authorized for that limited purpose by means of ordinance or resolution, since the board is the decision-making body of the local jurisdiction.
However, the departmental policy presented to your board goes well above and beyond the use of body cameras for officer safety. It allows use of cameras for evidence gathering in a manner very similar to body cameras worn by sworn peace officers. (Penal Code Sec. 832.18). It purports that code enforcement recordings may be subject to release under the California Public Records Act, when law enforcement agency records are exempt from disclosure with limited exceptions. (Gov. Code Sec. 7923.600 et seq.)
Penal Code Sec. 832.18 declares the Legislature’s intent “to establish policies and procedures to address issues related to the downloading and storage data recorded by a body-worn camera worn by a peace officer.” By legal definition, code enforcement officers are not peace officers (Penal Code 830.7), and the Legislature to date has not passed any statute authorizing use of body cameras for investigative purposes by code enforcement officers. Nor has it authorized code enforcement officers to utilize third-party platforms (e.g. Axon) to upload, store and disseminate body camera recordings. Your board has not duly considered the likelihood of frequent public records requests; costs for data storage, editing and redaction of requested records; the public’s well-established right to privacy on private properties and businesses; nor the potential for citizen complaints and/or litigation.
While no action is requested, your board may give direction to delay implementation of this policy unless and until it is fully vetted by county counsel, along with any third-party contracts. Using body cameras for the limited purpose of improving officer safety is one thing, which I fully support. However, I oppose using body cams and third-party vendors to gather and store evidence during civil and/or administrative investigations, absent clear legislative intent to authorize such activities by code enforcement officers.