Harris received highly positive coverage in such publications as U.S. News and World Report for her declaration that it was long overdue for there to be “an honest, transparent and data-driven conversation about police use of force.” U.S. News also depicted Assemblyman Freddie Rodriguez, D-Pomona, as a visionary for coming up with the idea in 2014.

Harris and Rodriguez may end up amply deserving credit if they do usher in a new era in which statistical tools illustrate the extent of police misconduct. But little of the coverage of URSUS focuses on the question of incentives within law enforcement agencies. As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and many others have written over the past 40 years, police of all ranks have many reasons to create tidy narratives about their actions.

Officers have an incentive to not report their violent incidents and to depict injuries suffered by suspects as not their fault; the other officers who witness such violence have an incentive to not report or to inaccurately depict such injuries because of a police culture with a still-strong “code of silence”; and police chiefs and top police brass have an incentive to not accurately report incidents within their ranks because of concerns on how it would reflect on them and their departments.

This long history of police not acting to limit misconduct is a factor in the huge gap between African American and white perceptions of police misconduct, according to recent research by the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Justice.

State law requiring reporting of fatalities flouted in L.A.

Now the San Francisco Chronicle, analyzing research done by Texas State University covering the years from 2006-2015, has given an example of how the incentives for police to resist oversight have resulted in a lax police culture in California.

A state law adopted long before the controversies over police killings in New York City, Baltimore and Cleveland requires local law enforcement to report fatal shootings by officers to the state government.

But the Chronicle’s analysis found it to be broadly ignored over the 10 years of data compiled by Texas State University researchers. Some of the key findings:

• At least 439 fatal police shootings were never reported to the state, 30 percent of the estimated 1,480 such killings over the decade.
• The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the largest sheriff’s department in the United States, didn’t report at least 34 fatal shootings; the Los Angeles Police Department didn’t report at least 21; and the Fresno Police Department didn’t report at least 24.

The Chronicle’s data suggests California law enforcement agencies may be getting better at reporting such fatal shootings. The 10-year average of unreported police killings was 30 percent. Last year, the percentage appears to be closer to 25 percent, though exact numbers are not yet available.

But in San Francisco, the percentage of unreported police killings in 2015 was 100 percent. The Chronicle said city police officials didn’t notify the state of any of the six police killings last year.

But in Oakland, it appears authorities will only release the body-camera videos when they exonerate police, and that the video will be kept from the public and the media in other circumstances on the grounds that it is part of an ongoing investigation. The East Bay Express recently reported on how the Oakland police are dealing with four police killings. In two cases, Police Chief Sean Whent won’t release any body-cam footage. In the other two cases, police wouldn’t release the footage to the public. Instead, on Aug. 19, the Oakland Police Department held a screening for 11 members of the media.

This account is from the East Bay Express:

[The] videos included police body camera footage taken by officers who were chasing Richard Linyard and Nathaniel Wilks (in two separate incidents). On July 19, Linyard was allegedly fleeing the police on foot when he was later found wedged between two buildings. A coroner’s report said Linyard died from injuries he suffered when he was apparently stuck between the buildings.

 

On August 12, Wilks allegedly fled the police in a vehicle and then on foot. Several officers confronted and shot Wilks near the intersection of 27th Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way.

 

Watson said OPD showed videos to select members of the media in order to dispel inaccurate reports that officers beat Linyard, and claims that Wilks was shot in the back. Both incidents sparked protests. “We held the viewing in the interest of the public, to be able to share information through fair and balanced reporting,” said Watson.

 

Watson, however, said that the video footage will not be released to the broader public, and that OPD believes the California Public Records Act allows the department to withhold the footage because it is evidence in several ongoing investigations.

‘Completely wrong’ to withhold some video

As the Bay Area News Group reported, giving the police the right to pick and choose which videos to release outraged local civil-rights lawyer Jim Chanin. “I think it’s completely wrong to have selective showings of one shooting and not another shooting, depending on how the department feels . … There’s an inference now that if (police) don’t show you a video, there could be something wrong or improper about (another) shooting,” he said.

Meanwhile, in Sacramento, a bill that would establish statewide procedures on access to and use of policy body-camera footage appears to have failed, U-T San Diego columnist Steve Greenhut wrote on Friday.

In April, a comprehensive bill by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, passed its initial committee vote. Per its official description, “Assembly Bill 66 would provide guidelines about when the cameras are to be operated, require notification of those being recorded, and prohibit law-enforcement officers involved in serious use-of-force incidents that result in serious bodily injury or death from viewing the video until they have filed an initial report.” Whent, the Oakland police chief, testified in favor of the bill.

But Weber’s bill was effectively killed within weeks. As Dan Walters wrote in the Sacramento Bee:

Weber’s body camera bill was beaten up in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. Police unions, whose endorsements politicians crave, strongly opposed it as unfair, and the committee insisted that only local authorities decide when cops can see body videos.

August Vollmer, police chief in Berkeley, California, from 1905 to 1932, advocated the hiring of college graduates and offered the first collegiate course in police science at the University of California. Vollmer is also famous for the development of the principles of modern police administration. Advocates of the concepts of administrative efficiency sought to “centralize the authority within police departments” and to “rationalize the procedures of command control.”

But now, the hottest police reform proposal in years — mandating that patrol officers wear cameras in response to concerns about police brutality — is being stalled in Northern California’s largest city. The Mercury-News has details:

SAN JOSE — Amid a national push for police officers to wear body cameras, San Jose’s efforts to equip its officers have stalled for years, most recently waiting for the city and its police union to agree on a policy covering the use of cameras. …

As of Friday, department and union officials say there is no clear timetable for when the first San Jose officers will be equipped with the tiny cameras. In 2013, the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs Association agreed on a use policy for body-worn cameras. But union leaders say the array of privacy issues posed by the devices means their deployment has to pair with the creation of a more comprehensive policy that protects officers’ rights by limiting who can access the footage. …

The next union-city meeting on the issue is set for Jan. 5. Even if an agreement was reached then and there, it could still be years before the cameras hit the streets. …

“There’s this race to get body cams on police as soon as possible, but it’s a very complex issue,” said Officer James Gonzales, incoming vice president of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association. “We realize these are law-enforcement tools of the future. Our goal is to make sure our process is thoughtful.”

‘Indict-o-cams’? Or police protection?

The idea that patrol officers’ conduct while on the job is protected by privacy rights is kind of a head-scratcher when it comes to their interactions with the public in general, not just with criminal suspects. The ACLU has made the obvious point that giving police broad discretion as to when to have their cameras on means that bad cops will just turn them off before doing bad things. This New York Daily News article cites worries about officers having to film themselves while using bathrooms. That seems like a pretty weak argument.

But the NYDN piece also makes a good point about why police officers are likely to eventually come around. The cameras don’t just capture their bad behavior. Cameras can protect them if they behave properly but witness testimony and physical evidence suggest otherwise:

Equipping police with cameras isn’t a new concept. For decades police have used cameras mounted to the dashboards of their patrol cars — initially referred to with suspicion by officers as “indict-o-cams” until they discovered the footage exonerated them in most cases.

This is no surprise. California was home to the largest protest over police brutality in U.S. history: the 1992 riots after a Simi Valley jury mostly cleared four LAPD officers for their videotaped beating of Rodney King.

But do the Democrats these Californians elect to office ever do anything about it? Do they pass laws cracking down on police misconduct or encouraging outside investigations when there are credible examples of a police department treating minority communities with hostility?

I know of no substantive policies of this kind enacted by the Democrat-dominated Legislature in the past 20 years. After a 2006 court decision (Copley Press v. Superior Court) further insulated law enforcement officers from accountability, activists attempted to get the Legislature to rewrite state law. They got nowhere. The result:

An investigation by ColorLines and the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute has found that the decision, combined with state laws that protect police privacy, has blocked the public from knowing whether local police officers have engaged in misconduct, or a pattern of misconduct, even when such misconduct involves officers inappropriately shooting civilians. …

“Now, you don’t have to worry that your dirty laundry or allegations about your dirty laundry will be on the front page of the newspaper,” the attorney representing the local Deputy Sheriff’s Association, Everett Bobbitt, said at the time. In her dissent, Justice Kathryn Werdegar argued in a dissenting opinion that the ruling “overvalues” police officers’ privacy concerns, and “undervalues the public’s interest in disclosure.”

Combined, Copley and the Bill of Rights mean California has the tightest restrictions on public access to police disciplinary information in the country. “Copley differs greatly from laws in the rest of the country,” said Philip Eure, the head of the District of Columbia’s Office of Police Complaints and a former president of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. Copley, Eure said, is “rather extreme” in its public records restrictions and has “caused alarm in the oversight community.”

Issue a focus of elected Dems in New York

Now of course not just Democrats but Republicans and independents should be worried about police misconduct or mistreatment of minority groups. But in California, it is Democrats who have the political power and Democrats who have a strong hold on the support of African-Americans and Latinos — the groups most likely to cite systemic police mistreatment.

So why don’t elected Golden State Dems do anything about this issue?

One reason is plain: The huge political power of police unions, which are courted by both parties.

One reason should be plain but isn’t: The assumption of California’s elected Democrats that African-Americans and Latinos will always vote for them, so they don’t have to tend to their concerns about cops.

Bill de Blasio was elected mayor of New York after a campaign in which he directly addressed the concerns of black voters about police behavior. He may not be following through on his rhetoric, but he at least he brought up the issue. It remains a big issue with the progressive bloc on the New York City Council.

Will an elected California Democrat take the issue and run with it? We shall see.