Are these cameras mandatory in each encounter, or does they deputy get to decide when to turn it on and off? If the latter, this expenditure is a one-way street to protect law enforcement, not the public.

There was a recent article in the Almanac in which the Atherton PD’s policy of APD officers “shall” use cameras in each encounter was interpreted by the APD to give discretion to the officer over whether to record because it did not say “must”. This came up when a Stanford professor alleged harassment and the three officers all chose to turn their cameras off.

Problem would be solved if the legislature passed a law stating when California cops decide to turn cameras off, an inference shall (or is it must?) be made that the officer did not want the encounter recorded because it would reflect badly on him or her.

>>> *should* result in video records

And if it doesn't, in the words of our great president: "you're fired"

We offer great salaries, benefits and gold-plated retirement along with the right to carry a gun and choose who to investigate, arrest, ticket or follow.

The deal? Transparency. San Mateo County has been lacking in transparency.

Turning off a camera should be a zero tolerance offense. Period.

Always on... always recording.