On Monday, March 19, police in Denver and Sacramento, Calif., shot and killed men under questionable circumstances.
In Sacramento, police body camera footage of officers shooting an unarmed man was released in a matter of days. In Denver, media requests for the footage of police shooting a man in a case of mistaken identity have been denied. The difference — Sacramento has a city ordinance outlining when footage will be released. Denver has no such policy.
However, a movement to create one in Denver may be happening, even though some public safety officials have resisted the idea.
In a recent report on the Michael Marshall case, the city’s police watchdog recommended the safety department create a policy to provide clarity to the public. The policy would apply to all footage, including police body cameras and surveillance cameras inside the city’s two jails. Marshall died in Denver’s downtown jail in 2015 after deputies piled on top of him during a possible psychotic episode.
“The lack of such guidelines may have inadvertently invited public confusion, controversy and potential litigation about the release of the video in this case,” independent monitor Nick Mitchell wrote in a March 19 critique of the Marshall case.
He added, “The guidelines should balance the need for prompt public transparency with the need for confidentiality during active investigations, among other factors. The guidelines should explain, to the extent possible, the analytical framework that the DOS will use in evaluating requests for the release of evidence of critical incidents.”
In a response, Denver’s deputy safety director Jess Vigil wrote that a departmental policy was not necessary because Colorado case law already has defined when police and sheriffs can release criminal justice records. And he said the department must make “case by case reviews.”
As body cameras, jail video and dashboard cameras become more prevalent among law enforcement agencies, policies for releasing footage remain inconsistent, including in Colorado.
In Denver, the Department of Public Safety sometimes releases footage, but the timing depends on whether there is a criminal investigation or internal investigation into misconduct. The city always requires an open records request.
In Douglas County, Sheriff Tony Spurlock released an edited video of body camera footage within nine days of a fatal New Year’s Eve shooting that killed Deputy Zackari Parrish and the suspect. Spurlock said he wanted the public to see for itself what the deputies faced when they tried to take a mentally ill man into custody.
Editor’s note: The following video contains imagery that some might find disturbing.
The next week, Spurlock released all of the video to media outlets, including The Denver Post, that had requested the footage through open records laws. He did so even though investigations into the shooting are ongoing.
Last month, the Los Angeles Police Commission approved a new policy to require city police to release footage from body cameras, cars and drones, according to the Los Angeles Times. Previously, the department did not release footage.
In Sacramento, the city council approved an ordinance in 2016 to release all video within 30 days of any officer-involved shooting, in-custody death or complaint filed with its police watchdog. The ordinance includes provisions for protecting identities and criminal investigations and requires that victims’ families be allowed to watch it first. If the police chief wants to prevent the video’s release, he must explain his position to council, the ordinance says.
Because of the ordinance, Sacramento released footage in the March 19 shooting death of 22-year-old Stephon Clark, and the shooting has prompted protests for nearly two weeks.
The Post’s request for footage of the March 19 shooting death of Steven Nguyen, 27, and wounding of Rafael Landeros, 23, has been denied. Denver police had mistakenly identified Landeros as jail escapee Mauricio Venzor-Gonzalez, and officers fired shots at the car he was riding in after a chase.
“While this Department appreciates the strong public interest in the BWC video from the officer involved shooting on March 19th, it has an obligation to maintain the integrity of the criminal investigation and likely prosecution against Rafael Landeros,” wrote Mary Dulacki, the safety department’s records administrator. “Additionally, the public and the Department share an interest in ensuring the reliability of the review of the officers’ conduct by the Office of the District Attorney. We believe that those interests outweigh the public purpose to be served by release of the video at this point in the investigations and review.”
Dulacki’s decision is legal under Colorado law and a 2005 legal case that establish guidelines for releasing criminal justice records. Agencies are allowed to weigh the integrity of investigations against the public interest.
Even so, Denver could write a more clear policy if it wanted to, said Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition. Those statewide laws set a baseline, he said.
“But I don’t think that stops any law enforcement agency from laying out some guidelines,” he said.
When Marshall was killed in the Downtown Detention Center in November 2015, people protested, including an interruption of the city’s annual Martin Luther King Day Marade. The video was released after the Colorado Independent filed a lawsuit.
Roberts agreed with Mitchell’s assessment that a transparent citywide policy could have prevented some of the anger and accusations of a cover-up.
“Why not at least have some guidelines that help the public understand how these decisions are made?” Roberts said. “People would be a little bit more comforted knowing it’s not like they would never see the video.”
If the safety department refuses to write a policy, the City Council could force it by creating a city ordinance.
Paul Kashmann, a councilman who leads the safety committee, said the issue demands further attention. It is likely to be discussed on April 25 when safety department leaders attend a meeting to respond to criticism in Mitchell’s report.
“My guess is a written policy, a clear policy, benefits everybody,” Kashmann said. “In today’s climate, it appears to me it makes sense to have a clear-cut policy.”