Davis panel presses police for clearer data in annual surveillance-technology review

The Davis Police Accountability Commission on Monday pressed the Davis Police Department for clearer, more usable information about its surveillance technologies and asked staff to supply additional data ahead of the commission's April follow-up.

The commission's initial review of the department's annual surveillance-technology packet focused on how the department describes use and effectiveness for roughly a dozen technologies, including body-worn cameras, fixed public-safety cameras, small unmanned aerial systems (drones) and automated license-plate readers. Kelly, assistant city manager, told commissioners the item before them was the informational first step and that the council will consider the city's surveillance-technology approvals for the fiscal year at its first June meeting.

Commissioners said the one-page chart in the packet is an improvement over earlier, bulkier reports, but they repeatedly asked for more quantitative and outcome-based measures: counts of uses, case outcomes (for example, referrals to the district attorney), and explicit documentation of policy complaints or violations. Vice Chair Wilson said she was struck by how many entries list "none" for complaints and violations and asked whether "complaint" was defined as an external, formal complaint to the department.

Kelly responded that in the chart the complaint column is intended to record outside complaints. She said internal concerns or staff dislikes would not necessarily be reported in that column unless they triggered a formal review. Kelly also said, when asked about misuse, "in these cases... there was not misuse that we're aware of," and offered to ask the police chief for clarifying details and any known internal findings.

Commissioners pressed the department for specifics. Several noted the remote public-safety cameras and the small drones sections repeated the same descriptive language across columns and requested counts (how many times used), how many incidents produced prosecutorial referrals, and whether any uses led to policy findings. One line in the packet notes a drone "was used at a large public event with elevated safety risks," which commissioners asked staff to identify (Kelly said she would ask the chief; commissioners suggested Picnic Day as a likely event).

Commissioners suggested simple transparency steps to make the packet more meaningful to the public: a clearer distinction between how technologies are used and how their effectiveness is assessed; an explicit line noting whether any policy infractions were investigated during the reporting period; and public-facing materials (signage at fixed camera sites, a dedicated webpage or QR codes) to raise citizen awareness about where and how surveillance tools are used.

The commission also discussed process: the chief and a lieutenant are scheduled to appear at the April meeting to discuss internal investigations and related questions. Commissioners said they prefer to use the next meeting to make formal recommendations to the council but asked staff to collect answers to the data questions raised now so the commission can do a substantive second review in April.

Votes at a glance: Commissioners approved the meeting agenda and the January minutes and later voted to adjourn. The motions were moved and seconded on the record; no oppositions or abstentions were voiced during the roll calls and the chair declared the agenda and minutes approved and the meeting adjourned.