The Pasadena NAACP and community activist Michelle White are dismissing their lawsuit against Pasadena City Manager Steve Mermell and Pasadena Police Chief Phillip Sanchez over the Police Department’s body camera policy. The lawsuit sought to enjoin the use of the new policy because it allegedly was not submitted to the Department of Justice as required by the grant for funding, allegedly was adopted in a manner that undermined the City Council’s right to instruct on the policy, and the policy allegedly impermissibly attempted to designate body camera audio and video as “investigative materials” prior to any investigation. The decision to dismiss the lawsuit was made after the City conducted public hearings on the policy, and after the City announced it adopted two of the four major reforms that the NAACP and Ms. White advocated, including eliminating the “investigative materials” language.
The announcement of the original body camera policy in November of last year was met by harsh criticism of Chief Sanchez for backtracking from an earlier version that was more progressive and City Manager Mermell for rushing to adopt the policy without public hearings. The lawsuit sought to invalidate the provision of the original body camera policy that designated audio/video recording as “investigative materials,” thereby exempting them from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The revised policy replaces the “investigative materials” with a policy favoring disclosure except for specified exemptions. The revised policy also contains a new section prohibiting use of body cameras for political surveillance.
The Pasadena NAACP issued the following statement: “The City should have conducted public hearings before adopting the original body camera policy.
The Pasadena NAACP will continue to advocate for further changes to the policy, including a change that will prohibit officers from viewing videos prior to giving their criminal investigation statements. However, we give credit to the City for belatedly conducting public hearings and making progressive changes to the policy. We recognize that the lawsuit was a catalyst for those changes, and we believe at this juncture that political advocacy will be a more effective tool than litigation for further reforming the policy.”
