How Can San Diego Officers Balance Body Cameras And Civil Rights?

TOP STORY ON MIDDAY EDITION, A SAN DIEGO LAWMAKER IS LINING UP WITH CIVIL LIBERTY ACT TICKETS ON THE QUESTION OF WHEN POLICE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VIEW FOOTAGE FROM THEIR BODY CAMERAS. ASSEMBLYWOMAN SHIRLEY WEBER HAS INTRODUCED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BAR OFFICERS FROM LOOKING AT THE FOOTAGE OF AN INCIDENT BEFORE WRITING UP A REPORT. ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES INCLUDING SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CLAIMING LOOKING AT BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE WOULD ALLOW POLICE TO WRITE MORE ACCURATE REPORTS. JOINING ME TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE AND FOR AN UPDATE ON POLICE BODY CAMERAS IN SAN DIEGO, OUR SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN AND THANK YOU TO THE SHOW -- WELCOME TO THE SHOW'S. KELLEN RUSSONIELLO STAFF ATTORNEY WITH ACLU SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES. WELCOME TO THE SHOW. THANK YOU. CHIEF GOVERNMENT, ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER SAYS IN DEFENSE OF THE BILL, THAT POLICE REPORTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BASED ON WANT AND OFFICERS -- WHAT AN OFFICER SAW HIM NOT WHAT A CAMERAS MARK RIVERA. TO THINK THAT IS A VALID POINT ? I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THE MOST ACCURATE INFORMATION. OUR POLICY IS THAT OFFICERS THAT THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO VIEW THE VIDEO FOOTAGE THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN BY THEIR OWN BODY WORN CAMERA OR EVEN ANOTHER OFFICERS CAMERA AND THIS IS TO GET TO THE MOST ACCURATE POLICE REPORTS. I'VE BEEN ON THE DEPARTMENT FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS. IT EARLY IN MY CAREER WE USED -- DID USE TAPE RECORDERS AND THAT WE HAD TAPE RECORDERS I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND OTHER OFFICERS, THAT HAVING A TAPE RECORDER MADE OUR REPORTS SO MUCH MORE ACCURATE THAT WE COULD GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE ACTUAL STATEMENTS. SO THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE THE MOST ACCURATE EVIDENCE THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN AND SO I AM IN COMPLETE FAVOR OF US BEING ABLE TO VIEW THE VIDEO BEFORE OUR OFFICERS WRITE THE REPORTS. AND SO IS THE COPS OR THE COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES DIVISION OF THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RECOMMENDATION OF BEST PRACTICES FOR BODY WORN CAMERA PROGRAM. THEY ALSO STATE THAT. HOW COULD BEWLEY BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE BEFORE WRITING A POLICE REPORT BE HELPFUL TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ? MANY SITUATIONS. OFFICERS GO INTO A SITUATION AND YOU MAY HAVE SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE THERE, THE BODY WORN CAMERA IS CAPTURING THAT. THAT SCENE AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING. AND YOU MAY GET DISTRACTED. YOU MIGHT HEAR A NOISE OR SOMEBODY MIGHT SAY SOMETHING OFF THE VIEW OF WHERE YOUR EYES ARE LOOKING AND THE CAMERA CAN CATCH EVERYTHING. SO WHAT EVERYBODY IS I THINK SEEKING IS WE WANT THE TRUTH. AND BY HAVING OUR OFFICERS BE ABLE TO VIEW THAT VIDEO PRODUCT -- PRIOR TO WRITING THE REPORT, EVEN TO THE MOST ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED. SO CALLAN, WHY WOULD A MORE ACCURATE ACCOUNT ACCORDING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS PUT DEFENDANTS AT A DISADVANTAGE ? I THINK WHAT YOU ARE ASKING IS WHY WOULD DEFENDANTS IN THE CASE BE DISADVANTAGED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING ABLE TO VIEW THE VIDEO PRIOR TO WRITING A REPORT. I THINK THE ANSWER IS THAT DEFENDANTS -- LET ME GO BACK AND SAY THAT WE AGREE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO GET THE MOST ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. BUT GOING ABOUT IT BY HAVING THE OFFICER REVIEW THE VIDEO IS ACTUALLY THE CHEMETALL TO HAVING THE ACCURACY VERIFIED BECAUSE THE OFFICER'S EXPERIENCE OF WHAT -- HIS OWN INITIAL REPORT IS A GOOD SOURCE OF EVIDENCE. AND THAT EVIDENCE IN COMBINATION WITH THE VIDEO CAMERA IS GOING TO BRING TOGETHER A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THERE'S A LOT OF SCIENCE THAT SHOWS THAT WHEN A PERSON, ESPECIALLY IF -- IF A PERSON IS PUT IN A HIGH STRESS SITUATION, THERE CAN BE DIFFICULTY WITH REMEMBERING EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AND IF THEY ARE SHOWED A VIDEO OF WHAT THE CAMERA CAUGHT, BEFORE THEY ARE ACTUALLY GIVEN THEIR STATEMENT, THEY WILL SHOW THAT THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE PERSON WILL LATCH ON TO -- ON TWO THINGS IN THE VIDEO BECAUSE IT TRIGGERS THINGS THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REMEMBER BETTER AND MAY FORGET THINGS THAT ARE NOT SHOWN IN THE VIDEO. SO WE ARE LOSING A SENSE OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT RECORDED ON THE CAMERA BUT WERE EXPERIENCED BY THE OFFICER IN THE SITUATION. AND DOESN'T THE ACLU ALSO HAVE AN ISSUE OF FAIRNESS HERE. THE POLICE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE VIDEO BEFORE WRITING THEIR POLICE REPORT. BUT POTENTIAL DEFENDANT OF SOMEONE BEING INTERROGATED WILL NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE THE POLICE VIDEO BEFORE BEING INTERROGATED. AS I WRITE ? RIGHT. THERE'S AN ISSUE OF FAIRNESS AND ALSO AN ISSUE OF WHAT IS GOOD INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS KNOWN FOR A LONG TIME THAT A GOOD INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE IS TO HAVE A WITNESS OR A VICTIM WRITE THEIR OWN STATEMENT PRIOR TO BEING SHOWN ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WHETHER THAT IS AUDIO OR VIDEO. JUST BECAUSE IT ADDS TO THE STORY IN YOU GET A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED. AND IT CAN BE USED AGAINST SOMEBODY TO IMPEACH THEM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO IT IS GOOD INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE TO HAVE SOMEONE WRITE THE -- WRITE A REPORT RIGHT BEEN SHOWN THE VIDEO AND THERE'S AN ISSUE OF FAIRNESS WHERE IF THE PUBLIC IS BEING MADE TO WRITE THEIR STATEMENT PRIOR TO INCLUDING DEFENDANTS, WITNESSES, VICTIMS AS WELL, IF THEY ARE BEING REQUIRED TO WRITE A STATEMENT PRIOR TO BEING SHOWN THE VIDEO, THEN -- AND POLICE ARE BEING SHOWN THE VIDEO AND HAVING THE CHANCE TO POTENTIALLY TAILOR THEIR STATEMENT TO WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO, THERE IS A REAL PERCEPTION OF UNFAIRNESS AND TREATMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS GETTING SPECIAL TREATMENT AND THE COMMUNITY IS NOT. HELEN MAKES AN INTERESTING POINT IN THE FACT THAT YOUR PERCEPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED IS JUST DIFFERENT PERHAPS FROM WHAT A CAMERA CAN SHOW. ARE YOU -- IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF LOSING EVIDENCE, LOSING PERCEPTION FROM THE POLICE OFFICER IF INDEED THAT OFFICER DOES VIEW THE BODY CAMERA VIDEO BEFORE WRITING HIS REPORT ? AGAIN, MEMORY FOR ANYONE IS A PART -- IMPERFECT AND IT SHOULD BE REFRESHED. OFFICERS -- OFFICER SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE EVERY AVAILABLE MEANS TO DELIVER AN ACCURATE REPORT OR INTERVIEW AND TO REQUIRE OTHERWISE ACTUALLY MAKES IT UNFAIR FOR THE OFFICER AND GIVES THE OFFICER AT DISADVANTAGE 50 TALK ABOUT THE DEATH -- DEFENDANT OR SUSPECT WHO IS UNDER ARREST, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THEY GIVE A STATEMENT. THEY ARE GIVEN THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS AND THEY CAN CHOOSE TO REMAIN SILENCE. THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU MUST GIVE A STATEMENT. SO WHEN DO SUSPECTS OR ONE WOULD IMAGINE SOMEONE WHO IS ACTUALLY CHARGED WITH A CRIME, GET TO LOOK AT THE POLICE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE ? THAT WILL COME UP DURING DISCOVERY IF THE SITUATION CONTINUES TO GO TO COURT, I WOULD IMAGINE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDER DURING DISCOVERY WOULD SEEK ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE EVIDENCE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID IS WHEN WE DEVELOPED A COMPREHENSIVE BODY CAMERA POLICY, IS THAT WE SOUGHT OUR TO MEET THE STAKEHOLDERS WHICH INCLUDED THE ACLU AND I WILL TELL YOU WE ARE AND ABOUT 95% AGREEMENT ON OUR POLICY AND WE WELCOME THEIR INPUT AND WE DRAFTED OUR POLICY TO BALANCE A CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE, THE PROTECTION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS AND POLICE OFFICER ACCOUNTABILITY. WE ARE THE LARGEST CITY IN THE UNITED STATES THAT HAVE DEPLOYED 600 BODY CAMERAS AND BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, WE WILL HAVE MORE THAN 1000 BODY CAMERAS AND WE HAVE CONDUCTED OUR FIRST ANALYSIS OF THIS AND IT HAS BEEN FAVORABLE. LET ME GET YOUR REACTION TO THAT, CALLAN, BECAUSE WHAT CHIEF ZIMMERMAN SAID IS THAT THE DEFENDANT IN A CASE, ATTORNEYS WILL PROBABLY MAKE A REQUEST TO SEE ALL EVIDENCE AND SO FORTH. ARE SIMILAR -- CIVIL LIBERTARIANS COMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT THAT THAT IS WHEN THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE WILL FIRST SAY THIS -- SEE THE BODY CAMERA THE RADIO ? OUR POSITION IS THAT WHEN A PERSON IS THE SUBJECT OF A RECORDING, THEY SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE VIDEO WHEN THEY ASK FOR IT. THIS IS HELPFUL BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE PERSON MAKE A EDUCATED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO FILE A COMPLAINT. OR TO ACTUALLY PURSUE LEGAL ADVICE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY WOULD BE HAVING CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST THEM. IF YOU WAIT UNTIL THAT POINT, IT REALLY SLOWS THINGS DOWN. IT MIGHT EVEN COME AS A SHOCK AT THAT POINT TO SOMEBODY. I THINK WHEN SOMEBODY IS THE SUBJECT OF THE RECORDING THEY SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THAT VIDEO, EVEN PRIOR TO CRIMINAL CHARGES OVER A FORMAL COMPLAINT BEING FILED AGAINST THAT OFFICER. LET ME STEP BACK FOR A MINUTE AND ASK YOU SOME BASIC QUESTIONS, CHIEF ZIMMERMAN ABOUT BODY CAMERAS. YOU SAID THAT THE GOAL IS TO HAVE 1000 SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICERS WITH BODY CAMERAS BY THE END OF THE YEAR. YES. WE ANTICIPATE THEY WILL HAVE 1000 ON UNIFORM PATROL OFFICER SO ANYONE IN A UNIFORM PATROL ASSIGNMENT WILL BE VERY A BODY CAMERA. WE CURRENTLY HAVE 600 NOW. DO THEY AUTOMATICALLY START RECORDING OR DO THEY HAVE TO BE MANUALLY TRIGGERED ? WHAT HAPPENS IS THERE IN A BUFFERING MODE, SO EVERY 30 SECONDS THE CAMERA IS ALWAYS ON BUT NOT ALWAYS RECORDING SO WHAT HAPPENS DURING THE BUFFERING MODE, WHICH IS ALL THE TIME, IS THAT IT IS RECORDING OVER ITSELF EVERY 30 SECONDS. FOR OUR POLICIES THAT THE OFFICER WILL HIT THE RECORD BUTTON FOR AN ENFORCEMENT CONTEXT SUCH AS AN ARREST, DETENTION, TRAFFIC CITATION, AND THAT RECORDING THEM WILL LOOP BACK. THE FIRST 30 SECONDS WHICH CATCHES THE FIRST 30 SECONDS ON VIDEO ONLY, NO AUDIO, BUT THEN AFTER 30 SECONDS, THEN IT CAPTURES BOTH THE VIDEO AND AUDIO AND THAT CONTINUES ON UNTIL THE END OF THE ENFORCEMENT CONTACT. HOW ABOUT A POLICE CALL INSIDE OF A HOME? WOULD BODY CAMERAS BE USED THEN AS WELL ? YES. IF OUR OFFICERS ARE RESPONDING TO A CALL INSIDE OF A PERSON'S RESIDENCE AND WE HAVE A LAWFUL, REASON TO BE THERE, LEGAL REASON TO BE THERE, YES. THERE ARE SOMETIMES THAT WE WOULD NOT PUT IT ON AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH IF WE ARE INTERVIEW A CHILD IN A CHILD MOLESTER SEXUAL ASSAULT OR SITUATION TO THAT NATURE. IS A PERSON BEING RECORDED TOLD THEY ARE BEING RECORDED ? GENERALLY SPEAKING, FOR OUR POLICY, IS THAT WE ENCOURAGE OUR OFFICERS TO TELL THE INDIVIDUAL WHO THEY ARE TALKING WITH THAT THE OFFICER DOES HAVE A VIDEO CAMERA AND THAT HAS GONE FOR A LONG WAY TO HELP DE-ESCALATE INSOLENCE. MANY OFFICERS HAVE TOLD ME INCLUDING SPOKEN WITH SOME JUST THIS MORNING THAT THERE HAS BEEN NUMEROUS TIMES WHERE A SITUATION SEEMED TO -- LETS TAKE RAMP UP A LITTLE BIT, EMOTIONS WERE GETTING HEIGHTENED. AND THE OFFICER JUST REMINDED THE INDIVIDUAL THAT THEY ARE ON VIDEOTAPE RIGHT NOW AND THAT IS COMPLETELY DE-ESCALATED INCIDENT. CALLAN, WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING SEVERAL LIBERTIES, POLICE BODY CAMERA CAN BE A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD. WE HEARD THE BASICS FROM CHIEF ZIMMERMAN OF HOW POLICE IN SAN DIEGO ARE TOLD TO USE THEIR BODY CAMERAS. THEY CAN USE THEM INSIDE OF A RESIDENCE. WHAT PRIVACY CONCERNS DOES THE ACLU HAVE GENERALLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE BODY CAMERAS ? WE AGREE BODY CAMERAS CAN BE A WIN-WIN BUT AGAIN THAT IS ONLY GOING TO BE IF THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED ALONGSIDE A POLICY THAT INCLUDES A STRONG PRIVACY PROTECTIONS AND ENSURING ACCOUNT THE ABILITY -- ACCOUNTABILITY. PRIVACY CONCERNS COME ABOUT WHEN ASKED THE CHIEF MENTOR, RECORDING IN A HOME IS PARTICULARLY AT EXAMPLE OF WHERE PRIVACY CONCERNS MIGHT BE HEIGHTENED. THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT IS FEASIBLE THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE KNOW THEY ARE ON CAMERA AND THAT THE CAMERAS AREN'T FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER GOING OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THERE TO DO. AND PARTICULARLY IN THE HOME WHETHER THEY ARE IN NOT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, NONEMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES, MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE SITUATION WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT MIGHT ASK IF THEY WANT THE CAMERA TO BE TURNED OFF. BUT IF THE CAMERA REVEALS POSSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE DON'T NOTICE WHEN THEY ARE THERE. WAS THE LEGALITY OF THAT ? WELL, THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO NOT SEE HAPPENING IN -- AND WE WANT THAT INCLUDED POLICY. WE DO NOT WANT CAMERAS TO BE RECORDING AND THEN LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BE GOING AND LOOKING AND DOING FISHING EXPEDITIONS FOR CRIMINAL -- THAT MOST BODY CAMERAS AWAY FROM THE PURPOSE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND MORE TOWARDS MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM. SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING THE BODY CAMERAS AS A TOOL FOR RESPONDING TO EMERGENCIES AND USED DURING ENFORCEMENT RELATED CONTEXT OF JUST SPYING ON THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THIS SOUNDS LIKE CHEAP ZIMMERMAN, THERE ARE ASPECTS TO THIS THE NEED TO BE FULLY VETTED AS WE GO DOWN THIS ROAD. TO RESPOND TO KELLEN. WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT EVERYTHING, IT'S ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. WE ARE PROVIDING -- TRYING TO BRING THE BEST -- IMPARTIAL MANNER AND IF WE ARE IN A SITUATION INSIDE A RESIDENCE OR A CAR STOPPED IN A VEHICLE OR SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS AND THE OFFICERS DISTRACTED, BUT THE VIDEO CAMERA HAS PICKED UP SOMEBODY TOSSING A GUN, TOSSING MAY BE PART OF A CRIME, IT'S ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND WE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TOO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. AS YOU WERE SAYING, CHIEF ZIMMERMAN, YOU ALREADY HAVE NUMBERS TO BACK UP THE FACT THAT BODY CAMERAS ARE WORKING. IT SEEMS. COMING DOWN THE NUMBER OF -- CUTTING DOWN THE NUMBER OF PLAYS AGAINST POLICE IS THAT I ? YES A FEW WEEKS AGO WE GAVE OUR FIRST PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THIS AND WE TOOK THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF JANUARY TO JUNE 2014 THAT WAS IN OUR THREE DIVISIONS WHICH WERE FIRST THREE DIVISION SOUTH EASTERN DIVISION, MIDCITY DIVISION, CENTRAL DIVISION AND WE COMPARED THAT TO THE NEXT SIX MONTHS AND WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT TOTAL COMPLAINTS WERE REDUCED 40.54%. THERE WAS 37 FORMAL COMPLAINTS MADE IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, COMPARED TO 22 THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. BUT ALSO THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE -- WITHIN THOSE CLAIMS WERE REDUCED WHAT THAT 60% GOING FROM 82% COMPARED TO 33% THE FOLLOWING SIX MONTHS. AND THEN WE ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT OUR USE OF FORCE AND THAT ALSO WAS REDUCED. SO VERY POSITIVE RESULTS. I'M WONDERING, THOUGH, SINCE THE USE OF FORCE HAS GONE DOWN SINCE THESE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN POLICE AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RECORDED, DOES THAT INDICATE TO YOU THAT PERHAPS POLICE WERE USING THOSE TACTICS TO FREQUENTLY BEFORE THEY KNEW THAT THEY WOULD BE RECORDED ? I THINK NOT JUST FOR THE COMMUNITY MEMBER THAT AGAIN HAS ONE WE TOLD THE OFFICER HAD SAID THAT THE CAMERA WAS ON HAD DE-ESCALATED THINGS BUT I THINK ANYTIME THAT SOMEONE KNOWS THAT YOU ARE BEING VIDEOED, THE OFFICER OF COMMUNITY MEMBER BEHAVIOR IS LIKELY TO APPROVE SO I THINK IT IS A WIN-WIN FOR EVERYONE. WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO YOU, KELLEN, ABOUT THE NUMBERS OF THIS REDUCTION IN THE POLICE USE OF BODILY FORCE AND PEPPER SPRAY SINCE THE INTERACTIONS WITH THE PUBLIC HAVE BEEN RECORDED ? I AGREE WITH THE CHIEF. I THINK THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE GOOD. THEY ARE SHOWING POSITIVE PROGRESS. AGAIN, THEY ARE PRELIMINARY SO WE WILL HAVE TO SEE IF THESE BEAR OUT OVER TIME. BUT THE USE OF FORCED PRODUCTION IS SOMETHING THAT IS A POSITIVE THAT COME FROM THE BODY CAMERAS AND SOMETHING THAT THE BODY CAMERAS WERE IMPLEMENTED AND INTENDED TO ADDRESS. ENSURING THAT THERE IS ONE POLICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS IMPROVED BUT ALSO THAT ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN MISCONDUCT COMES, SO IT IS UNCLEAR EXACTLY WHY THE COMPLETE HAVE GOTTEN DOWN, WHETHER IS RELATED TO THE USE OF FORCE GOING DOWN OR PEOPLE BEING DASHING THE VIDEO CHOOSING NOT TO FILE A COMPLAINT SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE ANALYSIS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT MEANS BUT THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS ARE POSITIVE. CHIEF ZIMMERMAN ? YES, TO RESPOND TO THAT. WE HAD SPOKEN WITH OUR OFFICERS AND SERGEANTS AND HAVE TOLD ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHEN A CITIZEN HAS INDICATED THEY ARE GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT AN OFFICER AND WHEN THEY WERE TOLD THE INCIDENT WAS CAPTURED ON THE VIDEO, THAT MANY OF THEM NO LONGER WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A COMPLAINT. SEVERAL OF THEM ACTUALLY ON THE SPOT WERE SHOWN THE VIDEO AND INDICATED THAT THEY MAY HAVE OVERREACTED AS TO EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. OKAY, THEN, IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS. AND I APPRECIATE YOU BOTH COMING ON. AND SPEAKING ABOUT THIS I HAVE BEEN SPEED WITH SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN AND KELLEN RUSSONIELLO , STAFF ATTORNEY WITH THE ACLU OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES. THANK YOU BUTCH -- BOTH VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.