From: Jennifer Rakowski
To: City Clerk; Manager Manager; Nishant Joshi; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 7-C Recommendation regarding Truleo Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:04:13 PM
Attachments: 98C1A189-4391-4A71-9034-ECED4D5D592F.png
D39C58D3-F000-466F-9AE0-631E9FE20263.png
75FA82A3-8750-49DD-91B1-0A3BE45E1C6D.png
3C32B0FD-7C2A-4778-B3F2-99A5D49128F0.png
7-C Recommendation to authorize a 5 year contract with
Truleo to automated review and analysis of body worn
camera audio.
Dear City Council
Using technology to efficiently review more Alameda’s
BWC footage is a proactive step. Its impact and
effectiveness requires a closer look at the
comprehensive review process starting with what gets
reviewed, how the department responds to flags and
finally transparency of the results. I support the extension of the contract but I ask the city to follow up in three key areas. 1) Department/Truleo analysis must be improved
to flag and analysis non- English speaking encounters
(The Chief reports that currently the analysis is only of English audio) 2) The audio video records policy should be expanded beyond simply authorizing the review of
audio video records by supervising staff to actually clarify expectations of staff's response to flagged materials. 3) Finally, there is considerable public and scholarly interest in AI and policing. A company-run case study is not
sufficient. It does not provide the transparency or breadth of knowledge that an independent interdisciplinary
scholarly review would provide. The city should give
access to researchers with expertise in AI, Ethics,
Policing and Health to Alameda police/Truleo data this
would benefit the city and increase community
confidence.
The recent California State Auditors report “Law
Enforcement Departments Have Not Adequately
Guarded Against Biased Conduct” highlights both
the reasons to have more proactive review of body
worn audio and the potential shortcomings of
those investigations.
https://auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-105/index.html
Audit Highlights
Some officers at each department had engaged in biased conduct.
None of the departments had fully implemented best practices to mitigate the effects of officer bias.
The departments did not consistently or adequately investigate their officers' possibly biased conduct.
Many investigations were narrowly focused on blatant signs of bias, relied heavily on officers' denials, or did not account for how officers' conduct reasonably appeared.
Each department needs a better framework for consistently identifying, investigating, and tracking incidents of bias The following examples drawn from the audit occurred in local police departments and best illustrate the need for proactive tools to investigate for bias. They also demonstrate the shortcomings of current internal department reviews. Early intervention systems must broadly review officer conduct including incidents that include non- English audio. Comprehensive policies and standards to investigate flagged incidents should be developed. It also demonstrates the benefit of an outside independent review.
Examples of Biased Conduct by Officers at a Law Enforcement Department Reviewed
Example 1
Source: Complaint investigation file and body-worn camera footage from San José Police.
Example 2
Source: Misconduct investigation file and body-worn camera footage.
Example 3
Source: Review of investigation records and body-worn camera footage.
Example 4
Source: Investigation records and body-worn camera footage.
The state audit found that departments were more likely to sustain complaints made internally by law enforcement personnel than from the public.
Because of Deficiencies in Their Investigations, the Local Law Enforcement Departments Reviewed Failed to Recognize and Address Potentially Biased Conduct
I thank you for considering these requests, examples and remarks.
Jennifer Rakowski