Carson sheriff committed to officer camera program

Fifteen days could separate unknown factors in a police incident from a clearer picture of what happened. That is the minimum time Nevada law mandates police departments retain footage from officer body cameras.

In Carson City, officers are preserving footage significantly longer, hoping to maintain public trust through what has become an essential program for the Carson City Sheriff’s Office: integrated body cameras and car cameras and the data storage that serves them.

“It is something that is saving us,” said CCSO Undersheriff Jerome Tushbant. “Years back, a lot of cops were resistant. But our cops are pretty good at what they do.”

On Nov. 29, Tushbant showed the Appeal the camera system. Initiated in 2018 by a change in state law, the CCSO body camera program has exceeded state requirements by integrating car-camera footage – new this year – and setting a schedule for video retention depending on the nature of each incident. Tushbant estimated there are just under 200 cameras for 104 sworn officers and nearly 50 marked vehicles. Those in special units like S.W.A.T. use more than one camera at a time.

“We get a really good picture of what’s going on,” Tushbant said.

He compared it to a football team that reviews game footage to learn and train better.

“After a big incident, we’ll watch the film and go over it together,” he said.

The camera system has become a training tool, and Tushbant emphasized the difference between punitive discipline for misconduct and proactive training for those who want to do better in the field.

“Not a single deputy I know wants to go back to the way we were,” he said.

Tushbant said footage resolves most complaints against officers, showing officers acting appropriately. He said video showing misconduct is “extremely rare.”

In February, a CCSO deputy shot a 21-year-old suspect who was wielding a machete and charging a resident on Adaline Street. Footage of the nonfatal shooting from the officer’s body camera was released to the public. The officer was found to have acted appropriately by both the department’s internal review and the Carson City District Attorney’s Office, Tushbant said.

Of the 265,800 videos uploaded since the program’s inception, 182,779 are active evidence, totaling approximately 47,987 hours of video.

Regarding the state mandate of a 15-day minimum retention, Tushbant said, “We’ve just gone further.”

CCSO has its own policies requiring videos of citations remain in the system for two years, videos of misdemeanor arrests remain for seven years, and those of felony arrests for 15 years. Videos of critical incidents remain in the system indefinitely. The shortest retention time is for videos of uncited traffic stops, which stay in the system for 90 days.

Tushbant said no one can alter videos as original copies are uploaded to servers. The camera system automatically turns on when police lights are activated, if a police vehicle crashes or if an officer unlocks a shotgun or rifle for use.

Footage viewing follows the chain of command, Tushbant said. The DA’s office has access to videos for evidence and court proceedings. As far as public releases, Tushbant said someone can ask to watch a video as part of a records request but must make an appointment at the sheriff’s office for viewing. Videos cannot be recorded during viewing as the department protects privacy of both officers and members of the public who appear in videos. In the case of the February shooting, the CCSO made the decision to release the body camera footage after permission was obtained from everyone in the video.

Tushbant also said once a month, supervisors check videos that are selected randomly by the system. The program can also show live locations of officers during an event.

“At the command post, you can turn it on and see in real time what S.W.A.T. officers see,” he said.

The successes of the camera program haven’t come without challenges. As part of Carson City’s internal audit this year, a risk assessment found the program complied with state law but could use more procedures regarding footage review.

Tushbant said the department would need a full-time auditor to monitor thousands of hours of video if city officials desired that level of oversight. He said the department is expecting a full audit of the program in the future as “city government wants to be ahead of the game.”

Sheriff Ken Furlong admitted he was among those officers opposed to the program in the past. He said eight years ago, he was against the idea because he thought the sentiment behind it was “gotcha.”

“The cameras are proving we’re doing things right,” he said.

Furlong said officers are human and make mistakes but using video for training can help minimize mistakes.

“If we did something wrong, we stand up and fix it,” he said.

Furlong said footage has shown officers practicing “extraordinary patience,” using their training to deescalate situations.

“As the (camera) program grows, what we’ve seen are more professional officers,” he said.

Both Tushbant and Furlong agreed the camera program has become important to community policing, though it doesn’t come free. The department has been using the tech company Axon for the program, which has cost upward of $270,000 a year.

Those costs could climb as more video is accumulated in the future, Tushbant said.

“It only takes one major incident,” he said.

He added that evidence of deputies doing the right thing “pays for itself.”