Oscar Perez

Professor Brian Goldberg

Public Safety Law

5 July 2019

  Assignment: Super Body Worn Cameras Policies Memorandum

Chief, 

This response is to address my belief that “SBWC’s” violate civilian rights under the

U.S./California constitution when law enforcement captures faces, voice, and DNA

samples of subjects via breath and If “SBWC’s” are purchased our officers should ask

for consent from the public prior to activating the equipment.

I do believe that our officers would be violating subject’s right to privacy by “secretly”

capturing face, voice, and DNA via breath sample by utilizing the “SBWC”.  Although an

officer is lawfully performing their duty while they gather this information, this information

obtained from subjects is extremely private. Most individuals in their mind would not be

expecting law enforcement to obtain/retain this information. The court cases of

Olmstead vs. The United States and Griswold VS. Connecticut ruled a person’s scope

of expectation of privacy starts in their mind.  The majority of people would never expect

an interaction with an officer would mean a record of where they were, what they looked

like, what they sounded like, and their specific DNA would be taken via breath sample.  I

believe the majority of people would feel this documentation/record was a violation of
their privacy in their mind, especially if they did not know our “SBWC” had this

capability.

DNA to most people is private information and currently requires law enforcement to

obtain consent, offender commit a felony (state voted), certain misdemeanors, or a

warrant to collect this evidence.  Officers are not allowed to force an individual to give a

breathalyzer sample, force a buccal swab, and are required to obtain a warrant to

collect DNA such as blood. 

Currently case law such as Carpenter VS.U.S.and Jones VS. U.S. protects individual’s

privacy rights from being tracked, followed, and recorded for an extended/continuous

amount of time.  I could see a scenario in which an individual is contacted by our

department or any department who also utilizes “SBWC” multiple times.  Each “SWBC”

hit/record creates a time stamp/geographic location of where the subject was

identified/recorded. Although Carpenter/Jones where in public which normally is

somewhere that people do not have an expectation of privacy, the

recording/documenting/tracking of them from technology was an infringement of their

expectation privacy.

If the “SBWC” are purchased/utilized/activated, I believe officers should obtain consent

prior to its activation.  Without consent it is possible for any of this information to be

ruled as ‘fruit from the poisonous tree”.  Currently in California, BWC’s are utilized to
capture/record investigation without having to ask for consent with public opinion

allowing this because it is solely to document the investigation/incident.  Information

obtained from these “SBWC” capture/document other information that could later be

used in other criminal investigations/identification is something I feel most people would

not be ok with.  Not disclosing to the public/community we serve that we are actively

taking DNA samples from them and storing it, I feel would make the public feel law

enforcement was not being transparent which would hurts/hinder our relationship and

community relations with them. 

Word Count prior to references: 491

References:

Begovich, M., (2019). LEPS 530, Presentation 7-Podcast Lecture: Technology versus
Privacy - Making Prudent Managerial
Decisions.https://ole.sandiego.edu/webapps/login/.

Begovich, Michael. “Presentation 1.1 Right to Privacy and Griswold v. Connecticut

(Part1)” University of San Diego, LEPS-530-07-SU19-Public Safety Law

Begovich, Michael. “Presentation 1.2 Right to Privacy and Griswold v. Connecticut

(Part2)” University of San Diego, LEPS-530-07-SU19-Public Safety Law 

In re C.B., 6 Cal. 5th 118, Supreme Court of California, 30 August 2018.Lexis Nexus