[protesters chanting] the country is reaching a tipping point, as the number of shootings between police and black men increase. we'll show you what local communities are doing to strike a balance between police presence and relations with the public on this edition of equal time. welcome to the campus of san jose state university in this edition of equal time. i'm your host, journalism school director bob rucker.

across the united states, scenes of police shootings are prompting protests by many people. some say they're recognizing a pattern. quinn dang shows us what local communities are doing to voice their concerns regarding racial bias within the police force. [protesters chanting] students gathered at san jose state on this day in may to march against the shootings between police officers and unarmed black men. communities across the country are organizing to combat the high-profile cases across the u.s. here at san josé state university, the movement is well underway. in april, world-renowned social activist angela davis came to speak to students about a variety of social issues including what she called a "militarized police state." but let me say that it actually is exciting to reflect on all of the changes that have happened over the last half century.

the lecture brought the support of many well-known social activists. every generation has an obligation to fight its struggles, and because of what angela did in the 60s and 70s, this generation doesn't have to do that! social activism is an attempt to seek justice from outside of the justice system. but is there movement within the justice system to right these wrongs? at the san josé independent police auditor's office, former superior court judge ladoris cordell is working to flush out racial biases in the police force. she says bias exists within all people, including police officers. there's explicit bias where people just up-front, "i hate you because of who you are." that's the explicit. and then there's the implicit. that's the kind of bias that's unconscious. you don't even know you have it. but, as a result of what you do, even though you don't even realize it, there it is.

despite the biases, the numbers in her annual report have found that out of all claims against san jose police for misconduct due to racial bias, none were sustained. cordell suggests that the most effective way to eliminate bias within policing is to allow complete transparency within police work. one way of doing that is the institution of worn body-cameras, which the department plans on implementing in the coming years. earlier this year, the department began testing mounted body cameras. it would take an estimated $1 million to fully equip sjpd's staff. but no matter what social views people have of the police, nothing can really compare to seeing police work first-hand. so equal time went on a ride-along with a san jose police veteran to find out what goes into the job of being a cop on the streets. so she cut herself? she flat out told you... where did you guys find her? well she actually-it was a call-out pending. yeah, was she just walking around? when we come back, we'll continue our coverage from the front seat of a police cruiser to show you a day

in the life of a san jose police officer. [music] welcome back. we've seen what civilians have had to say about reported bias within policing, but what do police have to say about it? right now, we're going to join quinn dang as he continues our coverage with one of san josé's finest. officer henry duran is a 25-year veteran with the san jose police department. he says, for him, racial bias doesn't even enter the question when making a stop. people feel like that, "you stopped me 'cause i'm black, or you stopped me 'cause i'm mexican, or you stopped me..." and a lot of times i didn't even know, until i stopped you, you know, what ethnicity you were. but other officers say that race is just a matter of fact,

and if it were able to be addressed more openly, it would make their jobs easier. do you think it's important, maybe, for us to know the race of the individual if we run a driver's license? ok? is your race on your driver's license? no. informants or suspects that have, you know, told the officer, "hey, this is predominantly a mexican area so if you see somebody of another race, that's probably going to be a good car stop because this area is known for drug activity and, you know, drug sales. so if you see somebody come up and they're not mexican and-you know what they're coming for because the only people that live here are mexican. this day, following officer duran, was filled with random events which ranged from routine traffic stops to trees toppling over a home. not just for officer duran, but for all police officers, something happens every day. alright? but i do have to put handcuffs on you, alright?

ok. alright. while we were patrolling around the city, duran received a tip from a fellow officer regarding a lead to a recent burglary. we followed the lead and it brought us to a homeless encampment just next to the freeway. how you doing? [man blows raspberry] you don't like the camera? you can just...yeah. according to officer duran, california has the benefit of being less prone to racial bias within the police force. i think that, like i was telling you earlier, that california is more progressive than some of the states in the midwest. they're still a little bit you know, not caught up with

as far as the diversity. there's no doubt that police officers take a risk every time they go out on the streets. officer michael johnson was ambushed at this apartment complex earlier this year by a man who called police to the residence. it's a grim reminder that anything can happen at any time. officer duran says that his goal at the end of every day is to just be able to go home. that was quinn dang reporting. and when we come back, equal time correspondent samantha rodgers will join us, leading a discussion about police use of body cameras. [music] welcome back to this edition of equal time. today we are talking about police body cameras. let's meet our guests. morning, i'm keith plamondon with the mountain view police department. i'm a lieutenant and i oversee the body-worn camera program.

and i am saul jaeger with the mountain view police department as well, i'm our public information officer and media relations contact. hi, my name is jordan, i work loss prevention. i am also a criminal justice major. hi, my name is dr. will armaline, i'm the director of the human arts program, associate professor in justice studies at san jose state university. hi, my name is samantha rodgers and i'm the student reporter for the story. we thank you all for being here today, and i'm glad you picked this topic because every time you turn on the news today, you can't miss seeing something from the police camera. either from their car or from their, what they're wearing or something like that. the first question, of course, is how do you feel about that? media is just using it as great attraction video. go ahead, saul. [laughs] and i think with the advent, even if you take a step back, with the advent in popularity of smart phones and cameras-they're everywhere. regardless of whether an officer is wearing it or it comes from a police vehicle or any other government vehicle, they're out there for people to videotape.

and this goes all the way back to rodney king days when there was actually videotape of an incident that had happened. so it's a little scary for police departments to realize that there's so many eyes out there. but it is an equalizer as well. why is it scary though? i mean, i understand what you mean by all the eyes are on it, but there's nothing to hide. but we were talking before about the picture alone, the raw video, never tells the complete story, unless you know the setup-what caused the situation? so i would say to you, does that worry you or is that what's scary about all of this? well, from my standpoint, the raw footage is probably the best because it's giving you the perspective that the officer is dealing with-at the time, their perspective, what they are seeing and how they react to that. so we have our own footage of that incident and we get to, with all the different cameras and cell phones that are out there-a lot of times we don't have access to that so we're conducting an investigation, now we get to bring our video into it to help with that. we also have the ability to control that, whether we are going to release it to the public.

certain videos, as you know, over time, when they get released to the media they never play the whole footage or the whole incident. and we, with our cameras or our footage, we'd be able to release that if we choose to release it based on the circumstances. we'd be able to put the whole picture out front. we'll come back to the notion of whether the media has the right to have everything aired and you want to have everything aired. but will, let me ask you about this concept of this effort to show what the police are doing in real life. does it trouble you that we're not necessarily telling the public, or teaching your students, the whole story? well, i think we've already made some significant points here, so i would join in in saying that, first of all, there are lots of different ways that this technology is currently being used, and thought about being used across different police departments across the country. so, first of all, we don't have unanimity on how these technologies are going to be used and that's really where most of us who are rights-advocates and who are scholars in this situation have our concerns.

and, actually, our concerns are shared by the department of justice and they actually did a study in 2013 looking at los angeles and nevada. i'm sorry, looking at los angeles and las vegas, looking at pilot programs with cameras. so they brought up a bunch of these, they shared a lot of these concerns, along with the aclu. not just of the rights concerns of the officers but also the public involved. so, obviously, there are all kinds of questions in terms of how is the data taken, where and how is the data stored, who has access to the videos and through what conduits? in other words, does the da control the release of that? does the police auditor, in the cases where there are police auditors? do they have access to that video? does the public have access to the video? what's to determine who gets recorded and under what sort of situations? if i have a police officer come to my home to ask questions about whatever they happened to be asking questions about, are they recording my home? are they recording my private property? are they recording my license plates? this opens up massive constitutional human rights questions that frankly-whether or not this will be useful,

with respect to transparency, with respect to the rule of law-has much more to do with how we create the policies around the technology and how it's going to be used, rather than the technology itself. the technology itself is a tool like anything else. it's not in itself a solution to anything. particularly because i want to remind us why are we in the table today? we're not at the table to talk about police cameras because we just thought to talk about police cameras. we're at the table today to talk about police cameras because we've witnessed over and over again the murder of unarmed, typically men of color, at the hands of law enforcement. and so, i want us to really come back to that. so the other concern here, just to sort of move the conversation forward is that there's some concern that police cameras and the application of video recording of police practice really is not necessarily the answer, given that in many of these cases we have video of young men being murdered in full violation of all

of their constitutional rights without-often times without mention if there was a rebellion in the streets. and even when there was rebellion in the streets, and even if there was a grand jury process, there were no indictments filed. so there are many of us that are in the rights community who are wondering 'will more videotaping of these incidents be of much concern?' in other words, is this a solution on scope and on par with the problem and i'd be privy to talk more about that but i don't want to...we're pressed for time. i definitely want to get your reaction to what he said but i want to give a chance to jordan to jump in here. your thoughts about these cameras for police? well, i think the cameras are great. i mean, for my job, when a police officer comes in and takes my report for the shoplift case, they do flip their cameras on. so everything that the suspect says, we say, and officer says, is all on camera. so when the officer comes in, we give our side of the story, and we let the officer know our policies and everything. so whatever you say is all on camera, whatever the suspect says is on camera, and whatever the officer says is on camera,

and it all gets turned in to the district attorney's office. alright, samantha, as a journalism student, convergence journalism here, you are taught how to shoot, how to go out to secure an interview. but you are also taught the proper ways of identifying yourself, and you know exactly what the camera needs to record. right. you are trained for that. they are not necessarily trained for that. they are trained in other areas that are important. what have you found out about this topic? so i actually found out is that where they place the body cameras can affect what kind of video that they get. so we actually have an example of a body camera that the lieutenant brought today that we can show and he can explain where and how they are placed on the police offers. alright, it looks like this. i'll hold it upside so you can see it on camera. seems lightweight. seems like it's easy to function. so if you will, go ahead and show us how that would be applied. well this is just one of several cameras that are on the market. the camera that the mountain view police department chose to purchase is the taser axon flex. it has a wire attached to a battery pack,

but it allows the officer to mount it in several different positions on our body. usually up on the head is probably the most desired place because where your eyes go the camera goes. other mounting solutions are on the collar or on the epaulette mount of the outer-worn vest that the officer-some of the officers wear. and then, with this, it-the purpose behind the camera is to try to get what the eye is trying to see. it's not going to be perfect and as jordan mentioned earlier, a lot of this stuff mainly is from an evidentiary standpoint, for us to gather evidence. and as will was saying, it doesn't, you know, it doesn't change anything that's going out there as far as if there's any human rights violations occurring or, you know, if there any misconduct on behalf of the officer. what it does, it gives us our footage to have, you know, for our investigations and stuff like that. and what about recording audio? does it have that capability? it does. so, this camera, it works on a 30-second loop.

so, before you actually activate the camera, the officer controls the camera, turning it on and turning it off, and a lot of that is set by department policy on when the camera will be used. but, when you activate the camera, the prior 30 seconds, with the exception of the audio, was already picked up on the camera. so, for example, if an officer is making a traffic stop, the 30 seconds prior to the activation, so whatever made the violation occur in front of the officer, there's a chance that that will be picked up on the video. and then when it's activated, it just makes that part of the whole package. the question that i had is, are these cameras always on, or do the officers have to know when to turn them on before something happens? these cameras are solely activated by the officer but, as i mentioned earlier, policy determines when the camera will be turned on. you know, in situations where there might be an expectation of privacy, in someone's home, that would be a situation

that policy could dictate where we would tell someone, 'hey, you know, we're recording this situation.' if we have a lawful right to be in there, maybe if it's a case of domestic violence or something, we would have the camera on. a burglary case-maybe there's no need to have that on if it's a cold situation and there's no suspect on scene. so we would control that. any other thoughts about that? because i'm just curious about-you're giving the control to the officer as to when to record? when they go out to shoot a news story, they're told to go shoot everything in sight, bring it back and we'll evaluate what is to be put out on the air. why don't you do that in the police? well, there's some interesting things about the whole thing, and i really like what you're saying, the professor about-this is a bigger issue than just the technology. a lot of times we as a society, especially in today's society, are so set on a quick fix to a problem. this is a problem of police violence and violence in the streets, and use of force issues and things

like that is a much bigger issue that's not going to be solved by a camera, solely by a camera. it's a one tool and that was very well-said and, again, a lot of times people forget that the vast majority of the time police officers are not going into situations where we're dealing with violent suspects and things-a lot of what we do, we're talking with victims, witnesses, we're talking to kids. we are going into private homes. we're doing these like that so, you know, the question is this is all new territory for police department. we're developing policies and we're trying to be as transparent as possible while at the same time not trying to ruin investigations because ultimately we want to hold people accountable for their actions. so it's an interesting time right now because we're trying to work with the doj, we're trying to work with privacy rights, civil rights issues and things to find some sort of happy medium with the entire process. they're open to it, will, but there's pushbacks sometimes on how it's being used. well, just to do my job as a scholar and speak a little more

about this study that we referenced earlier...so, the doj study, and they cite aclu in their study as well having similar concerns. so, one of the questions, very specific questions, in terms of policy is: similar to any of us who'd wish to record each other, right? typically doing so involuntarily is against the law, against one's constitutional protections. and so, there's a few legal questions that come up with the use of these cameras. first is-so let's say i'm an officer and i'm about to record an interaction, is there what's call a two-way consent? so, in other words does this meet that same standard where i have to not only inform you that you are being recorded, but do i actually have to ask your permission to be recorded? states across the country right now do not agree on this policy. exactly. other states are saying, 'ok, well, i don't have to ask your permission but i do have to tell you that you're being recorded.' other states and jurisdictions are saying, 'we don't have

to tell you anything, we record as we wish, and then you can come after us for the data later.' so one of the things the department of justice and the aclu and others have said is, 'well, we clearly have to have a standard, a standard approach to this because of the constitutionality of the practice, not just to protect police offers but of course to protect the community who is potentially being surveilled beyond their constitutional protections.' mmhm. so i think, and i only offer that as one example but it seems, again, from the studies that have been done on the practice so far, that there are many, many questions that are still being asked, and the suggestions at the department of justice, along with the other professionals they sort of spoke to, was that these really need to be heavily vetted and dealt with, with full transparency and conversation with the public, before they're put into play. and i think that's one of the concerns people might have. we like the idea of the technology, everybody's trying to incorporate it as appropriately as possible, but are we jumping into it too fast? well, it's definitely something that's been brought in, and now the questions are being developed.

you know, it's not a panacea to solve everything in the world, right? it's a tool that's been brought in, that's brought up a bunch of questions and, quite frankly, it's kind of an exciting time because it's new technology, and it's a good way to make sure that the view of a police officer in a circumstance is actually seen, instead of it just being the words-you know, the testimony of a police officer. but that brings up a million other questions about privacy rights and a bunch of other things. and even the officer's rights-what if they forget to turn it on in the case where they were supposed to. do they get in trouble? right? or what, if it's on all the time, what about when they take a break? you know, what if they go to the bathroom? you know, what about all the officer's privacy rights as well? and who sets the policies? is it the chief of police? is it the city? the city council? does everybody have a say? how does it work? well, in our agency, the policy is set by the chief of police but he's also, as we're preparing the policy and stuff, he's also consulting with the union president,

with the police officer's association. the president gets to weigh in on that as far as some of the policy recommendations. you know, like saul was saying, our department doesn't require the officer to have the camera on all the time. but policy does set limits that if the camera is activated in a situation, that the officer can't turn it off until that incident is over. so that you're not, for example you go to a domestic violence situation that may turn into a use of force situation where an officer has to use force to affect the arrest. if that's being filmed, that officer can't, by policy, turn that camera off. what if he inadvertently does that? well, the way our camera is set up, you have to-it's just not that simple to turn it off. there's a-the way the battery pack with the button is set up, you really have to give an effort to turn it off. so it's not something i say, "oh i bumped up against this and the camera went off." it's a little harder than that. jordan, we haven't heard from you yet.

so we're hearing a good-faith effort to try to get more visual of what's going on for the police officer, and yet what's the other side of it for you? well, again, where i work, you know, we have our camera systems and we observe a shop-a person shoplift. and, like i said before, when an officer does come in, they do have, like the officer was saying, they do have a choice in turning off, and turning on the camera or leaving it off. if an officer does forget it, they also have an alternate route that i've seen which is a recorder, and they record everything that they say. so, again, they do have a choice, and i've spoken to a few police officers that i know and they say that they do have a choice as well. i think the idea of surveillance isn't really that new nowadays, you know. in these stores, people are being watched, and they have been watched a long time. do you ever get people who say, 'i didn't give you permission to watch me on camera,' or people who disapprove

of you having video of them? yes, yes, we do, i do get that a lot. well, you walk into a store and apparently we have the right to watch you on camera. when you walk into our store, there's a sign saying that you will be watched via cctv, so we do have the right to watch that person and we do have the right to detain them for shoplifting if they do shoplift. ok, so they are watched... yes. ...essentially in these stores, but people don't like to be watched in the public? you know what i'm saying? mmhm. so there's kind of that conflict. and, will, you brought up earlier about the impact of incarceration of people of color. let's talk a little bit more about that. well, and i'm glad you bring that up and this is actually an opportune time to talk about this. so i want to reference two really amazing pieces of journalism and scholarship done over the past five years. and one of them is michelle alexander's 'the new jim crow.' the other is more recent text by journalist matt taibbi called 'the divide.' and 'the divide' really sets up what taibbi and others have called the parallel justice systems,

or two different justice systems. one for those of us who are working class people, which ironically includes police officers themselves, and the other that includes the elites that run the show. and so, this is a really opportune time to point that out. so, all of these things we're talking about amount to a surveillance camera and let's say an institutional coercive weapon pointed at one population, the working people in the racial laws populations, african americans, latinos, undocumented folks, that is completely not leveraged toward our elites. i mean, our eric holder's justice department is now well-known in bed with the most criminal banks on the planet-refuses to call them into question, refuses to press criminal charges, and that continues with his replacement, by the way. similarly, we don't talk about surveilling wall street. we don't talk about meting these kinds of measures on those that are the highest criminals on our society. we do these things to control the poor. we do these things to control the people who are on the bottom of society.

so, i think, you are in fact quite right that our country, in general, is sick of being coerced and surveilled, in light of the greatest criminals that walk among us, walking with complete and total impunity. i mean here we are, as working class people, arguing over how to best surveil, coerce, and encage each other, while the financial elites and the political elites who are really, frankly, the cause of many of these vast inequalities and social problems, go completely unobserved. so, very quickly, if you're called to somewhere here in silicon valley, and you might have the impression, or your officers, that the company or that corporation would not want that camera on. are you saying that you will still do what you have to do? yes, depending on what the circumstances are our policy will dictate. if it's an enforcement-type action where the officer's initiating activity, then our policy requires us to have the camera on. but if we're going there to answer a call for service because maybe they had an internal theft or something like that, discretion then comes in at that point.

if you're reporting the crime, i may not record that conversation. but if you have an individual responsible for that theft detained, and i go in to talk to that person, then i'm going to put the camera on that person because i want to record their statement, if they confess to it, if they provide any other clues to other people involved in the crime or how they did the crime. or even from the standpoint, which is another issue, is the protection also for the officer from any false claims of misconduct. so money, or power, or influence would not determine whether that camera goes on or off is what you're saying? no, not at all. in fact, something that you were just talking about, about culturally and who is being surveilled and watched and caged-that's nothing new. that's happened since the sheriff of nottingham, back in sherwood forest, right? that's always been the feeling and the contention. and it's an interesting time now

because it's kind of an equalizer. technology is an equalizer. cameras are an equalizer. civil rights is an equalizer. so it's a very exciting and interesting time... i'm afraid we're going to have to leave it here but you've opened up a wonderful topic that we should follow-up on, but we thank you all for taking time to talk on this. thank you. and we hope you come back for another edition of equal time.

hollar: tonight on "revolutionaries"... rometty: i think, in my own career, i've worked globally, i've worked locally. i was able to run industries, and i was able to run technology. i was able to do start-ups, and i was able to scale businesses. you know, that's a lot of things to do in one place. hollar: one technology company has survived and grown through a century of dramatic change. that company is ibm, and its leader is ginni rometty. tonight, we talk with ibm's chairman and c.e.o. about the company's storied history and her vision for a challenging future.