|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Santa Clara County leaders promised full transparency when they approved the deployment of Tasers in the jails. Now sheriff’s deputies are using them — and county leaders don’t want the public to see the videos.
The county has repeatedly denied California Public Records Act requests by civil rights advocates seeking the body-worn camera footage of deputies firing their newly-approved Tasers at incarcerated people. In letters responding to advocates’ requests, county lawyers have argued the footage is exempt because it’s considered a record of investigation and part of an ongoing case file. And while the discharge of a firearm is considered exempt from this loophole, county lawyers said they don’t consider a Taser a “firearm.”
The sheriff’s independent oversight office has already reviewed the footage. Based on the video of nine Taser discharges over a six month period, it concluded the weapon effectively avoided further deputy use of force, and deputies followed department policy.
“So what do they have to hide, then?” Asian Law Alliance Executive Director Richard Konda, who’s among the civil rights advocates persistently requesting the footage, told San José Spotlight. “We don’t see any reason that digital footage shouldn’t be released.”
County supervisors and lawyers argue the disclosure would violate the privacy of people in the jails.
“The county must balance that accountability with other important concerns, including the privacy interests of incarcerated persons, the security of the jail and the viability of ongoing investigations,” County Counsel Tony LoPresti told San José Spotlight. “It is because of these interests that California law exempts these videos from the Public Records Act.”
It comes eight months after the launch of a pilot program in the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, which issued 60 Axon Taser 10 devices to correctional officers to curb deadly fights. Activists turned out in droves last year to protest the decision, arguing Tasers are deadly weapons and a civil lawsuit liability that the county can’t afford amid a massive structural budget deficit.
Sheriff Bob Jonsen and the Board of Supervisors vowed full transparency when they approved the pilot in September 2024. District 1 Supervisor Sylvia Arenas publicly echoed activists’ concern that the weapon would be used mostly on Black and brown people — before voting to approve the program. District 4 Supervisor Susan Ellenberg was the sole “No” vote, while Board President Otto Lee, who represents District 3, abstained.
Sheriff’s office representatives agree with the decision not to release the footage and argue the disclosure would violate people’s privacy.
“The body-worn camera footage in question contains sensitive material that, if released publicly, could compromise institutional safety and violate the privacy rights of those involved,” sheriff’s office spokesperson Brooks Jarosz told San Jose Spotlight.
Although county supervisors gave the sheriff’s office the green light, they are now hesitant to weigh in on the issue.
“Transparency is a core value of the county, but we must respect the dignity, privacy and safety of vulnerable individuals in custody,” Lee told San José Spotlight. “Given that this is a legal matter, please refer any questions to county counsel for a response.”
Arenas’ office sent San José Spotlight the same statement.
Communications between activists and county lawyers show Lee was granted the rare opportunity to view the Taser footage. Lee did not address this when asked by this news outlet.
“As an elected official, Supervisor Lee has a unique oversight role that includes access to confidential records in the course of his duties,” Jarosz told San José Spotlight. “This level of access is not broadly available to the public due to legal restrictions designed to protect privacy and security.”
The sheriff’s independent oversight office previously hit its own snags with accessing footage.
An earlier report this year by the oversight office, run by the county-contracted police reform consulting firm OIR Group, reported it could not access body-worn camera footage of interviews with Taser victims. When OIR Group asked to review these recordings, county officials told investigators that not all of the recordings had been tagged to the incidents and saved as part of the overall case files. OIR Group also found jail supervisors had documented these interviews in vague written reports with few or no details.
Konda said the county is not meeting its own standards of public trust.
“County officials were very public about saying this pilot project would have full transparency. Now they’re coming up with all these reasons not to be,” he said. “It just calls into question any future promises they make.”
This story was written by Brandon Pho for San José Spotlight. The original version of this article can be viewed here.
Contact Brandon Pho at brandon@sanjosespotlight.com or @brandonphooo on X.
City of Mountain View partners with school district on $3.6M fix for crumbling creek banksDecember 24, 2025 12:12 pm
Mountain View Whisman considers laying off at least 15% of district office staffDecember 23, 2025 12:44 pm