The sheriff\u2019s independent oversight office has already reviewed the footage. Based on the video of nine Taser discharges over a six month period, it\u00a0concluded<\/a> the weapon effectively avoided further deputy use of force, and deputies followed department policy.<\/p>\n \u201cSo what do they have to hide, then?\u201d Asian Law Alliance Executive Director Richard Konda, who\u2019s among the civil rights advocates persistently requesting the footage, told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight.\u00a0\u201cWe don\u2019t see any reason that digital footage shouldn\u2019t be released.\u201d<\/p>\n County supervisors and lawyers argue the disclosure would violate the privacy of people in the jails.<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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,\u201d County Counsel Tony LoPresti told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cIt is because of these interests that California law exempts these videos from the Public Records Act.\u201d<\/p>\n It comes eight months after the launch of a pilot program in the Santa Clara County Sheriff\u2019s 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\u2019t afford amid a massive structural budget deficit.<\/p>\n Sheriff Bob Jonsen and the Board of Supervisors vowed full transparency when they approved the pilot<\/a> in September 2024. District 1 Supervisor Sylvia Arenas publicly echoed activists\u2019 concern that the weapon would be used mostly on Black and brown people \u2014 before voting to approve the program. District 4 Supervisor Susan Ellenberg was the sole \u201cNo\u201d vote, while Board President Otto Lee, who represents District 3, abstained.<\/p>\n Sheriff\u2019s office representatives agree with the decision not to release the footage and argue the disclosure would violate people\u2019s privacy.<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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,\u201d sheriff\u2019s office spokesperson Brooks Jarosz told San Jose Spotlight.<\/p>\n Although county supervisors gave the sheriff\u2019s office the green light, they are now hesitant to weigh in on the issue.<\/p>\n \u201cTransparency is a core value of the county, but we must respect the dignity, privacy and safety of vulnerable individuals in custody,\u201d Lee told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cGiven that this is a legal matter, please refer any questions to county counsel for a response.\u201d<\/p>\n Arenas\u2019 office sent San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight the same statement.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cAs an elected official, Supervisor Lee has a unique oversight role that includes access to confidential records in the course of his duties,\u201d Jarosz told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cThis level of access is not broadly available to the public due to legal restrictions designed to protect privacy and security.\u201d 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n Konda said the county is not meeting its own standards of public trust.<\/p>\n \u201cCounty officials were very public about saying this pilot project would have full transparency. Now they\u2019re coming up with all these reasons not to be,\u201d he said. \u201cIt just calls into question any future promises they make.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"NewsMatch](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/1766538008_593_interactive-255337946814.png\")
<\/a>The sheriff\u2019s independent oversight office previously hit its own snags with accessing footage.<\/p>\n