\u201cThe available evidence \u2026 did not establish the cause of (Wilson\u2019s) fall because the CCTV footage did not capture the parties\u2019 positioning and the (deputy\u2019s body-worn camera) footage provided only a limited perspective of the moments preceding the fall,\u201d investigators said.<\/p>\n
The same investigation found that another deputy violated had department policy by not turning on his own body-worn camera until after Wilson had tumbled down the stairs.<\/p>\n
\u201cUpon review of the evidence, it was discovered that Deputy 2 failed to activate his BWC during the incident,\u201d the independent review said.<\/p>\n
The CLERB report does not speculate about whether the excessive-force complaint filed by Wilson might have been deemed to have sufficient evidence had the second deputy recorded his interaction\u00a0as required.<\/p>\n
Wilson\u2019s is not the only complaint in which deputies were cited for failing to follow the sheriff\u2019s body-worn camera policies.<\/p>\n
On the same agenda for its August board meeting, CLERB issued seven other findings in two additional cases concluding that deputies did not follow the Sheriff\u2019s Office policy guiding body-worn cameras.<\/p>\n
As with the Wilson complaint, deputies had muted the microphones on their cameras without explanation or simply kept them off entirely.<\/p>\n
There have been dozens of such violations in recent years, including 20<\/a> earlier this year, according to monthly CLERB reports that detail prior investigations.<\/p>\n Brett Kalina, CLERB\u2019s executive officer, said the review board has long been concerned about how frequently deputies fail to activate their body-worn cameras as required.<\/p>\n Sheriff\u2019s Office policy calls for deputies to activate their cameras as soon as they encounter anyone in the field or in jail, under the theory that video and audio evidence protects them and the public.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile CLERB has no direct evidence that violations are intentional, body-worn cameras are vital to provide evidence, limit frivolous claims against the county and maintaining trust with law enforcement,\u201d Kalina said by email.<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Sheriff Kelly Martinez said the office has adopted clear and stringent policies related to body-worn cameras and regularly trains deputies on how to properly use them.<\/p>\n \u201cThe sheriff is frustrated when she sees instances where an activation was not properly made, however understands that there are several reasons for these occurrences,\u201d Lt. David Collins said.<\/p>\n The Sheriff\u2019s Office said it does not track how many employees have been disciplined for violating body-worn camera policies but confirmed that disciplinary actions have been taken \u201cin multiple instances\u201d involving deputies who failed to comply with the rules.<\/p>\n \u201cInstances of willful or accidental violation of policy are handled via our administrative practices,\u201d Collins said. \u201cThat action can range from refresher training for the staff involved to formal disciplinary action.\u201d<\/p>\n Habitual violations of body-worn camera regulations can have serious ramifications \u2014 for deputies and for the people they meet on the job.<\/p>\n More often than not, video and audio evidence generated by the technology absolves deputies of allegations leveled by suspects and detainees, according to CLERB records.\u00a0Camera footage is the first thing internal and external investigators look at when complaints are registered or other critical incidents occur.<\/p>\n At the same meeting where CLERB determined there was not enough evidence to confirm or reject excessive-force claims in the Wilson case, the review board relied on body-worn camera footage to reject a claim by a resident named Kayvon Darian.<\/p>\n Darian had accused deputies of failing to conduct a proper investigation into a parking dispute that led to an alleged battery.<\/p>\n \u201cBWC footage captured Deputy 2 explaining the citizen\u2019s arrest procedure to Darian who stated he was not desirous of prosecution \u2026 the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true,\u201d CLERB wrote.<\/p>\n Also during the August meeting, CLERB investigators examining the death last year of Callen Lines at the Las Colinas jail cited camera footage as critical evidence.<\/p>\n \u201cBody-worn camera footage showed (Lines) neither requested medical assistance nor reported any medical emergencies to deputies during safety checks and counts,\u201d the review board said in its investigation.<\/p>\n That finding is disputed by Lines\u2019 family. They argue in a federal lawsuit<\/a> that San Diego County failed to provide the 31-year-old nursing assistant and mother proper medical care after she was booked into jail May 11, 2025 \u2014 the day before she died in custody.<\/p>\n In another case considered this month, the review board dismissed an excessive-force complaint filed by Angela Banzhoff after she was arrested in September 2024.<\/p>\n That complaint was dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction because it was filed late, CLERB investigators said. But the investigation turned up three violations by deputies who failed to comply with body-worn camera rules, they added.<\/p>\n \u201cAfter reviewing the BWC evidence, it was discovered that Deputies 2 and 3 muted their BWCs during the investigation without documenting the reason for muting in writing,\u201d the CLERB report said. \u201cDeputy 4 turned off his BWC and did not reactivate his BWC when he returned to the residence to assist Deputy 2 with the investigation, which included interaction with the victim.\u201d<\/p>\n The review board this month also rejected misconduct claims against deputies responding to a domestic violence and vandalism call in March 2025.<\/p>\n But the investigation found that four of the deputies had muted their cameras at the scene without explaining why.<\/p>\n \u201cMuting is generally discouraged; however, there are situations in which muting may be beneficial,\u201d CLERB wrote. \u201cThe muting of the camera shall only be performed as directed by a supervisor or in accordance with the specific considerations of this policy.\u201d<\/p>\n For years before Martinez became sheriff, the San Diego Sheriff\u2019s Office resisted body-worn cameras inside its jails entirely.<\/p>\n But weeks after former Sheriff Bill Gore retired, then-Acting Sheriff Martinez announced plans<\/a> for body-worn cameras inside the women\u2019s jail in Santee.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is ultimately about the safety of the people in our custody and those who work in our facilities,\u201d she said in March 2022. \u201cHaving body cameras in our jails will also strengthen our relationship with the community by increasing accountability and trust.\u201d<\/p>\n But according to the civilian oversight board, deputies have violated the rules ever since.<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1787397622_647_SUT-L-bos-oig-011.jpg\")
The San Diego Central Jail in downtown San Diego. (Nelvin C. Cepeda \/ The San Diego Union-Tribune)<\/p>\n![\"Citizens](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/SUT-L-PROBATION-CLERB_0003.jpg\")
Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board members meet in the county administration building in downtown San Diego on Feb. 6, 2025. (Ariana Drehsler \/ For The San Diego Union-Tribune)<\/p>\n