This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

The fatal shooting of Charly Leundeu Keunang on the streets of skid row is a test of the Los Angeles Police Department's new body camera program and the department's ability to handle officer-involved shootings in a way the public can trust. So far, the LAPD isn't passing the test.

Building and maintaining trust requires a steadfast commitment to a transparent, objective process when it comes to assessing such shootings. LAPD Chief Charlie Beck has promised a comprehensive investigation of the Keunang shooting, and he has rightly cautioned the public against leaping to conclusions before all the facts are in. But Beck and his department aren't following that counsel.

The chief is withholding the video shot by the body cameras worn by two of the four officers involved. Yet unnamed police sources have leaked reports of what the cameras purportedly recorded. Those leaks, and the chief's statements concerning bystander video and revelations from the in-process investigation, strongly suggest one conclusion: The shooting was justified. That finding, however, has yet to be determined.

When it comes to the body camera video, the LAPD can't have it both ways: Either the video is part of the public discussion at this point in the investigation or it is not. Its disclosure would allow the public to decide for itself what happened. Withholding it thwarts openness and accountability, and erodes trust between police and the public, especially in communities whose members have been subject to “suppression policing” by the LAPD. It fuels concerns that the department doesn't trust the public to judge for itself or, worse, that the department is trying to hide something.

"When it comes to the body camera video, the LAPD can't have it both ways: Either the video is part of the public discussion at this point in the investigation or it is not."

The department's claim that it could not release the video during an investigation are undercut by its policies for the body camera pilot program set forth in a January 2014 memo. The policy requires officers involved in a shooting to view body camera video before making an initial statement about what happened. If the department is truly committed to preserving the integrity of investigations, it should require officers to provide their statements about any use-of-force incident before viewing the videos.

Moreover, Beck and other department sources have worked consistently to construct a narrative around the incident in defense of the shooting. As quoted in The Times and the Associated Press, they have described Keunang as “repeatedly refusing to comply with officers' commands” and the officers as acting “compassionately” until the moment when force became necessary.

A family member is a retired US Marshal. He says that releasing information, especially video, too soon in the investigation is often a big mistake. He said witnesses, both consciously and sub-consciously, start to conform their testimony to what they saw, or think they saw, in the video.

At a news conference on the Monday after the shooting, Beck said that Keunang “forcibly grabbed one of the officers' holstered pistols” and that the gun itself showed signs “indicative of a struggle over the weapon.” Beck has been careful to say he has reserved judgment on whether the officers acted lawfully or within policy, but his other public statements sound as though he decided key facts long before all witnesses could have been interviewed and all the evidence reviewed.

The department also appears to have released information about the victim's criminal history to the media. As understandable as that might be, it plays out unfairly. It amounts to one-sided revelations. Similar scrutiny of a police officer's past is impossible because a state law shields police personnel records from the public, even records involving civilian complaints, sustained misconduct and patterns related to the uses of deadly force. If the victim's history is relevant to the public's understanding of the incident, surely so is an officer's prior conduct.
The police role in the death of Keunang among others — including the fatal shooting of Ezell Ford in August, the fatal beating of Omar Abrego in August and the death of skid row resident Carlos Ocana, who fell off a rooftop after police shot him with nonlethal ammunition in May — reignites memories of the LAPD's troubled past. It raises fundamental questions about the way the department polices our communities and plunges L.A. into the national debate over police practices.

Police perform an extremely important and dangerous public service. Those dangers, however, do not trump the public's right to know all the facts. Beck must see public scrutiny not as a threat but as an opportunity.

Rather than focus on protecting officers from immediate criticism, he should focus on the crucial task of maintaining confidence in the police and the department's procedures. The surest way to truly gain the public's full confidence is to release the body camera video, scrupulously withhold judgment on the events that led up to the shooting, and get on with the investigation.

Hector Villagra is executive director at the ACLU of Southern California. Follow ACLU_SoCal.

Yesterday, the ACLU filed Public Records Act lawsuits against the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department and the Anaheim Police Department to uncover details about their use of a cell phone tracking device known as the “StingRay.”

StingRays are a highly intrusive form of surveillance. The device mimics a cell phone tower, forcing all cell phones within its radius to send it communication and location information. It interacts with your cell phone without your permission, forcing the phone to give away data about you, your location and your calls and text messages regardless of whether the phone is in your car, in your pocket or in your bedroom. There is even concern that StingRay capture causes your cell phone battery to die more quickly.

Unlike when police departments get court orders to use wiretaps or request cell phone providers to share a specific suspect’s cell phone records, StingRays by their nature involve indiscriminate data collection from hundreds of people in the vicinity. Given the range of a StingRay—a mile or more—police can monitor entire city blocks. Even if you are not the target of a police investigation, your phone can be affected—and you can be tracked.

Although this may seem like high technology, it has been in use in police departments across the country. Just last year, Sacramento News10 reported that several local law enforcement agencies in Northern California were using or planning to acquire StingRay technology, including the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. And documents obtained by the L.A. Weekly in 2012 showed that the Los Angeles Police Department was already using the StingRay.

But police departments have been particularly secretive about their use of this device. The ACLU recently sent Public Records Act requests to nearly a dozen law enforcement agencies. Some agencies provided hundreds of pages of information, but others provided nothing. Other law enforcement agencies have disclosed records about the StingRay, acknowledging the records are public, but redacting so much of the records that it is impossible to understand what information they contain, or how StingRays have actually been used.

The Sacramento Sheriff’s Department and the Anaheim Police Department are among those that have refused to provide public records about their policies governing the use of StingRays.

Sacramento News10 submitted a request for documents to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, but was told by Undersheriff James Lewis that no documents could be disclosed due to the existence of a non-disclosure agreement with the manufacturer of the device. When the ACLU submitted its Public Records Act request, the Sheriff’s Department provided just five pages of material and withheld all other documents—even though its use of the device has been in the news. And the Anaheim Police Department refuses to share documents confirming whether it possesses the device at all.

The police should be transparent about whether they have and use surveillance technology, especially where that technology works in a way that doesn’t just target suspected criminals, but is also used to scoop up personal information about everyone else in the vicinity. The public must have the opportunity to play its role in ensuring police accountability and deciding whether it is appropriate for police departments to spend taxpayer money on potentially expensive technology that threatens privacy and to assess, over time, whether the costs outweigh the benefits. An ACLU report, “Making Smart Decisions About Surveillance: A Guide for Communities,” provides assistance to help communities ask the right questions about proposed technology designed to surveil the community members.

The records the ACLU seeks from the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department and the Anaheim Police Department include how much money the police have spent on upgrading the StingRay, operating the StingRay, or on training to cover the use of the StingRay, whether the police impose any limits on the sharing of data collected by the StingRay, whether the data collected goes back to third parties and if so how that data is protected and used, and whether the police seek any court authorization at all before using the device. It is entirely unclear whether judges are aware that law enforcement agents within their jurisdictions use the StingRay, given reports that, for example, U.S. Marshals have sent emails to local Florida police departments stating that officers referred to the StingRay as “a confidential source regarding the location of the suspect.”

If law enforcement agencies are conducting cell phone surveillance and capturing the data of hundreds of innocent people—without appropriate judicial authorization—the people deserve to know.

These lawsuits seek to protect and vindicate that critical right.

Jessica Price is staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. Follow ACLU_SoCal.