My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01.18.22 Regular Meeting
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
01 City Council Minutes
>
2020's
>
2022
>
01.18.22 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2022 11:00:42 PM
Creation date
4/1/2022 3:52:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council Meeting Minutes January 18, 2022 <br />footage. Chief Standridge stated the city attorney provided legal counsel <br />regarding this matter. Chief Standridge explained the governing statue of the <br />Occupational Code, Section 17.01 state law has numerous reasons why a video <br />can and can't be released. He stated there are provisions that prohibit the <br />release of video. Chief Standridge stated the police department can release a <br />video if it is determined to be in the best interest of the community. He stated <br />the department does not release videos prior to grand jury review. The San <br />Marcos Police Department does not want to jeopardize the accused or hurt the <br />prosecution for purpose to exhibit the victim. Chief Standridge explained the <br />process of the Hays County District Attorney Office that summons grand <br />juries twice a year. He stated the explanation is relevant to council because 9 <br />jurors are needed to indict. If releasing the videos before grand jury review and <br />4 jurors watch the video that could taint the jurors and now the district <br />attorney can't present the case to the grand jury for review. He mentioned if <br />video release before the grand jury review, it can contaminate the jury pool. If <br />4 jurors watch the video and form an opinion, and under the Criminal Code of <br />Penal 198.253 jurors will have to recuse themselves, otherwise they are subject <br />to a criminal penalty. <br />He stated we talk about transparency and everybody wants justice but there is <br />a perception that we are not being transparent, the reason is to protect judicial <br />system and have eligible grand jurors to review cases and were not trying to <br />bias them before they review the case. If there are enough jurors who have to <br />recuse and therefore the Hays County Grand Jury cannot hear the case, then <br />there must be a change of venue to another county. That means another <br />community will decide what is important in the City of San Marcos and we <br />may prefer that not happen. The change of venue also costs the taxpayers of <br />Hays County. <br />Chief Standridge stated it is a delay of releasing the video it is not an absolute <br />no to release but it has be presented to <br />the grand jury first. If there is indictment the video will not be released prior to <br />the trial in order to not bias the jury. <br />Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Garza stated this information helps council and the <br />public understand the rational. She asked why there is not an internal <br />documents that outlines the type of information that was just presented. Other <br />cities have a policy on this topic. She mentioned it would be helpful to have an <br />internal policy on record retention or information on departmental audits. <br />Chief Standridge stated there is a policy because every Texas agency that uses <br />bodyworn cameras is required to have one by state law. Our policy mirrors <br />state statue and the city has had one since the city adopted bodyworn cameras. <br />City of San Marcos Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.