"Officers in the field can use a playback tool on the camera for writing police reports in the car" but "The policy only allows officers to access footage in the database through authorized computers and devices inside the department headquarters"

Those two seem contradictory unless the officers in the field are using the playback tool in violation of the policy.

Also thanks for bringing this up: "Allowing officers to review footage before filing a report is contrary to investigative best practices and opens up the possibility for police to lie in a way that isn't contradicted by the footage, compromising the credibility of officer statements and the integrity of investigations"

It's not always a case of police "lying" since almost all cops are trying to be honest. Seeing the footage will unintentionally bias their memory because they're human. The camera should be an impartial observer rather than something that always corroborates an officer's story (but might not have corroborated it if the officer was like any other witness and didn't have the opportunity to have the footage taint his memory).

Way ta go City Council...Rush out, buy the first thing on the market, spend some $20,000 oer iffucer abd then, one year later, go shopping for a newer "better" system.

I would think that the vendor should almost give the new system, or at least part of it. Look at the problems described...they are mostly things that should have been fixed at the seller's expense.

Unless cameras must be on all of the time, an officer could simply claim - in response to a complaint - that the camera had not been turned on. The real test is whether a camera will ever show an officer acting out-of-line.

The City Council does not care one way or another. They stay out of police affairs - except for giving the police more money every year.