Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

Adopted County response: Emerging Technologies Used by Local Law Enforcement Agencies

County describes COC technology activity, defends ALPR retention and distinguishes Board appointments from LASD station advisory groups. Municipal and Metro finding replies expressly disclaim County jurisdiction; they are not those agencies’ substantive responses. No audit is invented for absent recommendation entries R9.4–R9.11. Download opens the same unchanged 70-page consolidated County packet used by all eight collections.

Official response PDFOfficial report PDF

Response by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response) · 2026-09-01

5

Addressed

3

Partially addressed

8

Not addressed

0

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

1

Implemented

1

Will be implemented

0

Requires further analysis

1

Will not be implemented

1

Unclear

How to read this audit

Editorial engagement review only. Finding scores measure stated position, disagreement explanation, coverage, reasoning and traceability—not whether the respondent agrees with the jury or its claims are true. Recommendation disposition records the claimed state, including partial or alternative implementation explained in the audit, not verified completion. The packet was adopted September 1, 2026, item 27; its enclosure is dated August 11. Proceedings physical PDF page 22 records five ayes. No filing/receipt date or legal-timeliness judgment is inferred. Missing separate submissions do not establish nonresponse.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

1

Extracted commitments

0

Definite or bounded timing

0

Conditional timing

1

No timeframe

R9.2 · No timeframe stated

LASD says it will continue assessing ALPR retention against operational experience, investigative needs, law, technology, and privacy. This ongoing review accompanies refusal to implement the recommendation; no retention reduction promised.

No target date stated

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 16 of 16 items

finding · F9.1

F9.1: LASD’s Civilian Oversight Commission generally focuses on incarceration and officer use-of-force issues but does not regularly review and report on LASD’s use of technologies at every meeting.

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

County partially disagrees, citing an existing COC technology ad hoc committee and LASD's institutional separation; it does not address review and reporting at every meeting.

Audit analysis

Position is explicit, but committee existence does not fully explain disagreement with the meeting-frequency proposition or stated emphasis on incarceration and force. Committee and institutional claims are specific assertions without an identified supporting record on this page. Report physical PDF page(s) 384; County response physical PDF page(s) 53. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

3/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
1/2
Support traceability
1/2

Position is explicit, but committee existence does not fully explain disagreement with the meeting-frequency proposition or stated emphasis on incarceration and force. Committee and institutional claims are specific assertions without an identified supporting record on this page.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 384Response page 53
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.2

F9.2: LASD’s ALPR system has kept data for two years.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees that LASD's ALPR system has kept data for two years, without elaboration.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support. Report physical PDF page(s) 384; County response physical PDF page(s) 53. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
0/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 384Response page 53
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.3

F9.3: The BOS has directed the Sheriff’s Civilian Oversight Commission to host at least one multi-lingual forum a year on LASD’s ALPR Privacy policies.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees with the finding about the Board-directed annual multilingual ALPR forum, without elaboration.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support. Report physical PDF page(s) 384; County response physical PDF page(s) 53. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
0/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 384Response page 53
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.4

F9.4: LAPD sometimes receives donations specifying the technology types and vendors, which restricts LAPD’s ability to choose technologies best suited to its needs and mission to serve all residents.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

County expressly gives no substantive response to the LAPD technology-donation finding because it concerns City of Los Angeles operations.

Audit analysis

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse. Report physical PDF page(s) 384; County response physical PDF page(s) 54. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

5/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 384Response page 54
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.5

F9.5: LAPD cannot easily access cameras and systems operated by some other public agencies, such as the cameras of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power and the Bureau of Steet Services.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

County expressly gives no substantive response to the LAPD interagency-camera-access finding because it concerns City of Los Angeles operations.

Audit analysis

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse. Report physical PDF page(s) 385; County response physical PDF page(s) 54. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

5/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 385Response page 54
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.6

F9.6: The Long Beach Office of Police Oversight does not have a structure in place to review police technology, which provides less than ideal oversight of LEA technology.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

County expressly gives no substantive response to the Long Beach police-technology-oversight finding because it concerns City of Long Beach operations.

Audit analysis

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse. Report physical PDF page(s) 385; County response physical PDF page(s) 54. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

5/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 385Response page 54
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.7

F9.7: The Long Beach Digital Rights Platform describes the Long Beach City’s “Smart City” technologies and data collection practices but does not provide detailed information about the use of LEA technologies.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

County expressly gives no substantive response to the Long Beach Digital Rights Platform finding because it concerns City of Long Beach operations.

Audit analysis

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse. Report physical PDF page(s) 385; County response physical PDF page(s) 54. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

5/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 385Response page 54
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.8

F9.8: The Pasadena Community Police Oversight Commission is in the process of creating a Work Plan to directly address community concerns about surveillance technologies but has not yet completed that process.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

County expressly gives no substantive response to the Pasadena surveillance Work Plan finding because it concerns City of Pasadena operations.

Audit analysis

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse. Report physical PDF page(s) 385; County response physical PDF page(s) 54. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

5/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 385Response page 54
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.9

F9.9: The City of Beverly Hills has many citizen commissions and committees, but oversight of BHPD is provided by the City Council, resulting in less involvement by civilians in BPHD technology oversight.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

County expressly gives no substantive response to the Beverly Hills civilian-oversight finding because it concerns City of Beverly Hills operations.

Audit analysis

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse. Report physical PDF page(s) 385; County response physical PDF page(s) 55. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

5/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 385Response page 55
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.10

F9.10: The South Gate Police Department has no civilian oversight commission and handles compliance through its Internal Administration Division, resulting in less involvement by civilians in SGPD technology oversight.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

County expressly gives no substantive response to the South Gate civilian-oversight finding because it concerns City of South Gate operations.

Audit analysis

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse. Report physical PDF page(s) 386; County response physical PDF page(s) 55. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

5/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly bounds its response and explains the jurisdictional exclusion with a specific municipal attribution, without citing authority. Not evidence of City nonresponse.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 386Response page 55
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.11

F9.11: LA Metro plans to establish a civilian oversight committee when it launches its new in-house transit police force but has not yet established that oversight body.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

County expressly gives no substantive response to the LA Metro oversight finding because Metro is an independent transportation authority, not a County department.

Audit analysis

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly identifies and explains the institutional exclusion. Reference to establishment under State law does not identify a particular law. Not evidence of Metro nonresponse. Report physical PDF page(s) 386; County response physical PDF page(s) 55. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

5/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

No discernible agreement or disagreement with the finding. County clearly identifies and explains the institutional exclusion. Reference to establishment under State law does not identify a particular law. Not evidence of Metro nonresponse.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 386Response page 55
Discuss finding and response

finding · F9.12

F9.12: Civilian oversight commissions have adult members who are interested in law enforcement.

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

County partially disagrees, questioning the age group and stating young people can participate if they meet commitments, without addressing actual representation.

Audit analysis

Position explicit, but participation eligibility does not fully explain disagreement with generally absent high-school-age members. Conditional eligibility assertion supplies limited relevant rationale, with no identified policy or membership record. Report physical PDF page(s) 386; County response physical PDF page(s) 55. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

3/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
1/2
Support traceability
1/2

Position explicit, but participation eligibility does not fully explain disagreement with generally absent high-school-age members. Conditional eligibility assertion supplies limited relevant rationale, with no identified policy or membership record.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 386Response page 55
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R9.1

R9.1: LASD’s Civilian Oversight Commission should fortify its oversight of technologies by creating a permanent AI, Data Gathering and Drones Committee that reports regularly to the COC.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

County partially disagrees and calls implementation underway through an existing ad hoc technology committee, citing policy work and regular reports. It explains COC independence but does not adopt the requested permanent committee.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. County partially disagrees and calls implementation underway through an existing ad hoc technology committee, citing policy work and regular reports. It explains COC independence but does not adopt the requested permanent committee. Report physical PDF page(s) 387; County response physical PDF page(s) 55–56. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Report page 387Response page 55

recommendation · R9.2

R9.2: LASD should re-examine its ALPR data retention period of two years to determine when stored data provides the most value in crime prevention and investigations.

County: Will not be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

LASD expressly declines implementation, defends two-year ALPR retention with investigative examples, policies, statutes, and a court case, and promises continued assessment. No shorter retention period or completed value study is promised.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. LASD expressly declines implementation, defends two-year ALPR retention with investigative examples, policies, statutes, and a court case, and promises continued assessment. No shorter retention period or completed value study is promised. Report physical PDF page(s) 387; County response physical PDF page(s) 56–57. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

LASD says it will continue assessing ALPR retention against operational experience, investigative needs, law, technology, and privacy. This ongoing review accompanies refusal to implement the recommendation; no retention reduction promised.

Responsible party
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 387Response page 56

recommendation · R9.3

R9.3: The COC should host frequent Town Hall meetings to inform residents about LEA technologies and gain community input.

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

County partially disagrees and claims implementation via annual multilingual and other COC meetings, describing LASD public-input mechanisms and COC independence. These examples engage frequency and public input but do not establish frequent technology Town Halls or commit COC to them.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. County partially disagrees and claims implementation via annual multilingual and other COC meetings, describing LASD public-input mechanisms and COC independence. These examples engage frequency and public input but do not establish frequent technology Town Halls or commit COC to them. Report physical PDF page(s) 387; County response physical PDF page(s) 57–58. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Report page 387Response page 57

recommendation · R9.12

R9.12: All Law Enforcement Agencies with civilian oversight should actively recruit young people, like high school students, to serve as non-voting members on the civilian oversight body.

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

LASD supports youth inclusion, cites Board authority over COC appointments, and describes youth recruitment and reporting for station CACs. It does not supply a Board/COC plan for recruiting high-school-age non-voting oversight members; CAC participation is distinct.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. LASD supports youth inclusion, cites Board authority over COC appointments, and describes youth recruitment and reporting for station CACs. It does not supply a Board/COC plan for recruiting high-school-age non-voting oversight members; CAC participation is distinct. Report physical PDF page(s) 389; County response physical PDF page(s) 58. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Report page 389Response page 58