SAN DIEGO — Early last year, while he was being held in a San Diego County jail, John Wilson accused a sheriff’s deputy of a kind of excessive force that body-worn camera footage might have made quick work of proving or disproving: He said he had been pushed while handcuffed, causing him to plunge down a flight of stairs.

But his March 2025 complaint to the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board, or CLERB, was ultimately “not sustained” — the language the oversight board issues when there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove an allegation.

“The available evidence … did not establish the cause of (Wilson’s) fall because the CCTV footage did not capture the parties’ positioning and the (deputy’s body-worn camera) footage provided only a limited perspective of the moments preceding the fall,” investigators said.

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.

“Upon review of the evidence, it was discovered that Deputy 2 failed to activate his BWC during the incident,” the independent review said.

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 as required.

Wilson’s is not the only complaint in which deputies were cited for failing to follow the sheriff’s body-worn camera policies.

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’s Office policy guiding body-worn cameras.

As with the Wilson complaint, deputies had muted the microphones on their cameras without explanation or simply kept them off entirely.

There have been dozens of such violations in recent years, including 20 earlier this year, according to monthly CLERB reports that detail prior investigations.

Brett Kalina, CLERB’s executive officer, said the review board has long been concerned about how frequently deputies fail to activate their body-worn cameras as required.

Sheriff’s 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.

“While 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,” Kalina said by email.

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.

“The sheriff is frustrated when she sees instances where an activation was not properly made, however understands that there are several reasons for these occurrences,” Lt. David Collins said.

The Sheriff’s 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 “in multiple instances” involving deputies who failed to comply with the rules.

“Instances of willful or accidental violation of policy are handled via our administrative practices,” Collins said. “That action can range from refresher training for the staff involved to formal disciplinary action.”

Habitual violations of body-worn camera regulations can have serious ramifications — for deputies and for the people they meet on the job.

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. Camera footage is the first thing internal and external investigators look at when complaints are registered or other critical incidents occur.

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.

Darian had accused deputies of failing to conduct a proper investigation into a parking dispute that led to an alleged battery.

“BWC footage captured Deputy 2 explaining the citizen’s arrest procedure to Darian who stated he was not desirous of prosecution … the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true,” CLERB wrote.

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.

“Body-worn camera footage showed (Lines) neither requested medical assistance nor reported any medical emergencies to deputies during safety checks and counts,” the review board said in its investigation.

That finding is disputed by Lines’ family. They argue in a federal lawsuit 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 — the day before she died in custody.

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.

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.

“After 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,” the CLERB report said. “Deputy 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.”

The review board this month also rejected misconduct claims against deputies responding to a domestic violence and vandalism call in March 2025.

But the investigation found that four of the deputies had muted their cameras at the scene without explaining why.

“Muting is generally discouraged; however, there are situations in which muting may be beneficial,” CLERB wrote. “The muting of the camera shall only be performed as directed by a supervisor or in accordance with the specific considerations of this policy.”

For years before Martinez became sheriff, the San Diego Sheriff’s Office resisted body-worn cameras inside its jails entirely.

But weeks after former Sheriff Bill Gore retired, then-Acting Sheriff Martinez announced plans for body-worn cameras inside the women’s jail in Santee.

“This is ultimately about the safety of the people in our custody and those who work in our facilities,” she said in March 2022. “Having body cameras in our jails will also strengthen our relationship with the community by increasing accountability and trust.”

But according to the civilian oversight board, deputies have violated the rules ever since.

In April 2025, the CLERB executive officer sent a “letter of concern” to the sheriff citing what he said were 12 different violations over the previous five months.

“Whether in public interactions or in the detention setting, BWC is the only direct view of arrests, searches, alleged peace officer misconduct, uses of force or deputy-involved shootings,” Kalina wrote.

“It is imperative for deputies to document the entirety of the interactions for evidentiary reasons,” he said in the letter, which recommended stricter punishment for violators.

Three months later, the sheriff responded with a letter reiterating her commitment to the technology and to appropriate discipline when necessary.

“If a sworn supervisor discovers that a deputy shows a trend of unintentionally not following BWC policy or is found to be intentionally violating BWC policy, formal discipline can be initiated,” she wrote in her July 2025 reply.

“A supervisor may also elect to give the deputy a warning, a memorandum of discussion or provide additional training.”

In October, CLERB issued a formal recommendation that the Sheriff’s Office update its body-worn camera policy. Specifically, the review board suggested the Sheriff’s Office broaden the options for deputies documenting reasons for muting their cameras, as a way to avoid future violations.

“CLERB supports the Sheriff’s Department’s careful and prompt review of our proposed policy recommendation, and we look forward to your response,” Kalina wrote.

Sheriff’s officials have yet to respond to the suggestion.

©2026 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit sandiegouniontribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.