The Pasadena Police Department has updated its internal policy to allow the release of officers’ body camera footage to the public, following an outcry and a lawsuit from residents and civil rights activists.

City Manager Steve Mermell said Wednesday the revisions were made as a result of public comment at recent City Council meetings.

Residents criticized the department for not using enough public input in the policy’s creation; for overly restricting the release of video; and for allowing involved officers to review footage prior to making statements about a police shooting.

But even after the changes, officers will still be able to review footage, despite that issue receiving the most vocal opposition during meetings.

“These are the changes we felt were appropriate to make now,” Mermell said.

He said most police departments in the state and country allow officers to watch body camera footage while drafting their reports or before speaking to investigators following a shooting.

The biggest change to the policy altered language originally classifying all body camera footage as “investigative materials,” a designation that would exempt the city from disclosing video through California’s Public Records Act. The policy now states the department “will endeavor to release BWC (body-worn camera) recordings to the greatest extent possible.”

Police can still prevent release of body camera footage if they believe it would harm an investigation, violate the law, or if the case involves “potential civil litigation.”

A second amendment to the policy states that the department will not use body-worn cameras to record people engaged in protests or other First Amendment activities or as a surveillance tool of the general public. Officers will only turn their cameras on in those instances if they believe a violation of criminal law is occurring or if they have direct interaction with a participant at an event.

Pasadena will routinely update the policy as the body cameras get more use and as best practices emerge across the country, Mermell said. The cameras were deployed in November.

The Pasadena Police Officers Association agreed to all of the changes, according to the department.

Catherine Wagner, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California and an opponent of the earlier policy, called the amendments a step in the right direction, though she cautioned that some of the language is still too open ended.

“In general, I think they’re good changes,” she said. “We’re especially happy the policy is now recognizing the need for video to be released to the public at least in critical incidents.”

Still, the exemption for “potential litigation” covers nearly all police shootings, where families often sue over the deaths of their loved ones, she said. And while the department clarified it wouldn’t use the cameras for surveillance, the policy is silent on allowing footage to be used for purposes other than the initial criminal investigation, such as to track someone’s whereabouts.

“I think the proof will be in how they choose to apply the policy going forward,” Wagner said.

The Pasadena chapter of the NAACP filed a lawsuit against Mermell and Police Chief Phillip Sanchez in November, alleging the department improperly developed the policy. They accused the city of using “bait and switch” tactics when the department revealed its complete policy with very different language from earlier drafts only days before rolling out the cameras.

The NAACP demanded the city rescind the policy and allow the City Council’s Public Safety Committee to draft the language in public session. Policies are typically developed internally by staff and not voted on by the City Council, though the council has the discretion to review and change a policy after the fact.

At this time, the council has not called the matter back for further review, Mermell said.

The NAACP’s attorneys, Dale Gronemeier and Skip Hickambottom, applauded Mermell and Mayor Terry Tornek “for listening to the voices of the citizenry and improving the body-worn camera policy.”

“The tilt towards greater video disclosure and prohibiting political surveillance are important changes that they stepped forward to implement,” Hickambottom said in a statement.

Hickambottom said he and Gronemeier would meet with the NAACP’s executive committee to decide how to proceed with the lawsuit in light of the changes made to the policy.

The department hopes the cameras will lessen uses of forces and eliminate frivolous complaints.

Lt. Vasken Gourdikian, the spokesman for the department, said the body cameras have already resulted in three complainants rescinding allegations against officers.