Ohio’s New Law Could Hinder Access to Police Body Camera Footage

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a bill allowing fees for police body camera footage.
The law permits charging up to $75 per hour for processing video requests.
A fee cap of $750 per request applies, posing a financial barrier for many.
The law may reduce transparency and accountability in cases of police misconduct.
Governor DeWine claims the law helps cover processing costs for small police departments.
The legislation could set a concerning precedent for access to public records in other states.

Ohio’s Controversial Police Body Camera Footage Law: A Blow to Transparency and Accountability

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has hit a nerve with civil rights advocates and transparency groups by signing a law that lets police charge the public for body camera footage. Found within the large omnibus House Bill 315, this law might block public oversight and protect officers from facing consequences in cases of misconduct or brutality.

The Price of Transparency: Breaking Down the New Law

The new rule, secretly added during a hurried 17-hour session, lets police charge up to $75 per hour for handling video requests. This fee is meant to cover costs like reviewing, redacting, and uploading footage. Although capped at $750 per request, many people and groups will struggle to pay for this critical public record.

What’s particularly troubling is the need for upfront payment. People have to pay before even checking the footage. This system effectively excludes many citizens from examining police actions.

The law impacts more than just body camera footage, covering dash cam videos and jail security footage too, all considered public records in Ohio. This broad scope underscores the chance this law could significantly restrict vital information access on policing activities.

Governor DeWine’s Defense: A “Workable Compromise” or a Smokescreen?

Governor DeWine defends the bill, labeling it a “workable compromise” that balances public information access with law enforcement’s workload. He claims video handling can be time-consuming, especially for smaller departments, and this law helps manage those costs.

Yet, this explanation doesn’t hold up when considering the law’s impact. Putting a financial burden on the public discourages them from seeking these vital electronic records. This dissuasion is worrisome in cases of alleged police misconduct where footage can prove crucial.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press opposes this law, arguing it stops people from accessing critical records. Many civil rights and transparency groups agree, viewing this as a thin attempt to protect police from scrutiny.

Understanding the Legislative Maneuvers: Omnibus Bills and Lame Duck Sessions

The way this law was passed raises serious concerns about the legislative process. It’s important to understand what an omnibus bill is and how a lame-duck session works. An omnibus bill is a large piece of legislation that combines many different measures or subjects into one document (Wikipedia – Omnibus Bill). Lawmakers often use it to pass multiple items with a single vote, speeding up the process and limiting debate.

Moreover, a lame-duck session happens when the current legislature meets after an election but before the new members take office (Wikipedia – Lame-duck session). During this time, outgoing legislators might pass laws without fear of voter backlash. The controversial provision was added here during a marathon 17-hour lame-duck session without public hearings or debate. This approach undermines transparent governance and limits public input.

The Significance of Public Records and Redaction Processes

Another key issue is the designation of body camera footage as a public record. In Ohio, public records laws require government agencies to make certain information accessible to the public upon request. This includes police body camera footage, essential for transparency (Ohio Public Records Act). However, the new law imposes hefty fees, which can discourage people from accessing these records.

Additionally, redacting sensitive information from the footage can be complex. Redaction involves editing out or blurring confidential details to protect privacy (NACo – Redaction 101). While necessary, it should not become a barrier to access. Unfortunately, the upfront costs for redaction processing may prevent individuals from obtaining important evidence.

The Chilling Effect on Transparency and Accountability

The new law may produce a chilling effect, deterring people from exercising their right to request public records. When faced with high fees, many might abandon their pursuit of information. This effect can hinder efforts to hold law enforcement accountable. Furthermore, marginalized communities, who often have limited resources, are most affected. They rely on access to body camera footage to address instances of police misconduct.

A Step Backward in Police Accountability

The way this rule was passed raises eyebrows, having undergone no public hearings before being tacked onto the bill. Ironically, the law’s subject matter is transparency in policing, yet its process lacks clarity.

This law counters past efforts to boost police accountability. In 2019, Ohio aimed to make police footage public with some exceptions. This new rule undoes those strides by forcing financial obstacles to access the same records.

The Broader Implications: A Threat to Justice and Democracy

This law has effects beyond Ohio. Other states confronting police accountability issues might view Ohio as setting a harmful example. By treating access to public records as an expense, the law changes how communities relate to law enforcement.

Body camera footage is vital in holding police accountable. It often validates accusations of brutality against official reports. By making footage costly, Ohio’s law might hide misconduct and weaken public faith in the police.

The impact is greater on marginalized groups, frequently facing police misconduct yet lacking the funds for this critical evidence. This creates an unfair justice system where accountability becomes a privilege for the wealthy.

FAQ

Q: What does Ohio’s new body camera footage law entail?
A: The law allows law enforcement agencies to charge the public up to $75 per hour for processing requests for access to police body camera footage, with a cap of $750 per request, which can create financial barriers to access.

Q: Why is this law controversial?
A: The legislation has sparked outrage as it potentially shields law enforcement from accountability and creates hurdles for the public to scrutinize police actions, particularly in cases of misconduct.

Q: How does this law affect transparency?
A: By requiring upfront payments and imposing high fees, the law effectively limits public access to crucial records, undermining efforts for transparency and accountability in policing.

Q: What are the potential consequences of this legislation?
A: It could discourage individuals and organizations, especially those from marginalized communities, from seeking important footage that can expose police misconduct, thus eroding public trust in law enforcement.

Q: How does Governor DeWine justify the law?
A: He claims it is a “workable compromise” that balances public access with the administrative challenges law enforcement agencies face in processing video requests.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.