In Ohio, the public will soon need to be well paid in their own right if they have any interest in the way their communities are policed.
Gov. DeWine recently signed into law H.B. 315, a massive 450-page omnibus bill with a number of troubling provisions, including changes to the Ohio Public Records Act, or Sec. 149.43 of the Revised Code, which would allow police departments and jails to charge a fee for access to video recordings.
The provision was not made available to the public prior to the vote at the Ohio Statehouse and did not have any public hearings before being added to the legislation.
H.B. 315′s changes to the Ohio Public Records Act include considering “the time required for a state or local law enforcement agency to retrieve, download, review, redact, seek legal advice regarding, and produce the video record” when considering the “actual cost” associated with providing the record. These fees could be as much as $75 per hour of video, but cannot exceed $750 total.
“This will negatively affect Ohioans ability to know more about controversial police shootings and uses of force, systemic investigations into matters like racial profiling, allegations of abuse and neglect in Ohio’s jails, and so much more,” Gary Daniels, Chief Lobbyist for the ACLU of Ohio said. “Indeed, crucial information will now be hidden behind paywalls designed to discourage and prevent inquiries and investigations into such matters.”
The importance of body-worn camera recordings
While still relatively new, body-worn cameras (BWCs) have become widely adopted by police departments across the country and Ohio.
According to Dr. Cynthia Lum, who has authored articles on the use of body-worn cameras, “Police and the public both like BWCs because they think that BWCs can protect them from the other.”
Our reporting has long involved and benefited from the request of BWC footage. From the December arrest of Champaign County Sheriff Matthew Melvin who refused a field sobriety test, to the multi-county pursuit and standoff in Miamisburg in August, this footage allows the public greater insight into the operations of the law enforcement departments who serve them. Video recordings from jails, such as the horrific death of a 19-year-old autistic man in Montgomery County Jail in 2023, have also been instrumental in uncovering abuse.
While far from conclusive, the existing research on the use of BWCs by law enforcement has shown their benefit for both police officers and the communities they serve.
In 2014, researchers at Arizona State University found that officers with BWCs had measurable benefit: The number of arrests increased, complaints against officers who wore the cameras declined, and officers who wore cameras and received a complaint were less likely to have the complaint sustained.
In a report from 2017, researchers from the Center for Naval Analyses found that Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers with BWCs generated fewer use-of force reports, fewer complaints from citizens and issued higher numbers of arrests and citations.
And according to a 2020 report from the National Police Association that reviewed 70 studies of the effects of BWCs around the world, officers with BWCs appear to have fewer complaints filed against them; some studies showed that BWCs reduce use of force; and the use of BWCs in investigations increased the rate of guilty pleas, convictions and case clearances.
Credit: Miamisburg Police Department
Credit: Miamisburg Police Department
Longstanding support of public records
“No law enforcement agency should ever have to choose between diverting resources for officers on the street to move them to administrative tasks like lengthy video redaction reviews for which agencies receive no compensation,” Gov. DeWine said in a statement following his signing of the bill.
While the “actual cost” of preparing a video records request should be considered, that should only take into account the costs associated with the delivery of the recording. The Ohio Supreme Court has long upheld that the costs associated with the creation, storage, editing and redaction of public records should be separate and not included in the fees for their request.
The Ohio Supreme Court in State ex rel. Fox v. Cuyahoga Cty. Hosp. Sys. in 1988 ruled that “‘[n]o pleading of too much expense, or too much time involved, or too much interference with normal duties, can be used by the respondent to evade the public’s right to inspect and obtain a copy of public records within a reasonable time. The respondent is under a statutory duty to organize his office and employ his staff in such a way that his office will be able to make these records available for inspection.”
Further, in State ex rel. The Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson in 1994 the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that “since respondents are already compensated for performing their duties, and responding to public records requests is merely another duty, the cost set forth in R.C. 149.43(B) should not include labor costs regarding employee time.”
And in Patterson v. Ayers in 1960: “In Ohio, public records are the people’s records, and officials in whose custody they happen to be are merely trustees for the people; therefore, anyone may inspect these records at any reasonable time, subject only to the limitation that such inspection does not endanger the safety of the record, or unreasonably interfere with the discharge of the duties of the officer having custody of the same.”
These records are already paid for with Ohioans’ tax dollars. Ohioans should not be unduly charged again to access them.
Limiting access
The process to request and acquire BWC footage has become increasingly more difficult, with some requests being ignored outright. In December of 2023, ProPublica conducted a review of civilians killed by police officers in June 2022, roughly a decade after the first body cameras were deployed. They counted 79 killings in which there was body-worn-camera footage. A year and a half later, the police released footage in just 33 cases — or about 42%.
And now, with H.B. 315, the request process may have steep fees associated with it. These fees would put a significant strain on newsroom budgets, but would be even more burdensome for citizen journalists and other members of the public interested in seeing how their tax dollars are being spent.
Departments have a choice
“If the language in House Bill 315 related to public records turns out to have unforeseen consequences, I will work with the General Assembly to amend the language to address such legitimate concerns,” DeWine said.
We hope that Gov. DeWine stays true to his promise and will heed the advice of concerned Ohio voters who were not given the opportunity to weigh in on this legislation.
Fortunately, these changes to Ohio’s Public Records Act are optional. Law enforcement agencies across Ohio are given the choice to enact these fees and restrictions.
We implore our partners in law enforcement to make the choice not to do so, in the spirit of Sir Robert Peel’s second principle: “To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.”
As stewards of the public trust and respect, we ask that law enforcement agencies keep access to public records simple, free and transparent.
About the Author