14. Police video (e.g, body camera footage, dashcam videos)

Recordings of critical incidents, defined as including incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer and incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person results in death or great bodily injury, are public, subject to certain limitations and exceptions.  Cal. Gov’t Code § 7923.625.

The D.C. Act specifies that “[a]ny body-worn camera recordings recorded by the Metropolitan Police Department” may be exempt from disclosure if they are taken “[i]nside a personal residence” or “[r]elate[] to an incident involving domestic violence . . ., stalking . . ., or sexual assault.” D.C. Code Ann. § 2-534(a)(2A)(A)-(B).

D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 24 § 3902.5(b)-.6 further specifies that body-worn camera footage must be obtained via a request under D.C.’s FOIA before it may be publicly disclosed.

See also United States v. Kingsbury, 325 F. Supp. 3d 158, 160 (D.D.C. 2018) (noting that “the D.C. Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Metropolitan Police Department . . . embod[y] a ‘policy judgment’ that body-worn camera materials ‘tend to contain information that implicates privacy concerns’”) (citing United States v. Johnson, 314 F. Supp. 3d 248, 257 (D.D.C. 2018)). Requests for body-worn camera recordings may only be submitted to the Metropolitan Police Department. D.C. Code Ann. § 2-532(c)(2)(B).

However, in some instances, the mayor has an affirmative duty to publicly release body camera footage. Pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 5-116.33(c), the mayor must do so within five days of an officer-involved death or an incident involving serious use of force. Under § 5-116.33, the mayor must release the names and camera recordings of all officers directly involved, as well as a description of the incident. The law also gives the mayor discretion to release certain recordings that would otherwise be exempt under FOIA. However, recordings may be withheld if the decedent’s next of kin or the victim of serious force informs the mayor that they do not consent to release.

Finally, the mayor must maintain a database on MPD’s website of all names and body-worn camera recordings of officers involved in someone’s death since the body camera program was launched in 2014.

D.C.’s police union challenged the mandatory release of body camera footage as an unwarranted invasion of officers’ “fundamental right” to privacy. See Fraternal Order of Police Metro. Police Dep’t Lab. Comm. v. District of Columbia, 290 A.3d 29, 44 (D.C. 2023). The D.C. Court of Appeals rejected the argument, pointing to the First Amendment interests at play, as well as officers’ reduced expectations of privacy while on the job. Id.

Body camera footage is confidential and exempt if the recording is taken inside a private residence, a medical or health care facility, or any place in which a person would have an expectation of privacy. Fla. Stat. § 119.071(2)(l). Accordingly, body camera footage taken on a public street generally should be disclosed. However, the statute also provides that other exemptions may apply to limit disclosure. Most frequently, law enforcement agencies will withhold body camera footage or portions thereof based on the active criminal investigative exemption in Fla. Stat. § 119.071(2)(c).

With certain exceptions, Georgia law requires video recordings from law enforcement body-worn devices and devices inside of law enforcement vehicles to be retained for a minimum of 180 days. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-96. Unless part of an initial arrest or incident report, the recordings may be exempt from disclosure under the Act’s pending investigation or prosecution exception or if made in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. § 50-18-72(a) (4), (26.2).

The subject of the body camera footage may obtain the recording through FOIA regardless of whether it has been flagged under 50 ILCS 406/10-1. Public Access Opinion 19-001 (available at  https://perma.cc/9G5R-YT6Z).

Video recordings may not be subject to disclosure under Iowa Code § 22.7(5).  Disclosure will depend on whether the recording record is considered a report and investigatory. Neer v. State, 2011 Iowa App. LEXIS 154 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2011).  Though police investigatory reports do not lose their confidential status when the investigation ends, Iowa Code § 22.7(5) allows for “an exemption from confidentiality for basic facts about the incident” if the litigant can show that the public good of disclosure outweighs the associated public harm. Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 232 (Iowa 2019).

As of July 1, 2016, the Kansas Legislature addressed issues related to police video by defining “[e]very audio or video recording made and retained by law enforcement using a body camera or vehicle camera” to be “criminal investigation records” as defined by K.S.A. 45-217(c).  If law enforcement refuses to disclose the footage under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(10) because it is a criminal investigation record, the public can access such video only through a court order.  However, an individual determined to be “an heir at law,” such as a family member, may also have a right to access such video under K.S.A. 45-254.

Despite the plain language of the law, after Topeka resident Domonique White was killed by police on September 28, 2017, his family was forced to get a court order to determine that Mr. White’s father was “an heir at law” entitled to see the footage.  It took well over two months to produce what should have been turned over promptly.

As a result, the legislature introduced 2018 SB 361 and 2018 HB 2571.  Of all the proposals in those bills, the legislature adopted, and Governor Jeff Coyler signed, an amendment to K.S.A. 45-254.  As of July 1, 2018, pursuant to 2018 K.S.A. 45-254(b), law enforcement agencies “shall allow the person [requesting access to the footage] to listen to the requested audio recording or to view the requested video recording within 20 days after making the request.”

In 2021, the Sedgwick County District Court held that the city of Wichita violated KORA when it refused to disclose certain body camera footage on the basis that such footage was not in the “public interest.”  See Memorandum Decision, Wichita Eagle and Beacon Publishing Company v. City of Wichita, 17 CV 2745.  With regard to one of the claims in the case, involving a failure to disclose body camera footage of an officer allegedly involved in a hit-and-run accident, the court found that such event “is a matter of public interest because the community at large has an expectation that police investigations will be conducted fairly and appropriately, especially when a police officer is implicated.”  Id.  The other incident involved in the case, where an Iraqi-American family was wrongly detained at a bank, the court found that “‘The Bank Incident’ is a matter of public interest because it became an issue of public controversy.”  The court ordered disclosure of the videos.

Generally open, notwithstanding exceptions listed in Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.168.

Access to police video records is controlled by the Intelligence and Investigative Record Information Act. 16 M.R.S.A. §§ 801-809.

The Body-Worn Camera Privacy Act of 2017 (“BWCPA”) became effective on January 8, 2018. Section 3(2) of that act, codified at MCL 780.313, provides that, “Except as otherwise provided in section 4 and subject to section 5, a recording recorded by a law enforcement officer with a body-worn camera that is recorded in a private place is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act.” Section 3(1) incorporates certain privacy protections of the William Van Regenmorter Crime Victim's Rights Act, MCL 780.758 et seq.

Subject to those and other applicable FOIA privacy protections, section 4 of the BWCPA, MCL 780.314, permits the following persons to “request a copy of an audio and video recording recorded by a law enforcement officer with a body-worn camera in a private place:

(a) An individual who is the subject of the audio and video recording.

(b) An individual whose property has been seized or damaged in relation to a crime to which the audio and video recording is related.

(c) A parent of an individual who is less than 18 years of age described in subdivision (a) or (b).

(d) A legal guardian of an individual described in subdivision (a) or (b).

(e) An attorney who represents an individual described in subdivision (a) or (b).

Section 5 of the BWCPA, MCL 780.315, provides that body camera footage retained in connection with an ongoing law enforcement investigation is not a public record and is exempt from FOIA, but only to the extent that disclosure would cause one of several listed harms. The same provision clarifies that, as with other public records, body camera footage cannot be obtained through FOIA when the requestor is in active civil litigation with the agency.

These are public except for the portions of law enforcement records subject to the exemption set forth in NMSA 1978 §14-2-1(D).

Body camera footage and dashcam videos are public records under the Oklahoma Open Records Act subject to few limitations and exceptions. 51 O.S. § 24A.8(A)(9-(10).

On behalf of Eugene Weekly and one of its reporters, RCFP attorneys challenged the Eugene Police Dept’s rejection of a public records request seeking BWC video documenting law enforcement’s response to a man experiencing a mental health crisis. The county medical examiner reviewed the BWC footage & determined that “restraint by law enforcement” contributed to the man’s death. Requester argued that the city failed to balance the public’s interest in accessing the video footage against the interest in withholding it. On Aug. 11, 2021, the Lane County DA ordered the Eugene Police Department to produce the BWC video.

In Pennsylvania, access to body worn camera footage is governed by Act 22, not the RTKL.  See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 67A01 et seq.  Act 22 permits any member of the public and the press to request video and audio recordings created by law enforcement agencies and further allows a right of appeal in the event access is denied.

Per section 67A04(a) of Act 22, a law enforcement entity may only deny an Act 22 request if the relevant audio or video footage “contains potential evidence in a criminal matter, information pertaining to an investigation or a matter in which a criminal charge has been filed, confidential information[,] or victim information[,] and the reasonable redaction of the audio or video recording would not safeguard” said evidence or information. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 67A04(a).

To date, only a handful of cases provide precedent on access to footage under Act 22.  Relevant links are below:

• https://www.rcfp.org/litigation/thompson-v-cumberland-county/ (where Act 22 case settled and journalist was permitted to go to DA's office to review BWC footage)

• https://www.rcfp.org/litigation/meko-v-city-of-lancaster/ (following negotiations, DA's office coordinated the release of more than a dozen hours of the requested BWC footage)

A public record includes “any written or recorded information, regardless of physical form or characteristics, which is produced or acquired in the course of public agency business.” 1 V.S.A. § 317(b).  Thus, police videos would constitute public records under the Public Records Act.  Indeed, the Vermont Supreme Court recently analyzed a public records request to inspect body camera footage from the Burlington Police Department, see Doyle v. City of Burlington Police Dep't, 2019 VT 66, ¶ 2, and the Burlington Police Department’s Department Directive on Body Worn Camera Systems contemplates that requests for copies of videos will be made pursuant to the Public Records Act.  See https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/ files/Police/files/

DD14.1%20-%20Body%20Worn%20Camera%20Systems.pdf for more information.

Any requests for police video, are, however, subject to the list of exemptions contained in 1 V.S.A. § 317(c), including: 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(5) (records dealing with the detection and investigation of crime) and 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(14) (records relevant to an ongoing litigation in which the public agency is a party of record).

See discussion of criminal investigative files.

Police body worn camera recordings are subject to disclosure except to the extent necessary to protect a person’s “right to privacy,” under a modified version of the privacy test discussed above. Certain types of recordings are presumed to be “highly offensive,” including depictions showing the inside of medical facilities and residences, intimate images, minors and the body of a deceased person. RCW 42.56.240(14).  Public records requests for bodycam footage must also specify a particular individual involved in an incident, a specific officer, or the incident’s time and location. Id.

Police videos are available for inspection, subject to the balancing test. A Legislative Council Study Committee recommended legislation on body cameras, but it has not passed the legislature.