A police officer wears a body camera during an anti-Donald Trump protest in Cleveland, Ohio, near the Republican National Convention site on July 18, 2016. | Source: JIM WATSON / Getty
The governor of Ohio has signed a bill into law that opponents argue will protect police officers in the state from accountability by charging the public for police body camera footage, which is typically called for when there’s a use-of-force incident that may or may not have been an act of police brutality, or when there are general questions regarding the conduct of some officers. In other words: The law could charge people a fee for bare minimum police transparency.
According to ABC News 5 Cleaveland, legislators passed the bill around 2 a.m. Friday morning and it was signed into law by Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican who exercised his authority to make line-item vetos on provisions in bills that contain appropriations, “meaning he has the ability to pick and choose which policies within a larger piece of legislation get to stay or must go,” News 5 reported. But whatever the Republican governor cut from the bill, he did not include the aforementioned provision, which would reportedly put a price tag of potentially hundreds of dollars on requests for law enforcement agencies to release footage, including bodycam footage.
From News 5:
Around 2 a.m. during the 17-hour marathon lame duck session, lawmakers passed H.B. 315, a massive, roughly 450-page omnibus bill.
In it was a provision that could cost people money to get access to video from police and jails. Law enforcement could charge people for the “estimated cost” of processing the video — and you would have to pay before the footage is released. Governments could charge up to $75 an hour for work, with a fee cap of $750 per request.
Legal experts say this could affect access to video from dash and body cameras, as well as surveillance video from inside jails — which are public records in Ohio.
The policy was not public, nor had a hearing, prior to being snuck into the legislation.
Body camera footage is shown at the Brooklyn Center Police Station in Brooklyn Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, on April 12, 2021. | Source: KEREM YUCEL / Getty
It’s hard to imagine what kind of bootlicking, “back the blue” crusader of a lawmaker decided to shoehorn in a provision that would appear to anyone with a brain to be a clear attempt at throwing up a roadblock for people who are seeking clarity on what went on during a police stop or an altercation that resulted in police misconduct including but not limited to violence.
Actually, it’s not very hard to imagine. America did just reelect a president who has promised police officers blanket “immunity from prosecution” while lying about cops being disallowed to do their jobs after observing a crime. (Donald Trump also implied they should be given “one really rough day” to commit acts of police brutality with impunity if we’re really keeping score.)
During a press conference, DeWine addressed concerns that the bill he signed protected police from accountability. And by “addressed,” I mean he basically swung for the fences with a ridiculous excuse for why the public should be charged for the footage.
“These requests certainly should be honored, and we want them to be honored. We want them to be honored in a swift way that’s very, very important,” DeWine said. “We also, though — if you have, for example, a small police department — very small police department — and they get a request like that, that could take one person a significant period of time.”
So people should be charged for transparency because whoever has to process the video might get a little overtime. Got it.
“It’s already hard enough to get video for journalists — when it comes to police shootings when it comes to different acts that we’re trying to get on camera to show the public what’s going on, why would we want to put a cost on something that helps the public understand what’s going on?” News 5 reporter Morgan Trau asked DeWine.
“Well, once again, we have close to 1,000 police departments in the state of Ohio. Some of them are very small,” said DeWine. “What this amendment—again I’ve not made a decision about this— but what this amendment would do is allow them to recover some of the cost that is involved. This is a very heavy burden.”
And while DeWine claimed to be a “strong proponent” of police cameras, he also appears to believe law enforcement officials are overburdened by them now that they are so widespread.
“It also creates a lot more film and a lot more video,” he said. “It’s not a question of whether you get it. It’s not a question of how fast you get it. It’s simply a question — is, as a matter of public policy, are we going to require some reimbursement for that?”
No matter how DeWine tries to dress it up, the message here is going to read: “Justice may be blind, but it ain’t free.”
Truthfully, it’s neither.
SEE ALSO:
Body Camera Footage Of Tyreek Hill’s Arrest Exposes The Fragile Egos Of Miami-Dade Cops
Alabama GOP Strike Down Bill That Would Require Police To Publicly Release Body Camera Video
