Dec 20 – Ohio Governor Mike DeWine won’t rule out vetoing a recently passed Ohio bill that would allow law enforcement agencies to charge up to $750 to process body camera and cruiser cam videos requested by Ohio residents through public records laws.
Law enforcement agencies generally provide video recordings at little or no cost under current law. But a provision signed into law in the final hours of Ohio’s lame duck session says any state or local law enforcement agency may charge a requester the actual costs associated with preparing a video recording for inspection or production, which is limited to $75 per person. hour or $750 per video.
The provision has never been publicly vetted. Instead, House Bill 315 was put together in the early hours of Thursday morning through a closed conference committee among a handful of lawmakers. It was subsequently adopted as the final act of the 135th General Assembly.
The provision is intended to help departments recoup the real costs – namely the time it takes to review, hide and redact videos – associated with requests for public video records, but it is ultimately a law that citizens and can cost Ohio journalists hundreds of dollars to receive police body cameras or cruiser videos that are a go-to tool for both holding police accountable and publicly defending their decisions.
When DeWine was asked about the law during a news conference on Friday, he said, “I’m going to look into that. I’m not going to announce anything today.”
He explained that he wants these public records requests to be honored, but noted that processing videos is burdensome for police departments, especially those with limited staff.
Support
Ohio Fraternal Order of Police President Jay McDonald, head of the Marion Police Department, told this newspaper Friday that his union was not involved in getting the provision in HB 315 passed, but he could understand why lawmakers are trying to pass it to take.
McDonald narrowed the problem down to “commercial applicants.”
He explained that the Marion Police Department receives a weekly records request every week from a private company that operates a handful of YouTube channels. The channel requests all police reports produced that week, locates the more dramatic reports, and then requests the relevant bodycam footage.
“They want videos of people resisting arrest, videos (of people) being drunk drivers, videos that they think people want to see on TV,” McDonald said. “And then they turn around and monetize those public records by posting them on YouTube and generating clicks.”
McDonald said he’s not sure if commercial applicants are the specific targets of the provision, but he would understand it.
“They are using government resources to generate profits based on public records,” McDonald said. “There’s that part of the equation that I don’t think gets talked about.”
Opposition
Opposition to the change has grown in the days since its introduction – largely because there was no advance notice of its consideration.
The Ohio News Media Association (ONMA) – of which this news organization is a member – is asking DeWine to exercise his veto power over the provision.
Monica Nieporte, president of the association, wrote that the law “will have a chilling effect on our members’ and the public’s access to public records” and noted that ONMA had no opportunity to testify to lawmakers because of the sudden and private character of his consideration.
Jack Greiner, a Cincinnati-based attorney in media law and First Amendment cases, told this newspaper that the change disrupts three decades of public records law in Ohio.
“It’s a pretty big change, and it’s, I think, problematic to do this without hearings or discussions or anything,” Greiner said.
Real impact
This news outlet regularly requests bodycam or cruiser footage from local and state law enforcement.
For example, earlier this year the Dayton Daily News requested and obtained footage of police interaction with an off-duty Miami Twp. police lieutenant accused of pointing his gun at a group of people setting off fireworks in Perry Twp. The lieutenant faced sixteen charges of serious threats and one charge of handling a weapon under the influence.
This outlet’s public records request turned up a video that lasted nearly an hour and a half. Under the provision in HB 315, an Ohioan could be charged more than $100 to receive such a video.
——
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It’s free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, at X, via email, or you can send him a comment/tip via the survey below.
Loading…
