Transparency served in bodycam bill
About three years ago, as the debate over the use and regulation of police-worn cameras exploded across the country, two things quickly became obvious to us at the Ohio News Media Association.
First, it was inevitable that the Ohio Legislature would respond.
Why? Bodycams became central to calls for greater accountability and transparency by the police. However, the cameras raise issues of personal privacy that are understandable and often highly emotional. Given those factors, we concluded legislation was a matter of “when,” not “if.”
Second, because we have been in this movie many times before with openrecords laws, we decided to act instead of react to avoid a really bad result.
Early policies that emerged from some Ohio police agencies reinforced concerns, as some departments around the state adopted local rules — in violation of existing law — that recordings only would be released at the discretion of the chief. Meanwhile, we grew more alarmed as other states codified that principle into law, making body-camera recordings closed, only available for release if the government chose to do so.
It’s hard to imagine any other public records in which transparency, access and accountability matter more.
For the past two years, there has been excellent give-and-take among various groups. We emphasized the importance of the presumption of openness that is supposed to attach to all public records. We urged that any new exemptions be written as narrowly as possible. We noted that the issues raised by the cameras are unusual but not unique. Existing laws to protect investigations, informant identities and other police matters already have broad exemptions under Ohio law.
On Nov. 20, “when” became “now” when Rep. Niraj Antani, R-Miamisburg, and Rep. Hearcel Craig, D-Columbus, introduced a bipartisan bill to regulate police-worn cameras. The bill represents a strong effort to respect both privacy interests and the critical need to have the accountability and transparency that only open records can create.
Under the bill, for example, videos related to officers’ use of force will be generally available as will most police enforcement activity in public places. Exemptions are mainly tied to recordings made in private homes or the private areas of businesses and those that show nudity, serious injuries, fatalities that don’t involve first responders and victims of sex crimes and domestic violence.
The bill doesn’t tell local police departments they have to use body cameras, but it does give them rules of engagement when they deploy them. Most importantly, it reinforces the presumption of openness.
House Bill 425 still has a long way to go. It’s never easy for us to support bills that add new secrecy to an open-records law already bloated with exemptions — some truly unnecessary; others badly written.
Fortunately, this is an example of something the public wants to see more often in politics: a solid, thoughtful bill made possible by legislators who took the time to grasp a complex issue and hear from all sides. Executive director Ohio News Media Association Columbus Westerville West Jefferson