(Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images.)
Among the dozens of measures sitting on Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk, is one proposal that would allow police departments to charge $75 per hour of body camera footage with a cap of $750.
The provision showed up late as part of House Bill 315 — a measure originally meant to revise Ohio Township laws, like allowing public notices to be published digitally or for trustees to establish preservation commissions. But in the last-minute rush, that bill wound up as a lifeboat for only loosely connected proposals unlikely to pass on their own.
The township bill, for instance, includes a provision defining antisemitism and another giving the Secretary of State greater latitude in disciplining notaries. Both changes crib from similar measures that didn’t quite make it.
The public records changes, however, came out of left field. No previous piece of legislation sought to codify the right of law enforcement agencies to take their time reviewing, redacting and producing video footage or specifying the cost those agencies could charge for their efforts.
Gov. Mike DeWine has yet to take action on the bill, but in a press conference he expressed sympathy for small police agencies. Pressed on the potential ramifications of making it more costly and time consuming to get video after incidents like police shootings, DeWine insisted he has yet to decide on the bill. But he argued the changes aren’t a question of whether and how fast the public can access records, but rather “as a matter of public policy, are we going to require some reimbursement for that?”
What the changes look like
The proposal gives cover to law enforcement agencies in terms of the time and cost of producing video records.
Gov. DeWine’s concerns about reimbursement notwithstanding, Ohio law already allows agencies to charge requesters the “actual cost” of copying and mailing public records. What current law doesn’t allow is for agencies to bill requesters for staff time.
The latest proposal changes that.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
House Bill 315Under the measure, law enforcement agencies would be allowed to charge the cost of “reviewing, blurring or otherwise obscuring, redacting, uploading, or producing” video records up to $75 for each hour of video provided. The measure also places an overall cap of $750 per request.
Additionally, the bill directs courts to weigh the time involved in preparing video for release when considering whether an agency is providing records in a “reasonable” amount of time as required by law.
There are a handful of other administrative hurdles built in, too. Like current law, agencies can ask for payment of actual costs up front, but under the current proposal agencies can demand prepayment of an estimate before beginning work on a request. If the actual cost is higher they can charge as much as 20% more. The bill is silent on what happens if the actual cost is less.
The provision also gives agencies extra time to act. They could take as much as five business days simply to produce the cost estimate.
Pushback
The Ohio Legislative Black Caucus issued a statement urging the governor to use a line-item veto on the police video provisions.
Rep. Terrence Upchurch, D-Cleveland, argued “Taxpayers have already funded these cameras and footage. Charging additional fees for access is wrong and undermines transparency.”
The OLBC president insisted the changes would disproportionately affect Black and minority communities.
“When families seek answers or communities demand accountability, these records provide clarity,” Upchurch said. “Charging the public for access erodes trust and justice.”
Several government watchdog groups including the Ohio branches of the ACLU, Common Cause and the NAACP sent DeWine a letter urging him to veto the changes. In addition to opposing the policy, they criticized the measure on procedural grounds too.
They argued it was amended into the bill “at the very end of the legislative session with zero notice to the public.”
“As a result,” the letter continued, “Ohioans had no opportunity to air concerns, to discuss these changes with lawmakers and other stakeholders, or to formally appear as witnesses before a committee(s), as would happen during the normal legislative process.”
The groups argued vetoing the provisions wouldn’t necessarily close the door on the issue either.
“Your veto will still allow legislators, if they wish, to pursue these changes,” they wrote, “but instead with an open, deliberative, and cooperative process. This would allow Ohioans to properly express their opinions and concerns without such sudden and secretive changes with huge impacts on policing and the public’s right to know.”
Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.
