Journalists, attorneys and Ohioans at large rely on police body camera footage to hold institutions and officials – that are meant to serve them – accountable. On Thursday, Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill that threatens access to the footage, carrying several consequences surrounding inequity and transparency.
H.B. 315 includes an unprecedented provision that allows police departments to charge those requesting footage, which is considered public record.
“Law enforcement could charge people for the ‘estimated cost’ of processing the video — and you would have to pay before the footage is released,” the Ohio Capital Journal reported. “Governments could charge up to $75 an hour, with a fee cap of $750 per request.”
All Ohioans fund equipment for police departments such as body cameras through taxes, originally as a means to strengthen trust in the relationship between police and the public. An additional fee will not only erode an already weening relationship, but imposes an unfair economic barrier between the two parties. Small news outlets, local attorneys and families working with tight budgets may not be able to afford this new fee, creating a disproportionate impact on those who may need access the most.
The importance of equal access to body camera footage is evident in the case of Jayland Walker from Akron, Ohio. Widespread support for Walker and his family sparked following the release of the body camera footage, which proved that Walker was not posing a threat to officers. Without access to the footage, it would be inconclusive if officers used excessive force – posing hardships to court evidence and public opinion.
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Entin said to News 5 Cleveland, “Fewer people will ask for bodycam videos, even though people request bodycam videos because there are all too many examples where some video shows that the story that the government initially told wasn't accurate. Making it more expensive strikes me as a step in the wrong direction."
News 5 Cleveland reported that officers are defending the provision by arguing that smaller police departments are understaffed, public records requests take time and individuals request videos just to monetize them on social media. Although these reasons may be true, it certainly is a write-off reason to hinder access to public records.
If these arguments were top-of-mind problems, the provision should focus on fixing those issues. It is definitely worth questioning if the public’s access to footage that holds the police accountable was the main issue this provision was addressing.
This provision of H.B. 315 is a concerning and undemocratic precedent set by Gov. DeWine. Trust in government institutions is already fragile, but access to public records like body camera footage increases accountability and transparency. However, now, there is a price standing between Ohioans and the truth.
Layne Rey is a senior studying journalism at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnist do not reflect those of The Post. What are your thoughts? Let Layne know by tweeting her @laynerey12.
