Ohio Governor DeWine signs law to withhold police video footage from the public

COLUMBUS, Ohio. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has signed a controversial bill that could charge the public hundreds of dollars for video footage taken by law enforcement agencies, including body cameras.

At 11 p.m., DeWine announced the signing and line-by-line vetoes of the bills. The governor can veto provisions in appropriations bills, meaning he has the ability to choose which policies in a larger piece of legislation to keep and which to stop.

HB 315

Around 2 a.m. in a 17-hour marathon lame-duck session, lawmakers passed HB 315, a massive, roughly 450-page omnibus bill.

It had a provision that could cost people money to access videos from police and prisons. Law enforcement agencies can charge people an “estimated cost” to process the video — and you’ll have to pay before the footage is released. Governments can charge up to $75 per hour, with a cap of $750 per request.

Legal experts say that could affect access to video from dash cams and body cameras, as well as video from prison surveillance cameras that are publicly available in Ohio.

The policy was not public or discussed before it was codified into legislation.

I expressed my concerns about transparency to the governor during a press conference in December.

“These requests should certainly be met and we want them to be met. We want them done quickly, which is very, very important,” DeWine replied. “However, we also — if you have, for example, a small police department — a very small police department — and they get a request like that, it can take one person a significant amount of time.”

It’s time-consuming editing and compilation of the video, and making sure you’re allowed to post it after you watch it.

“Anyone else have questions?” DeVine asked as he finished his sentence.

i did

“It’s already hard enough to get footage for journalists — when it comes to police shootings, when it comes to different actions that we’re trying to get on camera to show the public what’s going on, why should we pay for something that helps the public understand what’s going on? ” I asked.

“Again, we have about 1,000 police departments in the state of Ohio. Some of them are very small,” DeWine said. “Again, I haven’t made a decision on this amendment, but this amendment will allow them to recover some of the costs. This is a very heavy burden.”

He added that he is a “strong supporter” of police body cameras, but now that they are more common, he seems to think they are becoming tiresome.

“It also creates a lot more movies and a lot more video,” he said. “The question is not whether you will get it. The question is not how quickly you get it. It’s just a question of whether, as a matter of public policy, we’re going to seek reimbursement for this?”

News 5 Investigators regularly break stories with footage obtained by the police. Many of them have to deal with police shootings, like the 2022 death of Jayland Walker, who was shot nearly 50 times by eight Akron officers.

Police released video of the shooting of Jayland Walker

In his press release on signing the bill, DeWine addressed ongoing concerns about the law:

“I strongly support the right of the public — and the media — to access public records. The wording of House Bill 315 does not change that right.

Body and dashboard cameras worn by law enforcement agencies have been a significant improvement for both law enforcement investigations and accountability. However, I am sensitive to the fact that this changing technology has affected law enforcement, often creating a non-financial burden on those agencies, especially when it comes to the time-consuming and labor-intensive work required to provide them as public records.

No law enforcement agency should ever have to choose between diverting resources for officers on the street to administrative tasks like lengthy video editing reviews for which agencies are not compensated, especially when the video requester is private . a company looking to monetize these videos. The wording of House Bill 315 is a workable compromise to balance the modern realities of preparing these public documents and the costs involved in preparing them. Ohio law has long allowed optional user fees related to the cost of copying public records, and the wording of House Bill 315 applies the concept in a modern way to video recordings provided by law enforcement agencies.

It is good that the wording of Bill 315 does not include a mandatory commission, instead it is optional at the discretion of the agency. It is also good that the usage fee is limited and directly related to the cost of production.

If the language in House Bill 315 related to public records appears to have unintended consequences, I will work with the General Assembly to change the language to address such legitimate concerns.”

After the story was published, state Sen. Neeraj Antani (R-Miamisburg) requested a statement, saying he was “deeply concerned” about the potential costs:

“When I sponsored HB 425, which established a public records law for body camera video worn by police officers, our goal was to ensure that the public and the media had free access to body camera video of public interest. Of course, we’ve had a long discussion with our law enforcement partners about the cost of proper video scrubbing and storage. I am deeply concerned about the $75 an hour rate being burdensome. I appreciate that Governor DeWine said he will monitor this to make sure the fee does not limit public access to these videos, and if it does, he will work with the General Assembly to fix it.”

His bipartisan 2019 legislation legalized and released police records, but it had certain exceptions — such as when a person is dead or dying, unless the officer caused the death or if the deceased’s executor agreed.

HB 315 items

DeWine expressed his desire for greater accountability and transparency in each of his positions, a veto that came after he signed legislation allowing police to charge for their transparency.

Medical “freedom of speech”

In signing the bill into law, he vetoed a provision that would have prevented the Department of Health and state medical and pharmaceutical boards from disciplining licensed medical professionals for “public or private expression of a medical opinion inconsistent” with state requirements. views

“This is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly health outcomes for patients,” DeWine said in his veto statement.

For example, it could allow doctors to spread misinformation or overprescribe opioids and not be penalized for saying it’s their “opinion,” DeWine said at a news conference.

“We believe that it is very important to adhere to the standards of medical care for physicians when evaluating whether they have engaged in misconduct,” the President of the Medical Council. Dr. Jonathan B. Feibel added.

Learn more about the policy for by clicking here.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine is set to veto a controversial medical free speech policy.

Ohio’s ethical requirements

Another provision he vetoed involved Ohio’s ethics laws. Currently, public servants are bound by ethical restrictions and requirements to ensure that taxpayers’ money is protected from corruption.

According to the governor, a provision in the bill exempts some officials from these requirements.

In a letter from the Ohio Ethics Commission to DeWine, the governor noted that this provision “exempts mayors and all other village executive officers from the criminal prohibitions of RC 2921.42 (the public contracting law), a statute that has been enforced by the Commission for nearly forty years.” As further noted, this provision “would result in the misuse of taxpayers’ money.”

Court secretaries

Another veto would change the relationship between judges and their clerks regarding responsibility for certain tasks. DeWine simply believed the issue should be resolved after a “thorough public hearing.”

Other signatures

The governor also signed into law HB 173. Among other consumer relief, it would have required medical facilities to post real prices, not just estimates.

It also marks Ohio Black Media Week, Hindu Heritage Month, and Ohio Seniors Month.

Also signed into law was SB 54. This bill creates the Ohio River Commission and the Ohio Irish Trade Commission, and touches on many other issues such as workers’ compensation, county election board reimbursements, and state appropriations.

He vetoed the line, correcting a mistake by lawmakers.

follow WEWS State reporter Morgan Trough Twitter and Facebook.