Local police can soon charge $75/hour for body cam video. But will they? Here's what we found
Those internal policies will be critical for public records access. In December, the state passed a law permitting, but not requiring, departments to charge up to $75 an hour, but not more than $750 total, for dash cam and body camera footage.
As this outlet reported, the scantly-debated law was meant to help departments dissuade, or at least recoup the labor costs associated with, content creators that lodge mass public records requests and post those videos online in search of commercial profit.
But the law has sparked concern among First Amendment advocates who note the law could put video public records out of reach for journalists or everyday citizens.
Here are some of the responses this outlet has received from Miami Valley law enforcement agencies.
Dayton Police
"The Dayton Police Department is reviewing the legislation that allows agencies to charge for body and in-car camera video requests," Police Information Specialist James Rider told this outlet.
Rider said Dayton PD has seen a "sharp increase" in video records requests, "often from individuals operating social media channels." In 2023, the department processed 1,300 such requests; in 2024 it processed over 3,000.
Rider noted that the process for actually turning these videos — Ohio law requires them to protect the identity of crime victims and uncharged suspects — is "labor-intensive and costly."
Montgomery County Sheriff
Agency spokeswoman Christine Bevins told this outlet that the Montgomery County Sheriff's office has no immediate plans to divert from its policy — which most departments have today — of charging requestors only for the material the videos are provided on.
"At this point we are waiting to see if the law itself reduces the number of requests we get from those whose only interest in the videos is to post the material online for monetary gain," Bevins said. She noted that the department isn't fully confident the law will stay as-is.
The video requests have been so abundant, Bevins said, that the county hired a full-time employee for the department's redaction unit to help with the approximately 20 requests the unit fields each day.
"We get lots of requests that we either know or suspect are destined to be used online for commercial purposes. It's not unusual to get a list of a dozen of more incidents from a single requestor and it's not uncommon for a single incident to have multiple deputies and vehicles involved," Bevins said.
"Some would suggest that we should start charging those with a commercial interest and not charge citizens with a demonstrated need for the videos. At times, it could be difficult to differentiate the two and I imagine that those with commercial interests would just change the way they make their requests in an attempt to avoid the fees."
Springfield, Clark County Sheriff
On Thursday, the newly-minted Clark County Sheriff Chris Clark told this outlet that there are no immediate plans to change policy.
"We have not changed our pricing on that, as of yet," Clark said. "We're looking at, but it's not something that I'm real hot-to-trot on changing just yet."
Clark said he expects the mere existence of the law to cut down on frivolous requests.
"I'm not saying it won't change in the near future. It's on my agenda, it's just on the back burner for right now," he said.
Springfield is among many cities that have not adopted a policy under the new law, maintaining the status quo — allowing departments to charge for materials such as flash drives or disks, but not labor — for the time being.
Kettering, Hamilton, others holding off
This news outlet reached out to law enforcement agencies across this nine-county region of southwest Ohio. Most said they have no immediate plans to start charging for police videos, but could do so if the burden of fulfilling requests becomes or stays too high.
In an email, Kettering Police Department's Public Information Officer Cynthia James told this outlet that city "has not adopted a policy yet," but they are still reviewing the state legislation.
The same is true in Hamilton, where Assistant Chief of Police Brian Robinson told this outlet, "We have no policies in place or in development at this time."
In the Butler County's Sheriffs Office, Chief Deputy Anthony Dwyer told this outlet that he expects more video requests to come in as more people become aware of the department's adoption of body cameras. "We have discussed charging for videos but we have not finalized that decision," Dwyer said.
This news outlet received similar responses from the Ohio State Highway Patrol, Fairfield Twp., Middletown, Monroe, Troy, Piqua and others.
Miami County targets commercial requests
Miami County Sheriff Dave Duchak told this outlet that his department's policies will only impact "those who operate commercialized businesses and exploit the open records law for profit."
Duchak said the rate will include the hourly wage of support staff and their benefits. He hopes it will "dissuade the abuse of Ohio's open record laws."
"(Commercial requests) are a burden to the system and do not align with the purpose of public records, which is transparency," Duchak said. "This is an issue that should have been dealt with by the legislature a long time ago."
Some cities charging everyone
Not all departments have been tentative. Oakwood Law Director Robert Jacques, for example, told this outlet the department would begin charging journalists, citizens and content creators alike for police video records.
"The city has not finalized the hourly rate that will be charged to cover administrative expenses when (the law) goes into effect in April," Jacques said. "We anticipate that fees will be based on the wage and fringe benefit costs for a records clerk, converted to an hourly rate, plus any actual reimbursables such as flash drives or other storage media."
Jacques said Oakwood typically receives fewer than 10 video records requests a year.
In Tipp City, it's been determined that they'll charge the same way no matter the requestor.
"Our policy will reflect the (law) changes and charge $75 an hour up to $750 for preparing the video," Tipp City Police Chief Greg Adkins told this outlet. "This charge covers the employee's time, benefits, and material costs."
Adkins said the department will not charge if "an involved party" wants to sit down and review video records. Otherwise, he said, "We will not direct a policy that allows the release to specific organizations at no cost and to other organizations at full price. We will be fair across all spectrums of requests."
------
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, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Homeland Security Agents Stunned by Pro-Palestine Arrest Orders
Officers from the Department of Homeland Security who arranged the arrests of foreign university students over their pro-Palestinian speech claimed that the orders they received were so unusual, they weren't sure if they were legal, Politico reported Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Willliam Young heard testimony from four veteran DHS officers as part of a lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration is implementing a policy of 'ideological deportation,' violating the First Amendment rights of non-citizens in the United States. Across the country, federal judges have ordered the release of multiple students and faculty detained as part of Donald Trump's crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech. Darren McCormack, a special agent with Homeland Security Investigations, said orders to arrest Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University grad student and green card holder, came from the very top. 'Somebody at a higher level than the people I was speaking to had an interest in him,' said McCormack, who oversaw Khalil's arrest. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had attempted to justify Khalil's months-long detainment and pending removal by claiming he was a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests because he would create a 'hostile environment' for Jewish students. McCormack said he'd been instructed to surveil Khalil ahead of his arrest, leading McCormack to consult with ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations office in New York, which typically handles deportation arrests. 'We historically in recent times had not enforced those laws,' McCormack said. 'I wanted to confirm there was a legal basis for arrest.' When asked why ERO wasn't responsible for carrying out the arrest, McCormack said he didn't have an answer. 'I wondered why HSI was effecting this arrest and not ERO,' he said. 'I still don't know.' Brian Cunningham, an assistant special agent at HSI in Boston, said there had been 'a lot of hands in the fishbowl' regarding the horrific arrest of Rümeysa Öztürk, the Tufts University grad student who was swarmed by six masked plainclothes officers on the street in Somerville, Massachusetts. Cunningham also said the orders for that arrest came from somebody high up. 'I can't recall a time that it's come top-down like this with a visa revocation, under my purview anyway,' he said. 'I did contact our legal counsel to make sure that we're on solid legal ground.' 'The operation kind of developed pretty quickly,' he added. Öztürk was detained over an op-ed she'd written for the school paper that advocated for the school to make good on student resolutions to acknowledge the genocide in Gaza and to divest from Israel. Cunningham, who said that he'd skimmed the op-ed, testified that he 'didn't see anything in the op-ed that suggested she'd committed a crime.' He admitted he didn't have 'much experience, if any' with conducting a deportation arrest. 'Most of my career as an agent and as a supervisor has been in enforcement of drug laws, drug smuggling, money laundering,' Cunningham said. 'That's changed recently,' he added. He said that shortly after Trump entered the White House, HSI had several meetings about prioritizing immigration enforcement. Inside ICE, staff members from the HSI division, which typically focuses on transnational crime, are now being moved to ERO, in what some perceive to be a retaliatory move for HSI distancing itself from the agency's deportation arm.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge Warns Trump Is Turning Into Henry II With His Dangerous Rants
A federal judge compared Donald Trump to Henry II for his blatant efforts to punish his administration's critics. While overseeing a lawsuit Monday concerning the Trump administration's crackdown on non-citizens' pro-Palestinian speech, U.S. District Judge Willliam Young referred to the 12th-century English king while mulling whether the president's penchant for publicizing his every personal problem ever inspired his underlings to take action. Young cited Henry II's famous line, 'Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?' The offhand remark led errant knights to murder Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who'd sought to increase the power of the Catholic Church. Trump 'doesn't have errant knights, but he's got Stephen Miller,' Young quipped, according to Politico's senior legal correspondent Kyle Cheney. Young pointed out that whenever the president had a problem with someone, especially in government, that person tended to find themselves facing a spate of problems they hadn't had before. For example, after Trump had his explosive feud with Elon Musk, the government began to review its contracts with SpaceX. After beefing for months with Senator Adam Schiff, last week, the president accused him of 'mortgage fraud' and said he should 'pay the price of prison.' Young also questioned Trump's motor-mouthed attitude, while his administration appeared intent on violating the First Amendment. 'The president is a master of speech and certainly brilliantly uses his right to free speech,' said Young. 'Whether he recognizes or not whether other people have any right to free speech is questionable.' Last week, Young heard testimony from four veteran officers from the Department of Homeland Security, who recounted their superiors' unusual requests to arrest green card holders and non-citizen academics who had committed no crime.
Indianapolis Star
13 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana school banned mom for recording principal. Think tank says it's unconstitutional
After Northeast Indiana mom recorded a meeting with her daughter's principal last year and then posted it online, she was banned from school grounds and limited in her communications with school employees. Nicole Graves was disciplined after twice violating a Whitley County district policy not to record meetings without the building administrator's permission, according to a district letter sent to her. The Goldwater Institute, a conservative-leaning Arizona-based think tank, is pushing to rescind the policy, arguing that it violates the right to free expression protected under the First Amendment. It's a policy found in other schools around the state and the country. "We're very hopeful that the school district will simply just change the recording policy," attorney Adam Shelton said. "However, we are still open to litigation depending on how the conversation with the school district continues to go." If the school restricted Graves from talking about the meeting or drafting a transcript, Shelton said, it would undoubtedly violate the First Amendment. He questions why a recording would be any different. "This is just a measure the school's adopted to prevent the most accurate record of conversation from being taken," he said. The school has since lifted its punishments as part of a typical end-of-school-year review, said Laura McDermott, superintendent of Whitley County Consolidated Schools, in a statement. The statement did not mention the recording policy, and McDermott has not responded to additional IndyStar questions. In a prior statement to Fort Wayne TV station WPTA, she said Graves violated the recording policy meant to protect student privacy. "The parent was not restricted from school property for expressing concerns, but rather due to a pattern of aggressive interactions with school staff and public commentary involving children other than her own," the statement to IndyStar reads. "As a school district, we have an obligation to protect the privacy and well-being of all students and to maintain a safe, respectful environment for staff and families." Nicole Graves asked to meet with Indian Springs Middle School principal, Wesley Mullett, after her daughter reported an incident on the school bus. In a video produced by Goldwater, Graves said her daughter's school bus driver was smacking his belt against his hand and had his underwear visible. Graves asked to meet with Mullett to ask about the incident and why she wasn't notified when her daughter reported the driver's behavior. She also previously had issues with other bus drivers in the district, Shelton said. Graves said she lost confidence in the school after hearing Mullett's explanations about the situation and later posted the meeting recording on social media. She decided to record the meeting so she could accurately recount what was said, according to Goldwater. Graves received a letter detailing punishments for violating the district's recording policy. She was asked to take down the audio clip, according to the letter. Goldwater argues Graves' Fourteenth Amendment rights to control her child's education were violated. Shelton said Graves should have been notified about her child's report of the bus driver, and there are concerns about her subsequent punishment limiting access to her daughter's education. In a letter sent to school officials in May, Shelton and Goldwater argue that the school's policy violates her rights to free expression. Though Graves is no longer banned from school grounds, Shelton said the think tank wants to see this policy rolled back. McDermott did not respond to an IndyStar question about the details of the policy and whether it is under review. The First Amendment extends to conduct that is inherently expressive, which courts have decided does include video and audio recordings in some cases. Goldwater's argument lands in a legal gray area. Shelton believes the right to record government officials is protected and argues that freedom should not be limited to a public setting if there are no other privacy concerns at play. "There's no meaningful constitutional difference between speaking about what happened at a meeting and recording what happened at a meeting," Shelton said. Still, there isn't clear case law on this issue. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
