COLUMBUS, Ohio — Police officers in Ohio are defending their soon-to-be new ability to charge hundreds of dollars for body camera footage requested by the public and media, saying it protects officers from harassment. Advocates, attorneys and professors fear for government transparency and accountability.
Police body and dash camera footage helps Ohioans know what's going on in their communities.
"They're out for understanding, they're out for transparency and they're looking for justice," attorney Sarah Gelsomino said.
Gelsomino represents families of people who are killed by police — and she says law enforcement footage is essential to her cases. It ensures that people can actually trust what police say.
"There is no one available to contradict what the officers claimed happened, and the only thing that we have to rely on is body camera footage," she added.
While the footage has typically come at little to no cost, a new law could change that.
"The department can use this financial barrier to hold off public awareness," the attorney said.
Near midnight on Thursday, Gov. Mike DeWine signed a controversial bill that allows law enforcement agencies to charge the public hundreds of dollars for footage, including body cameras.
Legal experts say this could affect access to video from dash cameras, as well as surveillance video from inside jails — which are public records in Ohio.
RELATED: Ohio Gov. DeWine signs bill into law to charge public for police video
The provision, which was part of HB 315, means police could charge for the "estimated cost" of processing the video — and you would have to pay before the footage is released. Governments could charge up to $75 an hour for work, with a fee cap of $750 per request.
Mike Weinman with the Fraternal Order of Police said this new law would help smaller municipalities that already struggle with staffing.
"Whoever is in charge of their public records, that person might be pulled off the road to do these things," Weinman said. "So that means there's a person who's not responding to calls, who's not out there being proactive in the community."
Police still want to be transparent, he added, but they want to make it more difficult for social media bloggers — or activists — who mass request footage.
For example, Marion Police Chief Jay McDonald, also the president of the Ohio FOP, showed me that he receives requests from people asking for drunk and disorderly conduct videos. Oftentimes, these people monetize the records on YouTube, he added.
"They want domestic violence, they want drunk driving, they want bar fights," the officer said. "Processing that body cam in those requests like that takes hours and hours and hours of work, and it really makes the job of the media, of lawyers, of citizens who are asking for requests, harder," McDonald said.
But how many people are truly consistently requesting little police departments every week? Enough, McDonald said.
"If Morgan Trau walked into the Marion Police Department and made a request for one video, we're going to put you in the order in which we receive it," he said to me, referencing my role as a journalist. "And if somebody has come in and made 75 requests, now Morgan Trau is number 76, and we have one records person."
This legislation will help legitimate people in need access their records faster, Weinman added.
"What we really want to do is protect people, protect the officers and cut down on all these requests that we're getting that people are making money off of," he said.
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Entin said that this isn't a sympathetic argument.
Taxpayers fund the body cameras, so this seems to be a universal punishment due to the behavior of so-called bloggers, he said.
"Let's address that problem by focusing on the gadflies who are making essentially frivolous requests — if there are such people — rather than burdening the public at large," Entin said.
This may be a good way to curb requests, but at what cost?
"If you raise the price of something, you will lower the demand," Entin continued. "Fewer people will ask for bodycam videos, even though people request bodycam videos because there are all too many examples of 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."
This could also harm police-community relations, he said. It will look like police are hiding behind a paywall, he added. It doesn't help that all of this policy was decided in the dead of night.
Around 2 a.m. during the 17-hour marathon lame duck session, lawmakers passed H.B. 315, the massive, roughly 450-page omnibus bill.
Even lawmakers weren't aware of all the details in it, since the vast majority only received it shortly before voting on it.
"Adopting something at 1 or 2 a.m., literally on the last day of the legislature, does not indicate thoughtfulness," Entin said.
The policy was not public, nor had a hearing, prior to being snuck into the legislation.
Then, the governor signed the bill at 11 p.m.
"This law is a pretty good example of how to legislate badly," the professor said.
This signing comes after a back-and-forth I had with the governor about transparency concerns.
RELATED: Bill to charge public for police video sits on governor’s desk
Plus, these are taxpayer dollars, Entin said.
I asked Weinman about this.
"Why should my taxpayer dollars go to this guy making money off YouTube from the equipment I purchase, personnel I'm paying for," he said, speaking from the point of view of a citizen. "I'd rather see those police officers or those civilian employees working on something that matters to me."
Citizens paid for the cameras the police wear, so why make them pay again?
"Well, look, what we want to do is cut down on these people who just want to intimidate and embarrass law enforcement, who want to tie up public resources," the retired officer said. "We think this is a good balance."
And this policy isn't required, Weinman said.
The governor’s team told me that cities could decide on a case-by-case basis who to charge.
The city of Cleveland has already made a plan like that.
"Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy and we strongly believe in the crucial role the traditional media has in holding government accountable," City of Cleveland spokesperson Tyler Sinclair said. "As such, we have no plans to charge fees to members of the traditional press as we highly value our television, radio, print, and digital media partners."
That being said, the city is still evaluating whether to charge the public.
"We remain committed to transparency and look forward to having further conversations with our partners in the media, ACLU, and other organizations before moving forward with any new or updated policy," Sinclair added.
Gelsomino said this isn’t fair and hurts the people who need the video the most.
"Everyday average citizens who have interactions with police, who maybe have some concern about that, who want to seek accountability — they're the ones who aren't gonna be able to get access to these records because of these financial restrictions," she said.
I reached out to other cities like Akron, Columbus and Cincinnati — who all say they are still reading over the new policy before the law goes into effect in roughly 90 days. Here are their responses:
Akron
"Our administration and police department have a commitment to transparency with our community and the media. In the coming days and weeks, we will be reviewing the details of the new bill and plan to speak with other communities and stakeholders about the law before making any decision about changes to our process. Until the City has completed its due diligence, however, it will maintain its current practices with respect to charges associated with body worn camera footage," Akron spokesperson Stephanie Marsh said.
Cincinnati
"The City will take the next 90 days until the law goes into effect to review our procedures and consider how to proceed," Cincinnati spokesperson Mollie Lair said.
Columbus
“Because this legislation was signed into law just a matter of hours ago, our legal and policy advisors are taking the time to review it and its implications. The Columbus Division of Police is, and will continue to be, committed to the transparency and openness our community rightly expects," the Columbus Division of Police replied.
Case-by-case
Both police and legal experts wonder if there will be backlash from waiving the fee for some but not others.
Federal law prevents unfettered discretion about whom to favor and not to favor when it comes to the First Amendment, Entin said.
Should municipalities feel comfortable drawing a line when it comes to certain entities? Maybe, but calling one journalist "traditional" or "legacy" could lead to unfair treatment, the professor added.
Police agreed that this was worth a discussion, but were hoping for some more guidance from the state.
Editor's Note: In full disclosure and transparency — WEWS News 5 Cleveland and WCPO 9 News in Cincinnati, along with other media organizations, sent a letter to Gov. DeWine requesting a veto on the body camera provision.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
