Found nestled on page 72 of Ohio’s fresh HB 315, there’s a clause intended to complicate access to cop bodycam video. According to News 5 Cleveland’s report, the revised statute permits law enforcement to impose fees on individuals seeking bodycam footage through public records applications. The fees? As much as $75 an hour, capping at $750 altogether.

That’s a significant amount of money for a public records request.

Below is the exact wording from the pertinent section of the legislation:

“A state or local law enforcement agency may impose charges on a requester equaling the actual cost related to preparing a video file for examination or production, with a maximum of seventy-five dollars each hour of video generated, and a ceiling of seven hundred fifty dollars overall. In this part, ‘actual cost,’ concerning solely video files, includes every expense borne by the state or local enforcement office in assessing, obscuring, redacting, uploading, or generating the video files, which encompasses but is not limited to the storage medium utilized for the record, personnel time, and any other related expenses required to fulfill the request.”

The measure would additionally grant law enforcement the ability to charge prior to beginning the video processing. “A state or local law enforcement agency may stipulate in its public records protocol that a requester pay the anticipated actual expense before starting the preparation process of a video file for examination or production,” it states.

The legislation has encountered considerable resistance from area media and citizens. The Governor and law enforcement argue that compiling videos for public viewing diverts their focus and crucial resources from law enforcement activities.

“Law enforcement officers should never face the dilemma of reallocating resources from street operations to administrative duties like extensive video redaction processes for which agencies receive no remuneration—particularly when the video requester is a private entity looking to profit from these videos,” Ohio Governor Mike DeWine articulated in a press communication.

Marion, Ohio Police Chief Jay McDonald shared with the Ohio Capital Journal that this partially aims to deter officers from editing footage for YouTube creators. “They seek domestic disputes, DUI incidents, and bar altercations,” MacDonald commented. “Managing those body cam inquiries requires tremendous effort and really complicates the job for media, legal professionals, and citizens requesting access.”

It’s a fact there exists a small sector of YouTubers and streamers who edit body cam videos for audience engagement. Similarly, fees as hefty as $750 might deter them from operating in Ohio. In addition, it might impact independent journalists and smaller news outlets reliant on bodycam footage for police accountability.

It could potentially block vulnerable residents who experienced an encounter with officers from reviewing footage of their encounter.

Last September, Wisconsin enacted Act 253 into law. Similar to the Ohio statute, it selectively targets individuals aiming to monetize bodycam footage. Although this impacts YouTubers, it also affects journalists. States like Texas, Florida, and numerous others impose costs for processing bodycam footage.

The Ohio legislation doesn’t impose a universal mandate on the state’s police forces, but rather sets a price cap for releasing footage to the public. Individual departments will need to determine their own rates, if any, for sharing video content. Cleveland, on its end, has opted to delay implementing any charges for the time being.

“We are currently undertaking a review…we must carry out further investigation before adopting any specific policy,” city representative Tyler Sinclair told News 5 Cleveland.

Sinclair remarked that, at least for now, members of the press would continue to acquire bodycam videos at no cost. “A free press is fundamental to a democratic society, and we staunchly uphold the pivotal function traditional media plays in ensuring government accountability,” he stated. “Thus, we have no intention of levying charges on traditional press members, as we deeply respect our broadcast, radio, print, and digital media collaborators.”