(Via electronic mail) September 9, 2015 Rep. Cheryl Grossman Rep ...

OHIO NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION | 1335 DUBLIN ROAD, SUITE 216-B | COLUMBUS OH 43215 DENNIS R. HETZEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

(Via electronic mail) September 9, 2015 Rep. Cheryl Grossman 77 S. High St., 13th Floor Columbus OH 43215

Rep. Kevin Boyce 77 S. High St., 14th Floor Columbus OH 43215

Dear Reps. Grossman and Boyce, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on proposed body camera legislation. This has been the subject of careful deliberation among ONA members and with our partner organizations. I am confident that the attached position paper is a thoughtful and responsive effort to deal with the many policy issues raised by police usage of the cameras, particularly as it relates to Ohio’s open records laws. In addition, please note that our positions also represent the views of the Ohio Association of Broadcasters and the Associated Press, the world’s largest news-gathering organization. The AP serves every major print and broadcast outlet in our state and has a keen interest in such legislation in Ohio and elsewhere. Thank you again, and please let us know if you have any follow-up questions or comments. Best regards,

Dennis Hetzel Executive Director Ohio Newspaper Association cc: ONA Board of Trustees Christine Merritt & Sean Dunn, Ohio Association of Broadcasters Eva Parziale & Debra Martin, Associated Press Dan Jones, Capitol Consulting

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 614.486.6677 | FAX: 614.486.4940 | CELL: 614.940.5067 | [email protected] www.ohionews.org | www.adohio.net


Six public records provisions needed in body camera legislation Ohio Newspaper Association | Ohio Association of Broadcasters | The Associated Press Sept. 10, 2015 1. PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS: Public records are presumptively open under Ohio law. Body camerafootage is a public record like any other, so it also must be subject to the open records law (149.43). This should be made explicit. Existing exceptions cover most areas of concern. The presumption of openness is particularly strong involving incidents on public property and cases in which police conduct is called into question. Accountability is the foremost reason for the use of cameras. 2. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR ACCESS & RETENTION: Because body camera-footage falls within the definition of a public record in Ohio, it is essential to adopt statewide standards that align access to and retention of body camera recordings with open records law and existing practices regarding other records. Uniform standards will assure consistent results under the Ohio public records law. 3. REDACTION, NOT DENIAL: When there are exemptions, they must follow the existing legal standard that, if a record can be made open by redacting the exempt information, redaction (editing, blurring, etc.) should be the outcome – not denial of access. 4. REASONABLE NEW EXEMPTIONS: If there are any new exemptions, they should be as narrowly crafted as possible. However, if it is a case in which police conduct is later called into question, and the authorities refuse to release the record, the courts should attach a strong presumption of openness in any proceedings instituted to compel disclosure. ONA would welcome the opportunity to review language on exemptions related to situations such as these: a. Portions of recordings made on private property if there is an objection to release by a subject of the recording or a parent or guardian in the case of a minor. b. Portions of recordings that show victims of domestic violence, victims of sexual assault or minor victims and witnesses without permission of the victims or a minor’s parent/guardian. c. Portions of recordings that show nudity, subjects after they are deceased or excessive trauma to a victim. d. Portions of recordings that would likely lead to identification of confidential informants, although this may already be covered adequately in existing exemptions. 5. CITIZEN PETITION RIGHTS: There should be a specific process -- already in several other states’ adopted or proposed language -- in which a citizen can petition a court for release if the court can be convinced there is a compelling reason that outweighs a stated exemption. If and when Ohio adopts a meaningful process by which citizens can appeal records denials before having to hire a lawyer and litigate, appeals for the release of recordings should be part of that process. 6. PERMANENT LOGS: Permanent logs of archived recordings must be kept. We urge uniform labeling/keyword standards of basic information for all archived recordings to make searching/processing either for all parties. These logs should be public records. When recordings have been redacted or deleted, this also must be noted.



Issues related to open records and body cameras Activation: Uniform, statewide standards on when officers are required to activate body cameras should be adopted for accountability that is consistent and clear to all interested parties and citizens. Activation should minimally be required at the onset of any potential arrest or use-of-force situations. We recognize that this is a complicated subject that also includes what procedures to follow if someone refuses to cooperate if the camera is activated. That is all the more reason for uniformity. Archiving: Uniform, statewide standards on archiving should be adopted, again for the benefit of all. Archiving requirements will range from significant lengths of time for body camera recordings related to criminal investigations and allegations of official misconduct to short periods for most routine interactions recorded. One suggestion we have heard is that recordings may be deleted after 30-60 days if there has been no request for release from any party, it is not related to any pending case/open investigation and no officer-conduct allegation has been raised in which the recording might be needed. Recordings that fall into the latter categories would have longer retention standards. Arguably, retention should be indefinite for videos documenting the use of force. Costs related to records requests: We expect objections based upon the time and expense of archiving, reviewing and preparing recordings for release. These concerns are understandable. However, technology continues to improve the speed and ease of the process. This concern does not outweigh the policy need for a presumption of openness. We urge consideration of our suggestion to fund a statewide center (perhaps under the control of the attorney general) or regional centers for processing and archiving recordings. At such centers, trained personnel will move faster and with far more consistency. This isn’t just to aid the public. Similar to the activity of the state crime lab, this approach will reduce challenges related to the chain of evidence and subsequent handling. Coupled with uniform standards for archiving, this also will be a boon to police agencies who seek recordings, often on short notice, made by other departments. The alternative looks like this: Hundreds of local law-enforcement agencies trying to manage recordings with varied skills levels and using their own approaches and different software. Final release still would be subject to the decision of local officials. Ohio has an opportunity to take an approach that could serve as a national model. Future studies: We recognize that body camera recordings raise new issues and technological challenges that are continually evolving. We respectfully request that media organizations be included in any study commissions or groups that may be created.
