Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Police topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges misconduct, asks for body‑cam review; council cites ORS public‑records rule
Summary
A resident raised multiple complaints about local law enforcement and asked to review police body‑camera footage; city staff said state public‑records law (ORS 192.345) limits routine release and recommended statutory appeal routes.
During the public‑comment portion of the meeting, James Loftus told the council he had experienced multiple troubling encounters with local law enforcement and said he had video he wished to review with city officials. "I have him on video. If you'd like to come down and look at it, I'd be happy to share it with you," Loftus said, describing one encounter that left him fearing for his safety.
Loftus asked whether, if he filed a tort claim or lawsuit, he would then be allowed to view the footage. Council members confirmed staff had responded to Loftus’s records request and that the city’s response relied on state law. Mayor Quigley noted that council members lack authority to waive statute and identified the applicable law as Oregon Revised Statutes 192.345.
City attorney Ross explained the city's position: recordings from officer body cameras are presumptively withheld under state law unless a broader public interest supports disclosure. "The default under the statute is that body cam footage is exempt from disclosure," Ross said. He added that the law aims to protect candid communications between officers and the public and that routine one‑on‑one encounters are generally not treated the same as widely public incidents where public interest has justified release. Ross advised that the proper administrative appeal for a denied records request is with the district attorney's office and that litigation and discovery can be the next step if a requester pursues a lawsuit.
Ross also said the city had responded in writing to Loftus's public‑records request and that Loftus had not pursued the DA appeal described in the city's response. "If he sues the city, then all of our records are subject to discovery in the discovery process," Ross said, but he declined to give personal legal advice to Loftus in open council comment.
Loftus said he had not received an answer to his questions and expressed frustration with what he described as retaliatory actions and a lack of confidence in law enforcement. Council members acknowledged receipt of Loftus's complaints and directed staff to continue following the statutory records process and appeals path described by the attorney.
