Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police chief urges fee for public video redactions, cites heavy workload and software costs; ordinance at second reading
Summary
Chief Tony Hetrick told council that redacting police video under Ohio public-records requirements consumes substantial staff time and resources and urged adoption of a fee structure. Ordinance 9,267 (section 32.07) was at second reading and not adopted at the meeting.
Chief Tony Hetrick briefed Bowling Green City Council on the resource demands of redacting police body-camera and dash-camera video and said the division supports an ordinance establishing fees for redaction services.
Hetrick walked council through the redaction process, citing privacy protections required under Ohio open-records law and victim-protection rules such as Marcy’s Law. “This process has proven to take significant amount of resources,” Hetrick said, describing multiple-camera incidents that can produce large, multi-officer video records that must be reviewed and redacted.
He provided data for 2024 and 2025: in 2024 the division received 435 video requests with redaction times ranging from 20 minutes to 10 hours and an average of 3.5 hours per request; in 2025 there were 162 requests to date and a sampling of 33 videos showed redaction times from 20 minutes to 11 hours with an average of about 3 hours. Hetrick said requesters are not required to specify what portion of a record they want, which can increase processing time.
The division uses a software product called Case Guard for redaction, which Hetrick said costs $4,600 annually. He said higher-cost AI products exist but are not yet sufficiently reliable to eliminate staff review. To manage workload, the division has relied on Records Clerk Emily Snyder and has assigned an administrative lieutenant to assist with redactions.
Hetrick argued the proposed fee structure would help the city recover some redaction costs and speed processing for requesters who are willing to clarify the exact segments they need. He also noted prosecutor requests for casework do not require the same redaction steps but still require review for completeness.
Ordinance 9,267 (proposed amendment to section 32.07 of the codified ordinances regarding public-records copying fees) was listed for a second reading during the meeting; the transcript shows discussion but no final vote on the ordinance at this session.
