Highway Patrol seeks law letting agencies withhold graphic crash and body‑camera images; justice group urges caution

The North Dakota Highway Patrol asked the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday to approve a change to open‑records law that would allow public agencies to withhold or redact certain graphic images from body cameras and crash‑scene recordings.

The change would add explicit discretionary exemptions for images that show deceased or seriously injured people, or minors, Patrol Chief of Staff Aaron Hummel said. "This change clearly gives agencies the discretion to withhold or redact records containing these images and video," Hummel said, explaining that modern body‑camera software also allows blurring or masking rather than withholding entire recordings.

Hummel told the committee the proposal grew out of what the patrol sees at crash scenes and on body cameras, including images that currently fall into legal gaps: some images are already exempt (for example, images of an individual receiving medical care), but other graphic images that do not show treatment are not specifically protected, he said. "We're catching people in their worst situations. And, that probably isn't the intent, or the intent there probably isn't for that to be, for the world to see," he said.

The bill would reference North Dakota Century Code provisions about sexually explicit and partially nude images and would extend protections to images of deceased people and persons with serious bodily injury (a term Hummel tied to section 12.1‑01‑04). The patrol also proposed adding a discretionary exemption for images that capture minors.

The North Dakota Association for Justice, represented by Executive Director Jackie Hall, opposed the bill as drafted. Hall told the committee she worried that making release discretionary for a public entity could make it harder for criminal defendants and civil litigants to obtain images through discovery. She also urged the committee to narrow the definition of "serious bodily injury," saying the statutory definition can include injuries such as a broken leg and that the bill as written might block access to images that attorneys often rely on early in a case.

"Our second concern is that the proposed language is very broad when it comes to serious bodily injury," Hall said. She asked the committee either to recommend a do‑not‑pass or to hold the bill so the highway patrol, the attorney general's office and interested groups can agree on clearer definitions and discovery access.

Committee members asked how the proposal would interact with images taken by private citizens or drones; Hummel said privately taken photos or videos would not automatically receive the law enforcement exemption unless they fall under an existing criminal‑record prohibition. Major Hamon, who said he had briefly discussed the bill with the attorney general's office, told the committee the proposal seeks an "exempt"—not "confidential"—classification and that the patrol would work with the AG to refine language.

After questioning and opposing testimony, Chair Diane Larson told the committee it would "hold off acting on this bill at this point" and suggested additional discussions with the AG's office and stakeholders. No committee vote was taken.

The hearing record includes patrol testimony describing how current exemptions apply to images taken while a trooper provides medical care, and objections from the plaintiffs' bar about access through discovery.

Pending steps: the committee did not vote on Senate Bill 2083 and asked parties to meet and consider clarifying language and discovery procedures.