Assembly committee amends and advances draft policy on release of officer body‑worn camera footage

The City and Borough of Juneau Committee of the Whole on May 5 amended and advanced an ordinance that sets rules and timelines for release of officer body‑worn camera footage in critical incidents. The committee debated redaction timelines, legal prohibitions and a role for prosecuting authorities in requesting delays.

The draft ordinance (listed in the packet as Ordinance 2025‑05) was returned to committee with edits requested at a prior hearing. Staff and the police chief briefed members on two staff recommended clarifications: make explicit that footage will not be released when prohibited by a court order or other law, and clarify how and when the chief or manager may delay release because of safety, redaction or investigative needs.

Key amendments adopted in committee - Amendment 1: Clarify that footage will not be released when a court order or another legal prohibition applies; the committee adopted language that makes this explicit. - Amendment 3: Replace a hard 10‑day maximum delay with language tying extended delay to the end of the relevant investigation; the committee adopted the amendment after a roll‑call vote (5 yeas, 3 nays). The amended text also requires release as soon as the reason for the delay has been resolved.

Committee discussion and concerns Committee members and the independent SRRC (Special Review and Response Committee) representatives raised concerns that a longer, open‑ended delay could be used to withhold footage indefinitely. Supporters of the amendment said police redaction and investigative timelines (for example toxicology and multiday witness redactions) can exceed 30 days and that tying extensions to the end of an investigation provides a clearer legal endpoint than a fixed short window. Chief Boz described past redaction timelines that ranged from about 8 hours to roughly three weeks depending on incident complexity.

Other amendment outcomes - A proposed 15‑day special request window for the state prosecuting authority failed on a committee roll call (3 ayes, 5 nays).

What the committee did and next steps After amending the ordinance, the committee advanced the ordinance as amended to the full assembly for public hearing and final action. Staff said the ordinance still contemplates prompt release where legally and operationally possible and that court orders or legal prohibitions would override the release rules.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the meeting transcript. The committee’s amendments and votes will be reflected in the version sent to the full assembly.