Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly narrows delay powers, requires explanations for withholding police body-camera footage
Summary
After extended discussion, the Committee of the Whole adopted multiple amendments to the draft policy governing release of officer body-worn camera footage in critical incidents, including replacing a 10-day cap with an ability to delay release until the end of an investigation and requiring an explanation for any delay within 30 days.
The Committee of the Whole advanced an amended ordinance regulating release of body-worn-camera footage in critical incidents, adopting changes that lengthen allowable delay in narrow circumstances but add requirements for explanation and oversight.
Staff introduced the ordinance as a revised draft that incorporated prior committee feedback. State law office representatives and the committee’s Special Review and Records Committee (SRRC) had advised that some flexibility was needed to avoid releasing footage when doing so would violate a court order or jeopardize safety or an ongoing criminal investigation.
The committee adopted a set of amendments in sequence. First, members added explicit language that footage would not be released when a valid court order or other statutory prohibition applies.
A later, more consequential amendment replaced a strict 10-day maximum delay with language allowing a delay until “the end of the investigation.” That amendment passed 5–3 on a roll call. Committee members supporting the change said it matched the practical needs identified by state investigators (who have told staff they often need 45–60 days). Opponents said an open-ended limit risks eroding public trust and urged tighter time limits or external review.
To balance those concerns, the committee also adopted an amendment requiring that if the city delays release, an explanation for the delay be provided to the public no later than 30 days after the incident. The committee rejected a separate amendment that would have allowed the prosecuting authority an automatic 15-day delay (that motion failed, 3–5).
Police officials told the committee that redaction and safety reviews can vary substantially by case: some incidents have required about three weeks to redact footage because of many witnesses; others required only a few hours. The ordinance as amended requires prompt release once the stated reason for delay is resolved.
Assemblymember Atkinson and the SRRC continued to voice concern that the language could be used to delay releases longer than necessary; supporters argued the amendments better match operational realities and the needs of criminal investigations.
Ending: The ordinance, now amended, will proceed to the full assembly for further consideration. The changes aim to balance transparency with legitimate law-enforcement and legal constraints.
