Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Body Worn Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House passes statewide standards for body-worn police cameras
Summary
The Utah House passed first substitute HB 300 on March 1, 2016, 64–5, creating statewide minimum standards for police body cameras while preserving GRAMA privacy presumptions for in‑home recordings and maintaining warrant protections for certain law‑enforcement access.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on March 1 passed first substitute House Bill 300, a measure establishing minimum statewide standards for law‑enforcement body‑worn cameras, by a vote of 64–5.
Representative McKay, the bill sponsor, said the measure is the product of nearly two years of negotiation that balanced law‑enforcement, county and civil‑liberties concerns. "It creates some minimum standards at a state level that protect the private citizen in the recording ... but it does not require public safety to jeopardize their health or safety," McKay said during floor remarks.
The bill requires officers to activate cameras prior to encounters or as soon as reasonably possible for enforcement stops, dispatch calls, field interviews, use‑of‑force incidents, warrants and traffic stops. It requires officers to verify that cameras are functioning and to document reasons if they deactivate a recording in specified circumstances. The bill also permits officers to wear cameras conspicuously and prohibits personal use of the devices.
A key privacy element kept in the sponsor's compromise is a GRAMA presumption of privacy for recordings made inside private homes, McKay said, while allowing carve‑outs when recordings show the depiction of a crime, result in death or bodily injury, or are part of an officer complaint or officer‑involved critical incident. "This presumption of privacy within the home is a clear exception to ... Fourth Amendment law," McKay said.
During floor questions, representatives asked whether private citizens could later have identities redacted from recordings. McKay replied that "there is not" a separate redaction procedure; once a body‑camera recording is a government record it falls under GRAMA presumptions, and in‑home recordings remain presumptively private unless a carve‑out applies.
Supporters said the bill will increase transparency and help rebuild public trust following recent use‑of‑force incidents. Representative Romero said HB 300 "provides transparency for both law enforcement and the community" and urged the House to use the measure as one piece of broader reforms, including de‑escalation training.
The bill drew opposition from a small number of representatives who worried about civil‑liberties implications or that the measures did not go far enough in limiting government access, but the floor ultimately approved the substitute.
The House will transmit HB 300 to the Senate for further consideration.
