Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Open Records Police topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Murrysville council adopts formal Act 22 policy for police audio/video requests, moves to raise fee to $500

Murrysville council · July 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council adopted a written policy (Policy No. 54‑26) establishing a formal process to handle public requests for police audio and video under Pennsylvania Act 22 of 2017 and voted to advertise a fee ordinance that would raise the charge for video requests from $100 to $500, aligning with state police practice.

Murrysville’s council voted to adopt Policy No. 54‑26, creating a uniform process for public requests for law-enforcement audio and video under Pennsylvania Act 22 of 2017.

Chief Administrator Mike explained the new policy establishes a formal review pathway for body-worn camera, dash-cam and related recordings, including potential review by the district attorney’s office and procedures for redaction and record retention. “This policy creates the formality as to how folks can go about requesting audio or video from the police department,” Mike said.

Council members discussed administrative burdens tied to processing and redaction, and staff signaled the municipality had drafted a request form and coordinated memoranda of understanding with the West Morland County district attorney for certain types of recordings. The policy passed by voice vote.

Separately, council voted to advertise Ordinance 113‑26 (the municipal fee ordinance) to reflect an increase in the charge for police video requests from $100 to $500 — a figure staff said matches the state police fee. Chief Administrator Mike said the higher fee reflects the staff time and specialized redaction software often required for video and audio production. The ordinance was moved to be advertised; formal adoption will follow the required public-notice period.

The action does not change other open-records pathways (staff said the Act 22 process is distinct from Right‑to‑Know requests). The council’s next steps are publication of the advertised ordinance and, if no changes result from public comment, a return to council for final adoption.