The Daily Populous Friday January 3rd, 2025 evening edition
Authored by news5cleveland.com and submitted by MorganTrau

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has signed a controversial bill into law that could charge the public hundreds of dollars for footage from law enforcement agencies, including body cameras.

At 11 p.m., DeWine announced signings and line-item vetoes on bills. The governor is able to make line-item vetos on provisions in bills that contain appropriations, meaning he has the ability to pick and choose which policies within a larger piece of legislation get to stay or must go.

Around 2 a.m. during the 17-hour marathon lame duck session, lawmakers passed H.B. 315, a massive, roughly 450-page omnibus bill.

In it was a provision that could cost people money to get access to video from police and jails. Law enforcement could charge people for the "estimated cost" of processing the video — and you would have to pay before the footage is released. Governments could charge up to $75 an hour for work, with a fee cap of $750 per request.

Legal experts say this could affect access to video from dash and body cameras, as well as surveillance video from inside jails — which are public records in Ohio.

The policy was not public, nor had a hearing, prior to being snuck into the legislation.

I brought transparency concerns to the governor during a press conference in Dec.

"These requests certainly should be honored, and we want them to be honored. We want them to be honored in a swift way that's very, very important," DeWine responded. "We also, though — if you have, for example, a small police department — very small police department — and they get a request like that, that could take one person a significant period of time."

It's the video redacting and compiling that takes time, and also making sure you are allowed to release it once you review it.

RELATED: Bill to charge public for police video sits on governor’s desk

"Who else has a question?" DeWine asked after finishing his sentence.

"It's already hard enough to get video for journalists — when it comes to police shootings when it comes to different acts that we're trying to get on camera to show the public what's going on, why would we want to put a cost on something that helps the public understand what's going on?" I asked.

"Well, once again, we have close to 1,000 police departments in the state of Ohio. Some of them are very small," said DeWine. "What this amendment—again I've not made a decision about this— but what this amendment would do is allow them to recover some of the cost that is involved. This is a very heavy burden."

He added that he is a "strong proponent" of police cameras, but now that they are more widespread, he seems to suggest that it becomes tedious.

"It also creates a lot more film and a lot more video," he said. "It's not a question of whether you get it. It's not a question of how fast you get it. It's simply a question — is, as a matter of public policy, are we going to require some reimbursement for that?"

News 5 Investigators routinely break stories with footage obtained by police. Many of them have to deal with police shootings, such as the 2022 death of Jayland Walker — who was shot nearly 50 times by eight Akron officers.

Police release video of Jayland Walker shooting

RELATED: Akron Police release 'heartbreaking' body-cam video of police shooting of Jayland Walker

In his press release about the bill signings, DeWine addressed the continued concerns around this legislation:

"I strongly support the public’s–and the news media’s- right to access public records. The language in House Bill 315 doesn’t change that right.

Law enforcement-worn body cameras and dashboard cameras have been a major improvement for both law enforcement investigations and for accountability. However, I am sensitive to the fact that this changing technology has affected law enforcement by oftentimes creating unfunded burdens on these agencies, especially when it comes to the often time-consuming and labor-intensive work it takes to provide them as public records.

No law enforcement agency should ever have to choose between diverting resources for officers on the street to move them to administrative tasks like lengthy video redaction reviews for which agencies receive no compensation–and this is especially so for when the requestor of the video is a private company seeking to make money off of these videos. The language in House Bill 315 is a workable compromise to balance the modern realities of preparing these public records and the cost it takes to prepare them. Ohio law has long authorized optional user fees associated with the cost of duplicating public records, and the language in House Bill 315 applies that concept in a modern way to law enforcement-provided video records.

It is good that the language in House Bill 315 does not include a mandatory fee, but instead, it is optional at the discretion of the agency. It is also good the user fees are capped and directly related to the cost of production.

If the language in House Bill 315 related to public records turns out to have unforeseen consequences, I will work with the General Assembly to amend the language to address such legitimate concerns."

After this story was published, state Sen. Niraj Antani (R-Miamisburg) messaged to provide a statement, saying he is "deeply concerned" about the possible costs:

“When I sponsored HB 425, which established public record law for police worn body camera videos, our goal was to ensure the public and news media had clear access to body camera videos of public concern. Certainly, the cost of properly blurring out the videos and storage was something we discussed at length with our law enforcement partners. I am deeply concerned a $75 per hour fee will be burdensome. I appreciate Governor DeWine saying he will monitor this to ensure the fee does not restrict the public’s access to these videos, and that if it does he will work with the General Assembly to fix this.”

His bipartisan legislation from 2019 affirmed and made police recordings public records, but it had certain exceptions — such as when a person dies or is dead, unless an officer caused the death or if the deceased's executor consents to it.

DeWine expressed a desire for more accountability and transparency in each of his line-item vetoes, which came after he signed the legislation to allow police to charge for their transparency.

While he signed the overall legislation, he vetoed a provision that stated that the Department of Health and state medical and pharmacy boards would not be able to discipline licensed healthcare professionals for "publicly or privately expressing a medical opinion that does not align" with the state's views.

"It is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly consequences for patient health," DeWine said in his veto statement.

For example, this could allow doctors to spread misinformation or overprescribe opioids and not face punishment for saying it was their “opinion,” DeWine said at a press conference.

"We think it's very important to hold doctors to the standard of care when evaluating whether or not they've committed misconduct," Medical Board President ​​​Dr. Jonathan B. Feibel added.

Learn more about the policy by clicking here.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine set to veto controversial ‘medical free speech’ policy

RELATED: Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine set to veto controversial ‘medical free speech’ policy

Another provision he vetoed dealt with Ohio ethics laws. Right now, public officials are bound by ethical restrictions and requirements to make sure that taxpayer money is protected against corruption.

A provision in the bill would exempt some officials from these requirements, according to the governor.

In a letter from the Ohio Ethics Commission to DeWine, the governor stated they said, "this provision 'exempts mayors and all other executive officers of villages from the criminal prohibitions of R.C. 2921.42 (the public contract law), a statute enforced by the Commission for almost forty years.” As further stated, this provision would “invite misuse of taxpayer money.'”

Another veto would change the relationship between judges and their clerks on responsibility for certain tasks. DeWine just thought the issue should be decided after "thorough public hearings."

The governor also signed H.B. 173 into law. Among other consumer assistance, this would make it a law for medical facilities to have real prices posted, not just estimates.

It also designates "Ohio Black Media Week," "Hindu Heritage Month," and "Older Ohioans Month."

S.B. 54 was also signed. This bill creates the Ohio River Commission and the Ohio Ireland Trade Commission, as well as touching on numerous other topics such as employee compensation, county board of elections reimbursements and state appropriations.

He included a line-item veto, fixing an error made by the lawmakers.

Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.

ThaiJohnnyDepp on January 3rd, 2025 at 06:34 UTC »

The fuck is the justification of this except to make the process of investigations against the police more difficult?

Logical_Parameters on January 3rd, 2025 at 05:41 UTC »

Conservative policies stink.

Belle_Requin on January 3rd, 2025 at 05:34 UTC »

Confirming policing is not for the benefit of poor people.