Law requiring release of police body cam footage within 45 days now in effect


A law requiring law enforcement agencies to release body camera footage within 45 days of a "critical incident" took effect on Monday, establishing the first statewide standards for the public release of such video recordings.

The law, AB 748 by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, requires the release of body cam video and audio recordings within 45 days unless an agency can demonstrate "clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation."

A "critical incident" is defined by the law as any action by an officer that causes death or great bodily injury or anytime an officer shoots at a person.

"Public access to body camera footage is necessary to boost confidence and rebuild trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve," Ting said in a news release. "This law sets clear expectations for agencies-they can no longer withhold body camera video or audio from us."

Ting wrote the law to force the hand of agencies that commonly cite "pending investigation" as a reason to deny requests for the footage under the California Public Records Act.

"Police recordings can be a valuable tool for civilian oversight at a time of great concern with police violence," said Kevin Baker, a legislative director with the American Civil Liberties Union. "Increasing transparency in this area of policing is critical to protect public safety and repair police-community relations."

AB 748 was opposed by many in the law enforcement community and the California Peace Officers' Association worked against it as it moved through the legislative process.

The CPOA objected to it on fiscal grounds, arguing that reviewing and managing the release of the footage will become a major new cost for local law enforcement agencies, said Shaun Rundle, CPOA deputy director.

Also, the terms "clear and convincing evidence" and "substantially interfere" are not well defined in the law, which will result in confusion and possibly expose law enforcement agencies to increased liability, Rundle said.

"Overall as a profession, (law enforcement) understands the need for the public records requests, but we want to strike a balance," Rundle said.

The law also allows agencies to request 30-day extensions to the 45-day deadline for up to one year.

— Bay City News Service

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


Like this comment
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Jul 4, 2019 at 8:03 am

Grumpy is a registered user.

"Clear and convincing" is a standard legal term not needing a unique definition. See Wikipedia.

Web Link

The term "substantially interfere" sounds like it's designed to be tested by a judge in each case after the police make a determination, which I believe is pretty typical. Since judges also issue warrants, the police know where to find judges and how to talk to them.

I think this article could have tried to be more balanced and talk to people in support of body cameras (besides the legislator) for their beliefs as well. I'm sure there's a real argument to be made here for and against--for example, privacy of the people involved--but no one bothered, and now because of that, I didn't get enough information to have an informed opinion after reading it and feel somewhat disinclined to agree because of the odd bias in the argument the article makes. :(

6 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jul 4, 2019 at 11:24 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I was hopeful until I read the last sentence: “The law also allows agencies to request 30-day extensions to the 45-day deadline for up to one year.” When it takes a year to get a decision from the DA, families are unable to access the same information the DA has.

This also is bothersome: "clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation." Reminds me of the catchphrase: “I was in fear for my life”, which can protect officers, but not the people in cases of police abuse.

Not surprised CPOA fought this, even with the possible weaknesses. It’s a step in the right direction for a community knowing about the behavior of those who are meant to protect us. Additionally, Pleasanton needs civilian oversight, be that the city council or some other model, that we do not have now.

@Jeremy Walsh, do we know if this is retroactive?

2 people like this
Posted by Jaded........
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2019 at 3:49 pm

".........possibly expose law enforcement agencies to increased liability".

As in: if the video evidence helps prove they've done something wrong?

Oh my.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Couples Counseling, Al Pacino Style
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,482 views

Talking traffic with Mike Tassano
By | 4 comments | 852 views

After falling at airport, Chris Miller finds stepping back from civic duties a tough start
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 74 views