Prosecutors and police say the premature release of body-camera and dashboard-camera videos would compromise criminal investigations.
But journalists say videos documenting police activities — and potential misconduct — are public records that must be released on demand.
In one case, a University of Cincinnati police officer's body camera was recording as he fatally shot an unarmed black motorist during a traffic stop nearly a year ago. Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters refused to release the video to the media for nine days, until it had been reviewed by a grand jury that indicted the now-fired officer on a charge of murder.
In the other, a State Highway Patrol trooper's dash cam captured his high-speed pursuit and arrest of a fleeing suspect. At a prosecutor's request, the patrol declined to turn over the video until the suspect pleaded guilty. An appellate court upheld the immediate denial, ruling the video was not yet public.
The Cincinnati Enquirer, joined by the Associated Press and the city's four broadcast TV stations in the body-camera case, argues in both appeals that the videos are public records.
The videos stem from routine police activities and were not created with "investigatory purpose" that would shield them from release as confidential case documents, the newspaper argues.
"The case will allow the Supreme Court to make it clear that the public is entitled to disclosure of body camera footage upon request, and not when the authorities arbitrarily decide to produce it," said Jack Greiner, the media's lawyer in both cases.
"Limiting the ability of police and prosecutors to hide the footage from public view — even temporarily — will ensure transparency, accountability and public confidence in the fine work performed by police officers," Greiner said.
Attorney General Mike DeWine and the state's prosecutors are siding with Deters in arguments filed in the body-camera case. The delay in releasing the video was reasonable, they say.
Public-records laws bar the immediate release of police investigatory documents and videos captured by officers on the street are no different, Deters and the others argue.
"To supply it immediately to the news media is the same as supplying it to the accused and any witnesses" before they are interviewed and evidence can be presented to a grand jury, Deters said in court filings. "Premature release has a great potential for skewing the entire process."
"The public’s right to information and public records must be balanced with law enforcement’s responsibility to efficiently and effectively engage in the criminal justice process. ... Making body cam video immediately available upon request completely ignores the reality that law enforcement officials face every day."
In an interview, Deters said, "Technology has overturned current case law. This matter probably needs to be settled ultimately in the legislature with uniform rules concerning these videos."
Dennis Hetzel, president of the Ohio Coalition for Open Government and executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, said the court's decisions could foster good public policy.
"If, as we hope, the court rules that there is a presumption of openness that attaches to this footage, that will serve the public and also law enforcement by increasing transparency and trust. The court’s interpretation of existing law also will provide direction for the Legislature, because the issues raised by this technology aren’t going away," Hetzel said.
©2016 The Columbus Dispatch (Columbus, Ohio). Visit The Columbus Dispatch (Columbus, Ohio) at www.dispatch.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
