Trending
Warren and Trumbull County officials last week unveiled some 67 surveillance cameras they say will improve personal safety and provide evidence helpful in solving crime.
But just as we continue to fight for the release of video from police body cameras and cruiser dash cameras, we foresee some new Sunshine law debate coming on.
Is it just coincidence that last week also happened to be annual Sunshine Week nationwide, a week intended to celebrate access to public information?
Already, Warren police are telling us that video access will be held very closely.
Consider: The cameras located around areas of Warren and Trumbull County are being operated in public space, funded with public money, stored on public servers or drives and managed by people paid with public money. Yet, when asked by Tribune Chronicle reporter Renee Fox how accessible the video footage will be when requested under existing Ohio Open Records laws, she was told segments of video capturing crime will likely be denied because investigators will consider it "investigatory work product."
"Investigatory work product" is an exemption to Ohio Open Records law that essentially allows detectives and investigators the right to keep confidential the findings of their criminal investigations until a criminal case is closed. That means if a case remains open or unsolved indefinitely, the records are never released.
Further, I operate under the belief that if a video is being recorded before a crime occurs, or even during the commission of a crime, then how is it a "product" of the investigation? And doesn't the same hold true with police dash camera video or police body camera videos?
Recently passed Ohio legislation, House Bill 425 which will take effect in April, spells out specifically when Ohio police body camera and cruiser dash camera footage may or may not be released to the public. Our newspaper has supported the critical need for Ohio law to uniformly clarify questions on release of police body camera and dashboard video. Until now, that question was being settled by each jurisdiction creating its own rules becoming open for interpretation by county prosecutors.
But the new law does contain some restrictions on public release of these videos with which I disagree.
In the spirit of Sunshine Week, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out here that Ohio's open records laws become less meaningful each time our state legislators find ways to create new exemptions to transparency.
When I started out as an Ohio reporter some 25 years ago, less than a dozen exemptions to Ohio's public record laws existed. Last year, there were more than 30 exemptions. Now, still more have been added, including the new regulations on police video camera release. Each time new limits are created, government becomes less transparent.
Among the police video camera restrictions that I disagree with is the broad ban of release of all video shot inside a home or a business.
However, I believe that restriction conversely implies, then, that video recorded in public should not be banned from release. So, wouldn't it be logical, then, to conclude that video being recorded of public areas from a pole in downtown Warren should be construed as public record?
This is not to say we are going to request video segments every day. But I suspect there will be a day when we are reporting a story that will be more complete if we can view the video and / or share it with our readers at www.trib today.com.
Our elected officials told us they were installing these cameras to help ensure that the public is adhering to the law. Let's hope that also means government will be operating the cameras with full transparency and not shielding release of video when Ohio laws allow it.