COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio Legislative Black Caucus President Terrence Upchurch is urging Gov. Mike DeWine to veto a provision in House Bill 315 that would allow law enforcement agencies to charge significant fees for public records requests, including body camera, dashboard camera, and surveillance footage.
The provision permits agencies to charge up to $75 per hour of video processing, with fees capped at $750 per request. Proponents of the measure say the fees would help cover administrative costs, but critics argue that the policy undermines transparency and disproportionately impacts marginalized communities.
“Taxpayers have already funded these cameras and footage. Charging additional fees for access is wrong and undermines transparency,” Upchurch, a Democrat from Cleveland, said in a statement. “This footage has often been critical in uncovering the truth in police shootings and other incidents. Justice should not come with a price tag.”
Concerns Over Access and Accountability
Opponents of the measure say the fees would create financial barriers for families, journalists, and community organizations seeking accountability in cases of police misconduct.
Destinee Stark, a citizen journalist and advocate for police accountability, said the measure would make her work nearly impossible.
“All of the advocacy work I do to promote police accountability relies heavily on the ability to request public records so that I can audit police encounters through reviewing body-cam and dash-cam footage,” Stark said in a social media post.
“So far this year, I have submitted close to 70 public records requests—most of which were for body-cam footage. This provision would give law enforcement agencies the right to charge me up to $750 to fulfill each request, so even if only half of my requests were for body-cam footage, they could charge me over $26,000.
“Fulfilling public records requests has always been a responsibility of public offices. Allowing agencies to charge these exorbitant fees means investigative citizen journalists like me would not be able to continue our work of holding police accountable for misconduct,” she said.
Stark also noted that she already covers costs such as paper copies, USB drives, and postage for her requests. She encouraged followers to contact DeWine to demand a veto and support her work by sharing her content or donating.
Transparency in Question
The OLBC has voiced concerns that the fees would disproportionately impact Black and low-income communities, which frequently rely on public records to hold law enforcement accountable. Critics also say the vague language in the provision could lead to inconsistent application, with some agencies interpreting the fees as applying per video rather than per request.
Upchurch said that charging for public records erodes trust in law enforcement.
“When families seek answers or communities demand accountability, these records provide clarity,” he said. “Charging the public for access erodes trust and justice.”
Next Steps
House Bill 315 passed the Ohio Legislature with bipartisan support, but the provision has drawn criticism from transparency advocates and community leaders. The bill allows law enforcement agencies to decide whether to adopt the fee structure.
DeWine’s office has not indicated whether the governor will veto the measure. Critics say access to public records is essential to maintaining transparency and accountability in law enforcement.