Connect with us

Ohio

$750 for body cam video? Ohio police agencies set steep prices after law change

Published

on

0 for body cam video? Ohio police agencies set steep prices after law change


play

  • Ohio police agencies can now charge up to $75 per hour of body camera footage released in response to public records requests.
  • Some agencies have adopted the fees, while others are still deciding or reviewing the legislation.
  • Producing the footage is costly and time consuming for police due to redaction requirements.

Some Central Ohio police agencies will now charge the public up to $750 for officer body and dash-cam footage under a new law signed by Gov. Mike DeWine in January. 

The law that took effect in April gives Ohio’s law enforcement agencies discretion to charge up to $75 per hour for video records, including body camera and dashboard camera footage and surveillance video, with total fees per request capped at $750.

Advertisement

The law allows individual agencies to decide whether to charge fees and set their own rates. Central Ohio agencies that spoke with The Dispatch said they are still deciding whether to impose fees. Police in Grove City, Reynoldsburg and Whitehall have already set new fee schedules, charging as much as the new law allows.

Media outlets often use body camera footage to provide insight into critical incidents involving police, including shootings. Critics, including media groups and civil rights organizations, have argued that increased fees for body camera videos could hinder transparency and give policing leaders the ability to pick and choose what the public sees. 

ACLU says body cam fees ‘financially impossible’ 

“It shouldn’t depend on how much money Ohioans have in their pocket to be able to enjoy access to public records,” Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the ACLU of Ohio, said.

Daniels said the ACLU of Ohio has grave concerns about the new law, which “sets a bad precedent” and will impede access to records. He added that many police agencies will likely charge the max for records, and it will become “financially impossible” for smaller news organizations to access footage.

Advertisement

Body camera footage is important for the public to access because it sheds light on sometimes hotly-contested moments in which police and witnesses disagree on events, such as when officers fire their guns or are killed in the line of duty.

On the other hand, compiling the footage is expensive and time-consuming for police agencies to produce. Some portions of the videos must be redacted to comply with state laws, including limiting images of uncharged suspects and crime victims.  Many police agencies receive large volumes of requests; the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office fielded 400-500 requests for videos last year, spokeswoman Tracy Whited said.

The law allows agencies to recoup pay for employees who redact and produce the videos, as well as video storage fees, redaction software costs, and other expenses.

Ohio police departments say body cam footage review takes time, money 

Grove City adopted its new policy on June 13, according to a copy provided to the Dispatch. The Grove City Police Department will charge a flat $10 base fee per video record to cover costs of redaction software and video storage, with maximum fees capped at $75 per hour of footage and $750 per video.

The requester must pay the estimated fee upfront before Grove City will produce the records. For “certain critical incidents,” the Grove City police chief may choose to release footage at no cost, according to the policy.

Advertisement

The Reynoldsburg Police Department’s policy, adopted March 12, says it will release footage of any incident in which an officer fires a gun without charge. Other videos cost up to $75 per hour or up to $750 per request.

Requesters must pay a $75 deposit to the Reynoldsburg police before the department will begin redacting the footage.

The Whitehall Division of Police states in its fee schedule that video footage costs $75 per hour or $1.25 per minute, with a maximum fee of $750 per request.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol, the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, and police in Columbus, Gahanna, Hilliard, Dublin, New Albany, Grandview Heights and Upper Arlington stated that they have not made any changes to their fee schedules. Several of those agencies said they are still reviewing the new law.

Advertisement

Whited said body camera footage requests make up the bulk of the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office records department’s workload and have caused a significant backlog, leading the sheriff’s office to consider outsourcing some of the work to a third party. 

But hiring a private company would be expensive, and the sheriff’s office would prefer to keep doing the work “in-house,” Whited added.

Whited said the unit often watches videos three times: once to check for visuals that need to be redacted, a second time to review the audio, and a third time to ensure nothing was missed. That means a half-hour of footage could take over an hour and a half to edit. 

In other cases, a less complex 15-minute video might take about 20 minutes to redact one segment of footage. Most of the videos are about 30-45 minutes long.

Currently, the sheriff’s office has software that can track objects in footage that need to be redacted, like a piece of paper with a social security number or a child’s face. Sometimes, for unknown reasons, the tracking fails, and staff must redact frame by frame, Whited said.

Advertisement

The sheriff’s office hasn’t received any quotes for outsourcing the video redaction process, but it did request one for an AI redaction service to speed up its staff’s work. That quote came to $30,000-$35,000 for 120 hours of raw video and gave the sheriff’s office “sticker shock,” Whited said.

Setting new fees while the backlog is in place presents some challenges. The requesters already waiting on records can’t be charged, and telling new requesters they must pay fees, then informing them they must also wait 4-5 months to receive the footage “doesn’t seem like good customer service,” Whited said.

The Delaware County Sheriff’s Office is speaking with prosecutors and reviewing other Ohio police departments policies before coming to a decision, Whited said.

“There’s a lot of things we’re still looking at before we could implement it,” Whited said.

Columbus police spokeswoman Nicole Jaros said the division is still developing a policy in response to the new law. The division currently charges $1 per CD for records and does not typically charge for records provided in digital formats, such as email attachments.

Advertisement

Gahanna spokesman Dan Pearlman said the city doesn’t currently charge for video.

“We continue to research and discuss this with area agencies to see if there is a standardized approach,” Pearlman said in an email.

New Albany Police Department records supervisor Laura White said the department is considering charging fees and will likely do so. 

YouTube creators, bloggers increase demand

The department doesn’t just field requests from traditional journalists or local citizens, White said. Many of the requests come from YouTube channels or other social media content creators.

Numerous YouTube channels and social media pages upload large volumes of police footage, publishing viral videos of traffic stops, shootings and embarrassing DUI arrests.

Advertisement

“We get inundated with requests from … YouTube and social media outlets that are looking for a wide range of information and records,” White said. “It’s very time-consuming.”

In March, the Columbus Division of Police fired Officer Spencer Badger, who runs the ‘Columbus Police Body Camera’ YouTube channel. The division said he violated policy by downloading some videos himself instead of submitting public information requests.

Daniels said the new law may have been introduced as a response to bulk requests from bloggers, YouTube channels, and other organizations that publish large amounts of videos, and he understands that those requests pose a burden. 

But Daniels said those concerns could have been better addressed in other ways, like limiting the number of requests one entity could make per month. The ACLU wouldn’t be “thrilled” by that, either, he said, but it would be better than restricting access across the board.

“It’s hard to believe a compromise couldn’t be reached,” Daniels said.

Advertisement

Public Safety and Breaking News Reporter Bailey Gallion can be reached at bagallion@dispatch.com.



Source link

Ohio

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit $865,000

Published

on

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit 5,000



Real estate transfers in Licking County, Ohio, range from $85,000 to $865,000

The following are property transfers recorded in Licking County from June 1-5, 2026.

Advertisement

First name indicates the seller; second name represents the buyer

Buckeye Lake

  • 502 Providence Lane; Cohagen, Christopher C and Lori A; Adams, Jeffrey L and Boyce-Adams, Jo Anna; 6/1/2026; $511,000
  • 131 Cranberry Lane; Smart, Amy and Kidwell, Kevin K; Sew and Minor, Christian; 6/1/2026; $262,000

Etna Township

  • 116 Cameron Drive SW; Ray, Erica L; Darjee, Sanjay and Laxmi and Dil; 6/2/2026; $412,000  
  • 119 Kraner St. SW; Adkins, Zane and Amy; Culbertson, Brenton Howard; 6/1/2026; $368,500
  • 160 Dusky Willow Drive; Willow Reserve LLC; Martin, Alaina K; 6/2/2026; $290,940

Granville

  • 119 Derwyn Del Way; Lifer, David C and Julia H; Martin, Michael and Lisa; 6/1/2026; $865,000
  • 39 Victoria Drive; Acton, Wendy S and Paul J; Cannon, Matthew Evan and Zywica, Natalie Nicole; 6/2/2026; $835,000

Granville Township

  • 49 Alberry Drive; Halliday, Lucas and Breayne; Howe, Jason and Kathryn; 6/2/2026; $570,000

Harrison Township

  • 102 Whirlaway Loop; Rice, Dawn (Trustee); Bope, Maria and Shane; 6/2/2026; $420,000

Heath

  • 1306 Kacey Court; Fischer Homes Columbus II LLC; Owens, Blake Andrew and Taylor Marie; 6/2/2026; $437,779
  • 805 Fieldson Drive; Flowers, Ingrit; Harder, Noah C; 6/2/2026; $250,000

Hebron

  • 802 Cumberland Meadows Circle; Lines, Marlene S; Gerhart, Jamie A and Ralph W Jr; 6/2/2026; $232,000

Johnstown

  • 101 Bigelow Drive; McGovern, Matthew S and Jennifer L; Sanford, Jessica; 6/2/2026; $442,500

Liberty Township

  • 5844 Nichols Lane Road NW; La Jeunesse, Garth E and Debra; Nesselroad, William Heath and Annie; 6/1/2026; $629,000
  • 7211 Northridge Road NW; Devault, Robert E Jr and Joann; Esbenshade, Travis M and Lowe, Shelby M; 6/1/2026; $495,000

Newark

  • 2110 Overlook Way; D.R. Horton-Indiana LLC; Tarsha, Michele A; 6/1/2026; $433,335
  • 1162 Taylor Ave.; Heath Fluid LLC; Anglada, Gabriel P and Salina T; 6/1/2026; $200,000
  • 32 Postal Ave. W.; Palmisano, Phil; Moore, Dominic Michael and Miksich, Paige Elizabeth; 6/1/2026; $198,900
  • 75 Gay St.; Velez, Marcos A; Camell, Campbell; 6/1/2026; $155,000
  • 655 Evans St.; TNL; McRada Properties LLC; 6/1/2026; $145,000
  • 63 Wallace St.; FDA Peachtree LLC; Burns, Amber L; 6/2/2026; $86,500
  • 404 10th St.; Synergy Group Properties LLC; Busy Boys Restoration LLC; 6/2/2026; $85,000

Reynoldsburg

  • 8447 Rodebaugh Road; Collins, Carol J; Thorpe, Kimberley Lynn and Henry, Steven; 6/2/2026; $340,000



Source link

Continue Reading

Ohio

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored

Published

on

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored


COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio’s law requiring children under 16 to get parental consent to use social media apps must be restored, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The decision comes as a blow to NetChoice, which has won court victories against identical digital identification laws in other states, including Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. The trade group representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other major tech companies said the Ohio decision went against “clear national consensus” and that it intended to keep fighting.

“An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected,” said Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.

Netchoice brought suit against Ohio’s law in 2024, arguing that it was overly broad, vague and represented an unconstitutional impediment to free speech.

Advertisement

The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit’s panel disagreed. In a 2-1 decision, it found that the law was not unconstitutional and sent it back to a lower court to have a block on the law’s enforcement vacated.

“At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in the lead opinion. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”

Judge Alice Batchelder concurred, writing that “a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth.”

Known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, the Ohio law was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill that Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law in July 2023.

The administration pushed the measure as a way to protect children’s mental health, with then-Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, now a U.S. senator, saying at the time that social media was “intentionally addictive” and harmful to kids.

Advertisement

The law requires companies to get parental permission for social media and gaming apps and to provide their privacy guidelines so families know what content would be censored or moderated on their child’s profile.

Sign up for Morning Wire:
Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Advertisement

Republican Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson called Thursday’s ruling “a win for Ohio families.”

“The court agreed that parents –- not social media companies –- should get a say in what kids see online,” he said in a statement. “We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet. This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Ohio

Storm’s path of power outages and road closures

Published

on

Storm’s path of power outages and road closures


Piketon, Ohio (WSAZ) – Folks in southern Ohio are waking up to power outages and road closures.

Route 32 in Pike County is down to one westbound and one eastbound lane due to debris on the roadway.

Drivers are also dealing with tree limbs on roadways.

The Athens County 911 dispatcher told WSAZ that it’s not believed a tornado touched down, but there is storm damage.

Advertisement

The dispatcher said storm damage from flooding and trees being knocked down has affected US 50.

Power outages are being reported in Athens, Pike, Vinton, Scioto and Meigs Counties and even as far south as Boyd County, Ky.

If you’re in a tornado warning area, you’re urged to get to the lower part of your home.

Keep checking the WSAZ app for the latest.

Copyright 2026 WSAZ. All rights reserved.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending