Nothing will bring back Rebecca Duran’s son, 20-year-old Donovan Lewis, who was shot dead by a police officer while in his bed in August 2022.
But getting at the truth surrounding his murder in Columbus, Ohio, relied on one piece of crucial evidence: the officers’ own body-camera footage.
“From the moment that [police] started speaking to the media, they were initially painting a picture that my son fought them back. Their words were that there was an ‘altercation’,” said Duran.
“Up until the moment that I saw the video, I was under the impression that he had fought them back. Their whole spin on the story was fabricated.”
In less than a second at 2am, officer Ricky Anderson, a 30-year veteran of the force, unholstered his weapon and fired at Lewis, killing him.
The footage has played a pivotal role in charging and indicting Anderson with homicide and reckless endangerment, which he denies.
But now a new law means that police departments in Ohio are set to be able to charge up to $750 for access to body-camera or other video footage, a move that’s causing outrage among civil rights advocates, family members of people who have died following interactions with police and media advocates.
The proposal was not made public in advance nor was it subject to a hearing by lawmakers before being snuck into an omnibus bill in the final hours of the outgoing Ohio legislature last month.
It’s part of a wider attempt, say civil rights advocates, by law enforcement to restrict access to public records. Some are concerned that the new law could not only affect access to body-camera footage, but dash cameras and footage recorded at jails and correctional facilities.
“The costs can reach thousands of dollars if there are multiple officers on the scene. We have families who have children and loved ones killed by police and they might have to choose between finding out what actually happens (or paying for the cost of) laying their loved one to rest,” said Emily Cole of Ohio Families Unite Against Police Brutality.
“It’s also a slippery slope in terms of protecting the sanctity of public records in general. If we charge for one type of public record, who’s to say that other charges won’t be forthcoming?”
In 2022, the Indianapolis metropolitan police department began charging up to $150 per video, while the state of Washington allows police departments to charge 49 cents per minute of footage since 2021 although a host of departments charge based on how much time staff spend editing footage. The Washington law is supposed to waive fees for individuals “directly involved” in the footage, their attorneys and certain state government organizations.
Other states have fought back against attempts to charge for police video footage. In 2020, the California supreme court ruled that city authorities in the state must pay for redacting police footage before making it public.
“Unfortunately, there is real potential that this change in the [Ohio] law will serve as a deterrent to members of the press and public getting access to important police records like body-worn camera footage,” said Gunita Singh, staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a non-profit. “For instance, in Pennsylvania, an agency can charge ‘reasonable fees’ for accessing body-camera footage, but that term is not defined in the law.”
Taxpayers in Ohio and across the country already contribute billions of dollars to funding law enforcement. In 2021, “police protection expenditures” in Ohio stood at $3.9bn, or $322 per capita, more than any of its surrounding states except Pennsylvania.
Last year, a Cleveland patrol officer made headlines when reports emerged they made close to a quarter of a million dollars in salary, mostly from overtime. In this year’s proposed budget, the city of Columbus, Ohio’s largest metro area, sought to allocate nearly one-third or $400m of its $1.23bn budget to its police department.
The new law is not the first time police departments in Ohio have attempted to deploy laws or measures ostensibly meant to protect the public.
A Columbus-area officer who shot and killed a pregnant woman in August 2023 invoked Marsy’s Law, a provision meant to protect victims of crime, to hide his identity. That officer was ultimately named and charged with murder last year.
In signing the bill this month, Ohio’s governor, Republican Mike DeWine, said he believed doing so would help smaller police departments manage their workloads better. Police departments say that charging for video footage would prevent or lessen requests from profit-seeking vloggers on YouTube, TikTok and other social media platforms, who can acquire police footage without paying.
“We know that content creators have been flooding agencies with requests,” said Michael Weinman, the director of government affairs for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, Inc. “The FOP feels that the charge will deter those folks who only want these videos for their social media sites – monetizing them. This, in turn, will allow agencies to concentrate on valid requests.”
Videos posted to YouTube of police interactions with the public are hugely popular and regularly rack up tens of millions of views. Emails seeking comment from a leading YouTube channel that posts law enforcement footage that has been viewed tens of millions of times were not responded to.
Cole says Ohio Families Unite Against Police Brutality soon plans to ask police departments for specific details around how much time is spent on requests for footage from YouTubers and vloggers.
“It’s unfortunate that nowhere in the argument being used by police and the state is the acknowledgment of community members and families who are directly impacted by police violence and are already paying taxes,” she said.
“The entire purpose of requiring law enforcement to wear [body cameras] is to ensure accountability and transparency. The reality is this policy creates a paywall between members of the public and the truth of what happens.”
Last year, Duran and family members filed a federal lawsuit against the officers involved in Lewis’s killing as video footage, they say, made it clear he never raised his arms in a way that could be interpreted as possessing a weapon. Anderson, who was able to retire before being fired, had previously been reprimanded by his superiors for not using body cameras and separately for turning off his dash camera equipment during a police chase.
“In the video, they also make disparaging comments about what color he was,” said Duran.
“There was no weapon in the entire apartment.”
