Texas Attorney General asked to clarify release of “body cam” videos

posted on 10.02.2017

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, R-Texas, has been asked to clarify when police “body cam” video can be withheld by local government.

Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr., D-Brownsville, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, is seeking a formal opinion to clarify what some believe is a murky issue.

In a Sept. 14 letter requesting the opinion, Lucio asked Paxton to ”clarify the circumstances under which a law enforcement agency is authorized or required to release, or is prohibited from releasing, certain audio or video recordings from a body worn camera made by a member of a municipal law enforcement agency.”

The Texas Public Information Act allows law enforcement to withhold materials whose release could jeopardize an investigation or prosecution of a crime.

The Act also allows that such materials may be withheld “until all criminal matters have been finally adjudicated.”

However, there is a provision in state law that allows release if doing so “furthers a law enforcement purpose.”
Lucio wants to know if a city manager, city council member or a member of a civilian oversight committee member has an “inherent right of access” to such footage as part of their official capacities.

A representative of the state’s largest law enforcement group, the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, told the Austin American-Statesman, that the group is concerned about elected or appointed officials misusing such videos to create controversy or influence an investigation.

Lucio’s letter seeks answers on four questions:

• Is a municipal law enforcement agency prohibited from complying, authorized to comply, or required to comply with a request by a member of the public to view a recording from a body worn camera if the head of the law enforcement agency determines that the recording could be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution and that allowing the person to view the recording would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime?
• Is a municipal law enforcement agency prohibited from complying, authorized to comply, or required to comply with a request by a member of the governing body of the municipality or by a civilian employee of the municipality whose duties include supervision or oversight of the law enforcement agency (such as a city manager) to view a recording from a body worn camera if the head of the law enforcement agency determines that the recording could be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution and that allowing the person to view the recording would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime?
• Is a municipal law enforcement agency prohibited from complying, authorized to comply, or required to comply with a request by a member of the public to view a recording from a body worn camera if the head of the law enforcement agency determines that the recording could be used as evidence in a juvenile court proceeding or depicts or otherwise relates to a child in a manner that would restrict access to the recording?
• Is a municipal law enforcement agency prohibited from complying, authorized to comply, or required to comply with a request by a member of the governing body of the municipality or by a civilian employee of the municipality whose duties include supervision or oversight of the law enforcement agency (such as a city manager) to view a recording from a body worn camera if the head of the law enforcement agency determines that the recording could be used as evidence in a juvenile court proceeding or depicts or otherwise relates to a child in a manner that would restrict access to the recording?

The Attorney General’s office has 180 days to issue its written opinion on the questions raised by Lucio. 

Attorney General opinions have the force of law unless or until they are overturned by a Texas court.

Questions?  Contact TAB's Michael Schneider or call (512) 322-9944.

---