The Star Press

Indiana lawmakers are wading into the murky waters of public access to police body camera video footage. One bill they will consider, and backed by State Rep. Kevin Mahan of Hartford City, whose committee drafted the legislation last summer, would force the public to get a court order to view police video.

That does not serve the public's interest. We believe the public has a right to view police actions — within certain limitations — without first having to seek a judge's order from the overburdened court systems.

House Bill 1019 was crafted by the Government and Regulatory Reform Committee chaired by Mahan. It places the burden on the public to convince a judge to overrule police and allow access of the video. We don't think that serves the public's interest.

A caveat: While the media, including newspapers, often rely upon open access to public records, the public has the very same rights. It's part of what makes our government open, responsible and accountable.

Here's what Steve Key, the attorney for the Hoosier State Press Association, has to say about the legislation as it's written: "(The bill) gives law enforcement all the incentive to deny access to video and gives the public all the disincentive to fight for the ability to see how an officer actually acted in a controversial incident."

Body cameras have become popular following the police shooting of Michael Brown in Missouri and the death of Eric Garner, who died in police custody in New York City. They never-blinking camera records exactly what "went down" at a scene. And in most cases, probably exonerates police actions by proving beyond doubt an officer acted within department guidelines and handled a tense situation appropriately. Openness is the best policy.

We believe body cam video should be handled just like any other government document: Make it accessible to the public unless there is a compelling reason it should not be released. Footage of an active investigation might be one exception to openness. The key is to place the burden to close the records from public view on the police or the court system. That's exactly how it is with with other government agencies and access to government documents.

Mahan, the former sheriff of Blackford County, told The Star Press "there are some things the public and the press don't need to have." The emphasis should be some. The judicial system ought to make that determination should a dispute arise.

We get that policing can be a confusing and messy business. Yes. Police see things that no responsible media outlet would print or post online. Yet being able to view those scenes by media and the public can often clear up issues and help tell the story of what happened.

Will police be fielding never-ending requests for footage?

Based on local police agencies saying they have received no requests from the public to view body cam footage, we don't believe police agencies will be overwhelmed with requests. Should that prove to not be the case, reasonable fees could be imposed for the public to access footage. That's the case with paper documents, where fees are charged to copy them.

Mahan's bill is a good initial step into controlling how body cam footage is handled. As Mahan said, police agencies can erase footage the next day. HB 1019 would require footage be kept on file at least 180 days. No doubt the bill will be amended as it makes its way through the legislative process. We would urge lawmakers to err on the side of openness in the name of accountability.

Bottom line is this: Body cam footage is a record made by a government agency. Instead of being ink on paper or a pdf file on a file server, it's a video file. And like a government record, it ought to be made available to the public within certain limitations or there must be good reason to keep the footage from the public

Government business is the public's business. Technology should not change that.