Is Bodycam Footage Admissible in Court in Texas?
Whether body camera footage is admissible in court depends on several factors. First, courts must assess its probative value and weigh it against its potential prejudicial effect on the defendant.
In addition, it must be authenticated by a witness who has knowledge of the recording. This is especially important when the video is presented as an out-of-court statement.
It’s a secret weapon for the State
A bodycam video of a police encounter is often used as evidence in criminal cases. This is because police-worn cameras can provide a more detailed and accurate picture of an incident than a standard camera. In addition, a bodycam video can be edited in ways that cannot be done on a standard camera, including to remove certain information that is not deemed appropriate for disclosure.
For example, an officer may decide not to disclose a recording that depicts the death of someone who died as a result of an encounter with police. The officer can also redact footage that depicts a person’s non-public medical information or privileged detention or transportation for mental health or drug treatment, and any footage that might undermine an ongoing investigation.
Depending on the state, bodycam footage may be available in court as a matter of public record. In California, for instance, SB 22 (2016) requires that video must be disclosed under open records law, and all people who are the subject of a recording must receive notice. They can then ask a judge to block the disclosure of any portion of the video that is not exempt.
The law provides that a person who is the subject of a bodycam recording or their guardian or legal representative can view the video. Those people can also request that the recording be redacted in order to exclude information that would compromise an ongoing investigation.
Some states, such as Illinois and Colorado, require that law enforcement agencies keep video for a specific period of time. Those lengths of time vary by state, and can be shorter or longer based on the type of encounter that is recorded.
In the case of a felony arrest, for instance, police may be required to keep footage for a longer period of time, such as three years or more. However, in Illinois and Colorado, police must be able to release the footage within 21 days of receiving a complaint from the public.
Some laws, such as New Jersey and South Carolina, allow for a grant program to help cover the costs of police-worn cameras and related equipment and service. These programs are intended to encourage municipalities to implement a bodycam policy and make use of bodycams in their departments.
It’s a tool for prosecutors
This state has a slew of laws on the books that govern body camera use and retention. These include a number of requirements for law enforcement agencies to maintain the data, such as a daily record of the total devices deployed and used by police in each precinct as well as policies and procedures for its use. The state also mandates the use of the most secure devices available and prohibits officers from altering or tampering with their data.
The law states that a public agency may not release video footage recorded on a body camera without the consent of the subject of the recording, although this is only in the most extreme circumstances. The recording may be used to enhance training, improve police performance or for disciplinary purposes, among other reasons. The data must be stored for no less than 30 days and no more than 180 days if it contains: the discharge of a firearm by the law enforcement agency or the use of force that resulted in serious bodily injury to a civilian; a complaint that was filed against an officer related to the incident; or a video that is the best possible example of the department’s use of the device.
The State of South Carolina has a Law Enforcement Officer Body Camera Study Committee that will recommend future state-level policy and legislation to further improve their deployment. Their laudable effort has produced some interesting results so far. For example, they have created the world’s largest database of police body cameras — including a comprehensive list of each officer’s name, photo, and department. The database is a resource for citizens to learn about their local officers, and it can be accessed through an online portal.
It’s a tool for defense
Bodycam footage is admissible in court if the recording contains information reasonably likely to disclose private matters in a manner that will benefit the person bringing the action or the public. This includes information about the discharge of a firearm, the use of force that results in serious bodily injury, a complaint being filed against a police officer or an incident that led to an arrest, citation or warning. In addition, footage from an officer’s camera that depicts a minor in a school, the interior of a licensed mental health facility or the interior of a residence where the owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy is confidential.
However, video can be redacted if it depicts: an act of violence or bodily injury that is not caused by the officer; personal information about a person who is not being arrested, charged or cited; material that would undermine a police investigation or an officer’s disciplinary actions; non-public medical information; privileged detention for mental health or drug treatment; or information about a person’s criminal history, or the identity of a police informant.
It’s a tool for jurors
Body camera footage is a criminal investigation record and public record under Texas’ open records law, but it can be redacted. It’s non-public unless it depicts the discharge of a firearm by police or the use of force that results in serious bodily harm, a complaint against an officer or if a subject on the video requests the data be released. It also is a public record if it identifies a victim of a crime or the owner of property depicted on the recording. However, anyone on the recording who does not consent to its release can seek to have the video redacted by a court order.
The law requires a public agency to allow certain people, termed “requestors,” to view the recordings at least twice. Those people include anyone depicted on the recordings, the owners of real property depicted in the recordings and crime victims who suffer financial loss because of personal injury or damage to their properties. They can be awarded attorney’s fees and court costs if they prevail in an action against a public agency to view the recording.