New NJ bill would restrict access to police bodycam videos

Restricting commercial access to police recordings could make it harder for journalists, attorneys, and others to obtain footage for legitimate purposes, a transparency advocate warns.

A Gloucester County Democrat wants to bar the release of police body-worn camera footage under New Jersey’s public records law when someone seeks it for a commercial purpose,

Proposed by Assemblywoman Heather Simmons (D-Gloucester), bill A-5631, introduced Oct. 15, is meant to stem the proliferation of online clickbait videos that show regular people at their worst moments, Simmons said in an emailed statement.

“We are seeing social media accounts built around obtaining and sharing body-worn camera footage to generate views and revenue, often with little regard for the people appearing in those recordings,” Simmons said. “These are real people with families, careers, and lives beyond the circumstances captured on camera. They deserve dignity and consideration, particularly when they may be experiencing some of the most difficult moments of their lives.”

The proposal seeks to curb the commercial exploitation of body-worn camera footage while preserving access for news media, educational and nonprofit organizations, and political committees, Simmons said.

The recordings are available to the public in New Jersey, and courts have ruled that most videos do not fall under the criminal investigatory records exemption under the state’s Open Public Records Act.

But police departments are often allowed to redact parts of the recordings by blurring faces or obscuring names and other sensitive information.

CJ Griffin, a New Jersey attorney and government transparency advocate, raised concerns about the bill’s vague language, particularly its definition of a “commercial purpose.”

State law defines a commercial purpose as the “direct or indirect use of any part of a government record for sale, resale, solicitation, rent, or lease of a service or any use by which the user expects a profit either through commission, salary, or fee.”

But Griffin said the broad definition could make it harder for attorneys, police experts and people involved in civil cases to obtain body-worn camera footage for legitimate purposes.

“If you’re a lawyer who requests [the footage] for a potential lawsuit, technically you’re earning a living, so does that make it a commercial purpose?” Griffin said, adding that the term is too broad.

She is also concerned that government agencies could use the bill to deny footage requests from independent journalists who don’t work for established news organizations.

“There’s this gray line around citizen journalists and bloggers. There’s this whole debate: who is a real journalist? Are you applying journalistic standards or not? Some of them aren’t, but that doesn’t mean they’re not doing public good by requesting videos,” Griffin said.

“Anytime you create an exemption, it means it makes it harder for someone to request records,” she said. “It’s a slippery slope.”

Simmons said she recognized there are “important questions” about those distinctions, particularly as traditional journalism and social media evolve.

“This is an initial version of the legislation, and we are continuing to examine the language and welcome feedback from journalists, law enforcement, and other stakeholders as we work to get that balance right,” she said.

“Ultimately, this is about recognizing that the people captured in these recordings are more than a moment caught on camera,” she said. “They are our neighbors, family members, and community members who deserve to be treated with dignity. Protecting that dignity and preserving the public’s right to information are both important considerations, and I believe we can have a thoughtful conversation about how to accomplish both.”

Similar bills have been introduced in previous legislative sessions. In December 2023, Republican Sen. Anthony Bucco introduced legislation to restrict the release of body-worn camera footage of arrests. At the time, Walter Luers, an attorney and open government advocate, noted that a less restrictive way to protect people’s privacy would be to blur or pixelate faces and other identifying features in the recordings, a process that can be done quickly using automated video-redaction software.

The latest bill has been referred to the Assembly’s Public Safety and Preparedness Committee.