California SB 691: Body Camera Policies Must Add a Patient Redaction Process

California SB 691: Body Camera Policies Must Add a Patient Redaction Process

Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 691 on September 20, 2026, amending Penal Code section 832.18 to require every California law enforcement agency that has a body-worn camera policy to build in a procedure for emergency service personnel to request redaction of footage showing a patient receiving medical or psychological care. Agencies have until July 1, 2027 to update their policies.

Information last verified on September 22, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses California law only, specifically Penal Code section 832.18 as amended by SB 691. It does not address body camera rules in other states, federal law enforcement policy, or the separate question of when footage must be released under the California Public Records Act.

What Happened

The Governor approved Senate Bill 691, authored by Senator Wahab, on September 20, 2026, and it was filed with the Secretary of State the same day as Chapter 416 of the Statutes of 2026. The chaptered text describes it as "An act to amend Section 832.18 of the Penal Code, relating to body-worn cameras."

Section 832.18 is the California statute that tells law enforcement agencies what to consider when they write a body-worn camera policy. It has always been framed in terms of best practices that agencies "shall consider," covering who downloads footage, how quickly, how data is tagged, how tampering is prevented, and how long recordings are kept. Nonevidentiary footage should be retained at least 60 days; evidentiary footage should be retained at least two years when the recording involves a use of force, an officer-involved shooting, a detention or arrest, or a complaint against an officer or agency.

SB 691 adds a subdivision that is not framed as a best practice. It is a mandate. New subdivision (c)(2) provides:

"On or before July 1, 2027, each law enforcement agency that has a body-worn camera policy shall update that policy to include a procedure for emergency service personnel to request, prior to any public release, the redaction of evidentiary and nonevidentiary recordings of a patient undergoing medical or psychological evaluation, procedure, or treatment by emergency service personnel. Redaction may include blurring patient care and muting audio." Cal. Penal Code sec. 832.18(c)(2), as amended by Stats. 2026, ch. 416

The Legislature stated its purpose in the subdivision immediately above: to support the protection of patient privacy while a patient is receiving medical or psychological care from emergency service personnel, and to support those personnel in taking reasonable efforts to safeguard patients' protected health information.

What the Law Actually Says

Four features of the new subdivision matter more than the headline.

It creates a request process, not an automatic seal. The statute requires agencies to have a procedure through which emergency service personnel can ask for redaction before public release. It does not say the agency must grant every request, and it does not create a blanket exemption for medical scenes. The obligation the bill imposes is a policy obligation on the agency.

The unredacted footage survives. Subdivision (c)(4) states that an unredacted copy of any recording redacted under this subdivision "shall be maintained consistent with the policies and procedures developed pursuant to subdivision (b)." That is the existing retention framework. The bill is about what the public sees, not about destroying evidence.

It does not shrink public records rights. Subdivision (e), which the amendment leaves in place, says section 832.18 "shall not be interpreted to limit the public's right to access recorded data under the California Public Records Act." Californians who want body camera footage still go through the same records path, and the separate statutory scheme that governs release of critical incident footage is untouched by this bill. Our guide to how California handles body camera footage requests walks through that process.

It does not create a duty to help. Subdivision (c)(3) says the subdivision may not be construed to limit the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civil Code section 56 and following) or HIPAA, "or to create a new obligation on law enforcement personnel to render aid." That last clause was a deliberate choice by the drafters to keep a privacy provision from being read as a medical duty provision.

One definitional point is easy to misread. "Emergency service personnel" is not defined inside the Penal Code here. Subdivision (c)(5) borrows the definition in Government Code section 8669.15, which reaches employees of state, local or regional public fire agencies who provide emergency response services, including firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, dispatchers, emergency response communication employees, rescue service personnel and emergency managers. The redaction request right runs to those responders, not to the patient and not to a hospital.

Because SB 691 imposes a new duty on local agencies, the Legislature treated it as a state-mandated local program and provided that if the Commission on State Mandates finds it carries state-mandated costs, reimbursement is made under Government Code section 17500 and following.

When It Takes Effect

SB 691 carries no urgency clause. Under the California Constitution's default rule for statutes enacted in a regular session, it takes effect January 1, 2027. The compliance deadline the statute itself sets is later: agencies with a body camera policy have until July 1, 2027 to update that policy.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

California's body camera statute has been unusual since it was written, because most of it is hortatory. Section 832.18 tells agencies what to "consider." SB 691 is the rare piece of that section written in the language of obligation, and it is worth noticing where the Legislature chose to spend that obligation: not on retention, not on release timelines, but on the moment when a camera keeps rolling while a paramedic works on someone.

That gap was real. Body camera policy in California, and in most states, was built around the encounter between an officer and a subject. A medical emergency is a different scene with a different cast. The person on the ground is often not a suspect, is frequently not capable of asserting anything, and is being treated by people who are themselves bound by confidentiality rules that do not bind the officer holding the camera. The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and HIPAA constrain the paramedic and the hospital. Neither one turns a police recording into a medical record. SB 691 does not change that analysis either; it says so directly. What it changes is the practical one, which is whether an agency has a route for the responder to raise the problem before the video is released.

It is also worth being precise about what the statute does not do, because the framing in coverage of bills like this tends to drift toward "California seals medical body camera footage." It does not. It requires a procedure. The public records right in subdivision (e) is preserved in the same section. Whether a given agency's new procedure ends up protecting patients meaningfully or functioning as an extra step before the same footage goes out will depend on the policies agencies actually write between now and July 1, 2027, and those policies are themselves public documents.

For readers who follow the recording side of the site rather than the policing side, note where this lands relative to California's all-party consent recording statute. Penal Code section 632 governs private citizens recording confidential communications. Section 832.18 governs what a law enforcement agency does with its own footage. A patient being treated at the roadside has a privacy interest either way, but the two statutes reach it through completely different machinery, and SB 691 moves only the second one.

How This Affects You

If you request body camera footage in California, expect the process to stay the same in form and to acquire one more possible step in practice where a recording captured a medical or psychological intervention. The statute directs the redaction request to be made before public release, so it is a pre-release filter rather than a post-release remedy.

If you are a firefighter, paramedic or EMT in California, the statute gives you a channel that many agencies did not formally have. It is a request channel; the agency's own policy will decide the standard and the timeline, and those policies are due by July 1, 2027.

If you were the patient in a recording, SB 691 does not give you a personal request right under this subdivision. Your avenues run through the general public records and privacy frameworks, including the ones covered in our explainer on when protected health information can be disclosed, not through Penal Code section 832.18(c).

General statements like these describe how the statute is structured. They are not advice about any particular footage request or any particular incident.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers California law and reflects sources verified on September 22, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• California police body camera rules and how footage is released
• California's all-party consent recording statute
• HIPAA and subpoenas: when protected health information can be disclosed
• California surveillance camera rules
• How Washington handles body camera retention and access

---

Last updated: 2026-09-22. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-22.