EnglishEspañol

How to Request Body Cam Footage: State Laws and the Request Process

Independently fact-checked Law current as of August 11, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished August 11, 2026Reviewed September 2, 20269 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 11, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 11, 2026. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

How to Request Body Cam Footage: State Laws and the Request Process

Body camera footage is not the same legal question as a written police report, and it does not follow the same access rules even in a state where both come from the same agency. Some states have a standalone bodycam statute; some fold bodycam access into their general public-records exemption as one subsection among many; and roughly a quarter of states have no bodycam-specific statute at all, leaving the footage to agency policy or a general records-request framework built for other kinds of files.

Key Takeaways

1Bodycam access law falls into three shapes: a standalone dedicated act (Illinois, New Jersey, Minnesota, Michigan, and others), a subsection embedded inside the general law-enforcement records exemption (Ohio, Oklahoma, Washington, North Dakota, Georgia), or no statute at all, meaning agency policy or a general public-records framework controls (roughly a quarter of states, including Arizona, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Oregon before a later amendment).
2Release windows vary enormously by state: California requires disclosure within 45 days for defined critical-incident categories, extendable in limited circumstances; Oklahoma sets a hard 10-day trigger after a charged person's arraignment, with cumulative extensions on that ground capped at 18 months and the withholding option expiring entirely four years after the recording was made; Pennsylvania runs a separate 60-day filing window under its own statute, not the general public-records law.
3North Carolina is the strictest model found: bodycam footage is neither a public record nor a personnel record, viewing it (called disclosure) and obtaining a copy (called release) are two separate legal actions, and getting an actual copy always requires a court order.
4A request that names a specific date, time, location, and, where known, a case or CAD number is far more likely to get a useful response than an open-ended request for 'bodycam footage from my arrest.' Washington's statute makes this an explicit requirement; it is good practice everywhere.
5A handful of statutes are commonly mis-cited: Arkansas's bodycam confidentiality statute covers only recordings of an officer's death, not general footage, and Georgia has no standalone bodycam act, but does have a narrow embedded exemption for footage recorded in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
6Redaction for faces, minors, and sensitive content is common and legal almost everywhere footage is released at all; it is not itself evidence the agency is withholding something improperly.

This guide covers which of those three models applies where, the handful of state regimes worth knowing by name because they set the pattern others borrow from, and how to actually put together a request that has a chance of getting a useful response.

Information last verified on 2026-08-11. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Three Ways States Handle Bodycam Access

A standalone dedicated act. The cleanest model to work with, because the statute is written specifically for bodycam footage rather than adapted from a general records law. Illinois's Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (50 ILCS 706/10-20) makes recordings closed to a general public-records request by default but requires disclosure of any footage flagged for a complaint, a firearm discharge, a use of force, an arrest or detention, or a death or serious injury. New Jersey's N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 runs 19 subsections covering activation rules, retention tiers, and public-inspection carve-outs. Minnesota's § 13.825 is similarly detailed, and was amended effective July 1, 2025 to require agencies to give anyone entitled to obtain the underlying crash report unredacted bodycam footage of that crash, on a written request accompanied by the accident report. That right is not unqualified: the agency may still deny access if it finds a compelling reason that release would interfere with an active investigation, if the data is clearly offensive to common sensibilities, or if the data is classified as not public elsewhere in the chapter, and the footage may only be used to process a claim or as evidence in a related proceeding. Michigan's Law Enforcement Body-Worn Camera Privacy Act (2017 PA 85) exempts recordings made in a private place from its Freedom of Information Act at MCL 780.313, and a separate section, MCL 780.314, sets exactly who may request a copy: the person recorded, someone whose property was seized or damaged in relation to the related crime, a parent of either of those individuals who is under 18, their legal guardian, or an attorney representing them.

Embedded in the general law-enforcement exemption. Here the bodycam rule is one subsection of a broader statute that also covers other investigative records, rather than its own standalone act. Ohio's public-records law, R.C. § 149.43, folds body-worn and dashboard camera rules directly into the same section as its confidential-law-enforcement-investigatory-record exemption. Washington's RCW 42.56.240(14) is one of the most detailed frameworks found in this research: it presumes disclosure of footage depicting a minor, a residence interior, an intimate image, or certain victims to be highly offensive and generally withholds or redacts it, requires a requester to identify the incident with real specificity, and lets an agency charge its actual redaction costs. Oklahoma's 51 O.S. § 24A.8 sets categories of footage that can be temporarily withheld and specific redaction rules, layered onto the state's general law-enforcement records statute rather than a separate act. Georgia has no standalone bodycam law, but O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(26.2) creates a narrow exemption specific to footage recorded in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, opened only to a defined list of eligible requesters who submit a sworn affidavit.

No statute at all. In roughly a quarter of the states checked for this cluster, footage access runs entirely on agency policy or the state's general public-records balancing test, with no bodycam-specific rule anywhere in the code. Arizona has no bodycam statute and also no codified general law-enforcement exemption; access runs on case law alone. Massachusetts has no statewide bodycam statute, and reporting on individual departments describes disclosure handled case by case. Hawaii and, before a state amendment changed the picture, Oregon fell into this category as well. Where no statute exists, the department's own written policy, if it has one, is usually the most concrete thing to point to when making a request.

Model Regimes Worth Knowing By Name

California requires release for defined critical-incident categories under Penal Code § 832.7, as amended by SB 1421: an officer discharging a firearm at a person, a use of force causing death or great bodily injury, and sustained findings of excessive force, sexual assault, dishonesty, or biased conduct. The baseline release window is 45 days from the date of the request, extendable while a criminal investigation is active, with a public-interest balancing test governing any further delay.

hands blacking out solid redaction bars on a blank white sheet with a black marker, seen from above

North Carolina runs the strictest model in this research. Under G.S. § 132-1.4A, a recording is neither a public record nor a personnel record, and the statute draws a sharp line between disclosure, meaning the agency lets an eligible person view the footage, and release, meaning an actual copy. The agency head may disclose a recording to the person shown or heard in it, or to that person's personal representative, which the statute defines as a parent, court-appointed guardian, spouse, or North Carolina-licensed attorney, and for a deceased subject also the estate's personal representative, a surviving spouse, parent, or adult child, or the guardian of a surviving minor child. Getting a copy always requires a court order, regardless of who is asking or why.

Pennsylvania is a two-statute state for this specific purpose. Bodycam and dashcam requests do not go through the general Right-to-Know Law at all; they run under a separate statute, Act 22 of 2017, with its own 60-day filing window from the date of the recording and its own appeal path. A denied Act 22 request is appealed to the county Court of Common Pleas, not the Office of Open Records, and requires a $125 filing fee, meaningfully more expensive and slower than a standard records appeal.

Oklahoma sets one of the most concrete timelines found: footage withheld to protect an active investigation must be released unredacted no later than 10 days after a charged person's formal arraignment or initial appearance, absent a court-approved extension. Cumulative extensions on that ground are capped at 18 months, in six-month increments, and the withholding option expires in its entirety four years after the recording was made.

Indiana offers a genuinely reader-friendly model on the access side: IC § 5-14-3-4(b)(1) states outright that a law enforcement recording is not an investigatory record, routing it entirely out of the state's general investigatory exemption, and its dedicated statute, IC § 5-14-3-5.1, requires a public agency to allow inspection of a recording at least twice for a written request.

Statutes Worth Double-Checking Before You Rely on Them

A few specific citations are commonly mis-cited or mis-scoped, worth flagging directly. Arkansas's bodycam-related statute, § 12-6-701, is sometimes described as a general bodycam-access law; it is not. It applies only to recordings depicting the death of a law enforcement officer. Ordinary footage from a traffic stop, an arrest, or a use-of-force incident not involving an officer's death runs through Arkansas's general FOIA law-enforcement exemption instead. Tennessee's bodycam confidentiality provision, TCA § 10-7-504(u), remains current law: its original 2022 sunset date was extended to July 1, 2027 by a 2022 public chapter, and Public Chapter 672 of 2026 deleted the sunset clause, so it has no end date. Confirm the state's current statute directly rather than relying on an older summary, since bodycam law is one of the more actively amended areas in this cluster; Minnesota's 2025 amendment above is a recent example of the same pattern.

How to Actually Request Footage

A specific request gets a specific answer; a vague one is easy for an agency to deny or delay. Include, at minimum, the date, approximate time, and location of the incident, and, where you have it, a case number, incident number, or CAD (computer-aided dispatch) number, which several statutes, including Washington's and New Mexico's, effectively require before an agency will process a request at all. State your relationship to the incident (the person recorded, an attorney, a family member) since several statutes limit who is an eligible requester in the first place.

One hand passes a closed manila folder across a wooden counter to another outstretched hand

Expect redaction as the norm, not the exception, wherever footage is released at all: faces of uninvolved bystanders, minors, interior views of a private residence, and intimate or graphic content are commonly blurred or withheld even from an otherwise eligible requester, and an agency is typically allowed to charge its actual redaction cost. Expect a real range of timelines, from a matter of days under a dedicated statute's inspection right to a 45-day or longer window under a critical-incident release statute, to no fixed deadline at all where no statute exists. And expect a denial to sometimes require a formal appeal, sometimes to a records oversight body, sometimes, as in Pennsylvania, to a court, with its own separate filing fee.

For the underlying law in a specific state, mandate status, retention schedules, and case law rather than the request process covered here, see that state's page on Police Bodycam Laws. For that state's crash and incident report process instead, see Police Reports by State, or for the separate question of filing a new incident report, How to File a Police Report.

Where the Law Is Still Being Tested

Bodycam access law is unsettled in a way most of this cluster is not, and two recent developments illustrate why. The New Jersey Supreme Court's January 2025 decision in Fuster v. Township of Chatham held that bodycam footage does not qualify as a categorically exempt criminal investigatory record under the state's public-records law, rejecting a blanket confidentiality rule for footage of someone who was interviewed but never arrested or charged (see our coverage of the Fuster decision). And a Massachusetts court separately weighed how the state's wiretap law interacts with police bodycam recording (see our coverage of that ruling). Both are reminders that a state's bodycam access rules can shift through litigation even where the underlying statute has not changed, and it is worth checking whether a state's law has moved since the last time you checked it.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about requesting body camera footage from law enforcement agencies in the United States. It is not legal advice. Statutes, timelines, and eligible-requester rules vary by state and change frequently; confirm current details with the relevant agency or a licensed attorney before relying on anything here for a specific situation.

a wall-mounted security monitor showing a blank paused video frame in a dim review room

Last updated: 2026-08-11. Statutes and timelines reflect their published status as of August 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is body camera footage a public record?

It depends entirely on the state. Some states treat it as presumptively releasable under a dedicated statute; some fold it into the general law-enforcement records exemption with case-by-case withholding; and North Carolina treats it as neither a public record nor a personnel record, requiring a court order for an actual copy.

How long does a state have to release body cam footage?

Timelines vary widely. California requires release within 45 days for defined critical-incident categories, extendable while an investigation is active. Oklahoma requires unredacted release no later than 10 days after a charged person's arraignment, absent a court-approved extension. Some states have no statutory deadline at all.

Who can request police body camera footage?

It depends on the state and the statute. Several states limit disclosure to the person shown in the recording or a defined personal representative such as a parent, spouse, guardian, or attorney; others, like California under its critical-incident categories, open specific footage types to the general public. Check the relevant state's own bodycam-laws page for its eligible-requester list.

Can I get an unedited copy of bodycam footage, or just view it?

Some states draw a real distinction between the two. North Carolina separates disclosure, meaning viewing the footage, from release, meaning an actual copy, and only release requires a court order. Most other states with a bodycam statute treat a copy as the default outcome of an approved request.

Why is my bodycam footage request being redacted?

Redaction of faces, minors, private-residence interiors, and similarly sensitive content is standard practice, not evidence of improper withholding, and is expressly authorized under most states' bodycam statutes. Agencies are typically allowed to charge their actual redaction cost.

What information should I include in a body cam footage request?

The date, approximate time, and location of the incident, and a case, incident, or CAD number if you have one. Several state statutes effectively require this level of specificity before an agency will process the request at all.

Updates

September 2, 2026

Corrected the Michigan, Oklahoma, Minnesota, California and North Carolina passages: the Michigan requester list is now attributed to MCL 780.314, Oklahoma's post-arraignment extensions are capped at 18 months rather than four years, Minnesota's crash-footage right notes the active-investigation and other denial grounds, AB 748 is no longer credited with amending Penal Code 832.7, and North Carolina's disclosure list now includes spouses, parents, guardians and estate representatives.

August 11, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132: Public Records.

§ 132-1.4ALaw enforcement agency recordingsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles

(a) Definitions. - The following definitions apply in this section: (1) Body-worn camera. - An operational video or digital camera or other electronic device, including a microphone or other mechanism for allowing audio capture, affixed to the uniform or person of law enforcement agency personnel and positioned in a way that allows the camera or device to capture interactions the law enforcement agency personnel has with others. (2) Custodial law enforcement agency. - The law enforcement agency that owns or leases or whose personnel operates the equipment that created the recording at the time the recording was made. (3) Dashboard camera. - A device or system installed or used in a law enforcement agency vehicle that electronically records images or audio depicting interaction with others by law enforcement agency personnel. This term does not include body-worn cameras. (4) Disclose or disclosure. - To make a recording available for viewing or listening to by the person requesting disclosure, at a time and location chosen by the custodial law enforcement agency. This term does not include the release of a recording. (5) Personal representative.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ncleg.gov

Also relied on in: North Carolina Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, North Carolina Laws on Recording Police: Rights, Body Cameras, and HB 972, North Carolina Police Body Camera Laws: Access & Court Petitions

California Penal Code

§ 832.7In forcecited in 4 of our articles

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. This section does not apply to investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, or an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney’s office, the Attorney General’s office, or the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, or a civilian oversight board or commission for a law enforcement agency established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 25303.7 of the Government Code or other duly enacted municipal or county ordinance.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Cited in 453 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (California Supreme Court 1989, 49 Cal. 3d 74)“…l. Rptr. 897 , 522 P.2d 305 ]) through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 [3] and Evidence Code sectio…”
Alford v. Superior Court (California Supreme Court 2003, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 672)“…hess scheme applies “in any criminal or civil proceeding” (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (a)), the list of interested par…”
City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (California Supreme Court 2002, 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 202)“…tchess scheme added Evidence Code sections 1043-1045 and Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8. It also amended Penal Code s…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: California Police Body Camera Laws: Footage & Access, How to Get a Police Report in California (2026): Crash & Incident Reports, California Public Records Act: The 10-Day Rule, Fees, and Police Records

Oklahoma Statutes, Title 51: OFFICERS

§ 24A.8Law enforcement records - DisclosureIn forcecited in 6 of our articles

A. Law enforcement agencies shall make available for public inspection and copying, if kept, the following records: 1. An arrestee description, including the name, date of birth, address, race, sex, physical description, and occupation of the arrestee; 2. Facts concerning the arrest, including the cause of arrest and the name of the arresting officer; 3. A chronological list of all incidents, including initial offense report information showing the offense, date, time, general location, officer, and a brief summary of what occurred; 4. Radio logs, including a chronological listing of the calls dispatched; 5. Conviction information, including the name of any person convicted of a criminal offense; 6. Disposition of all warrants, including orders signed by a judge of any court commanding a law enforcement officer to arrest a particular person; 7. A crime summary, including an agency summary of crimes reported and public calls for service by classification or nature and number; 8.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oklegislature.gov

Also relied on in: Oklahoma Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Oklahoma Police Bodycam Laws: Access, Retention & Redactions, Oklahoma Police Reports: How to Get a Collision or Incident Report

Indiana Code, TITLE 5. STATE AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION

§ 5-14-3-4Records and recordings exempted from disclosure; time limitations; destruction of recordsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles

Sec. 4. (a) The following public records are excepted from section 3 of this chapter and may not be disclosed by a public agency, unless access to the records is specifically required by a state or federal statute or is ordered by a court under the rules of discovery: (1) Those declared confidential by state statute. (2) Those declared confidential by rule adopted by a public agency under specific authority to classify public records as confidential granted to the public agency by statute. (3) Those required to be kept confidential by federal law. (4) Records containing trade secrets. (5) Confidential financial information obtained, upon request, from a person. However, this does not include information that is filed with or received by a public agency pursuant to state statute. (6) Information concerning research, including actual research documents, conducted under the auspices of a state educational institution, including information: (A) concerning any negotiations made with respect to the research; and (B) received from another party involved in the research. (7) Grade transcripts and license examination scores obtained as part of a licensure process.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov

Cited in 42 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Indiana courts treat IC 5-14-3-4(b) exceptions as discretionary with the agency. The 2003 Indiana Newspapers v. Trustees of Indiana University decision held subsections (b)(8)(A) to (C) do not trump the other section 4 exceptions; Citizens Action Coalition v. Koch (2016) left legislative work product to the General Assembly's discretion.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Indiana State Highway Commission v. Morris (Indiana Supreme Court 1988, 528 N.E.2d 468)“…declared confidential by statute or by Supreme Court rule. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4 (a)(1), (8). Privileged communications…”
Unincorporated Operating Division of Indiana Newspapers, Inc. v. Trustees of Indiana University (Indiana Court of Appeals 2003, 787 N.E.2d 893)✓A newspaper sought Indiana University files from the Bob Knight investigations; the court held the campus police materials were investigatory records excepted under IC 5-14-3-4(b)(1), while (b)(6) covered only opinion and speculation, so separable facts had to be released.
Laudig v. Marion County Board of Voters Registration (Indiana Court of Appeals 1992, 585 N.E.2d 700)✓A requester asked a county registration board for a computer tape copy of its registered voter list; the court applied IC 5-14-3-4(c) and held the board need not create or provide a copy of a name and address list no statute requires it to publish, though inspection stayed open.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Indiana Death Records: Are They Public + How to Get Them, Indiana Police Reports: BuyCrash, Records Requests, and Bodycam Footage, Indiana Public Records Laws: The Access to Public Records Act (APRA) Explained

§ 5-14-3-5.1Inspection of law enforcement recordings; obscuring of undercover law enforcement officer; obscuring of confidential informantsIn forcecited in 5 of our articles

Sec. 5.1. (a) As used in this section, "requestor" means the following: (1) An individual who is depicted in a law enforcement recording. (2) If the individual described in subdivision (1) is deceased: (A) the surviving spouse, father, mother, brother, sister, son, or daughter of the individual; or (B) the personal representative (as defined in IC 6-4.1-1-9) of or an attorney representing the deceased individual's estate. (3) If the individual described in subdivision (1) is an incapacitated person (as defined in IC 29-3-1-7.5), the legal guardian, attorney, or attorney in fact of the incapacitated person. (4) A person that is an owner, tenant, lessee, or occupant of real property, if the interior of the real property is depicted in the recording. (5) A person who: (A) is the victim of a crime; or (B) suffers a loss due to personal injury or property damage; if the events depicted in the law enforcement recording are relevant to the person's loss or to the crime committed against the person.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov

Also relied on in: Indiana Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Indiana Police Body Camera Laws: Retention & Access (2026)

Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 50, Act 706 (Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act)

§ 10-20RequirementsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles

(a) The Board shall develop basic guidelines for the use of officer-worn body cameras by law enforcement agencies. The guidelines developed by the Board shall be the basis for the written policy which must be adopted by each law enforcement agency which employs the use of officer-worn body cameras. The written policy adopted by the law enforcement agency must include, at a minimum, all of the following: (1) Cameras must be equipped with pre-event recording, capable of recording at least the 30 seconds prior to camera activation, unless the officer-worn body camera was purchased and acquired by the law enforcement agency prior to July 1, 2015. (2) Cameras must be capable of recording for a period of 10 hours or more, unless the officer-worn body camera was purchased and acquired by the law enforcement agency prior to July 1, 2015. (3) Cameras must be turned on at all times when the officer is in uniform and is responding to calls for service or engaged in any law enforcement-related encounter or activity that occurs while the officer is on duty. (A) If exigent circumstances exist which prevent the camera from being turned on, the camera must be turned on as soon as practicable.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov

Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):NBC Subsidiary v. Chicago Police Department (2025) found, on a ground it called unnecessary, that witnesses and a victim on a public street had a reasonable expectation of privacy under 10-20(b)(1), so release needed written permission. People v. Dunn (2023) applied 10-20(a)(3)'s activation duty but denied relief for lack of prejudice.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

NBC Subsidiary v. Chicago Police Department (Appellate Court of Illinois 2025, 2025 IL App (1st) 240629)✓A TV station sought body camera video of a fatal hit-and-run under FOIA; the court affirmed on another FOIA exemption, then held as an added ground that the witnesses and the victim filmed in an ambulance had a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 10-20(b)(1).
NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. Chicago Police Department (Appellate Court of Illinois 2025, 2025 IL App (1st) 240629-U)“…Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (Body Camera Act) (50 ILCS 706/10-20(b) (West 2022)), and (3) addition…”
Lambert v. City of Chicago (Appellate Court of Illinois 2023, 2023 IL App (1st) 220265-U)“…r the Illinois Body-Worn Camera Act (the Body Camera Act) (50 ILCS 706/10-20(b) (West 2020)); and (2) that its disc…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Illinois Police Body Camera Laws: Mandate & Retention (2026), Illinois Police Reports: Crash Reports, Incident Reports, and Bodycam Footage, Illinois Public Records Laws: The Illinois FOIA (5 ILCS 140) Explained

New Jersey Statutes (Unannotated)

§ 40A:14-118.5Body worn cameras, recordings, regulations concerning usage; terms defined.In forcecited in 4 of our articles

1. a. For the purposes of this section: "Body worn camera" means a mobile audio and video recording system worn by a law enforcement officer, but shall not include a recording device worn by a law enforcement officer while engaging in an undercover assignment or a recording device used during a custodial interrogation conducted in a place of detention in compliance with Rule 3:17 of the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey. "Constructive authority" means the use of the law enforcement officer's authority to exert control over a person, directed against a person who is subject to an investigative detention or arrest or against any person if the officer has un-holstered a firearm or a conducted energy device. "Force" shall include physical, mechanical, enhanced mechanical, and deadly force. "Law enforcement officer" means a person whose public duties include the power to act as an officer for the detection, apprehension, arrest, and conviction of offenders against the laws of this State. This term shall not include a correctional police officer.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Antonio Fuster v. Township of Chatham (2025) held subsection (k) did not entitle these requesters to review the footage, but ordered the body worn camera video released because no OPRA exemption applied. State v. Seligman (2025) held the subsection (q) presumption did not reach a search predating the law's June 2021 effective date.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Antonio Fuster v. Township of Chatham (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2025)✓A father who reported his child's abuse allegation sought the body worn camera video of his own police interview; the court held subsection (k) no longer helped him once he had requested three-year retention, but ordered release since no OPRA exemption covered the video.
State of New Jersey v. Yonathan Z. Seligman (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2025)✓Officers executing a 2021 drug warrant did not timely activate their body cameras; the court held subsection (q)'s rebuttable presumption did not apply because the statute took effect after the search, and refused to make a directive violation trigger automatic suppression.
State of New Jersey v. Kevin B. Boone (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2024)✓Challenging a pretextual car stop and the warrantless search that followed, the defendant sought suppression; the court noted in a footnote that the rebuttable presumption of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 took effect after the stop and so did not apply at the suppression hearing.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: New Jersey Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, New Jersey Police Body Camera Laws: Mandate & Access, New Jersey Police Reports: How to Get a Crash Report, Incident Report, or Bodycam Video

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES

§ 13.825PORTABLE RECORDING SYSTEMSIn forcecited in 9 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Application; definition. (a) This section applies to law enforcement agencies that maintain a portable recording system for use in investigations, or in response to emergencies, incidents, and requests for service. (b) As used in this section: (1) "portable recording system" means a device worn by a peace officer that is capable of both video and audio recording of the officer's activities and interactions with others or collecting digital multimedia evidence as part of an investigation; (2) "portable recording system data" means audio or video data collected by a portable recording system; and (3) "redact" means to blur video or distort audio so that the identity of the subject in a recording is obscured sufficiently to render the subject unidentifiable. Subd. 2. Data classification; court-authorized disclosure.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Troy K. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, City of Coon Rapids, Hicken, Scott, Howard & Anderson, P. A. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2017, 890 N.W.2d 437)“…of government data under specific circumstances. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 3 (2016) (mandating the retentio…”
West v. City of Minneapolis (District Court, D. Minnesota 2024)“…c data under the Minnesota Government Data Protection Act, Minn. Stat. 13.825, subd. 2(a); and (5) Defendants’ Exhibi…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Minnesota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Minnesota Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use

Michigan Compiled Laws

§ 780.313Audio or video recording recorded by body-worn camera; disclosure; protections; exemption from freedom of information actIn forcecited in 4 of our articles

(1) The disclosure of any audio or video recording recorded by a body-worn camera is subject to the protections provided for crime victims in sections 8, 19, 19a, 21, 34, 38, 48, 62, 68, and 80 of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim's rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.758, 780.769, 780.769a, 780.771, 780.784, 780.788, 780.798, 780.812, 780.818, and 780.830. (2) Except as otherwise provided in section 4 and subject to section 5, a recording recorded by a law enforcement officer with a body-worn camera that is recorded in a private place is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov

Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

162373_134_01.Pdf (Michigan Supreme Court 2023)“…(overruling prior caselaw interpreting the 180-day rule in MCL 780.313 even though the defendant waived the is…”
People of Michigan v. Dametrius Benjamin Posey (Michigan Supreme Court 2023)“…(overruling prior caselaw interpreting the 180-day rule in MCL 780.313 even though the defendant waived the is…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Police Reports by State: How to Get a Copy, What They Cost, and What's Public, How to Get a Police Report in Michigan (2026 Guide), Michigan Freedom of Information Act: 5 Business Days, Fees, and How to Appeal

§ 780.314Audio and video recording recorded by law enforcement officer with body-worn camera; individuals requesting copyIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

Except for an audio and video recording exempted from disclosure under section 13 of the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.243, and section 3(1) or 5, any of the following individuals may request a copy of an audio and video recording recorded by a law enforcement officer with a body-worn camera in a private place: (a) An individual who is the subject of the audio and video recording. (b) An individual whose property has been seized or damaged in relation to a crime to which the audio and video recording is related. (c) A parent of an individual who is less than 18 years of age described in subdivision (a) or (b). (d) A legal guardian of an individual described in subdivision (a) or (b). (e) An attorney who represents an individual described in subdivision (a) or (b).

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov

Ohio Revised Code

§ 149.43Availability of public records for inspection and copyingIn forcecited in 17 of our articles

(A) As used in this section: (1) "Public record" means records kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, and records pertaining to the delivery of educational services by an alternative school in this state kept by…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov

Also relied on in: Ohio Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Ohio Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence, Ohio Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limitations

Revised Code of Washington

§ 42.56.240Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims.In forcecited in 13 of our articles

The following investigative, law enforcement, and crime victim information is exempt from public inspection and copying under this chapter: (1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy; (2) Information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses to or victims of crime or who file complaints with investigative, law enforcement, or penology agencies, other than the commission, if disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. If at the time a complaint is filed the complainant, victim, or witness indicates a desire for disclosure or nondisclosure, such desire shall govern.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov

Cited in 81 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Sargent v. Seattle Police Dept. (2013) held the effective law enforcement exemption in RCW 42.56.240(1) is not categorical once a case goes to a prosecutor, nor for internal investigation files; the agency must justify each withheld record. Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup (2011) exempted only an officer's identity.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup (Washington Supreme Court 2011, 172 Wash. 2d 398)✓Police reports on an unsubstantiated sexual misconduct claim against an officer were withheld in full; the court held Section 42.56.240(1) exempts only the officer's identity, since its privacy analysis is the same, and ordered the rest produced with his name redacted.
BAINBRIDGE POLICE GUILD v. City of Puyallup (Washington Supreme Court 2011, 259 P.3d 190)✓Police reports on an unsubstantiated sexual misconduct claim against an officer were withheld in full; the court held Section 42.56.240(1) exempts only the officer's identity, since its privacy analysis is the same, and ordered the rest produced with his name redacted.
Sargent v. Seattle Police Dept. (Washington Supreme Court 2013, 179 Wash. 2d 376)✓Seattle police withheld criminal and internal affairs files from a man arrested after a scuffle with an off-duty officer; the court held Section 42.56.240(1) stops applying categorically once a case reaches a prosecutor and never applies categorically to internal investigations.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Are 911 Calls Public Records? State Access Guide (2026), Washington Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits (2026), Are Autopsy Reports Public in Washington? (2026)

Official Code of Georgia Annotated

§ 50-18-72When public disclosure not required.In forcecited in 6 of our articles

(a) Public disclosure shall not be required for records that are: (1) Specifically required by federal statute or regulation to be kept confidential; (2) Medical or veterinary records and similar files, the disclosure of which would be an invasion of personal privacy; (3) Except as otherwise prov

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov

Cited in 85 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Napper v. Georgia Television Co. (1987) applied O.C.G.A. 50-18-72(a)'s medical-records exemption only where disclosure would invade privacy, balancing privacy against the public interest; Deal v. Coleman (2013) held the (a)(47) exemption applies retroactively because Open Records access is a public right that cannot vest.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Deal v. Coleman (Supreme Court of Georgia 2013, 294 Ga. 170)✓Requesters sought Technical College System records on Kia's hiring under the Quick Start program; the court held the section 50-18-72(a)(47) exception for records relating to job applicants is not limited to the period before a binding commitment and applied to their suit.
Napper v. Georgia Television Co. (Supreme Court of Georgia 1987, 257 Ga. 156)✓News organizations sought the Atlanta Child Murders task force files, sealed in a vault after the task force disbanded; the court held that once trial, direct appeal and certiorari are done the file is open, and the party opposing disclosure must show an item is exempt.
Dortch v. Atlanta Journal & Atlanta Constitution (Supreme Court of Georgia 1991, 261 Ga. 350)✓Atlanta newspapers sought the city's 1990 cellular phone bills, which officials produced with every called number redacted for privacy; the court measured section 50-18-72(a)(2) by the invasion of privacy tort and affirmed the order to hand over unredacted bills.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Are Autopsy Reports Public in Georgia? (2026 Guide), Georgia Police Bodycam Laws: Retention & Open Records Rules, Georgia Police Reports: How to Get a Crash Report or Incident Report

Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated

§ 12-6-701Confidentiality of certain law enforcement records — Definitions.In forcecited in 4 of our articles

(a) As used in this section: (1) “Access a record” means to view a photograph or video recording or to listen to an audio recording; (2) “Custodian of the record” means a person identified by the governmental entity that possesses the record and is responsible for safeguarding and providing…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library

Also relied on in: Arkansas Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Arkansas Police Body Camera Laws: Public Records Access, How to Get a Police Report in Arkansas (2026): Crash & Incident Reports

Tennessee Code Annotated

§ 10-7-504Confidential records — Exceptions.In forcecited in 8 of our articles

(a)(1)(A) The medical records of patients in state, county, and municipal hospitals and medical facilities, and the medical records of persons receiving medical treatment, in whole or in part, at the expense of the state, county, or municipality, shall be treated as confidential and shall not be ope

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-10-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.justia.com

Cited in 67 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Stephen Michael West v. Derrick D. Schofield (Tennessee Supreme Court 2015, 460 S.W.3d 113)“…not waive any protection, privilege or defense afforded by Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504(h) by agreement to this protective orde…”
Cleveland Newspapers, Inc. v. Bradley County Memorial Hospital Board of Directors (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1981, 621 S.W.2d 763)“…t all times be held in the strictest of confidence . . .. ” T.C.A. § 10-7-504 lists a number of types of records whic…”
Patterson v. Convention Center Authority of the Metropolitan Government (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2013, 421 S.W.3d 597)“…ate records” of a utility shall not be open for inspection. Tenn.Code Ann. § 10-7-504(a)(20)(B)(2012). Home addresses, howeve…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Tennessee Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Tennessee Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits, Tennessee License Plate Reader Laws (2026)

United States Code Title 18

§ 2721Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from State motor vehicle recordsIn forcecited in 11 of our articles

A State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor thereof, shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity: personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(3), about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section; or highly restricted personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(4), about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record, without the express consent of the person to whom such information applies, except uses permitted in subsections (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(9): Provided, That subsection (a)(2) shall not in any way affect the use of organ donation information on an individual’s driver’s license or affect the administration of organ donation initiatives in the States.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 377 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Maracich v. Spears (2013) held an attorney's solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose under the DPPA litigation exception in 2721(b)(4). Reno v. Condon (2000) upheld the statute's restrictions on disclosing state motor vehicle records as a valid exercise of the commerce power that does not conscript state officers.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Maracich v. Spears (Supreme Court of the United States 2013, 570 U.S. 48)✓Lawyers used South Carolina DMV records to mail over 34,000 car buyers letters recruiting them as clients; the Supreme Court held that sending communications with the predominant purpose of solicitation is not a use exempt under the section 2721(b)(4) litigation exception.
Reno v. Condon (Supreme Court of the United States 2000, 528 U.S. 141)✓South Carolina, whose law let almost anyone buy DMV records, argued the federal driver-privacy law commandeered the states; the Supreme Court held section 2721 regulates states as owners of databases and upheld it under the Commerce Clause.
Pichler v. UNITE (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2008)✓Union organizers copied license plates from a company parking lot and pulled the owners' DMV records to make house calls; the Third Circuit held union organizing is not among the permissible uses in section 2721(b), and a parallel lawful purpose does not excuse it.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Indiana Data Privacy Laws: ICDPA Consumer Rights Guide (2026), Are Police Reports Public Record? What's Open and What's Not, Florida Police Reports: How to Get a Copy, Fees, and What's Public

United States Code Title 23

§ 407Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveysIn forcecited in 3 of our articles

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Courtois v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2024)“…issibly relied on data that should be excluded pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 407. Contrary to the Defendants’ 1Secti…”
Garcia v. N.M. Dep’t of Transp. (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2023, 535 P.3d 728)“…volves a federal statutory evidentiary privilege created by 23 U.S.C. § 407 (hereinafter § 407). 1 The cross-appeal…”
in Re Texas Department of Transportation (Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District 2021)“…is original proceeding, 23 U.S.C. § 409 was transferred to 23 U.S.C. § 407 without substantive change. We refer to…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

United States Code Title 5

§ 552Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedingsIn forcecited in 39 of our articles

Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows: Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public— descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions; statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available; rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 11,434 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1989) held categorically that releasing a private citizen's FBI rap sheet to a third party is an unwarranted privacy invasion under Exemption 7(C). Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (1980) applied Exemption 3, 552(b)(3).

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society (Supreme Court of the United States 1975, 421 U.S. 240)“…Pub. L. 93-502, § 1 (b) (2), 88 Stat. 1561 (amending 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)); Packers and Stockyards Act, 42…”
Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1980, 447 U.S. 102)✓Consumer groups filed FOIA requests for accident reports manufacturers had given the CPSC as confidential; the Court held that the Consumer Product Safety Act's section 6(b)(1) applies to FOIA requests and that its standards fall within Exemption 3, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3).
Taylor v. Sturgell (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 880)✓An aircraft enthusiast made a FOIA request for FAA records after a friend's identical suit failed; the Court disapproved preclusion by 'virtual representation' and read § 552(a)(3)(A) as directing agencies to release records to the requesting person, not the public at large.