By Troy Pierson
Kent State/Ohio News Service Collaboration

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Legislators in Ohio are considering a bill that would require police officers to wear body-worn cameras, but some in law enforcement disagree with aspects of the bill, including the proposed timeframe to publicly release footage if police misconduct is alleged.

House Bill 367, introduced in July by Rep. Dontavius Jarrells, D-Columbus, aims to clarify Ohio law on how officers use their body cameras. while performing their duties.

"When we think about proactive legislation, [we need] to make sure when our law enforcement officers have their body cameras on," Jarrells said. "Two, when there's allegations of a misconduct, what is the proper procedure to receive such footage? And then three, when it comes to the extended training of those body cameras, there wasn't enough specificity in our code related to that conduct in those processes."

The catalyst for the bill is the death of Andre Hill, a 47-year-old Black man who was killed by an officer in late December. Columbus Police Officer Adam Coy failed to turn on his body camera during the incident and shot Hill four times while Hill was walking outside his garage and talking on his cell phone.

As of May, seven states now mandate that officers wear body cameras.

"This bill [is] in honor of Andre Hill," Jarrells said. "We wanted to make sure that we created the opportunity to provide transparency when their loved one or when a loved one is killed by a law enforcement officer."

Rep. Kristin Boggs, D-Columbus, said she thinks this bill would provide an opportunity for law enforcement to establish better relationships with minority communities.

"I certainly think [this bill] provides a better sense of security that officers will be acting appropriately," Boggs said. "And if an officer is engaging in inappropriate conduct that there will be documentation of that, whereas historically, those incidences have not necessarily been documented, which is why a critical piece of this bill is providing the expectation that the officer will not tamper with the equipment in an inappropriate way, and the officer will always be using this equipment when engaging with the community."

The bill includes:

A 21-day mandate for police to release unedited footage to the public if someone complains of police misconduct; if footage interferes with an ongoing investigation, police have a 45-day timeline to release it.

A requirement that if law enforcement agencies receive a waiver from a person who accuses an officer of misconduct, police cannot redact, obscure or withhold footage.

A requirement that all law enforcement agencies provide body-worn cameras for each officer and correctional officer by July 1, 2023. Those agencies can apply to the state attorney general for funds to purchase body cameras.

Sidney Police Chief William Balling, former executive of the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP), said the 21-day mandate to release unedited footage does not offer law enforcement enough time to analyze footage if a misconduct complaint is made. Personal and private liberties may be violated.

"When you say you release an unedited version, it may have whole security numbers [and] private sensitive information on it from an individual that we're not allowed to release per public record law, and that's for their protection," Balling said. "We're supposed to black that out, and we can't do it [under this bill]."

Balling also said the provision mandating that all officers to have body cameras by 2023 is not a likely goal, as current state funding cannot cover the costs of equipment.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine allocated a $10 million grant in February to provide agencies with body cameras, but Balling said this amount is too low. The bill does not include details about funding for storing the footage or a fully detailed retention schedule for the equipment.

"This bill is a little short-sighted on economics," Balling said. "My officers had body cameras for the last four to five years. We love them, but there's a huge cost to maintaining a body-camera program. And who's gonna pay for all the body cameras for places that don't have it? You have to look beyond the surface sometimes to get the answers, and I'm afraid this is a surface bill."

The cost to purchase body cameras and store the footage varies based on state laws and budgets. One police department in Arlington, Virginia, decided not to adopt body cameras when it determined the pilot program would cost them $300,000 a year.

While Jarrells said the bill does not detail how state money would cover body-camera equipment to reach the 2023 deadline, he aims to push this bill through the General Assembly first, and later create additional legislation that covers funding.

"The hope is that [this] timeline will spur conversation as to how do we begin to really move our entire state forward to making sure that all police officers and all law enforcement officers have a body camera, and we have the system capable of supporting those officers and the data," he said. "This robust timeline is a goal that I think we can obtain, and I'm looking forward to having conversations with our law enforcement partners to make sure that we can address any of the critical issues to hitting that goal."

The bill will receive a committee hearing in September when the General Assembly returns to session.

---

This story is a collaboration between Kent State, Ohio News Connection and Public News Service, produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.

Loretta Rush, Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, has released the 2023-24 annual report for the state's courts.

The report shows Indiana's judicial system is taking big steps to tackle the mental health crisis. The Supreme Court recently launched the Office of Behavioral Health and hired Brittany Kelly as its behavioral health specialist, making Indiana the tenth state in the country to embed a mental health professional within its judiciary.

"She's off and running. She's had hundreds of inquiries from around the state. She's meeting with judges," Rush outlined. "She's helping with things like competency evaluations, access to Medicaid, how do I get somebody who's going through dementia through the court system?"

Rush pointed out Kelly will help the courts manage the mental health and substance use issues flooding Indiana's courtrooms daily. The latest report shows more than 1 million cases passed through the courts this past fiscal year, including almost 20,000 involuntary mental health hearings and a sharp rise in protective orders for domestic violence.

Rush highlighted the strain on local courts, noting about 70% of people in jail have behavioral health issues.

"How do we make sure we have diversion programs in place? How do we make sure that the services we're ordering for people to do are the right services?" Rush asked. "We've done a lot at the national level with regard to substance abuse and mental health, realizing programs that are working."

The judiciary is working with state agencies to reform policies and address the impact of mental health issues on the system. Kelly has training in both social work and law, and helps judges connect with treatment resources to get people the support they need and keep them out of jail.


get more stories like this via email

Survivors of crime are speaking out against Proposition 36, which goes before California voters in November.

The ballot measure would increase penalties for some theft and drug crimes - and undo parts of Proposition 47, which took savings from decreased incarceration and put the money into harm-reduction programs.

Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, spoke Wednesday at the opening of a new trauma recovery center in Oakland.

"It's pushing the state to move back towards 'tough-on-crime.' We are pushing back on that. You need to prioritize resources to create trauma-recovery centers because this is the way to create safety in our community." Hollins said.

Supporters of Prop. 36 say current laws are too lenient, particularly concerning retail theft. But the state legislative analyst has suggested Prop. 36 will send many more people to jail, increasing criminal-justice costs anywhere from tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Hollins said that would mean less money for programs that actually address poverty and desperation - the root cause of crime.

"Folks who have been touched by incarceration, folks who are experiencing homelessness, folks who are experiencing barriers to employment, they can actually get a full range of services to stabilize," Hollins added. "Think about how impactful this will be if we're able to continue expanding this model."

Advocates of Prop. 36 project that it would mean $850 million less over the next decade for trauma recovery centers, mental health, drug treatment, victim services, re-entry and crime-prevention programs.

Groups across Alabama are joining forces to advocate for big changes to what they see as the state's flawed parole system.

In a panel discussion led by the group Alabama Values, speakers focused on improving the parole process and addressing its broader impact.

John Woods, who spent 10 years repeatedly being denied parole, shared his story. He said the system creates a sense of hopelessness, not only for those behind bars but also their families and shared a recent conversation with another person still waiting for a chance at parole.

"He said, 'I'm going out into society every day working a real a job,'" Woods explained. "He said, 'I go home every other week.' He said, 'I haven't did nothing and I've been there for seven years.' He said, 'What more can you get out of me in a work release?'"

Despite work release programs proving many individuals are not a threat to public safety, panelists noted few are granted parole. The latest Alabama Department of Corrections report showed state prisons are holding more than twice their intended capacity. The overcrowding, combined with rising violence, has heightened concerns.

Katie Glenn, policy associate for the Southern Poverty Law Center, cited the parole board's inconsistent application of its own guidelines as a major issue.

"The guidelines that the parole board uses, if they actually followed them, something like 70% of people who are up for parole would be paroled," Glenn contended. "I think now, we're seeing numbers as high as maybe, like, in the 20%."

Alison Mollman, interim legal director for the ACLU of Alabama, suggested borrowing parole models from other states to make improvements, including offering virtual attendance for parole hearings and reducing the lengthy wait times between hearings.

"In Alabama, you can be set off -- or you can have to wait for another parole hearing -- up to five years," Mollman pointed out. "That's a really, really long time, and I think a lot of times we hear, in the legislature, them wanting to move things so that everybody has to wait five years. But in states like Louisiana, most people wait one year."

Mollman also favors gradual release programs to reintegrate people through structured stages, as well as restorative justice practices, which allow some offenders to seek reconciliation with victims. The Alabama Legislature's next opportunity to address parole system issues is in its 2025 session.