General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumssamplegirl
(12,353 posts)Taxpayers paid for the body cams. So shady pulling crap this is why voting local matters! In our case we got a bunch of broke Republicans filling seats or people with to much money needing martini money!💰 Money changes everything!
The current Ohio Govt don't care what the citizens think!
Dewine and his party have their claws in so many aspects of the state.
Wait till you see how they are dismantling our state universities.
Ohio is Alabama of the North!
Response to samplegirl (Original post)
CurtEastPoint This message was self-deleted by its author.
True Blue American
(18,285 posts)To run against him. Without his illegal map he would not be there.
Hope22
(3,356 posts)He did this without any public input!
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/01/03/ohio-gov-dewine-signs-bill-into-law-to-charge-public-for-police-video/
JohnnyRingo
(19,523 posts)The ACLU issued a statement damning the bill, and DeWine vetoes some of it in a line item, but the fee remains.
He explains it like this:
"Law enforcement-worn body cameras and dashboard cameras have been a major improvement for both law enforcement investigations and for accountability. However, I am sensitive to the fact that this changing technology has affected law enforcement by often times creating unfunded burdens on these agencies, especially when it comes to the often time consuming and labor-intensive work it takes to provide them as public records.
"No law enforcement agency should ever have to choose between diverting resources for officers on the street to move them to administrative tasks like lengthy video redaction reviews for which agencies receive no compensationand this is especially so for when the requestor of the video is a private company seeking to make money off of these videos. The language in House Bill 315 is a workable compromise to balance the modern realities of preparing these public records and the cost it takes to prepare them. Ohio law has long authorized optional user fees associated with the cost of duplicating public records, and the language in House Bill 315 applies that concept in a modern way to law enforcement-provided video records
"It is good that the language in House Bill 315 does not include a mandatory fee, but instead it is optional at the discretion of the agency. It is also good the user fees are capped and directly related to the cost of production.
"If the language in House Bill 315 related to public records turns out to have unforeseen consequences, I will work with the General Assembly to amend the language to address such legitimate concerns."
https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/governor-dewine-signs-bills-into-law-issues-line-item-vetoes
maxrandb
(16,083 posts)Just release all of the footage? Just make all police body cam footage available to the public. We're paying for it.
That way, you won't have to spend funds to review, redact and splice it. Just put it all out there.
We pay for it!