Disclosure of Law Enforcement Video Footage

Law Enforcement Videos Generally

Law enforcement videos can include dashcam and body camera footage, video recordings of witness interviews, and private security camera footage obtained by law enforcement. Disclosure of such footage can raise privacy concerns and other issues (such as adequate redaction techniques). The PRA provides a specific exemption for certain body camera footage and chapter 9.73 RCW provides, a narrow exemption for dashcam videos.

Other law enforcement videos may be covered by other exemptions or prohibitions; for instance:

• Videos that are part of an open investigation; or
• Videos that are part of an investigative record and nondisclosure of the video footage is essential to effective law enforcement or the protection of any person's right to privacy under RCW 42.56.240(1); or
• Videos in which a witness requesting anonymity appears. See, for example, Jane Does 1 through 15 v. King County (2015), in which a university's private surveillance videos were released after redacting witness and victim identity by both pixelation of the faces and black boxes.

Dashcam (In-Car) Footage

RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) prohibits public disclosure of in-car videos if there is actual, pending litigation arising from the recorded events. In these cases, the videos may only be disclosed to the public after final disposition. See Fisher Broadcasting v. City of Seattle (2014). However, as noted in a footnote, RCW 9.73.090 does not prevent release if the requestor is one of the parties involved in the litigation.

Body Camera Footage

Body camera footage is exempt under RCW 42.56.240(14) to the extent nondisclosure is essential for the protection of any person’s right to privacy as described in RCW 42.56.050. The statute enumerates numerous examples of when public release of a body camera recording is presumed to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, including (but not limited to) recordings that depict:

• The interior of a place of residence where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;
• An intimate image;
• A minor; or
• The body of a deceased person.

Note that these examples are presumed to meet only one of the elements of the right to privacy test (that it is “highly offensive to the reasonable person”) and that this presumption may be rebutted by specific evidence. To withhold or redact the recording, the agency must also conclude that the second element of the right to privacy test is met, that the footage "is not of legitimate interest to the public." Agencies are not to disclose those portions of body camera footage that would violate a person’s right to privacy.

Requestors have additional obligations when requesting a body camera recording. A request must:

• Specifically identify a name of a person or persons involved in the incident;
• Provide the incident or case number;
• Provide the date, time and location of the incident(s); or
• Identify a law enforcement or corrections officer involved in the incident(s).

The statute grants some requestors special access to body camera footage, including individuals directly involved in a recorded incident (and their attorneys). See RCW 42.56.240(14)(e)(i). These specified individuals cannot be required to pay the costs of redacting any portion of a body camera recordings, although all other requestors can be charged redaction costs. See RCW 42.56.240(14)(e)(ii) and (f)(i).