Police body camera footage, such as the video released Friday regarding the attack on Paul Pelosi, is typically difficult to access in California. But because parts of the video were shown last month at a public court hearing, it was likely easy for the judge to decide whether to release the footage, legal experts said.
“The press and the public have a First Amendment, common and statutory right to obtain and access that evidence,” said David Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit that fights for issues of freedom of speech. “We have no secret processes.”
If prosecutors hadn’t played the footage in court — which happened during the preliminary trial of David DePape, the defendant — it would have been more difficult to obtain. Unlike many other states, courts in California have ruled that files related to law enforcement investigations of crimes are exempt from public record requests, and there is no date by which such files or body camera images must be released to the public.
Even in a criminal case that ultimately fails to go to trial or ends with an acquittal, law enforcement agencies usually have the authority to keep footage private indefinitely.
“California is one of the least transparent states when it comes to law enforcement,” said Mr. Loy.
With one notable exception: In 2018, following a nationwide reckoning over excessive force by police officers, the California legislature passed a law in 2018 requiring the release of footage in cases where police officers used force resulting in death or serious injury , or when officers fire a gun, though that footage may be delayed in some cases, such as active investigations.
So in the criminal case against Mr. DePape, after a consortium of media outlets, including The New York Times, petitioned the court to make the footage available to the public, Judge Stephen M. Murphy had a justification for order the release of the evidencedespite objections from the prosecution and defense.
In cases where police departments have more discretion, officials have several considerations when considering releasing footage, said Emily Owens, a criminology professor at the University of California, Irvine. Those include the privacy of victims or witnesses, such as children involved in an episode of domestic violence.
Law enforcement officers may also be more or less motivated to publish video depending on whether it exonerates or convicts an officer’s conduct, Ms Owens said, although sometimes a department releases footage showing an officer “engaged in conduct that goes beyond the policy falls”. because the department wants to distance that person’s behavior from its own policies.
She cautioned that camera images of the body can be imperfect or muted, and not always as conclusive as one might hope.
“It’s not ‘Cops’; these are real life images,” Ms. Owens said. “It’s not a reality show, so sometimes the images themselves can’t reveal all the information the audience expects, and that can be very frustrating.”