With more Arkansas police departments deploying body cameras among their forces, lawmakers in Little Rock have proposed new limitations on access to the footage.
Three pieces of legislation, one in the state Senate and two in the House, have been filed in the past two weeks to create exemptions in the state's Freedom of Information Act that would restrict the release of police dashboard and body camera footage to the public.
The sponsors of the legislation say the restrictions would be limited in scope, and are desired by police departments. The Arkansas Press Association says it plans to lobby against the proposals.
Other proposed laws would grant exemptions to the release of records involving security at the state Capitol and public schools and colleges. The sponsor of Senate Bills 12 and 131, Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch, could not be reached for comment about the legislation Friday.
Arkansas' Freedom of Information law -- Act 93 of 1967 -- is often subject to legislative attempts to carve out new exemptions, said Press Association Executive Director Tom Larimer, who added that it is likely more bills will be introduced in the current session, which began Jan. 9.
"Normally this happens much later in the session," Larimer said. "That doesn't bode well for us during the rest of the session."
One of the proposals, House Bill 1248, is already in line for a change, according to its sponsor, Rep. Jeff Williams, R-Springdale. Williams' two-page bill filed early last week would exempt from disclosure police footage that's relevant to ongoing investigations.
After hearing from a constituent and several media outlets with concerns, Williams said he is drafting amendments to make his proposed law "more palatable."
The Freedom of Information law already exempts records that relate to "undisclosed investigations," Larimer and Williams pointed out. Williams said his bill is necessary to protect the privacy of "third parties" involved in police encounters, and the legislation was requested by police in his district.
After receiving grant money to purchase body cameras, Springdale Police Chief Mike Peters said he became apprehensive about the department's ability to keep up with requests for the footage. He said he reached out to Williams seeking "clarifications" in the law to make it easier for departments to comply.
"We don't know if we'd be creating a system where we would be overwhelmed," Peters said.
Larimer, who said he had not spoken with Williams about the bill, said the bill does not clearly define when an investigation would be closed and "could be interpreted to close [records] in perpetuity."
Amendments to HB1248 are being written to specify when an investigation is concluded and thus allow release of body camera footage, Williams said. The new language is not yet available.
A pair of identical bills filed in each chamber, House Bill 1236 and Senate Bill 152, propose putting a permanent seal on the release of any footage depicting the death of a law enforcement officer. Only a court order could permit the public release of such a record.
Rep. Jimmy Gazaway, R-Paragould, said he saw the need for such legislation before he joined the House this year.
As a deputy prosecutor, Gazaway said, he saw firsthand the anguish caused by the release of footage in the shooting death of Trumann police officer Jonathan Schmidt in 2011. The northeast Arkansas town where Schmidt was shot is near the district of Sen. Blake Johnson, R-Corning, the sponsor of the Senate bill.
"It was really just a murder on video," Gazaway said, pointing out that media organizations could ask for a court order if the footage was in the public's interest.
"This is not an assault on the Freedom of Information Act, in my opinion," Gazaway said.
Calling the issue "sensitive," Larimer said the Press Association will make the contention that the footage addressed in Gazaway's and Johnson's bills is still a public record that should be subject to disclosure.
Legislation has passed in 21 other states -- including Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Missouri -- specifying when footage from body-worn cameras can be released to the public, according to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press.
The laws differ from state to state, with some addressing the investigations process and others protecting third-party privacy -- such as a recording from inside a private residence. Texas, for instance, prohibits the release of video showing an officer using deadly force until after an investigation is complete unless the department chooses to release it.
"The trend is certainly clamping down on access," said Adam Marshall, a litigation attorney with the Reporters Committee.
At least 37 law enforcement agencies across the state have begun equipping officers with body cameras, and larger departments such as the Little Rock and North Little Rock police, and the Pulaski County sheriff's office, have expressed an interest in the technology.
"The body cameras are being put in place to ensure the public has access to see what transpired when there are competing narratives or only one narrative," Marshall said. As written, he said, HB1248 would include exemptions that are more broad than in many other states.
Larimer said the Press Association also has concerns about the level of privacy granted to the state Capitol Police force in Senate Bill 131. The bill would exempt security plans involving the building and its grounds, as well as personnel and staffing records.
Committees assigned to consider the Freedom of Information Act-related bills have yet to do so, although the bills could be brought up for discussion as soon as this week.
Information for this article was contributed by Scott Carroll of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Metro on 01/29/2017