Six bills sought to reduce public access to body cam footage

Just a few months after the last remaining law enforcement agencies were required to equip officers with body cameras, several legislative efforts in 2025 tried to limit access to body cam footage, according to an analysis by BGA Policy.

Body cameras, which nearly all officers in Illinois must wear, help them collect evidence and also keep them accountable. Members of the public can use the footage to identify or prove misconduct. Therefore limiting public access to body cam video would also limit police accountability.

The footage is already treated differently under the Freedom of Information Act. Other government records are presumed available under FOIA unless exempted. But body cam video is presumed exempt unless it meets specific criteria.

Body cam footage under FOIA

Under Illinois' Freedom of Information Act, there is a presumption that documents and information generated by government are open to inspection and copying by the public. Body-worn camera footage is different.

The Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (BCA), and not FOIA, describes which footage is available. This means looking solely at laws that impact FOIA wouldn't capture attempts to expand or limit access to body cam footage. That's why BGA Policy also examined proposed changes to the BCA.

Under current law, body cam footage falls under FOIA if it's flagged due to the filing of a complaint, discharge of a firearm, use of force, arrest or detention, death or bodily harm.

If the subject of the encounter has a reasonable expectation of privacy, additional conditions must be met.

The Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act

The beginning of the act details the dual purpose of body-worn cameras: "state-of-the-art evidence collection" and documentation in cases of alleged police misconduct.

The SAFE-T Act, which was signed into law in 2021, mandated body-worn cameras for law enforcement officers. Implementation was staggered, with the smallest municipalities and counties required to finish implementation by Jan. 1, 2025.

When are cameras on?

The law says cameras must be on when an officer is in uniform, on duty and engaging in law enforcement-related activities. Exceptions include being in sight of another law enforcement agency's camera system, or under certain circumstances when a victim or community member asks the officer to turn off the camera.

Recordings must be kept for no fewer than 90 days, and can't be altered, erased or destroyed in that time. After 90 days, recordings must be destroyed unless they're flagged as evidence, used for criminal prosecution or for an investigation into the officer. Other reasons for the video being flagged for longer retention are the same ones that would make it subject to FOIA: a complaint was filed, the officer used force or their firearm, or if death, great bodily harm, a detention or an arrest is on the video.

Body cams as an accountability tool

Officers don't have access to footage when completing incident reports or other documentation if they've been involved in or witnessed an officer-involved shooting, use of deadly force incident, or use of force incidents resulting in great bodily harm. Nor do they have access when they're ordered to write a report in response to, or during the investigation of, a misconduct complaint against them. After the initial report, officers may use body cam footage to write amendatory reports but must document it.

Body cam footage can't be used to discipline officers unless a misconduct complaint has been made, a use of force incident has occurred, the encounter on the recording could result in a formal investigation under the Uniform Peace Officers' Disciplinary Act, or as corroboration of other evidence of misconduct.

The six bills

BGA Policy found six bills that would have limited access to body cam footage. Two bills, HB 3515 and HB 4000, also impacted FOIA and were included in BGA Policy's full FOIA analysis. The other four bills, SB 1796, HB 3524, HB 3380, HB 1583, would not have impacted FOIA, even though they would have reduced the public's ability to use FOIA to access body cam footage.

HB 1583 and HB 3524 would have limited access by changing which officers require body cams or changing requirements to have body cams turned on while on duty.

Would have removed the mandate for body cams for school safety officers if the school board does not require them. Removing body cams from officers who can detain people and carry a firearm prevents the public from overseeing their conduct.

Would have added that an executive branch constitutional officer can request that their on-duty and assigned security detail turn off their body cams. This would have limited the ability of the public to oversee actions taken by these officers.

The other bills, HB 3515, HB 3380 and SB 1796 under Senate Amendment 1, were broader. They would have targeted the requester and the requesting process, limiting either the circumstances for accessing body cam footage, who can access it or both.

• Would have limited access to body cam footage by excluding "internet sites, social media channels, or other sites or applications that post law enforcement videos in exchange for compensation based on the number of views," from news media under FOIA.
• Would have allowed a public body to charge up to $40 (up from $10) for each hour staff spent searching for, retrieving, reviewing, redacting, and reproducing audio and video records.
• Would have lowered the amount of time that public bodies search for a record from eight hours to three.

These bills would have made it so flagged body cam footage is only available if the request is made by:

• A court order.
• A person involved in the encounter that resulted in the recording being flagged.
• A legal representative of a person involved in the encounter that resulted in the recording being flagged.
• A witness of the encounter that resulted in the recording being flagged.
• A legal representative of a witness of the encounter that resulted in the recording being flagged.
• A representative of news media, as defined in 3 subsection (f) of Section 2 of the Freedom of Information Act.
• A representative of a nonprofit, scientific or academic organization.

HB 4000 would have both limited access by changing the rules around the use of body cams and also limited who can request footage and under what circumstances. It also would have removed prohibitions on officers using body cam footage while writing reports related to misconduct, an officer-involved shooting, use of deadly force incident, or use of force incidents resulting in great bodily harm.

• Would have reduced the use of body cams by limiting when an officer is "in uniform" per the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act.
• Would have excluded school resource officers, undercover or covert officers (except when they are conducting interviews), and officers employed in an administrative capacity from body cam mandates.
• Would have limited when a person has expectations of privacy.
• Would have removed a requirement for officers to tell someone with a reasonable expectation of privacy that they are being recorded after Jan. 1, 2027.
• Would have removed prohibitions on officers reviewing body cam footage when completing incident reports when the officer was involved in or witness to an officer-involved shooting, use of deadly force incident, or use of force incidents resulting in great bodily harm or ordered to write a report in response to or during an investigation of misconduct complaint against the officer.
• Would have limited when video is flagged for misconduct or can be used to discipline an officer from "informal complaint" to "informal inquiry" as defined by Uniform Peace Officers' Disciplinary Act.
• Would have limited access to footage to only when the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the subject, or their legal representative, signs off on the disclosure, and the video is flagged for one of the following:
  • Filing of a complaint
  • Discharge of a firearm
  • Use of force, arrest or detention
  • Death or bodily harm.
• Would have created changes to reasonable expectations of privacy that would have greatly limited access to body cam footage.

Both HB 3515 and HB 4000 were mentioned in BGA Policy's 2025 FOIA Legislation Analysis. Neither bill went beyond being introduced.

Related