For months the family of Steve Perkins, the media, and others were denied access to view police-worn body camera footage of the 39-year-old Decatur man’s shooting death on Sept. 29, following an encounter in his front yard with Decatur police.

But a leaked version of the footage appeared on a conservative media outlet’s website last month. The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency denied the leak. But the leak underscores one of the very few ways body camera footage can be viewed by families, the media, and the public in Alabama unless it’s voluntarily handed over by police.

“It could be perceived that the leakage of the video to the conservative media was an attempt to create a narrative that Mr. Perkins had done something wrong,” said state Sen. Merika Coleman, D-Birmingham, sponsor of legislation – defeated in a legislative committee Wednesday – that would have made body camera footage a matter of public record.

“But (the Perkins) family has gotten more public support after the body cam footage was made public. And now people are getting a chance to see it,” Coleman said. The protests into Perkins death continue; three arrests occurred on Friday including his widow.

According to at least one national press freedom group, compared to other states Alabama has a weaker-than-normal public access law when it comes to accessing these videos. Leaked videos, and word-of-mouth explanations about a body camera video, are about the only way footage from controversial incidences are revealed.

‘Bare minimum’

Gunita Singh, a staff attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said this week that Alabama, compared to other states, has “one of the weaker body-worn camera access laws in the country.” Her comment comes after a 2021 story by The Hill that listed the 9 states with the “strictest rules on releasing body cam videos,” and Alabama was among the group.

Singh said given the restrictions in Alabama, the defeat of Coleman’s bill “is devastating.”

“We’ve seen a strong trend toward openness of certain government records in the last four years, particularly with respect of law enforcement records like body camera footage,” Singh said. “Since the murder of George Floyd, many state legislatures, attorneys general, and courts have taken themselves to task to create much needed transparency and accountability of states’ police forces through greater sunlight.”

In Alabama, the release of body camera footage is a “bare minimum” position, Singh said. State law passed last year allows people depicted in body camera footage to petition the agency to view it. Even then, there is no guarantee a law enforcement agency that owns the footage will release it to the requestor.

The media and the general public have no legal recourse to view the footage. The Alabama State Supreme Court, with an 8-1 ruling in 2021, decided that police bodycam and dashcam videos are investigative materials and exempt from disclosure requirements of the state public records law.

A mish-mash handling of sensitive footage has been created in Alabama.

In the Jawan Dallas case, the 36-year-old’s death by two Mobile police officers sparked months of requests from family, elected officials, and the press for access to view the police-worn body camera footage. Those requests were denied, pending a grand jury investigation. After a grand jury cleared the officers of wrongdoing, the family and their attorneys were allowed to view the video. And the attorneys compared the footage to the brutal slaying of George Floyd in Minneapolis which sparked a wave of protests against racial profiling and police brutality in 2020.

“It’s going to be tough in Alabama,” said Robert Clopton, president of the Mobile chapter of the NAACP who, for months, called on Mobile police to release the body footage but to no avail. “The footage exonerates police more so than the victim. But police don’t want it to condemn them. But it needs to happen.”

Fees

Alabama is hardly alone in restricting access to body camera footage. Even in states where access is considered strong, there are limits.

In California, a 2018 law mandated law enforcement agencies to release body camera footage within 45 days of any incident when an officer fires a gun or uses force causing great bodily injury or death. The law has exceptions, allowing departments to withhold video if it would endanger an investigation or put a witness at risk, and those reasons are often used to deny record requests.

According to a CalMatters article, the public and media must often rely on edited presentations from the footage. Critics argue that edited footage can shape public opinion about a person’s death or injury.

Singh said California’s law is considered stronger than most because of a state Supreme Court decision a few years ago that places the cost burden of redacting body camera video on the law enforcement agency, instead of forcing requesters to pay for it.

She said the court rejected a city’s request to charge a requester more than $3,000 for video taken by police officers who responded to protests in support of racial justice.

The Reporters Committee submitted a friend-of-court brief in that case, and Singh said that assessing a fee for editing video footage threatens public access to crucial electronic records.

In Arizona, the fee to access body camera footage is drawing criticism from the Arizona Media Association. An Arizona state law in October allowed cities to implement their own hourly fees for people to obtain the footage.

In Flagstaff, the city council voted in January to charge the public up to $46 per hour. According to media accounts, the Flagstaff police department received 136 requests for body camera footage from July 2022 to July 2023, which they said took more than 200 hours to review – not including redaction and download time.

Variation

States have a variety of approaches when it comes to accessing police-worn body camera footage. Some states provide public access – with limited exceptions – while others have more convoluted laws.

In Tennessee, the footage is considered public record with the exception of minors at schools, health care facilities and the interior of a private residence where no crime has occurred.

Related content: Tennessee handling of body cam footage sparks renewed attention on issue in Alabama

In Pennsylvania, the law is criticized by some as confusing. Called “Act 22,” the state law requires requests for body-worn camera footage be submitted within 60 days of the date that the recording was made. Each request requires details of what is being sought, such as a date, time, and location of the event recorded, and a statement describing the requestors relationship to the event recorded.

“There is real variation in how states treat (body-worn camera) footage,” said Seth Stoughton, professor of law and faculty director of the Excellence in Policing & Public Safety Program at the University of South Carolina.

Some examples he noted:

• In Florida, the videos are considered public record but are subject to limitations on release for ongoing investigations. Those limitations are similar in Georgia and Michigan and allow the videos to be kept confidential when it’s recorded inside a medical or health care facility or any place someone would have an expectation of privacy.
• In South Carolina, the footage is not public record, but agencies are allowed to release the footage at their discretion to a group of six entities legally entitled to receive the video. That includes civil and criminal defendants, the person who is subject to the recording, their parents and/or legal guardians, an attorney, or a person whose property has been damaged related to a crime that might have been related to the recording.
• In North Carolina, agencies cannot release video without a court order, and that can only be sought by a limited number of individuals.

“As a general matter, (body-worn camera) footage can be released in two ‘legitimate’ ways: When it is required to be released as a matter of public record, and when it is allowed to be released as a matter of agency discretion,” Stoughton said. “When there is no legal requirement and an agency chooses to not release the video, we are limited to relying on leaks or someone’s description of the video.”

‘Most restrictive’

Singh said that there are states with stricter and potentially unconstitutional body-cam footage laws. Kansas “far and away has among the most restrictive” laws. The state categorizes police-worn body camera footage as a “criminal investigation record,” and exempt from the state’s Open Records Act. The law says that an individual’s guardian or attorney can request and be allowed to watch the video for a “reasonable fee.”

In Missouri, Singh said the state law might be downright unconstitutional. She said it includes a provision that states if a records requester receives a recording taken at a nonpublic location, they cannot display or disclose it without contacting each non-law enforcement individual appearing in the recording and giving them 10 days to contest the plans to make the video public.

“That is a pretty significant burden to place on an individual lawfully in receipt of (body-worn camera) footage, and arguably runs afoul of key First Amendment principles,” she said.

Additional legislation

Alabama state law is likely not changing this spring. There are only seven days remaining in session, and only one body camera-related bill on the docket.

State Rep. Juandalynn Givan, D-Birmingham, said she hopes that her HB41 gets a hearing before a committee. The legislation provides that during an ongoing investigation, the disclosure of a recording not be delayed unless it would substantially interfere with an investigation. The legislation also requires a law enforcement agency to reassess the withholding of the footage and notify a requestor of the status of the disclosure.

And under no circumstances can the disclosure be delayed more than six months from the date of the request, the legislation states.

Givan sponsored last year’s bill that allows people depicted on the body camera footage to petition law enforcement to view the footage. She said as a result of the new law, more families are requesting and being approved to view body camera footage.

“It’s a sensitive issue,” Givan said. “I’m thankful for the progress we’ve made. I’m thankful when a family calls me and says they had an opportunity to view (the footage).”

Givan said she doesn’t believe Alabama lawmakers will ever agree to make body camera footage a public document. But she said taking small steps toward better access is important.

“Body cams do not prevent criminal acts, but they can be used to determine whether or not a criminal act occurred,” she said. “People ask the question, ‘What are you doing to combat crime?’ A body cam doesn’t stop a crime.”

She added, “But as a family member, I would like to know what happened to my loved one. Everyone deserves to know that. So that is always No. 1. But we also want to protect the public, for instance, if there is a child or a witness that needs to be protected (who are filmed on the body camera footage) to make sure no harm comes of that particular person. Discretion is an issue.”

Some Republican lawmakers believe it is healthy for Alabamians to have access to the footage. Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, who is the sponsor of legislation this session strengthening the state’s weak open records law, said he supports legislation that allows a judge to determine the fate on the release of body camera footage.

“We cannot compromise an investigation,” Orr said. “But I believe it’s healthy for us to allow access.”

Clopton, with the NAACP, is skeptical that state lawmakers in a conservative state will push for more public access to the footage while law enforcement opposes it.

But, he said, it’s worth continuing to fight for more access.

“Will it happen?” Clopton said. “Probably not. Again, we’re in Alabama. So, maybe never. But I never say never.”