An Act Concerning Fees For Copying, Reviewing And Redacting Records Created By Police Body-worn Recording Equipment And Dashboard Cameras.
SB 1229 revises Connecticut law governing police body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras, with a particular focus on public access to those recordings under the Freedom of Information Act. The bill keeps the existing requirements that police officers use body-worn recording equipment and that police patrol vehicles use dashboard cameras, but it adds or clarifies definitions and procedures related to disclosure, redaction, retention, and officer review of recordings. It also preserves restrictions on recording certain sensitive situations, such as medical or psychological treatment, undercover work, and encounters involving minors or victims of domestic or sexual abuse.
A central feature of the bill is a new fee structure for public agencies that must redact body-camera or dashboard-camera records before release. Agencies could charge requesters for redaction time after the first four hours, but not for search time, and the fee would be capped at a rate tied to the lowest-paid trained employee and limited by the length of the recording. The bill exempts involved persons, their parents or guardians, and their attorneys from these fees, and it also waives fees in certain high-interest cases such as officer-involved shootings, motor vehicle accidents, use-of-force statements, misconduct allegations, and disciplinary investigations. The bill requires agencies to keep an original unredacted copy of any record released in redacted form and allows the Freedom of Information Commission to order refunds if the fee rules are violated.
The bill amends Section 29-6d of the General Statutes and Section 1-212 of the Freedom of Information Act framework, effective October 1, 2025. It changes how law enforcement agencies and other public agencies handle body-worn camera and dashboard camera records, especially by authorizing redaction fees and setting detailed limits on what may be charged. It also reinforces existing statewide standards for camera use, training, storage, disclosure timing, and confidentiality, while adding a specific mechanism for fee refunds and preserving the role of the Freedom of Information Commission in enforcement.
The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan support and little opposition. The bill received a unanimous 19-0 Joint Favorable vote in the Government Administration and Elections Committee and later passed the Senate 36-0. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the unanimous votes indicate broad agreement with the bill’s approach to balancing transparency, privacy, and agency cost recovery.
The main policy tension in the bill is between public access to police recordings and the administrative burden of redacting sensitive material. Supporters appear to favor allowing agencies to recover some redaction costs while preserving free access for involved persons and for high-profile accountability cases. Potential points of concern include the new fees for FOIA requesters, the scope of exemptions, the timing rules for disclosure after officer review, and the privacy protections that keep certain recordings confidential, especially those involving minors, medical settings, domestic or sexual abuse victims, and mental health facilities.