HB2350 amends Illinois’ Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act and Law Enforcement Camera Grant Act to expressly include auxiliary officers in the state’s body-camera framework. The bill updates definitions so that auxiliary officers are treated as covered personnel for purposes of officer-worn body cameras, in-car video cameras, and related training and technology provisions. It also broadens the definition of law enforcement-related encounters and clarifies when body cameras are not required, while retaining the existing focus on enforcement activities versus community caretaking functions.
The bill also revises the Law Enforcement Camera Grant Fund provisions to allow grants to units of local government and Illinois public universities to be used for purchasing or leasing body cameras, in-car cameras, associated technology, training, and data storage/licensing costs. It clarifies that grant funding may be provided in advance rather than only as reimbursement, and it directs the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board to consider compliance with the Uniform Crime Reporting Act when awarding grants. Overall, the measure expands eligibility and administrative flexibility for camera-related funding and equipment procurement.
Impact
HB2350 would amend two state statutes: the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (50 ILCS 706) and the Law Enforcement Camera Grant Act (50 ILCS 707). Its practical effect is to extend body-camera and camera-grant coverage to auxiliary officers serving municipal police agencies or county sheriffs, and to allow grant funds to support storage and licensing expenses as well as equipment and training. It also gives the Board broader discretion in setting grant requirements and distributing funds, including advance funding to local governments and public universities.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill: it passed Third Reading in the House on April 8, 2025 by a vote of 111-0. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate in the supplied materials. Based on the unanimous vote and the technical nature of the changes, the bill appears to have been viewed as a broadly acceptable update to existing law enforcement camera policy.
Contention
No direct opposition is reflected in the provided record, and there are no committee transcripts showing debate. The main policy issue implicit in the bill is the expansion of body-camera requirements and grant eligibility to auxiliary officers, along with the use of grant funds for ongoing data storage and licensing costs. Any contention would likely center on administrative burden, funding priorities, or whether auxiliary officers should be treated the same as full-time officers for camera purposes, but those concerns are not documented in the materials provided.