The MuniBlog has previously posted regarding municipal camera programs; and the need for written policies and procedures for operations of these systems, including storage and retrieval. These video surveillance systems include police body-worn cameras.

In 2018, the city of Rochester received a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for body camera footage. When it provided the video, consistent with city policy, the officer’s image and/or voice was redacted using full-screen blur. To receive a version with less than total redaction, the applicant was advised he would need to pre-pay the cost for a city employee to review the footage and determine what needed to be redacted. The city estimated that 12 hours would be necessary to review this particular footage, at an estimated cost of approximately $295.

The FOIL applicant challenged the policy, and whether redaction was warranted in this instance. At the end of 2018, a court found that each and every redaction would require a legal basis to be stated in the FOIL reply. The court in this lawsuit stated its belief that no redactions were necessary of the officer’s image or voice.

While recognizing that the charge of a fee for redaction is permissible, the court also noted that “such fee may not be so onerous as to defeat the stated purpose of FOIL.” While the court did not explicitly find that $295 was “onerous,” the court did take issue with the estimated number of hours (12) deemed necessary to review the one-hour video.