COLUMBUS, Ohio — Individuals interested in obtaining police and jail footage in Ohio may soon face hefty fees, potentially reaching up to $750, should Governor Mike DeWine approve a newly passed legislative measure. This amendment to the state’s sunshine laws was quietly introduced and advanced by the Republican-controlled Legislature, and now awaits action from the governor, whose timeline for a decision remains uncertain. A coalition representing media interests is advocating for a veto.

Advocates for the First Amendment and those promoting governmental transparency expressed surprise and concern over this legislation, which enables law enforcement agencies at both state and local levels to impose charges on requests for recordings that are typically provided at little or no cost. Under this proposed law, these agencies and departments would have the discretion to set their fees for videos captured by body cameras, dashboard cameras, and surveillance cameras located in jails, with a maximum fee of $75 per hour. While they could also opt to continue providing these public records without charge, the maximum fee for a single request cannot exceed $750 across all departments involved.

Gary Daniels, the chief lobbyist for the Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, described the bill as a significant setback for transparency and accountability in government. Both he and Monica Nieporte, the executive director of the Ohio News Media Association, indicated that they were unaware of any discussions among lawmakers regarding this measure until after its passage. Nieporte has called on Governor DeWine to veto the bill.

Meanwhile, Republican Attorney General Dave Yost argued that the proposed legislation presents a practical approach to what he described as a “costly and labor-intensive process.” He pointed to an increase in requests from social media influencers and professional content creators on platforms like YouTube, claiming this has strained police departments with an influx of demands that ultimately burden taxpayers.

Critics, however, warn that such fees could deter criminal justice advocates and media outlets from pursuing information about law enforcement practices, particularly in situations involving several officers or multiple agencies responding to incidents. The law would also directly challenge a long-standing state court ruling that permitted public agencies to only charge for the actual costs associated with the medium used for record duplication, such as paper or electronic storage devices.