TexasCHLforum.com

The AG has issued opinions to both requests cited above.

KP-185 addresses whether an officer involved in an incident may review video from all officer body-worn cameras before making a statement, or may review only video from his own body-worn camera. The AG's opinion is that Texas statute requires that the officer be allowed to view all officer body-worn cameras prior to making a statement.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... kp0185.pdf

Subsection 1701 .655(b )(5) of the Occupations Code requires
a law enforcement agency that receives a grant for a body-womcamera
program or otherwise operates a body-worn-camera
program to adopt a policy that entitles a peace officer to choose
which recording or recordings of an incident involving the officer to
access before the officer is required to make a statement about the
incident.

KP-186 addresses requests from non-police individuals to obtain video from officer body-worn cameras, and if the head of the law enforcement agency can deny, authorize, or is required to provide access if he believe that would interfere with an investigation. The request and the opinion are divided into two major categories, requests from "the public" and requests from governmental employees. Those categories are further subdivided into request for video involving adult subjects and for juvenile subjects.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... kp0186.pdf

The answers are roughly thus:

Public member request for officer body cam video involving adults:
LE chief may withhold only if he believes providing the video would interfere with an investigation AND he seeks and obtains a opinion from the Texas AG confirming his decision. The LE chief does have discretion to release video, as long as any elements that are otherwise confidential per Texas law are redacted.

Public member request for officer body cam video involving juveniles:
LE chief may NOT RELEASE to the public video that involves juveniles/will be used in a juvenile court proceeding (with very narrow exceptions).

Government employee (e.g. mayor, city manager) with oversight authority in his official capacity requesting officer body cam video involving adults: LE chief must release the video unless the governmental unit's existing ordinances or policies provide otherwise.

Government employee (e.g. mayor, city manager) with oversight authority in his official capacity requesting officer body cam video involving juvenile: LE chief must release the video unless the governmental unit's existing ordinances or policies provide otherwise. The Texas statutory provision against release of information concerning juveniles applies only to "the public," not to release to the government.

Pursuant to section 552.108(a)(l) of the Government Code,
upon receiving authorization from the Attorney General, a law
enforcement agency may withhold the recording of a body worn
camera if releasing it to a member of the public would interfere with
the detection, investigation, or prosecution of a crime. The
exception to disclosure under section 552.108 is discretionary, and
a law enforcement agency may release information recorded by a
body worn camera to a member of the public after the agency redacts
any information made confidential by law.

With narrow exceptions, section 58.008 of the Family Code
prohibits a law enforcement agency from releasing to a member of
the public a body worn camera recording that could be used as
evidence in a juvenile court proceeding or depicts or otherwise
relates to a child in a manner that would restrict access to the
recording.

A municipal law enforcement agency may not withhold from
a member of the municipal governing body a recording from a body
worn camera when the request is made in the member's official
capacity. Whether civilian employees may access the recordings
will depend on the authority given those employees by the municipal
governing body and the internal policies and procedures of the
municipality.

E.Marquez wrote:

ELB wrote: ...So the officer may very well have seen something with his own eyes that justified his actions, that his body cam did not record because it was pointed in a different direction.

His fellow officers body cams however may have recorded the "thing" that was seen.

It can be argued that if relied on that in making his decision he can and should articulate that. Then the investigation by others should find that supported by his fellow officers' body cams.

A little follow-up:

I checked to see if an opinion had been issued in this case, but appears not. However, I did discover another request for a body worn camera opinion from the state legislature: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... 0180KP.pdf

In my restatement of what I think I read, it appears that Senator Lucio is asking if law enforcement can withhold a body camera video from a member of the public or a member of the government (e.g. city manager) if the head of LEk agency determines the body worn camera video could be used in a criminal proceeding and the viewing of it by the requestor could hinder detection, investigation, or prosecution of the crime.

Jusme wrote:

rotor wrote:

Jusme wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:...
This makes it easy for an officer to make a statement that fits a scenario beneficial to him/her instead of what may have happened to him/her in real time...

...
Not necessarily, as I stated, the video, won't lie, it won't condemn, or vindicate, it will only show what it shows. Body cams, have drawbacks in that, they are mounted on the chest, of the officer. It won't pick up images, he/she may see, by turning his/her head. ...

MechAg94 has the issue the DA is asking about. Getting a statement from the officer -- not only for investigating the incident, but for investigating his actions and possible wrongdoing -- is the point. While his body cam may not pick up things he sees that are out of view of the camera, other body cams will almost certainly pick up things he didn't see or hear, and could not have used in formulating his decisions at that moment. This may go for or against him in determining whether his actions were just and legal.

An officer in court testifying against a defendant, as an investigator who reviewed all the evidence, including what he observed/found and what other investigators found, is much different situation than an officer who is in court as a defendant, defending his own decisions actions. Then he cannot legally rely on information gathered by others that he had no knowledge of prior to his taking action. Again, this can cut for or against him.

KLB wrote:... If a bystander happens to record an incident, does the officer have a statutory right to review the bystander's recording?...

I haven't gone back to read that whole section of the Code, but I suspect that since that section is about police department policies for police body cameras provided by grant or otherwise, that that limits his right to review video to police body cams. Or at least limit it to "body worn cameras," which would rule out nearly all bystander videos.

https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinio ... 0177KP.pdf

The DA of Dallas County has asked the Texas AG for an opinion on when officers involved in a shooting may review body cam footage other than their own.

It turns out that Texas statute provides that peace officers involved in any incident (not just a shooting incident) are allowed "...to access any recording of an incident involving the officer before the officer is required to make a statement about the incident."

The DA focuses on officer-involved-shooting (OIS) incidents and says she supports allowing an officer who fired his gun in an incident to access his own body cam video prior to making a statement, but does not support allowing him access to other officers' videos, as it may provide information to the officer that he may not or could not have been aware of at the time he made a decision to shoot. She cites as one potential consequence that the OIS officer's later testimonial credibility could be lessened. She doesn't explain this in detail, but I assume she means it could be claimed he is testifying to events that he actually didn't witness.

Unfortunately for her wishes, IMHO, the excerpt from the statute that she quoted says "any recording," not just his own recording, of an incident involving the officer. To get what she wants the definition of "involved" would have to be drawn very narrowly indeed.

ETA (somehow I deleted my own last paragraph): But I have been surprised before. I think she has a point, but it appears to me the law does not support her position.