Skip Navigation

Police Body Camera Policies: Retention and Release

This chart includes categories for how long video is kept if it does not contain evidence of a crime, the rules for public access to videos, and any exemptions to local Freedom of Information laws that are specific to BWCs.

Published: August 3, 2016

Last Updated: July 19, 2019

The body camera policies address several issues related to reten­tion and release of recor­ded data.

“How long is non-evid­en­tiary video kept?”: In order for video to be used or released, it has to be preserved. Stor­age space for video is very expens­ive, however, and privacy and secur­ity concerns crop up with a large data­base of videos. The length of time poten­tial evid­ence in a court case must be preserved is governed by state law. Reten­tion time for all other video is gener­ally a matter of police policy.

 “Can public see or request record­ings?” One of the biggest ques­tions surround­ing body-worn cameras (BWCs) is whether the video will be eligible for public release under public records laws. This ques­tion is often not at the discre­tion of the police depart­ments or specific to BWC video. Laws in each state address the release of public records and large depart­ments usually have exist­ing policies and offices to deal with public records requests. BWC video, however, presents unique chal­lenges and privacy threats. Many state legis­latures are debat­ing bills to address this issue. In the mean­time, depart­ments have their own systems for how they deal with requests for video. Where policies are not clear on this issue, we have attemp­ted to fill in some of the gaps with links to report­ing. We expect this inform­a­tion to change for many depart­ments as laws are passed and tech­nical and privacy issues crop up.

“How can the data be shared outside of the police depart­ment?” Reten­tion of body-worn camera video creates a substan­tial data­base that can be used as a power­ful instru­ment of surveil­lance. Many of the police depart­ments that use BWCs parti­cip­ate in fusion centers, joint inform­a­tion-shar­ing efforts between local, state, and federal govern­ment and the private sector. These fusion centers pull in copi­ous data that is tenu­ously related to crime or terror­ism and gener­ally retain it for long peri­ods of time, and have been castig­ated as endan­ger­ing citizens’ civil liber­ties with little coun­terter­ror­ism value to show for it. At the same time, depart­ments will occa­sion­ally need to be able to share evid­en­tiary videos relat­ing to a specific video with other law enforce­ment agen­cies. Even this limited shar­ing can raise privacy issues if the privacy protec­tions the origin­at­ing depart­ment has in place are not bind­ing on the recip­i­ent agency. While most of the policies require permis­sion from the Chief of Police for dissem­in­a­tion of video outside the depart­ment, few of the policies or related stat­utes provide guid­ance for when and with what limits will shar­ing with other law enforce­ment agen­cies be permit­ted.

Down­load the PDF here—re­com­men­ded for mobile users.

View our map and other charts.

City or Org How Long is Non-Evid­en­tiary Video Kept? Can Public See or Request Records? How Can the Data be Shared Outside of the Police Depart­ment?
Arling­ton, TX 90 days Yes, in accord­ance with Chapter 552 of the Texas Govern­ment Code, and depart­mental proced­ures.

Data can be accessed for crim­inal invest­ig­a­tion or prosec­u­tion “as required through the evid­en­tiary shar­ing process.” The BWC files will not be released to non-crim­inal justice agency without approval of the legal advisor. If the evid­ence is needed for internal police depart­ment invest­ig­a­tions, it will not be released without approval from the Internal Affairs section.

Atlanta 5 years 

Yes, in accord­ance with the Atlanta Police Depart­ment Stand­ard Oper­at­ing Proced­ure 1060 “Public Affairs”.

“The Open Records Unit (ORU) is respons­ible for coordin­at­ing all open records requests relat­ing to the video data captured and of that archived by the BWC.”

“The Chief of Police or his/her designee shall be the final approv­ing author­ity regard­ing the BWC and all record­ings and data release as it relates to the media/press or general public.”
Austin 90 days, per Chapter 1701 of Texas Oper­a­tions Code Texas Oper­a­tions Code says that record­ing of an incid­ent that “involves deadly force or is other­wise the subject of an invest­ig­a­tion” may not be released until the invest­ig­a­tion is complete, but other foot­age is avail­able. Record­ings are reviewed by the Depart­ment Legal Advisor and approved by the Depart­ment before being released to the public.

“News or other media outlet requests for video will be processed through the Public Inform­a­tion Office (PIO). All other requests will be processed through the depart­ment coordin­ator in Cent­ral Records.”


Not specified Requests from the public shall be gran­ted or denied based upon the Mary­land Public Inform­a­tion Act, which says to release records as long as release does not inter­fere with a law enforce­ment proceed­ing or consti­tute an unwar­ran­ted inva­sion of personal privacy. Accord­ing to media reports, a new policy gives police commis­sioner 1 week after police-involved shoot­ing to determ­ine whether to release the foot­age to the public.

Process for law enforce­ment agen­cies to request access is not specified but upon request, those with prosec­ut­ing author­ity must get approval from BWC Coordin­ator. In general, Police Commis­sioner, or their designee, must author­ize access in writ­ing. Data shall not “be used to create a data­base or pool of mug shots.”


30 days

Yes, record­ings may be reques­ted by the public pursu­ant to a public records request, as defined in Chapter 66, Section 10 of Massachu­setts General Laws (M.G.L.).

The Video Evid­ence Unit processes requests from the public as well as federal, state and local prosec­utors. Civil discov­ery requests are submit­ted to the assigned attor­ney in the Office of the Legal Advisor and requests by collect­ive bargain­ing repres­ent­at­ives under M.G.L. c. 150E are submit­ted to Office of Labor Rela­tions. If an officer receives a court order or civil case subpoena, he or she forwards it to the Office of the Legal Advisor.

Char­lotte, NC 45 days

“Record­ings are not public records as defined by G.S. 132–1. Record­ings are not person­nel records as defined in Part 7 of Chapter 126 of the General Stat­utes, G.S. 160A-168, or G.S. 153A-98. Record­ings shall be disclosed only as provided by Chapter 132 of the General Stat­utes, GS 132–1.4A.” That being said, the follow­ing indi­vidu­als may receive disclos­ure of video/audio record­ing: a person whose image or voice is in the record­ing; a personal repres­ent­at­ive of an adult person whose image or voice is in the record­ing, if the adult person has consen­ted to the disclos­ure; a personal repres­ent­at­ive of a minor or of an adult person under lawful guard­i­an­ship whose image or voice is in the record­ing; a personal repres­ent­at­ive of a deceased person whose image or voice is in the record­ing; a personal repres­ent­at­ive of an adult person who is inca­pa­cit­ated and unable to provide consent to disclos­ure.”

“Record­ings shall be released for court and law enforce­ment purposes only.” The Chief of Police may release foot­age to other law enforce­ment agen­cies without a court order. In compli­ance with Section 132–1.4A(f), upon request from Chief of Police, the Police Attor­ney’s Office can peti­tion the Court for an order releas­ing BWC video feat. signi­fic­ant officer involved incid­ents to the public.


90 days unless exten­ded hold reques­ted for complaint or other “offi­cial purpose.” Not specified in policy. Under 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 140/7.5 (cc), record­ings are subject to FOIA only if flagged for a complaint, discharge of a fire­arm, use of force, arrest or deten­tion, or death or bodily harm. If a victim or witness is the subject of an encounter and has a reas­on­able expect­a­tion of privacy, that person’s permis­sion is neces­sary for release. Any record­ing shall be released to the subject of the encounter upon request. Any disclosed record­ing shall be redac­ted to remove iden­ti­fic­a­tion of any person that appears on the record­ing and is not involved in the encounter. The Super­in­tend­ent must provide specific author­iz­a­tion to dissem­in­ate record­ings outside the depart­ment. Addi­tion­ally, the Inform­a­tion Services Divi­sion will ensure any “author­ized outside-agency person­nel” will have access to record­ings that relate to their offi­cial duties.
Cincin­nati 90 days Yes, public can request videos through Form 29, Police Public Records Request. Form 29 can be completed online, through email, or by oral request (as stated in Proced­ure 18.120, Public Records Requests).

Police Records must approve and complete any records requests. Media requests for record­ings will be approved by the Public Inform­a­tion Office. Release of any record­ings relat­ing to instances of driv­ing under the influ­ence will be approved by the prosec­utor.

Clev­e­land 90 days Yes, the public can request captured media through public records requests, which must clearly state the records and/or inform­a­tion being sought. The release of media is done under the Clev­e­land Public Record Policy in accord­ance with the Ohio Public Records Law, Ohio Rev. Code Section 149.43 (H).

The Chief of Police handles requests to release media to outside parties. “The Mobile Support Unit shall also screen and forward requests for any law enforce­ment purpose (e.g., court, case files, and super­vis­ory invest­ig­a­tions).” The Office of Profes­sional stand­ards is gran­ted access without filing a public records request.

Dallas 90 days Yes, under exist­ing public records law: “Public Inform­a­tion Act requests for videos will be handled in accord­ance with Chapter 552 of the Texas Govern­ment Code and depart­mental proced­ures.” Texas law says record­ing of an incid­ent that “involves deadly force or is other­wise the subject of an invest­ig­a­tion” may not be released until the invest­ig­a­tion is complete.

Record­ings will not be shared outside the Depart­ment unless reques­ted through Public Records or a “Crim­inal Justice request.” The latter is undefined in the policy.


30 days, per the City and County of Denver General Records Reten­tion Sched­ule (GRRS) 100.080*BB Public requests for video are governed by the general records disclos­ure policy, Denver Police Depart­ment Oper­a­tions Manual Section 109.04, which allows for release of any records not expli­citly required for or prohib­ited from disclos­ure at the discre­tion of the Records Coordin­ator. 

Any request for BWC media made from outside the Denver Police Depart­ment, includ­ing other law enforce­ment agen­cies, must comply with the depart­ment’s records manage­ment and disclos­ure policies (OMS 109.04 and 109.05). These policies do not specific­ally address BWC videos but allow crim­inal history records/photo­graphs to be shared with other law enforce­ment agen­cies.

Ferguson 30 days, per Police Clerks Records Reten­tion Sched­ule

In accord­ance with MO Stat­ute 610.205, record­ings that “depict or describe a deceased person in a state of dismem­ber­ment, decap­it­a­tion, or similar mutil­a­tion includ­ing, without limit­a­tion, where the deceased person’s genitalia are exposed, shall be considered closed records” and will only be disclosed to the deceased’s next of kin or an indi­vidual who receives a writ­ten release from the next of kin. In the case of closed crim­inal invest­ig­a­tions, circuit court judges can disclose record­ings “upon find­ings in writ­ing that disclos­ure is in the public interest and outweighs any privacy interest that may be asser­ted by the deceased person’s next of kin.”

Requests for record­ings must be submit­ted in writ­ing to the Ferguson City Clerk and then forwar­ded on to the Chief of Police, who must approve external requests for video in accord­ance with the Sunshine Law.


90 days


Yes, the Public Inform­a­tion Unit is respons­ible for hand­ling distri­bu­tion of public copies, in accord­ance with federal law, state law (which includes Flor­ida Stat­utes Chapter 119), local stat­utes and policies. Prior approval from BWC Admin­is­trator is required. BWC Admin­is­trator processes and approves all outside requests for record­ings but only the Public Inform­a­tion Unit can satisfy the requests.

Las Vegas

45 days “It is the policy of LVMPD to balance the interests of indi­vidu­als who seek access to BWC records with indi­vidual privacy rights and applic­able confid­en­ti­al­ity laws. The release of any BWC record­ings to media outlets will be in strict compli­ance with this and depart­ment policy 5/107.24, News Media and Public Inform­a­tion.” The Depart­ment website says requests must be limited to a specific incid­ent. A requestor will be allowed to view the video at depart­ment headquar­ters within 5 days of the request. The requestor may then request a copy and will be charged for redac­tion fees. “A citizen who had direct and primary inter­ac­tion with an officer wear­ing a BWC” can request their confid­en­tial inform­a­tion not be redac­ted.  Process for law enforce­ment agen­cies to request access is not specified. In general, Sher­iff must provide writ­ten consent to make copies.
Los Angeles 60 days, per Cali­for­nia Penal Code Section 832.18 (b)(5)(A)

In accord­ance with the Cali­for­nia Public Records Act, when a member of the public requests to inspect a record, the agency shall make the records promptly avail­able. Begin­ning on July 1, 2019, record­ings relat­ing to crit­ical incid­ents can be with­held during active invest­ig­a­tions for no longer than 45 days and if the privacy interest in with­hold­ing the video outweighs the public interest in disclos­ure. When there is a reas­on­able expect­a­tion of privacy for the subject, the agency can also use redac­tion tech­no­logy, includ­ing image distor­tion, to obscure specific portions of the video to protect privacy. In instances when privacy outweighs public interest in disclos­ure, upon request, record­ings should still be released to the subject whose privacy is being protec­ted, the legal guard­ian if the subject is a minor and the bene­fi­ciary, heir, author­ized legal repres­ent­at­ive or desig­nated imme­di­ate family member if the subject is deceased.

Process for law enforce­ment agen­cies to request access is not specified.

Mesa, AZ

185 days, per AZ State Archiv­ing Law GS 1031

Yes, copies can be reques­ted through a public records request as outlined in DPM 3.3.70, Public Records Request.

Access and copy­ing permit­ted only for “offi­cial law enforce­ment purposes,” and “dissem­in­a­tion of inform­a­tion will be for crim­inal justice purposes only.” All public records requests are received and processed in the Records Section and “will be routed to the Program Admin­is­trator(s) for redac­tion.” 






1 year Yes, public records requests are to be considered in accord­ance with the Minnesota Govern­ment Data Prac­tices Act and other applic­able laws. MN. Section 13.825 of the Act states that a video that is not part of an active invest­ig­a­tion is subject to public records requests if it depicts fire­arm discharge or use of force by an officer result­ing in substan­tial bodily harm; if a subject requests it be public (with non-consent­ing civil­ian subjects redac­ted in any copies); or if it is “public person­nel data.” The depart­ment may redact video portions that are “clearly offens­ive to common sens­ib­il­it­ies.” Any person may bring action in district court to chal­lenge decision to with­hold video.

Requests by the public and other law enforce­ment agen­cies are handled by the Records Inform­a­tion Unit in accord­ance with the Minnesota Govern­ment Data Prac­tices Act. Section 13.825 of the Act says that access by other law enforce­ment agen­cies must be author­ized in writ­ing by the Chief of Police and must be shared for a “legit­im­ate, specified law enforce­ment purpose.” The recip­i­ent agency must comply with all data clas­si­fic­a­tion, destruc­tion, and secur­ity require­ments of the law.

New Orleans 2 years; however, dele­tion of non-evid­en­tiary foot­age can be reques­ted by officer. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 44:3 (I) (Public Records Law) gener­ally requires the release of incid­ent-specific requests for body-worn camera record­ings, with excep­tions for videos that are being used as invest­ig­at­ive records and/or that viol­ate an indi­vidu­al’s reas­on­able expect­a­tion of privacy. The policy on Public Release of Crit­ical Incid­ent Record­ings applies in cases where officer use of force or a vehicle pursuit results in hospit­al­iz­a­tion or death, an officer shoots his or her gun at a person, or an arres­ted or detained subject dies. In these incid­ents, the Public Integ­rity Bureau will confer with relev­ant Attor­neys’ Offices and make a recom­mend­a­tion on release within 7 days to the Super­in­tend­ent of the NOPD, who will decide within 48 hours whether to release the video. No record­ing will be released in cases of domestic viol­ence or sexual assault. During the dura­tion of the NOPD Federal Consent Decree, this decision will be repor­ted to the court admin­is­ter­ing the decree, the Consent Decree Monitor and the Depart­ment of Justice within 24 hours of the decision to not release. “General access to digital record­ings shall be gran­ted to Depart­ment-author­ized users only.” Not clear whether other agen­cies can get access to specific videos.

New York

18 months, per NYPD website Gener­ally, yes. Under the New York Free­dom of Inform­a­tion Law, agen­cies can refuse to disclose records that are specific­ally exemp­ted by state or federal stat­ute, and records that could: inter­fere with law enforce­ment invest­ig­a­tions or judi­cial proceed­ings, pose unwar­ran­ted inva­sions of personal privacy, identify confid­en­tial sources, deprive a person of a right to a fair trial, endanger the life or safety of any person, or reveal crim­inal invest­ig­at­ive tech­niques. When there is a high-profile incid­ent, the NYPD will confer with the Attor­ney General about release.

Desk Officer is respons­ible for shar­ing arrest foot­age with the District Attor­ney’s office. “Other than provid­ing copies of BWC video to members of the Depart­ment for offi­cial purposes and prosec­utors as described above, uniformed members of the service may not copy, publish, share or dissem­in­ate any audio, video, image or data to anyone unless author­ized by the Police Commis­sioner.”

Oakland, CA 2 years Yes, in accord­ance with stat­utes & Depart­mental General Order M-9.1, Public Records Access, as governed by the Cali­for­nia Public Records Act. As early as July 1, 2019 (under the Cali­for­nia Public Records Act), record­ings related to crit­ical incid­ents can be with­held for up to 45 days and record­ings can also be with­held in instances when privacy interests outweigh public interest in disclos­ure. In incid­ents when the main­ten­ance of privacy outweighs public interest in disclos­ure, upon request, record­ings are still released to the subject whose privacy is being protec­ted, the legal guard­ian if the subject is a minor and the bene­fi­ciary, heir, author­ized legal repres­ent­at­ive or desig­nated imme­di­ate family member if the subject is deceased. Indi­vidu­als with a “lawful right to know and need to know” may view or receive videos, and Chief of Police can author­ize addi­tional shar­ing under unspe­cified circum­stances.
Orlando 90 days Yes, videos are public records as defined in Chapter 119, Flor­ida Stat­utes. Flor­ida law exempts BWC video from release if it is from inside a home, a facil­ity that offers health care, or some­where the indi­vidual recor­ded has “a reas­on­able expect­a­tion of privacy.” However, the subject of any foot­age can author­ize its release. Addi­tion­ally, if BWC video is taken inside a place where a person lawfully resided, dwelled or lodged, but the person was not depic­ted in the video, the person can receive portions of the video recor­ded inside the place. Flor­ida Stat­ute 119.071(2)(l)(3)  permits disclos­ure of BWC videos “[t]o another govern­mental agency in the further­ance of its offi­cial duties and respons­ib­il­it­ies.”
Phil­adelphia 75 days Yes, through a public records request in accord­ance with 42 Pa. C.S. Chapter 67A. The indi­vidual request­ing the video must serve a writ­ten request to the Depart­ment’s Right-to-Know Officer within 60 days of the creation of the record­ing. If the agency determ­ines that the record­ing contains pertin­ent inform­a­tion to an invest­ig­a­tion, poten­tial evid­ence in a crim­inal matter or confid­en­tial/victim inform­a­tion, and redac­tion of the video or audio will not safe­guard the inform­a­tion, the agency will deny the request in writ­ing within 30 days of receiv­ing it. 

Requests for digital record­ings from non-law enforce­ment agen­cies are processed by the Depart­ment’s Right-to-Know Officer and the Digital Evid­ence Custodian. Pertin­ent members of the District Attor­ney’s Office and PPD invest­ig­at­ors are given access as needed for offi­cial invest­ig­a­tions and the District Attor­ney’s Office Char­ging Unit can gain access through submis­sion of a PARS report. Other prosec­utorial agen­cies can gain tempor­ary access in prosec­u­tion/legal defense cases that arise from BWC incid­ents and only the Police Commis­sioner can release record­ings to the media (for legit­im­ate law enforce­ment purposes). 

Phoenix, AZ

190 days Yes, through a public records request in accord­ance with exist­ing policy and state public records laws. Videos can be released with stand­ard redac­tions, includ­ing victim’s identi­fy­ing inform­a­tion, as well as “inform­a­tion that by its very nature is so gross, demean­ing, biased, or sens­it­ive that it would do irre­par­able harm to inno­cent persons or their char­ac­ter if released.” Not specified
Rialto, CA 60 days, per Cali­for­nia Penal Code Section 832.18 (b)(5)(A)

Files will be reviewed and released accord­ing to “federal, state, local stat­utes and Depart­mental policy (public records act, etc.) as set forth in General Order 810 Public Inform­a­tion Release.” Media inquir­ies and requests are processed in accord­ance with General Order 346 Media Rela­tions. The publicly avail­able Rialto Police Depart­ment Policy Manual does not include any policies at those General Order numbers, but does include a Media Rela­tions Policy at General Order 324

Requests from outside the depart­ment are processed “in accord­ance with federal, state, local stat­utes and Depart­mental policy.”
San Anto­nio 180 days Yes, record­ings may be reques­ted under the Open Records Act in accord­ance with GM Proced­ure 323, Release of Police Records. Crim­inal justice agen­cies can make a request in writ­ing on the agency letter­head, signed by the agency’s Chief Exec­ut­ive Officer, to the Video Evid­ence Custodian or their designee. Requests from defense attor­neys must be made through the appro­pri­ate prosec­utor.
San Bern­ardino 60 days, per Cali­for­nia Penal Code Section 832.18 (b)(5)(A) “Public release of digital evid­ence is prohib­ited unless approved by the Chief of Police or his/her designee.” Method and criteria not specified in policy. “Access­ing, copy­ing, forward­ing or releas­ing any digital evid­ence for other than offi­cial law enforce­ment use and contrary to this proced­ure is strictly prohib­ited.”
San Diego 60 days, per Cali­for­nia Penal Code Section 832.18 (b)(5)(A) “Public release of digital evid­ence is prohib­ited unless approved by the Chief of Police or designee.” No criteria for these approvals in policy. “In situ­ations where there is a need to review digital evid­ence not covered by this proced­ure, a captain or higher must approve the request…. eval­u­ated on a case by case basis”
San Fran­cisco 60 days Yes, record­ings are subject to Public Record Act requests. Method or criteria for request­ing is not specified in policy, but the depart­ment must comply with the San Fran­cisco Sunshine Ordin­ance, Admin­is­trat­ive Code, Chapter 67.   “The Depart­ment shall accept and process PRA [Public Records Act] requests in accord­ance with the provi­sions of federal, state and local stat­utes and Depart­ment policy.”

San Jose

1 year, per BWC Program Exec­ut­ive Summary “City and Depart­ment Public Records Act policy treats body camera audio-visual files as records of police invest­ig­a­tions that are gener­ally exempt from public disclos­ure under the Cali­for­nia Public Records Act. State law treats the police invest­ig­a­tion record exemp­tion as a discre­tion­ary exemp­tion, there­fore the Chief of Police may, on a case-by-case basis, make the determ­in­a­tion to provide greater public disclos­ure of inform­a­tion or records that are other­wise exempt from disclos­ure. A request­ing party also has the inde­pend­ent right under the Act to insti­tute judi­cial proceed­ings for injunct­ive or declar­at­ive relief or a writ of mandate to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record (Cali­for­nia Govern­ment Code Sections 6258 and 6259).” (from depart­ment website) “All file view­ing is for law enforce­ment use only and subject to a right to know and need to know basis.” Policy does not specific­ally address view­ing outside the Depart­ment.


60 days, per Wash. Rev. Code 42.56.240 Yes, under Wash. Rev. Code 42.56 Public Records Act (PRA) as inter­preted by Wash­ing­ton courts, all Depart­ment records must be iden­ti­fied to the public, so long as the records are not part of an open and active invest­ig­a­tion or meet specific exemp­tions. Wash. Rev. Code 42.56.240 (14) exempts video from public release if it depicts: a medical facil­ity or patient, the interior of a place of resid­ence, an “intim­ate image,” a minor, a dead body, the iden­tity of a victim or witness of sexual assault or domestic viol­ence (unless the subject requests release), or the loca­tion of a domestic viol­ence program. This exemp­tion “may be rebut­ted by specific evid­ence in indi­vidual cases.” A request for record­ings must specify a person involved, a case number, or a date, time, and loca­tion. A person involved in a recor­ded incid­ent, or a relev­ant crim­inal case, an attor­ney repres­ent­ing a person regard­ing the denial of civil rights or a viol­a­tion of a U.S. Dept. of Justice settle­ment agree­ment, or an exec­ut­ive director from the Wash­ing­ton State Commis­sion on African-Amer­ican Affairs, Asian Pacific Amer­ican Affairs, or Hispanic Affairs, has the right to obtain video, subject to exemp­tions under the law. In accord­ance with the Public Records Act (PRA), the Legal Unit is supposed to respond to all public disclos­ure requests; however, the Public Records Unit handles all requests for police reports and redacts elec­tronic police reports.
Tampa 90 days Yes, through “the Public Records Office and subject to the provi­sions of Flor­ida Stat­utes Chapter 119.” Flor­ida law exempts BWC video from release if it is from inside a home, a hospital, or some­where the indi­vidual recor­ded has “a reas­on­able expect­a­tion of privacy.” However, the subject of any foot­age can author­ize its release. Flor­ida Stat­ute 119.071(2)(l)(3) permits disclos­ure of BWC videos “[t]o another govern­mental agency in the further­ance of its offi­cial duties and respons­ib­il­it­ies.” The Chief of Police must author­ize the release of the record­ings.
Tucson 180 days Yes, with redac­tions, through the exist­ing public records process. The release of record­ings “will be subject to the same stat­utory exemp­tions from disclos­ure as any other depart­mental records” “Access­ing, view­ing, copy­ing, or releas­ing BWC record­ings for other than the offi­cial law enforce­ment purposes set out in this General Order is strictly prohib­ited. Any devi­ation must be approved by a super­visor.”
Wash­ing­ton, D.C. 90 days. Record­ings of First Amend­ment activ­it­ies kept for 3 years. Retained videos reviewed every 60 days for dele­tion after court proceed­ing or other reten­tion reason is complete. Yes, BWC video is avail­able through public records law. Video is exemp­ted from release if it is from inside a personal resid­ence, is related to an incid­ent involving domestic viol­ence, stalk­ing, or sexual assault, or if release would inter­fere with enforce­ment proceed­ings. The Body-Worn Camera Program Regu­la­tions Amend­ment Act of 2015 allows the Mayor to release record­ings in matters of “signi­fic­ant public interest” that would not be releas­able to a FOIA request. A subject of a record­ing can view it at a police station if it does not inter­fere with the privacy rights or safety of another subject but must file a FOIA request for a copy of the record­ing. D.C. Law 21–83 directs the police depart­ment to make record­ings avail­able to “law enforce­ment or invest­ig­at­ory agen­cies … pursu­ant to the officers’ or agen­cies’ offi­cial duties.” The depart­ment may also provide access to other govern­ment agen­cies, if the govern­ing agree­ments require the receiv­ing agency to comply with privacy protec­tions imposed by stat­ute or depart­mental policy.
ACLU Model Stat­ute 6-months for non-evid­en­tiary video (3 years for video flagged for reten­tion by officer or subject).

Yes, but video foot­age should not be released without express writ­ten permis­sion from non-law enforce­ment subjects of the video foot­age. In cases where subject of the video is shot by a fire­arm, killed or griev­ously injured, the reques­ted foot­age will be provided as quickly as possible – no later than 5 days after receipt of the request. Foot­age cannot be with­held from public on basis of being an invest­ig­at­ory record when a police officer or other law enforce­ment employee is the subject under invest­ig­a­tion in rela­tion to his or her on-the-job conduct.

Record­ings “shall not be divulged or used… for any commer­cial or non-law enforce­ment purpose.”
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­ation of Chiefs of Police  Not specified Not specified The chief exec­ut­ive officer must author­ize all distri­bu­tion; author­iz­a­tion criteria are not specified.
Police Exec­ut­ive Research Forum  60–90 days common for non-evid­en­tiary video. “PERF gener­ally recom­mends a broad disclos­ure policy to promote agency trans­par­ency and account­ab­il­ity.” Note that evid­ence in an ongo­ing proceed­ing is usually exemp­ted by state law. “When the videos raise privacy concerns, such as record­ings of crime victims or witnesses or foot­age taken inside a private home, agen­cies must balance privacy concerns against the need for trans­par­ency while comply­ing with relev­ant state public disclos­ure laws.” Not specified