State Rep. Dontavius Jarrells (D-Columbus) today called on the House Criminal Justice Committee to hold legislative hearings on House Bill 367, known as Andre’s Law, which would require the use of body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras by peace officers, among other changes to increase transparency and accountability for police in Ohio.
The bill is named after Andre Hill, who was killed by a Columbus Police officer while he was holding a cell phone in December 2020. The officer who shot Andre Hill did not have his body camera turned on during the incident, leaving the community with many questions as to what led to this killing.
“I applaud the governor for taking the necessary action to require body-worn cameras for Ohio State Highway Patrol personnel, but that’s only the first step. We need body-worn cameras for all officers in our state—no matter what community they serve,” said Rep. Jarrells. “Being proactive and stopping officer misconduct before it happens should be our goal, and Andre’s Law provides the framework to ensure transparency and accountability to keep citizens safe and ensure our public servants are held to a higher standard. We need to have hearings on this bill and see that it passes and makes its way to the governor’s desk.”
Andre’s Law would implement the following procedures:
- Agencies receiving a complaint regarding alleged misconduct by an officer must publicly release unedited video and recordings of the alleged incident within 21 days;
- If the recorded alleged incident involves an individual’s death, the law enforcement agency shall provide the recording to the person’s spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or legal representative upon request.
- Require every law enforcement agency in Ohio, by July 1, 2023, to provide body cameras to each officer in the agency, including correctional officers.
- Limit the circumstances in which an officer may turn off the body camera.
- If an officer fails to turn on their body camera or dashboard camera, or tampers with any portion of the recording, it is inferred that the missing recording would have demonstrated misconduct by the officer.