top of page
Search

Police-Worn Body Cameras in Pennsylvania: Statutory Mandates, Practical Challenges, and Legal Access for Defense Attorneys

  • Writer: Megan R. Moro, Esq.
    Megan R. Moro, Esq.
  • Jul 25
  • 4 min read

Follow-up Article With Additional Information!


Introduction

The widespread implementation of police-worn body cameras (BWCs) has significantly transformed evidentiary procedures in criminal defense practice. Pennsylvania’s legislative response, Act 22 of 2017, explicitly mandates protocols for BWC usage, management, and disclosure, aiming to balance accountability, transparency, and privacy (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 67A01–67A09). However, substantial variance remains in how municipalities implement these statutory requirements, impacting transparency and access to critical evidence.


Statutory Framework: Act 22 of 2017

Pennsylvania’s Act 22 (2017) explicitly authorizes law enforcement agencies statewide to deploy body-worn cameras, capturing both audio and visual evidence. This law defines specific guidelines regarding officer training, camera activation requirements, equipment maintenance, footage storage and retention protocols, and conditions governing footage release (Act 22 of 2017; 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 67A02–67A07). The statute clearly aims to ensure consistent evidence handling and protection of privacy rights (18 Pa.C.S. § 5704).


Mandated Policy and Governance Requirements

Act 22 specifically requires every law enforcement agency utilizing BWCs to adopt and publicly post comprehensive written policies that address:

  • Officer training on camera operations and legal standards;

  • Activation and deactivation protocols in defined circumstances such as arrests, traffic stops, or incidents involving force;

  • Maintenance, oversight, and auditing to ensure compliance and functionality;

  • Secure storage and retention of footage, with a minimum 60-day retention, extended in criminal cases;

  • Privacy safeguards preventing unauthorized recording in areas with a reasonable expectation of privacy (42 Pa.C.S. § 67A07; Pennsylvania.gov, 2023).

The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association further supplements statutory mandates with best-practice recommendations, underscoring the intended consistency across jurisdictions (PDAA, 2018).


Disparities Between Statutory Requirements and Practical Implementation

Despite statutory clarity, the practical application of BWC policies shows notable disparities across Pennsylvania, particularly in larger jurisdictions such as Philadelphia. For instance, an audit revealed significant compliance issues in camera activation among thousands of officers, despite Philadelphia’s investment of approximately $20 million in BWCs (Axios, 2023, February 27). Further, between 2017 and 2023, Philadelphia authorities granted only about 25% (44 of 178) of public requests for footage, indicating substantial gaps in transparency and prosecutorial discretion (Axios, 2023, November 13).

Defense Attorney Access: Procedural Hurdles and Discovery Challenges

Defense attorneys seeking access to BWC footage face significant procedural barriers embedded in Act 22. Requests must be filed within a restrictive 60-day window post-recording, often before the defense can fully ascertain footage relevance. Agencies frequently deny such requests, citing confidentiality, ongoing investigations, or redaction issues, necessitating further litigation through judicial appeals with strict timelines and additional fees (42 Pa.C.S. § 67A03; Pennsylvania.gov, 2023).

The strategic importance of BWC footage for defense attorneys was exemplified in Commonwealth v. Mercado (2022), where critical footage directly contradicted officer testimony, underscoring the necessity for more streamlined and accessible discovery procedures.


Governing Bodies and Oversight Responsibilities

Pennsylvania’s multilayered governance includes:

  • General Assembly: Provides statutory framework (Act 22, 2017);

  • Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD): Monitors compliance and ties grant funding to adherence to mandated standards (PCCD, 2023);

  • District Attorneys & Attorney General’s Office: Hold discretionary authority over footage access, creating significant variations in disclosure rates (Axios, 2023, August 23);

  • Local law enforcement agencies: Directly responsible for day-to-day implementation and adherence to statutory mandates.


Recommendations for Legislative and Practical Reform

To resolve the disparities between statutory intent and practical implementation, several reforms should be considered:

  • Establish standardized statewide policies to reduce jurisdictional variability.

  • Expand defense access provisions, clearly delineating conditions for footage release during criminal discovery.

  • Reduce prosecutorial discretion in footage release, establishing judicially reviewable standards and default transparency expectations.

  • Provide financial and technological support, particularly to resource-constrained municipalities, to ensure universal compliance (Axios, 2023, February 27; PCCD, 2023).


Conclusion

While Act 22 provides a robust statutory framework intended to ensure police accountability and justice transparency in Pennsylvania, its practical implementation reveals significant discrepancies. Procedural complexities and uneven resource distribution substantially limit the law’s effectiveness. Through targeted legislative revisions and practical policy adjustments, Pennsylvania can better align the letter of Act 22 with its application, enhancing both accountability and equitable justice throughout the Commonwealth.


References

Axios. (2023, February 27). Philadelphia police body camera footage largely not reviewed. Retrieved from:https://www.axios.com/2023/02/27/philadelphia-police-body-camera-footage-not-reviewed

Axios. (2023, August 23). Why Pennsylvania is selective about releasing police body camera footage. Retrieved from:https://www.axios.com/local/philadelphia/2023/08/23/philadelphia-police-body-camera-footage

Axios. (2023, November 13). Pennsylvania’s bodycam footage release rates remain low. Retrieved from:https://www.axios.com/local/philadelphia/2023/11/13/pennsylvania-releasing-bodycam-footage-police-act22

Commonwealth v. Mercado, 281 A.3d 405 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).

Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD). (2023). Body-Worn Camera Program Annual Report. Retrieved from:https://www.pccd.pa.gov/criminaljustice/bodycams

Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association (PDAA). (2018). Best Practice Guidelines for Body-Worn Cameras. Retrieved from:https://www.pdaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/PDAA-Body-Camera-Best-Practices-Policy.pdf

Pennsylvania.gov. (2023). Request Pennsylvania State Police Audio or Video Recordings. Retrieved from:https://www.pa.gov/services/psp/request-pennsylvania-state-police-audio-or-video-recordings

18 Pa.C.S. § 5704, Wiretap Act Exceptions (2023).

42 Pa.C.S. §§ 67A01–67A09, Act 22 of 2017 (2023).


 NOTHING IN THIS OR ANY OTHER BLOG POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE OR FORMS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE READER. INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM THIS WEBSITE IS INTENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.


Police Body Cameras

bottom of page