Boston City Council Hearing on BPD Body Camera Footage Release Protocols – May 22, 2026

The Boston City Council Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice, chaired by Councillor Henry Santana, held a hearing on Docket #0638 to examine the Boston Police Department's protocols for releasing police body-worn camera (BWC) and dashboard camera footage. The hearing took place on May 22, 2026, at 10:18 AM, was live-streamed, and included testimony from Police Commissioner Michael Cox, Chief of Staff Nicole Toob, General Counsel David Um Freddie, and Superintendent Paul McLaughlin. The hearing focused on Rule 405, which governs the release of BWC footage, and explored issues of transparency, timelines, officer access, and the role of oversight bodies like the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency (OPAT).

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public signed up to testify. The chair noted that public testimony would have been taken at the end of the hearing, but no one had registered.

Discussion Items

• Overview of Rule 405: Commissioner Cox confirmed that Rule 405 is the internal policy governing BWC footage. He stated that the rule is updated as needed and was last revised on January 15, 2025. The rule does not set a specific timeline for releasing footage; decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, with the commissioner having final authority. The rule references the state public records law (Mass General Law Chapter 66, Section 10) for responding to public information requests.
• Officer Access to Footage: Councillor Culpepper noted that under Rule 405 Section 6.2, officers involved in a shooting or use of deadly force may view their own BWC footage before giving a statement, with their attorney present, if approved by the supervisor in charge. In fatal incidents, however, the District Attorney's policy generally prohibits such review. Councillor Culpepper questioned whether this access should be clarified or limited, especially for witnesses.
• Transparency and Timelines: Councillor Culpepper highlighted that Rule 405 provides no timeline for releasing footage after critical incidents. He contrasted this with New York's 45-day release policy. Commissioner Cox responded that the department follows the public records law, which has its own timelines and exemptions, including for active investigations. Councillor Culpepper noted that even the District Attorney must request footage from the BPD, as per Section 8.1.
• OPAT and Oversight: Councillor Culpepper questioned why OPAT's recommendations are sometimes reinvestigated by Internal Affairs. The commissioner's legal counsel argued that the department must independently verify facts to sustain disciplinary actions. Councillor Culpepper pressed for a timeline for responding to OPAT's recommendations, referencing eight outstanding cases. Councillor Weber explored whether OPAT or an independent authority should have special access to footage during critical incidents; Commissioner Cox noted that OPAT's access is the same as the public's.
• Public Records Requests: Councillor Luján asked about the backlog of BWC footage requests, noting that BPD reportedly received about 800 requests last year and fulfilled about 500. The department's general counsel clarified that of 1,273 requests, 722 were released and 551 were denied. Common denial reasons included active investigations, privacy concerns, and statutory exemptions (e.g., from the District Attorney). Requesters can appeal to the Supervisor of Public Records or file a lawsuit.
• Revision Process and Community Input: Councillor Morrell asked how Rule 405 is updated. Commissioner Cox stated that updates are driven by changes in law, technology, or operational needs (e.g., federal task force assignments). The rule is drafted internally, but changes affecting officer working conditions are bargained with the union. Councillor Worrell requested a working session to compare the current rule with the 2022 Task Force recommendations, which included broader public access and clearer discipline procedures. Commissioner Cox indicated openness to such a review.
• Form 26 Process: Councillor Culpepper questioned the use of Form 26, an internal form used by officers to forward subpoenas for BWC footage to the Video Evidence Unit. The commissioner and counsel clarified that Form 26 is not specific to officer-involved shootings but is a general internal communication tool; the Video Evidence Unit handles all requests.
• Officer-Involved Shooting Protocols: Superintendent McLaughlin described that in an officer-involved shooting, BWC footage is immediately uploaded and access is restricted to a very small group (the investigative team). The Bureau of Investigative Services chief can expand access to additional investigators, but this does not extend to the public or non-investigative personnel. Councillor Fitzgerald inquired about basic protocols for camera activation, deactivation, and charging; the panel confirmed that patrol officers have two cameras to ensure battery life, and footage is retained per a schedule ranging from one year to indefinite, depending on the incident type (e.g., felony arrests are kept indefinitely).

Key Outcomes

• Hearing Purpose: The hearing served as an educational session to clarify existing protocols. No binding votes or decisions were taken.
• Next Steps: Councillor Morrell and the chair agreed to a working session to compare the 2022 Task Force recommendations with Rule 405 and propose potential updates. Councillor Luján requested a detailed list of denied FOIA requests and the exemptions used.
• Commissioner's Commitment: Commissioner Cox stated that the department will review Rule 405 for clarity, particularly regarding officer access provisions, and will consider input from the council's working session. The hearing was adjourned at approximately 12:30 PM.