SB 225 — AN ACT CONCERNING FEES FOR COPYING, REVIEWING AND REDACTING RECORDS CREATED BY POLICE BODY-WORN RECORDING EQUIPMENT AND DASHBOARD CAMERAS.
Last action — FILE NO. 202
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill is in committee in the Senate. Introduced February 18, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Next likely step: a committee vote, then a floor vote in the Senate.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
LowHow often bills like it became law.
-
In Committee
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 R).
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
217 added · 29 removedPlain-language change summary
The latest version of Senate Bill 225 has been updated to streamline its introduction by removing references to its initial draft, known as "LCO No. 1537." This change is important because it simplifies the bill's presentation and focuses on its current status, making it clearer for lawmakers and the public to understand what is being discussed and considered for passing. Overall, these adjustments help clarify the legislative process and ensure that attention is directed towards the most relevant version of the bill.
Senate General Assembly RaisedFile Bill No.
225202 February Session, 2026 LCOSenate Bill No.
1537225 ReferredSenate, toMarch 26, 2026 The Committee on GOVERNMENTGovernment ADMINISTRATIONAdministration ANDand ELECTIONSElections Introducedreported by:through SEN.
(GAE)FLEXER ANof ACTthe CONCERNING29th FEESDist., FORChairperson COPYING,of REVIEWINGthe ANDCommittee REDACTINGon RECORDSthe CREATEDpart BYof POLICEthe BODY-WORNSenate, RECORDINGthat EQUIPMENTthe ANDbill DASHBOARDought CAMERAS.to pass.
AN ACT CONCERNING FEES FOR COPYING, REVIEWING AND REDACTING RECORDS CREATED BY POLICE BODY-WORN RECORDING EQUIPMENT AND DASHBOARD CAMERAS.
(3) "Body-worn recording equipment" means an electronic recording deviceSB225 that/ isFile capableNo. of recording audio and video;
LCO202 1537 1 ofSB225 12File Raised Bill No.
225202 (4)device "Dashboardthat camera"is meanscapable aof dashboardrecording cameraaudio withand avideo; remote recorder, as defined in section 7-277b;
(4) "Dashboard camera" means a dashboard camera with a remote recorder, as defined in section 7-277b;
(b) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection and the Police Officer Standards and Training Council shall jointly evaluateandapprovetheminimaltechnicalspecificationsofbody-worn recording equipment that shall be worn by police officers pursuant to this section, dashboard cameras that shall be used in each police patrol vehicleSB225 and/ digitalFile data storage devices or services that shall be used by LCO 1537 2 of 12 Raised Bill No.
225202 a2 lawSB225 enforcementFile unitNo. to retain the data from the recordings made by such equipment.
202 vehicle and digital data storage devices or services that shall be used by a law enforcement unit to retain the data from the recordings made by such equipment.
(d) Except as required by state or federal law,no person employed by a law enforcement unit shall edit, erase, copy, share or otherwise alter orSB225 distribute/ inFile any manner any recording made by body-worn LCO 1537 3 of 12 Raised Bill No.
225202 recording3 equipmentSB225 orFile aNo. dashboard camera or the data from such recording.
202 or distribute in any manner any recording made by body-worn recording equipment or a dashboard camera or the data from such recording.
Not later than forty-eight hours following an officer's review of a recording under this subdivision, or if the officer does not review the recording, not later than ninety-six hours following the requestSB225 for/ disclosure,File whichever is earlier, such recording shall be LCO 1537 4 of 12 Raised Bill No.
225202 disclosed4 toSB225 theFile public,No. subject to the provisions of subsection (g) of this section.
202 request for disclosure, whichever is earlier, such recording shall be disclosed to the public, subject to the provisions of subsection (g) of this section.
(2) No record created using body-worn recording equipment or a dashboard camera of (A) an occurrence or situation described in subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, of subdivision (1) of this subsection, (B) a scene of an incident that involves (i) a victim of domestic or sexual abuse, (ii) a victim of homicide or suicide, or (iii) a deceased victim of an accident, if disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in the case of any such victim described in this subparagraph, or (C) a minor, shall be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, [as defined in section 1-200,] and any such record shall be confidential and redacted in accordance withsection2ofthisact,except that arecordofaminor shall be disclosed if (i) the minor and the parent or guardian of such minor consent to the disclosure of such record, or, if the minor is an involved person,SB225 the/ minor'sFile parent or guardian is the requesting party or an LCO 1537 5 of 12 Raised Bill No.
225202 involved5 person,SB225 (ii)File aNo. police officer is the subject of an allegation of misconduct made by such minor or the parent or guardian of such minor, and the person representing such officer in an investigation of such alleged misconduct requests disclosure of such record for the sole purpose of preparing a defense to such allegation, or (iii) a person is charged with a crime and defense counsel for such person requests disclosure of such record for the sole purpose of assisting in such person's defense and the discovery of such record as evidence is otherwise discoverable.
202 person, the minor's parent or guardian is the requesting party or an involved person, (ii) a police officer is the subject of an allegation of misconduct made by such minor or the parent or guardian of such minor, and the person representing such officer in an investigation of such alleged misconduct requests disclosure of such record for the sole purpose of preparing a defense to such allegation, or (iii) a person is charged with a crime and defense counsel for such person requests disclosure of such record for the sole purpose of assisting in such person's defense and the discovery of such record as evidence is otherwise discoverable.
On and after October 1, 2024, such guidelines shall contain provisions concerning under which circumstancesSB225 an/ officerFile shallNo. not pause recording on such equipment.
LCO202 1537 6 ofSB225 12File Raised Bill No.
225202 Thecircumstances guidelinesan officer shall not requirepause arecording lawon enforcement unit to store such dataequipment. for a period longer than one year, except in the case where the unit knows the data is pertinent to any ongoing civil, criminal or administrative matter.
The guidelines shall not require a law enforcement unit to store such data for a period longer than one year, except in the case where the unit knows the data is pertinent to any ongoing civil, criminal or administrative matter.
The instituteSB225 shall/ postFile suchNo. reports on the institute's Internet web site.
LCO202 1537 7 ofSB225 12File Raised Bill No.
225202 (3)institute Notshall laterpost thansuch July 1, 2024, and annually thereafter, the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at The University of Connecticut shall, within available appropriations, review the reports submittedon pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection, and report the resultsinstitute's ofInternet suchweb reviewsite. and any recommendations as a result of such review to the Governor, the Police Officer Standards and Training Council, the CriminalJustice Policy andPlanningDivisionwithintheOfficeofPolicy and Management and, in accordance with the provisions of section 11- 4a, the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the judiciary and public safety and security.
(3) Not later than July 1, 2024, and annually thereafter, the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at The University of Connecticut shall, within available appropriations, review the reports submitted pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection, and report the results of such review and any recommendations as a result of such review to the Governor, the Police Officer Standards and Training Council, the CriminalJustice Policy andPlanningDivisionwithintheOfficeofPolicy and Management and, in accordance with the provisions of section 11- 4a, the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the judiciary and public safety and security.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, any additional labor costs associated with any time necessary to redact the requested recordSB225 beyond/ theFile time set forth in subdivision (2) of this subsection LCO 1537 8 of 12 Raised Bill No.
225202 may8 beSB225 chargedFile toNo. therequesting party at arate not to exceed the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee with the requisite training for redacting the responsive record.
202 record beyond the time set forth in subdivision (2) of this subsection may be charged to therequesting party at arate not to exceed the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee with the requisite training for redacting the responsive record.
(2) A public agency shall not charge a fee to any other requesting party if (A) the record depicts a police officer involved in a shooting, a policeSB225 officer/ involvedFile in a motor vehicle accident or a police officer LCO 1537 9 of 12 Raised Bill No.
225202 giving9 aSB225 formalFile statementNo. about the use of force, or (B) (i) there is an allegation of misconduct concerning the police officer involved, or (ii) the police officer involved is the subject of a disciplinary investigation, subject to any limitations on disclosure set forth in subsection (g) of section 29-6d of the general statutes, as amended by this act.
202 police officer involved in a motor vehicle accident or a police officer giving a formal statement about the use of force, or (B) (i) there is an allegation of misconduct concerning the police officer involved, or (ii) the police officer involved is the subject of a disciplinary investigation, subject to any limitations on disclosure set forth in subsection (g) of section 29-6d of the general statutes, as amended by this act.
andSB225 LCO/ 1537File 10 of 12 Raised Bill No.
225202 (B)10 BySB225 allFile otherNo. public agencies, as defined in section 1-200, shall not exceedfiftycentsperpage.Ifanycopyprovidedinaccordancewithsaid Freedom of Information Act requires a transcription, or if any person applies for a transcription of a public record, the fee for such transcription shall not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency.
202 and (B) By all other public agencies, as defined in section 1-200, shall not exceedfiftycentsperpage.Ifanycopyprovidedinaccordancewithsaid Freedom of Information Act requires a transcription, or if any person applies for a transcription of a public record, the fee for such transcription shall not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency.
The Department of Administrative Services shall provide guidelines to agenciesSB225 regarding/ theFile calculation of the fees charged for copies of computer-stored public records to ensure that such fees are reasonable LCO 1537 11 of 12 Raised Bill No.
225202 and11 consistentSB225 amongFile agencies.No.
Show all 135 changed lines (95 more)
202 agencies regarding the calculation of the fees charged for copies of computer-stored public records to ensure that such fees are reasonable and consistent among agencies.
3 October 1, 2026 1-212(a) and (b) GAE Joint Favorable LCOSB225 1537/ 12File ofNo. 12
202 12 SB225 File No.
202 The following Fiscal Impact Statement and Bill Analysis are prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and explanation and do not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose.
In general, fiscal impacts are based upon a variety of informational sources, including the analyst’s professional knowledge.
Whenever applicable, agency data is consulted as part of the analysis, however final products do not necessarily reflect an assessment from any specific department.
OFA Fiscal Note State Impact:
Agency Affected Fund-Effect FY 27 $ FY 28 $ Various State Agencies Various - See Below See Below Potential Revenue Gain Note:
Various=Various Municipal Impact:
Municipalities Effect FY 27 $ FY 28 $ Municipal Police Departments Potential See Below See Below Revenue Gain Explanation The bill results in a potential revenue gain to various state agencies 1 and municipal police departments by allowing such agencies, under certain circumstances, to charge a fee for redacting body and dashboard camera recordings prior to disclosure under the FreedomofInformation Act.
The bill prohibits an agency from charging a fee for the first four hours of its labor costs for redacting the requested record.
Beyond this, such agencies may charge up to $100 per hour of the requested recording’s actual duration.
The Out Years The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would These agencies include, but are not limited to, the Connecticut State Police, the University of Connecticut Police Department, the police departments of the Connecticut State Colleges & Universities, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services Police, and the Environmental Conservation Police in the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
SB225 / File No.
202 13 SB225 File No.
202 continue into the future subject to the number of requested records eligible for redaction fees.
SB225 / File No.
202 14 SB225 File No.
202 OLR Bill Analysis sSB 225 AN ACT CONCERNING FEES FOR COPYING, REVIEWING AND REDACTING RECORDS CREATED BY POLICE BODY-WORN RECORDING EQUIPMENT AND DASHBOARD CAMERAS.
SUMMARY This bill sets conditions under which public agencies may charge a fee for redacting (such as by obscuring, pixelating, or muting) body and dashboard camera recordings requested under the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
It prohibits an agency from charging any fee for the first four hours of its labor costs to redact the requested record.
Then, for any additional labor costs beyond those four hours, it allows the agency to charge a rate up to the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee with the training required to redact the record, but no more than $100 per hour for the requested recording’s actual duration.
The agency must maintain an original, unredacted copy of any requested record that is redacted for public dissemination.
However, an agency may not charge any redaction fee under certain circumstances, such as when the requestor is an involved person in the requested record or the record shows certain types of incidents (such as a shooting that involved a police officer).
Under the bill, an “involved person” is any (1) individual depicted in a body or dashboard camera recording;
(2) individual directly involved in the incident that led to the police officer being called to respond;
or (3) responding police officer, including the officer who created the recording.
For certain types of body and dashboard camera recordings, the bill sets additional redaction and disclosure requirements.
Among other things, it requires that recordings showing certain confidential events (such as encounters with undercover officers) be redacted and permits disclosure of a record of a minor in additional circumstances.
SB225 / File No.
202 15 SB225 File No.
202 Lastly, the bill makes technical and conforming changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
October 1, 2026 REDACTION FEES Fee Calculation Under existing law, fees for copies of public records (including body and dashboard camera recordings) are set by FOIA unless the law provides otherwise (see BACKGROUND).
Generally, FOIA does not allow public agencies to charge requestors for the time spent redacting a record.
The bill generally allowspublic agenciesthat maintaincopiesofbody or dashboard camera recordings to charge requestors a redaction fee, but only for the time in excess of four hours they spend redacting the requested recordings.
Beyond four hours, the bill allows an agency to charge the hourly wage (the base salary excluding benefits) of the lowest-paid employee with the necessary training to redact the record.
The bill prohibits agencies from charging for (1) time spent searching for the requested records, (2) an attorney hired to do a second review of the record, or (3) a digital management company’s services.
Under the bill, the redaction fee may not exceed $100 per hour of the actual length of time of the requested record.
The agency may round up the actual length of time to the nearest half hour at the rate of $50 per half hour (for example, for a 5 hour and 10 minute-long recording, an agency could charge no more than $550).
Agencies (1) must inform the requestor if the fee is estimated to exceed $250, (2) may require prepayment in these cases, and (3) must refund any portion of a prepayment that exceeds the actual labor costs.
The bill allows the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) to order a refund of a payment or prepayment if it finds that a public agency violated these fee provisions.
SB225 / File No.
202 16 SB225 File No.
202 Fee Prohibitions and Waivers The bill prohibits public agencies from charging any redaction fee to arequestingpartywhoisan(1)involvedpersonintherequestedrecord;
(2) involved person’s parent or legal guardian;
or (3) attorney representing an involved person in a civil, criminal, or administrative matter.
It also prohibits fees from being charged:
1.
for records that depict a police officer (a) involved in a shooting or motor vehicle accident or (b) giving a formal statement about the use of force, or 2.
if there is an allegation of misconduct by the police officer involved or the officer is the subject of a disciplinary investigation.
The bill specifies that these records remain subject to the disclosure limitations under current law and the bill.
The bill also requires agencies to waive the redaction fee for the same reasons that FOIA requires copying fees to be waived.
FOIA generally requires these fee waivers for (1) political subdivisions’ elected officials getting records from their own agency for official business;
(2) indigent people;
(3) public defenders;
(4) records exempt from disclosure;
and (5) requests that benefit the general welfare, as determined by the agency.
DISCLOSURE AND REDACTION OF BODY CAMERA RECORDINGS Additional Disclosure Requirements With certain exceptions, existing law generally prohibits disclosing recordings of a minor.
Under current law, a recording of a minor must be disclosed if the minor and his or her parent or guardian consent to disclosure, it is needed by defense counsel, or it is needed by a person representing a police officer in a matter related to a minor’s allegation of misconduct by the officer.
The bill additionally requires disclosure if the (1) minor is an involved person and (2) parent or guardian is a requesting party or also an involved person.
Additional Redaction Requirements SB225 / File No.
202 17 SB225 File No.
202 The bill requires redaction of body and dashboard camera recordings of any of the following, which under current law are confidential and generally exempt from disclosure under FOIA:
1.
communications between law enforcement unit personnel, except those that may be recorded as an officer does his or her duties;
2.
encounters with undercover officers, informants, or officers doing certain detective work;
3.
officers on break or engaging in a personal activity;
4.
someone undergoing a medical or psychological evaluation, procedure, or treatment;
5.
anyone, other than a criminal suspect, in a hospital or other medical facility;
6.
a mental health facility, unless the recording was made during a response to a call involving a criminal suspect thought to be at the facility;
7.
scenes of an incident involving victims of domestic or sexual abuse, homicide or suicide, or a fatal accident, if disclosure could reasonably be expected to be an unwarranted invasion of the victim’s personal privacy;
or 8.
a minor.
BACKGROUND FOIA Fees If a public record is maintained in a computer storage system, FOIA allows public agencies to charge the following for producing copies of it:
1.
the hourly salary attributed to all agency employees engaged in providing the requested record (including their time doing SB225 / File No.
202 18 SB225 File No.
202 necessary formatting or programming functions, but not search or retrieval costs);
2.
the cost of an outside professional electronic copying service, if needed;
3.
the actual cost of the storage devices or media given to the requestor;
and 4.
computer time chargesif a contractor or another agency provides the storage and retrieval services.
Related Case In a case decided in 2023, FOIC rejected a law enforcement agency’s attempt to charge a requestor for labor costs to pixelate and mute abody camera recording.
Specifically, FOIC ruled that these actions were not formatting or programming within the meaning of FOIA’s fee provisions (because the agency used existing software and did not need to develop a program or contract with an outside entity to develop one) (FIC 2022-0176 (2023)).
COMMITTEE ACTION Government Administration and Elections Committee Joint Favorable Yea 19 Nay 0 (03/11/2026) SB225 / File No.
202 19
Show all 135 changed rows (95 more)
Action History
-
FILE NO. 202
-
SENATE CALENDAR NUMBER 123
-
FAV. RPT., TAB. FOR CAL., SEN.
-
RPTD. OUT OF LCO
-
REFERRED TO Office of Legislative Research AND Office of Fiscal Analysis 03/25/26
-
FILED WITH LCO
-
Joint Favorable
-
PUBLIC HEARING 0223
-
REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Government Administration and Elections
Sponsors
- Rob Sampson · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 186 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Rob Sampson Republican
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (186)
186 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 186 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 225?
- SB 225 is sponsored by Rob Sampson (Republican).
- What is the current status of SB 225?
- This bill is in committee in the Senate. Introduced February 18, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
- Where can I track SB 225?
- Track SB 225 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 225
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 225
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →