In 2020, South Dakota found itself at a crossroads regarding the management of police body camera footage. A bill was introduced that year by then-Senator Reynold Nesiba, a Democrat from Sioux Falls, intending to establish consistent statewide regulations on how police body camera footage should be obtained, managed, accessed, and shared. This initiative aimed to eliminate the inconsistent practices that currently vary between different police departments across South Dakota.
Without a state law, individual police agencies are left to decide independently on their body camera policies. According to Nesiba, “In South Dakota, we have a patchwork and it depends on the individual police department. I think it puts our law enforcement in a really difficult position. I think it would be helpful to have guiding statute under what conditions it becomes a public record, who can ask for that record and under what conditions it can be released or held back.”
Despite the logical need for a unified approach, Senate Bill 100 faced considerable opposition from local law enforcement officials. These officials testified before legislative committees claiming the measure was unwarranted because their agencies already adhere to a set of ‘best practices’ regarding body camera usage. The bill, unfortunately, did not make it to a vote as its original language was removed during the committee review, aiming instead for a legislative summer study session on the topic, which was subsequently turned down.
Since this legislative effort in 2020, no further bills regarding police video have been introduced in the South Dakota Legislature. This inaction has left the state behind many others that have implemented regulations concerning police video access and usage. Reflecting on this, David Bordewyk, the executive director of the South Dakota NewsMedia Association, highlighted that “We are on an island because our law is so weak in this area and a consequence is loss of public trust and having full confidence in the accountability of law enforcement.”
State Senator Helene Duhamel, a Rapid City Republican, supports maintaining the current open records law. In an email, she stated, “I am not pursuing changes to current public records laws involving law enforcement video. Body-worn cameras are used every day by our largest agencies in South Dakota. It is one of the most successful policing reforms of the 21st century.” Duhamel’s stance underscores the prevailing belief among state legislators that existing regulations suffice.
South Dakota ranks poorly in analyses of public access to records, which affects the trust between the community and its law enforcement agencies. According to David Cullier, director of the Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida, “They allow police to keep everything secret, and that’s against the basics of public records laws that have been around for hundreds of years.” This critique resonates with many South Dakotans concerned about transparency, especially following national incidents where police conduct was questioned.
Body camera footage can serve as crucial evidence, such as in Corson County, where Sheriff Alan Dale mentioned that such videos have been instrumental in validating police conduct and resolving complaints. He recounted, “In one incident, we had someone complain the officer searched a vehicle without cause. And when we watched the video, it showed the man actually giving the deputy his consent to search.” Sheriff Dale supports the idea of a uniform state policy that would standardize the use of body cameras statewide.
Considering the broader implications, the public demand for more access to police videos has escalated, notably after high-profile incidents like the 2020 murder of George Floyd. These events have intensified the clamor for transparency and accountability, pressuring states like South Dakota to reevaluate their public records laws.
Despite the challenges, some South Dakota police agencies are attempting to foster trust with the community by releasing video footage voluntarily. However, these cases are infrequent and not always related to disputes over officer conduct. This discretionary practice can sometimes lead to public discord, as consistent access to such records is not guaranteed.
The absence of legislative action on this important matter leaves citizens and police departments at a critical juncture. Advocates such as Reynold Nesiba and organizations like the South Dakota NewsMedia Association continue to press for reforms that would ensure greater accountability and diminish the patchwork system currently in place.
As South Dakota looks to the future, a balanced approach that respects the privacy and integrity of both law enforcement operations and public transparency remains essential. The conversation surrounding police body camera footage is a significant aspect of building a more transparent and accountable relationship between law enforcement and the citizens they serve.