Title of Bill
A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the New York city police department to provide the civilian complaint review board with direct access to officer body-worn camera footage and to establish related procedures

Summary of Provisions
Intro. 1451-2025 (Adams) would require the New York City Police Department to provide the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) with direct, real-time connection to its body-worn camera footage servers, which would include, at minimum, the ability to remotely access, search, and store the footage. The Police Department would be forbidden from limiting the CCRB’s access unless otherwise required by law. Additionally, the bill would require the NYPD segregate its sealed body-worn camera footage in accordance with relevant laws. It would add a new section to Title 14 of the administrative code. 

Statement of Support
Citizens Union supports Intro. 1451-2025 because it would expedite and improve the quality of investigations into police misconduct and wrongdoing, thus strengthening appropriate oversight and accountability of the NYPD. The bill would reduce the limitations investigative agencies face in accessing police officers’ body-worn camera footage through codifying the timing, type, and uses of such access. By providing prompt and full access to body-worn camera footage, Intro. 1451-2025 would ensure the CCRB arrives at a clear and fair interpretation of events in a timely manner and prevent the Police Department from unjustifiably denying access to effective investigative resources. 

Details of Position 
Pursuant to the New York City Charter, the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) has the power to “compel the attendance of witnesses and require the production of such records and other materials as are necessary for the investigation of matters within its jurisdiction.” ¹ In the past, however, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), in practice, withheld significant, relevant information from the CCRB or produced it after substantial delays and often with redactions. ² Two years ago, Citizens Union testified in favor of this proposed law, and today we’ll do the same, largely with the same testimony and updated data. While CCRB’s access to body-worn camera footage seems to have improved, Citizens Union believes it’s best to codify the Board’s access to materials into law so tactics intended to undermine the Charter and the investigations into misconduct do not return under different leadership. 

The NYPD provided limited access to body-worn camera footage

The NYPD’s past failure to provide prompt access to relevant materials for investigations was especially apparent in the use of body-worn camera (BWC) footage. Since the introduction of body-worn cameras in 2014, the NYPD resisted and delayed efforts by the CCRB to obtain the needed footage. In 2019, the two agencies agreed to a cumbersome procedure in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for providing access to CCRB investigators, which still gave the NYPD control of the footage and significantly hindered the CCRB. They signed a new MOU in 2023 that required the NYPD to share BWC footage and other evidence with the CCRB within 90 days after a request.  

This bill would ensure that the CCRB is not dependent on the Department’s response by providing the CCRB with direct access to the NYPD’s servers, at a level similar to that used by the Department’s own Internal Affairs Bureau. This would streamline investigations and ensure there are no roadblocks in access. 

In the past, delays in providing BWC footage were also caused by the NYPD comingling sealed and unsealed records on their servers. Under state law, arrest records must be sealed in several cases and accessible only to authorized individuals. ³ Because sealed and unsealed records were not separated, NYPD Legal Bureau attorneys need to review and screen each search request from outside agencies prior to their production. Other delays in providing prompt access to relevant materials were based on a myriad of claims of privilege and privacy concerns, some based on statutes designed to protect innocent civilians, not police officers accused of misconduct. It is easy to get lost in the competing legal arguments involved, but in any case, it should be the Corporation Counsel, not the NYPD, who makes the legal judgment as to whether there are any current legal impediments to the NYPD sharing all relevant materials with the CCRB.  

Intro. 1451-2025 would address both of these issues. It requires the NYPD to maintain body-worn camera footage in compliance with legal requirements for segregation of sealed materials, and expliclty states that limits to the CCRB’s direct access to materials will only be made if “required by law.”  

We note that a similar problem faced other agencies that require independent access to BWC footage to fulfill their mandates for oversight over the NYPD. The Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD (OIG-NYPD) at the Department of Investigations, which is charged by Charter §808 to “collect and evaluate information regarding allegations or findings of improper police conduct and develop recommendations relating to the discipline, training, and monitoring of police officers,” ⁴ has an express interest in also being provided access to BWC footage. Other §808 agencies, including the Law Department, the Comptroller, the Commission to Combat Police Corruption, and the Commission on Human Rights, may also need some level of access to body-worn camera footage. 

Limited access to footage impedes investigations into police misconduct

These limitations present substantial obstacles to investigations of complaints of police misconduct. Since its introduction in 2014, the NYPD’s BWC program has become the largest in the country, with 24,000 of its members equipped with the technology. ⁵ The result of years of unconstitutional “stop and frisk” policing – through which the NYPD disproportionately targeted and infringed on the civil rights of Black and Hispanic communities – BWC footage has played a critical role in producing video evidence crucial to the exoneration and protection of citizens as well as members of the NYPD.  

The footage allows the CCRB to resolve conflicting testimonies and receive a clearer interpretation of the circumstances of an encounter. They have been especially effective in getting fully investigated complaints closed “on the merits,” allowing the CCRB to determine whether an officer’s actions are misconduct. CCRB data continues to show that the rates of both “substantiated” and “unfounded” findings significantly increased in investigations with BWC footage. ⁶  

In the past, the CCRB has cited its inability to complete investigations of complaints with getting BWC footage, including “delayed responses, false positives (NYPD turned over footage that was either incorrect or irrelevant in response to a video request), false negatives (the NYPD reported that queries for the requested video footage did not return any results, but the footage was later discovered), and inconsistent responses by the NYPD.”⁷ 

Such delays run counter to the city’s stated goals for the CCRB, as set by the Mayor’s Management Report, including improving the timeliness of investigations.⁸ They may also contribute to greater “non-concurrence” in disciplinary actions between the CCRB recommendations and the Police Commissioner’s decision.  

As mentioned, there has been notable progress made in providing footage. The average business days it took for the NYPD to respond to CCRB footage requests dropped from 48 in 2019 to 7 days the first half of 2025. Most recent data shows that the CCRB was able to collect BWC footage in 92% of all fully investigated complaints. ⁹ 

However, the basic point is that the city currently runs two parallel systems for disciplining police officers. One is run by the NYPD through its Internal Affairs Bureau and has access to all relevant information in the possession of the Police Department. The other is run by the CCRB and has access only to the materials that the NYPD decides to turn over. This situation is intolerable. 

The best way to ensure the safe and democratic application of policing is to strengthen and streamline systems of oversight and accountability. The CCRB should have prompt and full access to footage from body-worn cameras and all other NYPD documents and materials relevant to its investigations.