Can a Texas officer watch other officers' body camera video before giving a statement?

Plain-English summary

Texas agencies that run body-worn-camera programs have to adopt written policies covering certain topics, and one required provision, Occupations Code subsection 1701.655(b)(5), entitles an officer to access "any recording of an incident involving the officer" before the officer is required to give a statement about it. The Dallas County Criminal District Attorney told the AG that agencies were reading that provision two different ways. Some let an officer view only the footage from the officer's own camera; others let the officer view footage of the incident from every camera worn by officers who were present. The District Attorney raised the concern that letting an officer watch other cameras' footage might let officers shape their statements around things they did not personally experience, and asked which reading the statute requires.

The AG treated this as a plain-meaning question. The provision gives the right of access to an officer who must make a statement, and it defines the recordings the officer can reach by their subject matter, the incident involving the officer, not by who was wearing the camera. The whole question then came down to the word "any." Texas courts generally read "any" to mean "every," though context can narrow it. Here nothing in the statute or the rest of the body-camera subchapter limited the officer's access to only the officer's own camera, and courts do not imply restrictions that are not in the text or second-guess the Legislature's policy choices by adding words.

So the AG concluded that "any recording" means the officer may choose which recording or recordings of the incident to access, including footage from other officers' cameras. The District Attorney's policy concern about embellishment, however reasonable, could not override the statute's words. An agency keeps discretion over the details of its body-camera policy, but it cannot adopt a policy that defeats the officer's statutory right to access any recording of the incident before giving a statement.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The Dallas County Criminal District Attorney (who requested the opinion): The opinion answered that subsection 1701.655(b)(5) entitles an officer to choose which recordings of the incident to access, so the broader reading was correct. It acknowledged the District Attorney's concern that this might let officers embellish their statements, but explained that the statute's text controls and that policy arguments cannot override it.

Law enforcement agencies writing body-camera policies (as the opinion described them): The opinion told agencies they retain discretion over the details of their policies, but that a policy may not limit an officer to only the officer's own camera footage; it must let the officer access any recording of the incident involving the officer before a statement is required.

Peace officers involved in incidents (as the opinion described them): The opinion treated officers as holding a statutory right to choose which recording or recordings of the incident to review before making a statement, a right that does not depend on who wore the camera.

Common questions

Before giving a statement, can a Texas officer watch body-camera video from other officers?
The AG concluded yes. Subsection 1701.655(b)(5) entitles an officer to access any recording of an incident involving the officer before making a statement, and that includes footage from other officers' cameras, not just the officer's own.

Why does "any recording" include other cameras?
Because the statute identifies the accessible recordings by subject matter (the incident involving the officer), not by who wore the camera, and Texas courts generally read "any" to mean "every." Nothing in the statute limited access to the officer's own camera.

Can an agency adopt a stricter policy limiting officers to their own footage?
No. The AG explained that an agency has discretion over policy details but may not adopt a policy that defeats the officer's statutory right to access any recording of the incident before providing a statement.

What about the concern that officers might tailor their statements?
The AG acknowledged that concern but concluded it is a policy argument that cannot prevail over the words of the statute. Courts do not add restrictions the Legislature did not write.

Background and statutory framework

Section 1701.655 sits in Occupations Code chapter 1701, subchapter N, governing body-worn-camera programs (Tex. Occ. Code §§ 1701.651-.663), and defines "body worn camera" (§ 1701.651(1)). An agency that receives a program grant or otherwise operates a body-camera program must adopt a policy (§ 1701.655(a)), and subsection (b) lists required guidelines, some discretionary in detail and some with minimum requirements (§ 1701.655(b), (b)(1)-(7)). Subsection (b)(5) requires the policy to include "provisions entitling an officer to access any recording of an incident involving the officer before the officer is required to make a statement about the incident."

The AG applied the rules of grammar and common usage (Tex. Gov't Code § 311.011(a); Nassar v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 508 S.W.3d 254, 258 (Tex. 2017)), giving undefined terms their ordinary meaning (Tex. State Bd. of Exam'rs of Marriage & Family Therapists v. Tex. Med. Ass'n, 511 S.W.3d 28, 34 (Tex. 2017)) and, for terms with multiple meanings, the meaning most consistent with the statutory scheme (Thompson v. Tex. Dep't of Licensing & Regulation, 455 S.W.3d 569, 571 (Tex. 2014)). Texas courts generally read "any" as "every," subject to context (Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829, 840 (Tex. 2010); Tex. Co. v. Schriewer, 38 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1931), modified sub nom. Smith v. Tex. Co., 53 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1932, holding approved)). Because nothing limited access to the officer's own camera, and courts do not imply unwritten restrictions (Kroger Co. v. Keng, 23 S.W.3d 347, 349 (Tex. 2000)) or add language to an unambiguous statute over policy arguments (City of Houston v. Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 764, 774 (Tex. 2006); In re Blair, 408 S.W.3d 843, 869 (Tex. 2013)), the AG concluded the officer may choose which recordings of the incident to access.

Citations

Cases:

• Nassar v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 508 S.W.3d 254, 258 (Tex. 2017)
• Tex. State Bd. of Exam'rs of Marriage & Family Therapists v. Tex. Med. Ass'n, 511 S.W.3d 28, 34 (Tex. 2017)
• Thompson v. Tex. Dep't of Licensing & Regulation, 455 S.W.3d 569, 571 (Tex. 2014)
• Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829, 840 (Tex. 2010)
• Tex. Co. v. Schriewer, 38 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1931), modified sub nom. Smith v. Tex. Co., 53 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1932, holding approved)
• Kroger Co. v. Keng, 23 S.W.3d 347, 349 (Tex. 2000)
• City of Houston v. Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 764, 774 (Tex. 2006)
• In re Blair, 408 S.W.3d 843, 869 (Tex. 2013)

Statutes:

• Tex. Occ. Code §§ 1701.651-.663, 1701.651(1), 1701.655, 1701.655(a), (b), (b)(1)-(7), (b)(5)
• Tex. Gov't Code § 311.011(a)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0185
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2018/kp0185.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

March 19, 2018

The Honorable Faith Johnson Opinion No. KP-0185
Dallas County Criminal District Attorney
133 North Riverfront Blvd., L.B. 19 Re: Which body-worn-camera recordings an
Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 officer may review, pursuant to Occupations
Code subsection 1701.655(b)(5), before
making a statement about an officer-involved
incident (RQ-0177-KP)

Dear Ms. Johnson:

    Section 1701.655 of the Occupations Code requires specified law enforcement agencies to adopt a policy that addresses several issues about the use of body-worn cameras. TEX. OCC. CODE § 1701.655. You ask about the requirement in subsection 1701.655(b)(5) concerning peace officers' access to recordings of incidents involving the officers. Id. § 1701.655(b)(5). [1] You inform us that some law enforcement agencies have a policy allowing an officer involved in an incident to access the recording from the camera worn by the officer, but not recordings of the incident from cameras worn by other officers. Request Letter at 1. Other agencies, you tell us, interpret subsection (b)(5) to allow an officer giving a statement to access recordings of an incident whether made by the officer's own body-worn camera or by the cameras worn by other officers who were present at some point during the incident. Id. You state that an officer who accesses recordings from cameras worn by others may be exposed to images and sounds that the officer did not personally experience. Id. at 1-2. You contend that allowing an officer involved in an incident to access such recordings gives rise to the concern that the officers may embellish their statements based on recordings other than the recording from their own body-worn camera. Id. You ask whether subsection 1701.655(b)(5) "mandates that an officer be entitled to view every officer's body worn camera [recording] of an incident or just [the recording from] that individual officer's body worn camera." Id. at 1.

   Section 1701.655 is located in chapter 1701, subchapter N, governing body-worn-camera programs for specified law enforcement agencies. TEX. OCC. CODE §§ 1701.651-.663. Subchapter N establishes standards for program grants, personnel training, peace officer interactions with the public, preservation of recordings, release of recordings to the public, and other matters. Id. The subchapter defines "Body worn camera" as

            a recording device that is: (A) capable of recording, or transmitting to be recorded remotely, video or audio; and (B) worn on the person of a peace officer, which includes being attached to the officer's clothing or worn as glasses.

Id. § 1701.651(1).

    Section 1701.655 requires a law enforcement agency to adopt a policy for the use of body-worn cameras if the agency either receives a program grant or otherwise operates a body-worn-camera program. Id. § 1701.655(a). Subsection (b) identifies guidelines and provisions that the policy must include, leaving the details for some matters to the law enforcement agency's discretion, but specifying minimum requirements for other matters. Id. § 1701.655(b)(1)-(7). Your question calls for a construction of subsection 1701.655(b)(5), which requires the law enforcement agency's policy to include:

            (5) provisions entitling an officer to access any recording of an incident involving the officer before the officer is required to make a statement about the incident.

Id. § 1701.655(b)(5); Request Letter at 1.

    Courts construe statutes according to "rules of grammar and common usage." TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.011(a); see also Nassar v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 508 S.W.3d 254, 258 (Tex. 2017). When a statute does not define key terms, courts "apply their common, ordinary meaning unless a contrary meaning is apparent from the statute's language." Tex. State Bd. of Exam'rs of Marriage & Family Therapists v. Tex. Med. Ass'n, 511 S.W.3d 28, 34 (Tex. 2017); see also Nassar, 508 S.W.3d at 258 (stating that courts "give words and phrases their ordinary and generally accepted meaning"). To determine a word's common meaning, courts typically begin by considering dictionary definitions. Tex. State Bd. of Exam'rs, 511 S.W.3d at 35. When an undefined term has multiple meanings, courts "apply the definition most consistent with the context of the statutory scheme." Thompson v. Tex. Dep't of Licensing & Regulation, 455 S.W.3d 569, 571 (Tex. 2014).

    Under subsection 1701.655(b)(5), a law enforcement agency's body-worn-camera policy must contain a provision "entitling" a peace officer to certain access. TEX. OCC. CODE § 1701.655(b)(5). In context, "entitling" means conferring a right. [2] The right of access belongs to a peace officer required to make a statement about an incident involving the officer. Id. The subject of the recording that the officer may access is the incident involving the officer. Id. Thus, whether a peace officer has the right to access a particular recording turns on the meaning of the word "any" in the phrase "any recording of an incident involving the officer." Id.

    Texas courts generally interpret "any" to mean "every." Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829, 840 (Tex. 2010) (citations omitted). In its broad sense, "any" may also commonly mean "all," "each," or "each one of all." Tex. Co. v. Schriewer, 38 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1931), modified sub nom. Smith v. Tex. Co., 53 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1932, holding approved). However, the meaning of "any" can be "restrained, limited," or influenced by the subject-matter or manner in which it is used. Id.

     Subsection 1701.655(b)(5) identifies the recordings that an officer may access according to subject matter but not by the identity of the person wearing the camera making the recording. TEX. OCC. CODE § 1701.655(b)(5). Nor does any other provision in Subchapter N impliedly restrict the officer's access rights to only those recordings made by the camera worn by the officer. Courts do not imply restrictions that cannot be found in a statute's plain language. See Kroger Co. v. Keng, 23 S.W.3d 347, 349 (Tex. 2000). While there may be valid arguments for or against such a restriction, courts do not "second-guess the Legislature's policy choice by adding language to an unambiguous statute." City of Houston v. Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 764, 774 (Tex. 2006); see also In re Blair, 408 S.W.3d 843, 869 (Tex. 2013) (holding that "policy arguments cannot prevail over the words of the statute"). Thus, in subsection 1701.655(b)(5), an officer's entitlement to access "any" of the recordings of the incident means that the officer may choose which recording or recordings to access. TEX. OCC. CODE § 1701.655(b)(5). Further, while a law enforcement agency has general discretion to establish the details of its body-worn-camera policies, its policies may not defeat an officer's statutory right to access any recording of the incident before providing a statement. See id. Accordingly, subsection 1701.655(b)(5) of the Occupations Code requires a law enforcement agency that receives a grant for a body-worn-camera program or otherwise operates a body-worn-camera program to adopt a policy that entitles a peace officer to choose which recording or recordings of an incident involving the officer to access before the officer is required to make a statement about the incident.

                                   SUMMARY

                 Subsection 1701.655(b)(5) of the Occupations Code requires a law enforcement agency that receives a grant for a body-worn-camera program or otherwise operates a body-worn-camera program to adopt a policy that entitles a peace officer to choose which recording or recordings of an incident involving the officer to access before the officer is required to make a statement about the incident.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        KEN PAXTON
                                        Attorney General of Texas

JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

WILLIAM A. HILL
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter from Honorable Faith Johnson, Dallas Cty. Criminal Dist. Att'y, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Sept. 8, 2017), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinions-rqs ("Request Letter").

[2] See AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY 595 (5th ed. 2016) ("to furnish with a right or claim to something"); WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 758 (2002) ("to give a right or legal title to"); BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 649 (10th ed. 2014) ("to grant a legal right to or qualify for").