California Police Body Camera Laws: Footage & Access

In California, a bodycam or dashcam recording of a "critical incident," an officer discharging a firearm at a person or using force that causes death or great bodily injury, must generally be released to the public within 45 days of the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, under Government Code § 7923.625, part of the California Public Records Act.

This guide is part of our Police Bodycam Laws by State series.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses California state law on public access to police body-worn camera and dashcam footage, primarily Government Code § 7923.625 (critical incident recordings). It touches on the related Penal Code § 832.7(b) personnel-records disclosure law without covering it in depth, and does not address a civilian's right to record police, which is covered separately in our guide to recording laws.

Does California require police to use body cameras?

California has no single statewide statute that forces every law enforcement agency to equip officers with body cameras. Adoption has instead happened department by department, driven by local policy, city council decisions, and, in some departments, federal grant funding through the U.S. Department of Justice Body-Worn Camera Partnership Program rather than a state mandate. In practice, most large California police departments and sheriff's offices, including the Los Angeles Police Department, the San Francisco Police Department, and the California Highway Patrol, use body cameras under their own policies. What California does regulate closely by statute is not whether an agency must have cameras, but what an agency must do with certain categories of footage once it exists, particularly footage from the most serious incidents.

The 45-day critical incident disclosure rule

California's core bodycam-access statute is Government Code § 7923.625, part of the California Public Records Act. It requires that video or audio recordings of a "critical incident" be made available to the public on request. A critical incident is an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, or an incident in which an officer's use of force against a person results in death or great bodily injury, according to the California Legislative Information site. One category of officer is carved out: subdivision (d) provides that, for purposes of this section, a peace officer does not include any peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, so a shooting or fatal use of force by a CDCR officer inside a state prison is outside this release rule. The statute was originally enacted as Assembly Bill 748 in 2018 (approved by the governor on September 30, 2018, effective July 1, 2019), which amended former Government Code § 6254(f); the CPRA was renumbered in 2023 and the same substantive rule now lives at § 7923.625. The default rule is disclosure "at the earliest possible time," and no later than 45 calendar days after the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident.

When can a California agency delay releasing footage?

An agency may delay disclosure beyond the 45-day default if it determines that releasing the recording would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, for example by identifying a confidential witness or compromising an ongoing forensic process. When an agency delays, § 7923.625 requires it to state in writing the specific basis for concluding disclosure would interfere with the investigation, along with the estimated date of disclosure. That delay can run up to one year from the date the agency knew or should have known about the incident. Beyond one year, further delay is allowed only if the agency can show, by clear and convincing evidence, a continuing basis for withholding. Throughout any delay, the agency must reassess the justification and update the requester at least every 30 days, according to the California Legislative Information site. Redaction is permitted to protect a legitimate privacy interest, such as blurring a bystander's face, but the statute does not allow redaction that would prevent the public from fully and accurately understanding what the video depicts.

The investigation clock is not the only way a recording stays out of public view, and this is the part readers most often miss. Under § 7923.625(b)(2), if an agency demonstrates that a depicted subject's reasonable expectation of privacy cannot adequately be protected through redaction, and that the privacy interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public entirely. There is no 45-day or one-year limit on that withholding; the clocks in subdivision (a) apply to investigation-based delay, not to this privacy ground. What the statute does guarantee is a private channel: the recording, redacted or unredacted, must be disclosed promptly on request to the subject whose privacy is being protected or that subject's authorized representative, to the parent or legal guardian if the subject is a minor, and to an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative if the subject is deceased. If even that limited disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation, § 7923.625(b)(3) lets the agency hold the recording for 45 days, subject to the same extensions described above. So a family may be able to see footage the general public never gets.

Watch out: The 45-day clock applies specifically to "critical incident" recordings (firearm discharges at a person, and force causing death or great bodily injury), and it is a deadline for disclosure, not a guarantee of it. Bodycam footage from a routine traffic stop or an arrest with no serious injury does not fall under this specific timeline; it is instead subject to the California Public Records Act's more general request-and-response process, which can move faster or slower depending on the agency and any applicable exemptions.

The related, separate California law on officer misconduct records

California readers researching bodycam access will often run into a second, related law: Penal Code § 832.7(b), the peace officer personnel-records disclosure statute created by Senate Bill 1421 (2018) and expanded by Senate Bill 16 (2021). That law requires agencies to disclose specified peace officer personnel records where there has been a sustained finding of an officer's dishonesty, a sustained finding of sexual assault, a sustained finding of excessive or unreasonable force, or a sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using excessive force, according to the California Legislative Information site. This is a distinct legal track from the critical-incident video rule in Government Code § 7923.625: SB 1421 and SB 16 govern an officer's personnel and disciplinary file, while § 7923.625 governs the recording itself, independent of whether any misconduct is ultimately found. A single serious incident can trigger disclosure obligations under both statutes at once, which is part of why the two are often discussed together, but they are not the same law and have separate release procedures.

How long is bodycam footage kept in California?

Government Code § 7923.625 itself sets no retention period. It is focused on disclosure timing once a request is made, not on how long an agency must keep a recording before it may be deleted. But California does have a statewide statutory framework for retention, and it sits in a different code: Penal Code § 832.18. That section tells law enforcement agencies that when they establish body-worn camera policies they "shall consider" a list of best practices, and subdivision (b)(5) supplies the numbers agencies are expected to build around. Nonevidentiary footage should be retained for a minimum of 60 days, after which it may be erased, destroyed, or recycled, though an agency may keep it longer to handle civilian complaints and preserve transparency. Evidentiary footage should be retained for a minimum of two years where the recording captures a use of force by a peace officer or an officer-involved shooting, leads to a detention or arrest, or is relevant to a formal or informal complaint against an officer or agency. Where a recording may be relevant to a criminal prosecution, the agency should hold it beyond those minimums, on the same terms the law requires for other evidence. Records or logs of access to and deletion of body-worn camera data should be retained permanently.

Because § 832.18 is framed as best practices an agency must consider rather than a single rigid number like the 45-day disclosure clock, the exact schedule still varies from department to department, and each agency's own records-retention policy is where you will find the operative figure. In practice, the statutory minimums are the floor most California policies are written against: routine, non-evidentiary footage is commonly held for a period measured in months, while footage connected to a shooting, a death, an open investigation, or pending litigation is held far longer, often for years, to satisfy litigation-hold and evidence-preservation obligations. Section 832.18 also states expressly that it does not limit the public's right to access recorded data under the California Public Records Act.

Is a civilian allowed to record the police in California?

That is a different question from what this page addresses. California generally applies its two-party consent wiretap law to private conversations, but recording an on-duty officer performing public duties in public is treated differently under well-established First Amendment case law. For the full explanation, see Is It Illegal to Record Someone?

More California Laws

• California Data Privacy Laws
• California Drone Laws
• California Recording Laws