Police Reports by State: How to Get a Copy, What They Cost, and What's Public
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 11, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 11, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
A police report is not one document. "Crash report" and "incident report" are two entirely separate products in almost every state, held by different agencies, released under different rules, and priced differently, and most confusion about how to get a copy traces back to not knowing which one you actually need.
This guide covers both channels, the federal privacy layer that decides who gets a full copy versus a redacted one, what a report typically costs, and a state-by-state table with the real crash-report channel, the incident-report law, and the bodycam statute (or its honest absence) for all 50 states and DC.
Information last verified on 2026-08-11. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Crash Report or Incident Report: Two Different Channels
Every state researched for this guide, Texas, Florida, California, and New York among them, runs crash reports through a separate administrative channel from incident or offense reports. A crash report usually comes from a state Department of Transportation, Department of Motor Vehicles, or Department of Public Safety, sometimes through a private vendor the agency has authorized, most commonly LexisNexis's BuyCrash platform. An incident report, covering an arrest, a burglary, an assault, or any non-crash police response, comes from the specific local department that responded, released under the state's general public-records or open-records act rather than a crash-specific statute.
This split shows up even inside a single state. New York's crash-report copy comes from the DMV once the report is processed, through the online Order Crash Reports Online portal or by mailing form MV-198C, while a crash on the Thruway system uses an entirely separate form, TA-W4310, sent to the Thruway Authority instead of DMV. An incident report from an NYPD precinct is a third, unrelated channel. Confusing these three is the single most common way a request goes nowhere: mailing a Thruway crash form to DMV, or looking for an arrest report on a crash-report portal, gets a dead end even though the information exists somewhere in the system.
Many states also route crash reports through LexisNexis's BuyCrash, agency-white-labeled software that lets a police department post its own crash reports for 24/7 online purchase. BuyCrash is not a data-broker lookup site. Each agency's storefront serves only that agency's own reports, the same official-distribution role a state's own portal plays; Indiana, Georgia, and many Connecticut and Maryland jurisdictions route through it. A town or county that lists BuyCrash on its own .gov page is treating it as the official channel, not outsourcing to a third party.
Getting a Copy: Where the Two Intents Diverge
Someone searching for "how to get a police report" is usually one of two different readers. The first wants a copy of a report that already exists, most often after a crash, to give to an insurer or an attorney. The second wants to report something that just happened, a theft, a hit-and-run, harassment, and needs to know how to file in the first place. Search demand for filing ("how to file a police report," roughly 9,900 searches a month) actually outweighs demand for obtaining a copy of an existing report ("how to get a police report," roughly 3,600 a month), and the two audiences want completely different pages.
If you need to file a new report, see How to File a Police Report for the 911-versus-non-emergency-line decision, online reporting thresholds, and what filing does and does not accomplish. If you already have a report number and need to make sense of what the document actually says, codes, narrative sections, the diagram, see How to Read a Police Report. If what you actually want is bodycam or dashcam video rather than the written report, that is a separate legal framework covered in How to Request Body Cam Footage. And if the underlying question is simply whether any of this is public in the first place, see Are Police Reports Public?
What a Police Report Costs
Fees vary by state and by report type, and no single number is typical. Confirmed figures from official state sources cluster in the $4 to $25 range for a standard crash report: Missouri and Illinois's ISP E-Pay both charge $5 to $6, Idaho's Transportation Department portal charges $7, Texas's CRIS charges $6 for a standard copy and $8 certified, Florida's Crash Portal charges $10 plus a $2 online convenience fee, and New Jersey tiers from $5 for a Turnpike report to $20 for a serious-injury or fatal investigation file. Real outliers exist on both ends: North Dakota's online portal charges $7, while West Virginia charges $20 standard and $25 for a certified copy, and Delaware charges $25 for a standard collision report but $60 for a fatal one. California's CHP prices by page count rather than a flat fee, from $10 for 1 to 25 pages up to $40-plus for longer reports.
Incident reports (non-crash) are usually priced per page rather than a flat fee, and several states waive the fee entirely for the person the report is about; Washington, D.C.'s PD-251 incident report currently has its production fee temporarily waived, and Mississippi's incident reports are treated as public records with no fee structure comparable to a crash-report portal. A report obtained free of charge from the responding agency directly is common; a paid vendor portal exists mainly for the convenience of not having to go through the department in person.
Who Gets a Full Copy vs. a Redacted One: The Federal Layer
Two different federal statutes are relevant here, and only one of them actually restricts access to a crash report.
The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, bars a state DMV from "knowingly disclos[ing] or otherwise mak[ing] available" personal information from a motor vehicle record except under one of the statute's listed permitted uses: law enforcement, insurance investigation and underwriting, litigation, licensed private investigative work, and several others, plus the record subject's own consent. This is the mechanism behind why a crash report handed to a non-party often comes back with names, addresses, and license numbers stripped out while the same report goes unredacted to an involved party or their insurer. Texas Transportation Code § 550.065(c-1) illustrates the pattern directly: any person can get a redacted crash report stripping personal identifiers, while the full unredacted version is reserved for parties, insurers, and their representatives.
A second statute is frequently cited for the wrong reason. 23 U.S.C. § 407, renumbered from the commonly cited § 409, is a narrow litigation-discovery privilege. It shields hazard-identification and safety-planning data, a state's internal survey of its most dangerous intersections, compiled specifically for federal-aid highway safety programs, from being used as evidence that the state had prior notice of a dangerous condition. It has nothing to do with whether the crash report documenting what happened in your specific collision can be withheld from you. A page or agency response that cites "§ 409" or "§ 407" as a reason your own crash report can be denied is misapplying the statute; its scope is federal hazard-planning data, not the report itself.
For records held by a federal agency rather than a state DMV or local police department, the FBI or a federal task force, for example, access runs through the federal Freedom of Information Act instead, and its law-enforcement exemption at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) permits withholding only to the extent release would cause one of six specific harms: interference with an enforcement proceeding, denial of a fair trial, an unwarranted privacy invasion, exposure of a confidential source, exposure of investigative techniques, or endangerment of someone's safety. Each is a case-by-case balancing test, not a blanket bar, and it is the exception rather than the rule for the ordinary reader; most crash and incident reports never touch a federal agency at all.
The 1-in-6 States Where Crash Reports Are Not Confidential
Most states, following the pattern set by Texas, Florida, and California, start from a rule that a crash report is confidential by default and release it only to a defined list of eligible requesters. A meaningful minority of states run the opposite direction, and a national guide that assumes confidentiality-by-default is universal will be wrong for these readers.
Nevada is the clearest inversion: a police-filed crash report under NRS 484E.110 is explicitly not privileged or confidential, while the driver's own self-filed report to the DMV under NRS 484E.070 runs the opposite way and stays confidential. New Jersey's N.J.S.A. 39:4-131 makes police-prepared crash reports open by statute, which is why its NJSP Crash Report Portal requires no eligibility check for a basic report. Indiana Code § 9-26-2-3 states outright that "a police-filed accident report is not a confidential record." South Dakota (SDCL § 32-34-13), North Dakota (N.D.C.C. § 39-08-13), and New York (Public Officers Law § 66-a, reports "open to the inspection of any person having an interest therein") each run the same direction. If your state is one of these six, do not expect the sworn-statement or eligibility-list friction that governs most of the country; check that state's own page in the table below for its specific process.
Incident Reports and the Investigative-File Exemption
An incident or offense report runs through a different rule entirely: the state's general public-records law and its law-enforcement or investigatory-records exemption. Every state independently checked for this guide, New York's Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e), Ohio's R.C. § 149.43, and Illinois's 5 ILCS 140/7, draws the same basic line: a record compiled for law enforcement purposes can be withheld only to the extent disclosure would cause a specific, identifiable harm, interference with an active investigation, exposure of a confidential source, a fair-trial risk, not simply because the record "relates to" law enforcement generally. Arizona is the one state in this research with no codified law-enforcement exemption at all; withholding there runs entirely on case law (Cox Arizona Publications v. Collins and the Scottsdale Unified School District balancing test).
An incident report is also a different document from a bodycam recording, a 911 call, or a court case file, even when all four relate to the same event. See Are 911 Calls Public Records? for that adjacent record type, held by dispatch rather than the responding officer in most jurisdictions.
Bodycam Footage: A Third, Separate Legal Question
Bodycam access is governed by a completely different statute (or, in about a quarter of states, no statute at all) than either report type above. Three structural patterns show up across the country: a standalone dedicated bodycam act (Illinois's 50 ILCS 706/10-20, New Jersey's N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5, Minnesota's § 13.825), the rule embedded as a subsection of the general law-enforcement exemption (Ohio's § 149.43, Washington's RCW 42.56.240(14), Oklahoma's 51 O.S. § 24A.8), or genuine statutory absence, where footage is governed only by agency policy or the general exemption (roughly 13 states, including Arizona, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and West Virginia). Indiana's IC 5-14-3-4(b)(1) is worth knowing as a model for how differently this can be drawn: it states outright that "a law enforcement recording is not an investigatory record," routing bodycam access out of the general exemption entirely and into its own dedicated inspection statute.
The full request process, state-by-state model comparison, and the specific windows and traps (Pennsylvania's separate Act 22 statute, California's SB 1421 critical-incident categories, Oklahoma's 10-day post-arraignment release trigger) live on the dedicated spoke: How to Request Body Cam Footage. For the underlying law in a specific state, mandate status, retention schedules, and case law, see that state's page on Police Bodycam Laws.
Corrections: A Report Is Never Silently Edited
Where a correction process is documented, it follows the same shape everywhere it was found: a supplement or addendum, never a silent rewrite. Texas Transportation Code § 550.068 states this directly, a change to a collision report "may be made only by the peace officer who prepared the report," and a non-officer's correction request results in "a written supplement to the report" that clearly identifies who originated the change, with the original report left intact. Expect this same addendum model as the general rule in any state, even where no formal correction statute was located; the responding agency's records unit is the starting point.
Police Reports by State
The table below lists, for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the real crash-report channel, the incident-report law, and the bodycam statute (or its documented absence) currently in effect. Each state name links to a full page covering exact fees, eligibility, timelines, and the state's own bodycam framework.
| State | Crash-Report Channel | Incident-Report Law | Bodycam Statute |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | ALEA online portal (alabamadl.alea.gov) or in person, $15 | Ala. Code § 12-21-3.1 (LE investigative privilege) | Ala. Code § 36-21-212 (LEARA, dedicated; view-only, no copy) |
| Alaska | DMV Form 440 by mail/email, $10 (no online portal) | AS 40.25.120(a)(6) (general LE exemption) | Policy/case law (no dedicated statute; runs on AS 40.25.120(a)(6)) |
| Arizona | AZDPS Public Services Portal (state highways) or local PD | No codified exemption; case law (Cox/Scottsdale balancing test) | Policy/case law (no statute; same ARS 39-121 framework) |
| Arkansas | Crash Report Online Purchase System, crashreports.ark.org, $10-$25 | Ark. Code § 25-19-105(b)(6) (FOIA LE exemption) | Ark. Code § 12-6-701 (officer-death recordings only; general footage uses FOIA LE exemption) |
| California | CHP Form 190 (CHP-investigated) or local CPRA request, $10-$40+ tiered | Gov't Code § 7923.600 (CPRA LE exemption) | Penal Code § 832.7 (SB 1421 / AB 748, dedicated) |
| Colorado | CSP online request (state highways) or local department | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-305 (CCJRA) | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-31-902 (dedicated, statewide mandate + release) |
| Connecticut | BuyCrash.com (most reports) or DESPP GovQA portal, $16 search fee | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-210(b)(3) (CT FOIA) | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-6d (dedicated, 48-144 hour release clock) |
| Delaware | DSP Traffic Operations, mail-only, $25 ($60 fatal) | 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(3) (Delaware FOIA) | 11 Del. C. § 8402A (dedicated mandate; release mechanics in companion regulation) |
| District of Columbia | MPD PD-10, email/mail, free for first parties | D.C. Code § 2-534 (DC FOIA) | D.C. Code § 5-116.33 (dedicated, proactive release for death/serious force) |
| Florida | FLHSMV Crash Portal, $10 + $2 convenience fee | Fla. Stat. § 119.071 (Ch. 119 exemption) | Policy under § 943.1718 (no dedicated access statute; runs through Ch. 119) |
| Georgia | GEARS via BuyCrash or GDOT mail request | O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4) (LE investigatory exemption; initial incident reports carved out) | O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(26.2) (embedded, private-place footage only) |
| Hawaii | County PD direct (Honolulu PD or Hawaii PD), no state portal | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13 (UIPA) | Policy/case law (no statute; county policy controls) |
| Idaho | ITD Crash Reports portal, apps.itd.idaho.gov, $7 | Idaho Code § 74-105 (Public Records Act) | Policy/case law (no access statute; § 31-871 sets retention only) |
| Illinois | ISP E-Pay (ISP-investigated) or BuyCrash (local agency) | 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(iv) (FOIA, crash reports carved back out) | 50 ILCS 706/10-20 (dedicated, Body Camera Act) |
| Indiana | BuyCrash (official statewide channel), about $12 | IC 5-14-3-4(b)(1) (APRA) | IC 5-14-3-5.1 (dedicated; recording is not an investigatory record) |
| Iowa | Iowa DOT mail request ($4 officer report) or BuyCrash | Iowa Code § 22.7(5) (general LE exemption) | Policy/case law (no statute; Hawk Eye balancing test where courts apply one) |
| Kansas | kansas.gov accident-reports portal (KHP) | K.S.A. 45-221(a)(10) (Kansas Open Records Act) | K.S.A. 45-254 (dedicated; view/listen right within 20 days) |
| Kentucky | KSP Civilian Collision Reporting (self-report) or BuyCrash (officer report) | KRS 61.878(1)(h) (Open Records Act) | KRS 61.168 (dedicated, mandatory-disclosure categories) |
| Louisiana | LSP Crash Reports Online Purchase System, $11.50 | La. R.S. 44:32 (Public Records Act) | La. R.S. 44:3(A)(8) (embedded in LE exemption) |
| Maine | Maine Crash Reporting Online Search and Ordering Service, $10 | 16 M.R.S. § 804 (Intelligence and Investigative Record Information Act) | Policy/case law (no statute; the circulating 25 M.R.S. § 3842 citation does not exist) |
| Maryland | MSP mail/in-person ($4) or BuyCrash by county (about $20) | Md. Gen. Provisions § 4-351 (MPIA) | Md. Public Safety § 3-511 (dedicated but policy-delegation; access set by local agency policy) |
| Massachusetts | RMV myRMV Online Service Center or mail | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f) (Public Records Law) | Policy/case law (no statewide statute; agency-by-agency practice) |
| Michigan | Traffic Crash Purchasing System (TCPS), tcps.state.mi.us, $15 | MCL 15.243(1)(b) (Michigan FOIA) | MCL 780.313 (dedicated, Law Enforcement Body-Worn Camera Privacy Act) |
| Minnesota | Crash Record Request Form PS2503 (DVS), $5 | Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7 (Government Data Practices Act) | Minn. Stat. § 13.825 (dedicated; unredacted access for crash-eligible parties since 2025) |
| Mississippi | reportbeam.com or MS DPS crash-reports lookup by agency | Miss. Code § 25-61-12(2)(c) (public record by default) | Policy/case law (no general statute; § 45-1-20 covers Capitol Police only) |
| Missouri | MSHP Patrol Records Division, $6, online or mail | RSMo 610.100 (Sunshine Law) | RSMo 610.100 (embedded, mobile video recorder provision) |
| Montana | MHP Crash Release Form by mail/email/fax | MCA 44-5-103 (Montana Criminal Justice Information Act) | Policy/case law (no dedicated statute; runs on MCJIA + agency policy) |
| Nebraska | NDOT Highway Safety Section, email/phone/mail, $13 | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.05 (public records law) | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1454 (dedicated, policy-content mandate) |
| Nevada | CRASHDOCS.org via NHP, $10 (+$5 photos) | NRS 239.010 (no codified exemption; common-law balancing) | NRS 289.830 (dedicated; public record with per-incident limits) |
| New Hampshire | NH DMV (confirm current fee/form directly) | RSA 91-A:5 (Right to Know Law) | RSA 91-A:5, para. X (embedded exemption; force/injury/felony carve-back) |
| New Jersey | NJSP Crash Report Portal, njportal.com, $5-$20 tiered | N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 (OPRA) | N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 (dedicated, 19-subsection act) |
| New Mexico | DPS Law Enforcement Records Bureau (LERB), $1/page | NMSA 14-2-1.2 (law enforcement records statute) | NMSA 29-1-18 (dedicated mandate; access runs through 14-2-1.2) |
| New York | DMV Order Crash Reports Online or mailed MV-198C ($7-$15 range) | Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e) (FOIL) | Policy/case law (Exec. Law § 234 is mandate-only; access via FOIL § 87(2)(e)) |
| North Carolina | myNCDMV or mailed Form TR-67A | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1.4 | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1.4A (dedicated; disclosure vs. release split, court order for a copy) |
| North Dakota | NDDOT online crash-report portal, $7 | N.D.C.C. § 39-08-13 (not confidential by default) | N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.7 (embedded; private-place footage only) |
| Ohio | Ohio Crash System online lookup (unofficial) or agency for certified copy | Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43 (public records law) | Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43 (embedded, restricted-recording definitions) |
| Oklahoma | Service Oklahoma, mail (USPS only) or in person | 47 O.S. § 10-115 (confidentiality statute) | 51 O.S. § 24A.8 (embedded; 10-day post-arraignment trigger, 4-year cap) |
| Oregon | Local investigating agency directly (no state portal) | ORS 192.345(3) (LE exemption) | ORS 192.345(40) (embedded) |
| Pennsylvania | PSP crash-report request, online or mail, $22 | 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(16) (RTKL; blotters and traffic reports excluded from exemption) | 42 Pa.C.S. § 67A03 (Act 22 of 2017, dedicated; separate from the RTKL, 60-day window) |
| Rhode Island | RI State Police, $15, plus a third-party vendor for some requests | R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(D) (Access to Public Records Act) | R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-161-4 (dedicated but policy-delegation; AG/DPS write the access rules) |
| South Carolina | SCDMV Form FR-50 for Form TR-310, $10 | S.C. Code § 30-4-40(3) (FOIA) | S.C. Code § 23-1-240 (dedicated) |
| South Dakota | safesd.gov, $4 + $6 online convenience fee | SDCL § 1-27-1.5 | Policy/case law (no dedicated statute) |
| Tennessee | purchasetncrash.gov (THP) or local agency directly, $4-$10 | TCA § 10-7-504 (Tennessee Public Records Act) | TCA § 10-7-504(u) (embedded; sunset extended to July 1, 2027 by Pub. Ch. 916 of 2022) |
| Texas | TxDOT CRIS, $6 standard / $8 certified | Tex. Gov't Code § 552.108 | Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 2B.0112 (dedicated) |
| Utah | UHP GovQA portal, publicsafetyutah.govqa.us | Utah Code § 63G-2-305(10) (GRAMA) | GRAMA § 63G-2-305 + Title 77 Ch. 7a (mixed; use governed separately from access) |
| Vermont | VT DPS public records order form or VSP/DMV directly, $20 | 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(5) (Public Records Act) | Policy/case law (no dedicated statute; same § 317(c)(5) exemption) |
| Virginia | DMV Customer Records Work Center, $8 | Va. Code § 2.2-3706 (VFOIA) | Va. Code § 15.2-1723.1 (deployment-policy mandate only; access via VFOIA § 2.2-3706) |
| Washington | WRECR (Washington State Patrol), $10.50 | RCW 42.56.240(1) (Public Records Act) | RCW 42.56.240(14) (embedded, one of the most detailed regimes found) |
| West Virginia | WVSP Criminal and Crash Report Request Form, mail, $20 ($25 certified) | W. Va. Code § 29B-1-4(a)(4)(A) (West Virginia FOIA) | Policy/case law (no dedicated statute; same FOIA exemption) |
| Wisconsin | crashreports.wi.gov (WisDOT) | Wis. Stat. § 19.36(2) | Wis. Stat. § 165.87 (dedicated, 120-day minimum retention) |
| Wyoming | WYDOT Highway Safety Office, phone/email/mail | Wyo. Stat. § 16-4-203(b)(i) (Public Records Act) | Wyo. Stat. § 16-4-203(d)(xviii) (embedded; termed "peace officer recording") |
Scams to Watch For
A documented pattern worth flagging before you search: scammers call recent crash victims claiming the other driver's insurer has "assumed complete responsibility" and direct the victim to a third-party site to "retrieve" their report. The sites work because they pull real data lifted from the state's own crash report system, not because the caller has independent knowledge. A Texas department that tracked this scam put it plainly: request your report through the official state or court portal, never a link received by text or an unsolicited call, since these calls never originate from law enforcement.
Disclaimer
This article provides general information about how police crash reports, incident reports, and body camera footage are requested across the United States. It is not legal advice. Fees, portals, and statutes change; confirm current details with the relevant state agency, local department, or a licensed attorney before relying on anything here for a specific situation.
Last updated: 2026-08-11. Fees and portals reflect their published status as of August 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I get a copy of a police report?
It depends which kind you need. A crash or collision report usually comes from a state DOT, DMV, or DPS portal, sometimes through BuyCrash. An incident or offense report comes from the local police department that responded, requested under the state's public-records act. Find your state in the table above for its specific channel.
How much does a police report cost?
Commonly $4 to $25 for a standard crash report, though a few states run outside that range; California prices by page count up to $40-plus, and Delaware charges $60 for a fatal-crash report. Incident reports are often priced per page and sometimes fee-waived for the person the report concerns.
Are police reports public record?
It depends on the record type and the state. Most states treat a crash report as confidential by default, releasing it only to parties, insurers, and similar eligible requesters, but about 1 in 6 states, including Nevada, New Jersey, Indiana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New York, make police-filed crash reports open by default instead. See Are Police Reports Public? for the full breakdown.
Why is my crash report redacted?
Most redaction traces back to the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, which bars a state DMV from disclosing personal information from a motor vehicle record to someone outside a listed permitted use. A party to the crash, their insurer, or their attorney typically qualifies for an unredacted copy; a general member of the public typically does not.
What is BuyCrash?
BuyCrash is a LexisNexis-operated platform that lets a police agency post its own crash reports for online purchase. It is agency-authorized official software, not a third-party data broker; each agency's storefront sells only that agency's own reports.
Can 23 U.S.C. Section 409 be used to deny my crash report request?
No. That statute, renumbered to 23 U.S.C. Section 407 in the current U.S. Code, is a narrow litigation-discovery privilege covering federal hazard-planning data, like a state's internal survey of dangerous intersections, not a public-records exemption on the crash report documenting your specific collision.
What's the difference between a crash report and an incident report?
A crash or collision report documents a traffic accident and is typically issued by a state DOT, DMV, or DPS. An incident or offense report documents a non-crash police response, an arrest, a theft, an assault, and is issued by the local department that responded, under the state's general public-records act rather than a crash-specific statute.
How do I get body camera footage?
Bodycam access runs through a separate legal framework from either report type, sometimes a dedicated statute, sometimes folded into the general law-enforcement records exemption, and in roughly a quarter of states, no statute at all. See How to Request Body Cam Footage for the state-by-state models and request process.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
State-by-state comparison
Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.
Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Florida Statutes
§ 119.071General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) AGENCY ADMINISTRATION.—(a) Examination questions and answer sheets of examinations administered by a governmental agency for the purpose of licensure, certification, or employment are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. A person who has taken such an examination has the right to review his or her own completed examination. (b)1. For purposes of this paragraph, “competitive solicitation” means the process of requesting and receiving sealed bids, proposals, or replies in accordance with the terms of a competitive process, regardless of the method of procurement. 2. Sealed bids, proposals, or replies received by an agency pursuant to a competitive solicitation are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution until such time as the agency provides notice of an intended decision or until 30 days after opening the bids, proposals, or final replies, whichever is earlier. 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Rameses, Inc. v. Demings (2010) held that giving a criminal defendant unredacted undercover surveillance recordings in discovery does not destroy section 119.071's exemptions for undercover law enforcement identity. Ingram v. State (2014) addressed how the section 119.071(2)(j) minor victim exemption applies to a defendant.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wooten (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2018, 260 So. 3d 1060)✓The state tried to keep cell phone tracking details redacted from search warrant papers; the court held the section 119.071(2)(d) surveillance exemption was unpreserved and inapplicable here, since rule 2.420 on court records does not adopt it, and ordered unredacted release.
- Rameses, Inc. v. Demings (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2010, 29 So. 3d 418)✓A nightclub sought undercover surveillance tapes already given unredacted to charged dancers in discovery; the court held that discovery disclosure does not destroy section 119.071's exemptions for undercover personnel, so the officers' faces could be obscured.
- Ingram v. State (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2014, 164 So. 3d 676)✓An inmate serving life for sexual battery of a child sought the victim's recorded interview; the court quashed the denial for lack of a hearing and, as guidance on remand, read section 119.071(2)(j)2.b. to authorize releasing the minor's identifying video to the defendant.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Public Records Laws: The Public Records Act (Chapter 119) Explained, Florida Police Reports: How to Get a Copy, Fees, and What's Public, Florida Police Bodycam Laws & Public Records
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 50-18-72When public disclosure not required.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) Public disclosure shall not be required for records that are: (1) Specifically required by federal statute or regulation to be kept confidential; (2) Medical or veterinary records and similar files, the disclosure of which would be an invasion of personal privacy; (3) Except as otherwise prov
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov
Cited in 85 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Napper v. Georgia Television Co. (1987) applied O.C.G.A. 50-18-72(a)'s medical-records exemption only where disclosure would invade privacy, balancing privacy against the public interest; Deal v. Coleman (2013) held the (a)(47) exemption applies retroactively because Open Records access is a public right that cannot vest.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Deal v. Coleman (Supreme Court of Georgia 2013, 294 Ga. 170)✓Requesters sought Technical College System records on Kia's hiring under the Quick Start program; the court held the section 50-18-72(a)(47) exception for records relating to job applicants is not limited to the period before a binding commitment and applied to their suit.
- Napper v. Georgia Television Co. (Supreme Court of Georgia 1987, 257 Ga. 156)✓News organizations sought the Atlanta Child Murders task force files, sealed in a vault after the task force disbanded; the court held that once trial, direct appeal and certiorari are done the file is open, and the party opposing disclosure must show an item is exempt.
- Dortch v. Atlanta Journal & Atlanta Constitution (Supreme Court of Georgia 1991, 261 Ga. 350)✓Atlanta newspapers sought the city's 1990 cellular phone bills, which officials produced with every called number redacted for privacy; the court measured section 50-18-72(a)(2) by the invasion of privacy tort and affirmed the order to hand over unredacted bills.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Police Bodycam Laws: Retention & Open Records Rules, Georgia Public Records Laws: The Georgia Open Records Act Explained, Georgia Police Reports: How to Get a Crash Report or Incident Report
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 45: PUBLIC RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
§ 45-221Certain records not required to be disclosed; separation of open and closed information required; disclosure of statistical information; records over 70 years old open, exceptions.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
(a) Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public agency shall not be required to disclose: (1) Records the disclosure of which is specifically prohibited or restricted by federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court or rule of the senate committee on confirmation oversight relating to information submitted to the committee pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4315d, and amendments thereto, or the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted pursuant to specific authorization of federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court or rule of the senate committee on confirmation oversight relating to information submitted to the committee pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4315d, and amendments thereto, to restrict or prohibit disclosure. (2) Records that are privileged under the rules of evidence, unless the holder of the privilege consents to the disclosure. (3) Medical, psychiatric, psychological or alcoholism or drug dependency treatment records that pertain to identifiable patients.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 46 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kansas courts construe the K.S.A. 45-221 exceptions narrowly, and the exceptions permit withholding rather than require it. In Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Department of Transportation (2003) the agency carried the burden and lost an (a)(1) claim. Harris Enterprises, Inc. v. Moore (1987) affirmed a denial under (a)(10).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State, Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services v. Public Employee Relations Board of the Kansas Department of Human Resources (Supreme Court of Kansas 1991, 249 Kan. 163)✓A state hospital gave a certified union its employees' names but withheld home addresses; the Kansas Supreme Court held K.S.A. 45-221 does not prohibit disclosure but leaves it discretionary with the records custodian, so the agency could not refuse the disclosure order.
- Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co. v. Simmons (Supreme Court of Kansas 2002, 274 Kan. 194)✓A newspaper sought corrections records on parolees charged with murder; the Kansas Supreme Court held the K.S.A. 45-221(a)(20) exemption covers proposed policies, not actions already taken, and that subsection (d) required the agency to furnish redacted records.
- Harris Enterprises, Inc. v. Moore (Supreme Court of Kansas 1987, 241 Kan. 59)✓A newspaper sued for the Duffield murder investigation files; applying K.S.A. 45-221(a)(10), the Kansas Supreme Court put the public-interest burden on the requester and the other four findings on the agency, and affirmed the discretionary denial after in camera review.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Police Body Camera Laws: Access & K.S.A. 45-254, Kansas Public Records Laws: The Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) Explained, Kansas Laws on Recording Police
§ 45-254Law enforcement recordings using body camera or vehicle camera; criminal investigation records; disclosure.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
(a) Every audio or video recording made and retained by law enforcement using a body camera or a vehicle camera shall be considered a criminal investigation record as defined in K.S.A. 45-217, and amendments thereto. (b) In addition to any disclosure authorized pursuant to the open records act, K.S.A. 45-215 et seq., and amendments thereto, a person described in subsection (c) may make a request in accordance with procedures adopted under K.S.A. 45-220, and amendments thereto, to listen to an audio recording or to view a video recording made by a body camera or a vehicle camera. The law enforcement agency shall allow the person to listen to the requested audio recording or to view the requested video recording within 20 days after making the request, and may charge a reasonable fee for such services provided by the law enforcement agency.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McRoberts v. Overland Park, Kansas, City of (District Court, D. Kansas 2022)“…aintiff he would respond further by March 4, 2022.12 Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 45-254(b), however, the custodian has twenty d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Idaho Public Records Laws: Title 74 and the Resident vs Non-Resident Clock, Hawaii Public Records Laws: The UIPA (HRS Chapter 92F) Explained
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 61: GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO OFFICES AND OFFICERS -- SOCIAL SECURITY FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES -- EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
§ 61.168Body-worn cameras and video and audio recordings -- Disclosure, retention, and availability for viewing governed by KRS 61.870 to 61.884 and 171.410 to 171.740 -- ExceptionsIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Body-worn camera" means a video or audio electronic recording device that is carried by or worn on the body of a public safety officer. This definition does not include a dashboard mounted camera or recording device used in the course of clandestine investigations; (b) "Body-worn camera recording" or "recording" means a video or audio recording, or both, that is made by a body-worn camera during the course of a public safety officer's official duties; (c) "Personal representative" means a court-appointed guardian, attorney, or agent possessing written authorization to act on behalf of a person that is involved in an incident contained in a body-worn camera recording, a person holding a power of attorney for a person that is involved in an incident contained in a body-worn camera recording, or the parent or guardian of a minor child depicted in a body-worn camera recording.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Nathaniel Parish v. Kaitlynn Patrice Petter (2020) addressed whether KRS 61.168 controls how a civil litigant obtains police body-worn camera video, holding that the open records processes in the body camera statutes do not supplant discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Courier Journal, Inc. v. Shively Police Department (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2022)“…9-month-old infant.” The Courier-Journal notes that while KRS 61.168(4)(g) generally gives an agency discre…”
- Nathaniel Parish v. Kaitlynn Patrice Petter (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2020)✓A man contesting a protective order subpoenaed police body camera video; the court held KRS 61.168's open records process does not supplant civil discovery, so the family court erred by refusing to apply the civil rules, though it found the error harmless.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Police Body Camera Laws: KRS 61.168 & Access, Kentucky Public Records Laws: The Open Records Act (KRS 61.870) Explained
§ 61.878Certain public records exempted from inspection except on order of court -- Restriction of state employees to inspect personnel files prohibitedIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) The following public records are excluded from the application of KRS 61.870 to 61.884 and shall be subject to inspection only upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction, except that no court shall authorize the inspection by any party of any materials pertaining to civil litigation beyond that which is provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure governing pretrial discovery: (a) Public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (b) Records confidentially disclosed to an agency and compiled and maintained for scientific research. This exemption shall not, however, apply to records the disclosure or publication of which is directed by another statute; (c) 1. Records confidentially disclosed to an agency or required by an agency to be disclosed to it, generally recognized as confidential or proprietary, which if openly disclosed would permit an unfair commercial advantage to competitors of the entity that disclosed the records; 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Beckham v. Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson Cty. (Kentucky Supreme Court 1994, 873 S.W.2d 575)“…and that others may be excluded from production pursuant to KRS 61.878. In its final order the trial court gav…”
- Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co. (Kentucky Supreme Court 1992, 826 S.W.2d 324)“…The exception central to the present case is that found in KRS 61.878(l)(a): (1) The following public…”
- Zink v. Commonwealth, Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 1994, 902 S.W.2d 825)“…early unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to KRS 61.878(l)(a); and, (3) that the requested publ…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Laws on Recording Police: Your First Amendment Rights, How to Get a Police Report in Kentucky (2026 Guide)
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 15.243Exemptions from disclosure; public body as school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy; withholding of information required by law or in possession of executive officeIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record under this act any of the following: (a) Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. (b) Investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure as a public record would do any of the following: (i) Interfere with law enforcement proceedings. (ii) Deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial administrative adjudication. (iii) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (iv) Disclose the identity of a confidential source, or if the record is compiled by a law enforcement agency in the course of a criminal investigation, disclose confidential information furnished only by a confidential source. (v) Disclose law enforcement investigative techniques or procedures. (vi) Endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel. (vii) Disclose the identity of a party who, as described in subdivision (cc), proceeds anonymously in a civil action in which the party alleges that the party was the victim of sexual misconduct.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 203 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Booth Newspapers, Inc v. University of Michigan Board of Regents (Michigan Supreme Court 1993, 444 Mich. 211)“…nces in which public records may be exempt from disclosure. MCL 15.243; MSA 4.1801(13). These exemptions must…”
- Herald Co. v. City of Bay City (Michigan Supreme Court 2000, 463 Mich. 111)“…a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. [MCL 15.243(1); MSA 4.1801(13)(1).] The trial cou…”
- Coblentz v. City of Novi (Michigan Supreme Court 2006, 475 Mich. 558)“…ems were not exempt because defendant failed to comply with MCL 15.243(1)(f)(iii). Finally, the Court of Appea…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Data Privacy Laws: Consumer Rights & Protections (2026), Michigan Police Bodycam Laws: Retention & Public Records, How to Get a Police Report in Michigan (2026 Guide)
§ 780.313Audio or video recording recorded by body-worn camera; disclosure; protections; exemption from freedom of information actIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) The disclosure of any audio or video recording recorded by a body-worn camera is subject to the protections provided for crime victims in sections 8, 19, 19a, 21, 34, 38, 48, 62, 68, and 80 of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim's rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.758, 780.769, 780.769a, 780.771, 780.784, 780.788, 780.798, 780.812, 780.818, and 780.830. (2) Except as otherwise provided in section 4 and subject to section 5, a recording recorded by a law enforcement officer with a body-worn camera that is recorded in a private place is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 162373_134_01.Pdf (Michigan Supreme Court 2023)“…(overruling prior caselaw interpreting the 180-day rule in MCL 780.313 even though the defendant waived the is…”
- People of Michigan v. Dametrius Benjamin Posey (Michigan Supreme Court 2023)“…(overruling prior caselaw interpreting the 180-day rule in MCL 780.313 even though the defendant waived the is…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to Request Body Cam Footage: State Laws and the Request Process, Michigan Freedom of Information Act: 5 Business Days, Fees, and How to Appeal
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXIX (CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS), Chapter 610
§ 610.100Arrest and incident records — definitions — available to public — closed records, when — action for disclosure of investigative report authorized, costs — application to open incident and arrest reports, violations, civil penalty — identity of victim of sexual offense — confidentiality of recording.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
1. As used in sections 610.100 to 610.150, the following words and phrases shall mean: (1) "Arrest", an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his or her submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise for a criminal violation which results in the issuance of a summons or the person being booked; (2) "Arrest report", a record of a law enforcement agency of an arrest and of any detention or confinement incident thereto together with the charge therefor; (3) "Inactive", an investigation in which no further action will be taken by a law enforcement agency or officer for any of the following reasons: (a) A decision by the law enforcement agency not to pursue the case; (b) Expiration of the time to file criminal charges pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations, or ten years after the commission of the offense; whichever date earliest occurs; (c) Finality of the convictions of all persons convicted on the basis of the information contained in the investigative report, by exhaustion of or expiration of all rights of appeal of such persons; (4) "Incident report", a record of a law enforcement agency consisting of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Buckler v. Johnson County Sheriff's Department (1989) held section 610.100 permits closure of an arrest record but does not authorize expungement, which rests on a court's equitable power. D.K.B. v. Toelke (1995) held the 1994 amendment closing pre-arrest investigative reports did not remove the remedies in section 610.027.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Buckler v. Johnson County Sheriff's Department (Missouri Court of Appeals 1989, 798 S.W.2d 155)✓A man arrested for investigation of rape but never charged asked to erase the record; the court held section 610.100 allows only closure and not expungement, then found extraordinary circumstances letting it order expungement under its equitable power.
- D.K.B. v. Toelke (Missouri Court of Appeals 1995, 903 S.W.2d 267)✓A mother won access to a sheriff's investigation file, then lost fines and fees after a 1994 amendment closed pre-arrest investigative reports; the court held that amendment to section 610.100 did not withdraw the remedies in section 610.027 and remanded.
- Opinion No. (1994) (Missouri Attorney General Reports 1994)✓Asked how the 1994 amendment worked, the Attorney General opined that section 610.100 closes investigative reports mandatorily until an arrest is made, while incident reports stay open except for 911 information and the name of a victim who can identify an assailant at large.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Missouri Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits, Missouri Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Neighbor Rules
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 14
§ 14-2-1.2Law enforcement recordsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. Law enforcement records are public records, except as provided by law and this subsection, and provided that the presence of nonpublic information may be redacted from a written record or digitally obscured in a visual or audio record, including: (1) before charges are filed, names, addresses, contact information or protected personal identifier information of individuals who are victims of or non-law- enforcement witnesses to an alleged crime of: (a) assault with intent to commit a violent felony pursuant to Section 30-3-3 NMSA 1978 when the violent felony is criminal sexual penetration; (b) assault against a household member with intent to commit a violent felony pursuant to Section 30-3-14 NMSA 1978 when the violent felony is criminal sexual penetration; (c) stalking pursuant to Section 30-3A-3 NMSA 1978; (d) aggravated stalking pursuant to Section 30-3A-3.1 NMSA 1978; (e) criminal sexual penetration pursuant to Section 30-9-11 NMSA 1978; (f) criminal sexual contact pursuant to Section 30-9-12 NMSA 1978; or (g) sexual exploitation of children pursuant to Section 30-6A-3 NMSA 1978; (2) before charges are filed, names, addresses, contact information…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- T.H. v. Martinez (District Court, D. New Mexico 2025)“…N.M. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-1.2 (emphasis added). The problem is that t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Police Body Camera Laws: Mandate & Liability, New Mexico Police Reports: How to Get a Crash Report, Incident Report, or Bodycam Video
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 29
§ 29-1-18Requiring certain law enforcement agencies to use body- worn cameras while on duty; exceptions; adoption of policies and procedures governing use.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
A. A law enforcement agency shall require peace officers the agency employs and who routinely interact with the public to wear a body-worn camera while on duty, except as provided in Subsection B of this section. Each law enforcement agency subject to the provisions of this section shall adopt policies and procedures governing the use of body-worn cameras, including: (1) requiring activation of a body-worn camera whenever a peace officer is responding to a call for service or at the initiation of any other law enforcement or investigative encounter between a peace officer and a member of the public; (2) prohibiting deactivation of a body-worn camera until the conclusion of a law enforcement or investigative encounter; (3) requiring that any video recorded by a body-worn camera shall be retained by the law enforcement agency for not less than one hundred twenty days; and (4) establishing disciplinary rules for peace officers who: (a) fail to operate a body-worn camera in accordance with law enforcement agency policies; (b) intentionally manipulate a body-worn camera recording; or (c) prematurely erase a body-worn camera recording in violation of law enforcement…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Hubbard (New Mexico Supreme Court 2026)“…tnesses as Defendant asserts they were required to do under NMSA 1978, Section 29-1-18 (2020, amended 2023). Defendant raises…”
- State v. Sanchez (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2025)“…ed on the failure to wear a body-worn camera as required by NMSA 1978, Section 29-1-18 (2020, amended 2023)1 during the execut…”
- Taylor v. City of Carlsbad (District Court, D. New Mexico 2024)“…iring officers to use body- worn cameras while on duty. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-18 (2020).…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, New Mexico Laws on Recording Police: Your First Amendment Rights (2026), New Mexico IPRA: Inspection of Public Records Act Guide (2026)
Revised Code of Washington
§ 42.56.240Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
The following investigative, law enforcement, and crime victim information is exempt from public inspection and copying under this chapter: (1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy; (2) Information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses to or victims of crime or who file complaints with investigative, law enforcement, or penology agencies, other than the commission, if disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. If at the time a complaint is filed the complainant, victim, or witness indicates a desire for disclosure or nondisclosure, such desire shall govern.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 81 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Sargent v. Seattle Police Dept. (2013) held the effective law enforcement exemption in RCW 42.56.240(1) is not categorical once a case goes to a prosecutor, nor for internal investigation files; the agency must justify each withheld record. Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup (2011) exempted only an officer's identity.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup (Washington Supreme Court 2011, 172 Wash. 2d 398)✓Police reports on an unsubstantiated sexual misconduct claim against an officer were withheld in full; the court held Section 42.56.240(1) exempts only the officer's identity, since its privacy analysis is the same, and ordered the rest produced with his name redacted.
- BAINBRIDGE POLICE GUILD v. City of Puyallup (Washington Supreme Court 2011, 259 P.3d 190)✓Police reports on an unsubstantiated sexual misconduct claim against an officer were withheld in full; the court held Section 42.56.240(1) exempts only the officer's identity, since its privacy analysis is the same, and ordered the rest produced with his name redacted.
- Sargent v. Seattle Police Dept. (Washington Supreme Court 2013, 179 Wash. 2d 376)✓Seattle police withheld criminal and internal affairs files from a man arrested after a scuffle with an off-duty officer; the court held Section 42.56.240(1) stops applying categorically once a case reaches a prosecutor and never applies categorically to internal investigations.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits (2026), Washington Police Body Camera Laws: Mandate & Access, Washington Public Records Act: Requests, Fees, and Body Camera Video (2026)
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 165: Department Of Justice
§ 165.87Body cameras and law enforcement.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
(1) If a law enforcement agency uses a body camera on a law enforcement officer, the law enforcement agency shall do all of the following: (a) Administer a written policy regarding all of the following: 1. The use, maintenance, and storage of body cameras and data recorded by the body cameras. 2. Any limitations the law enforcement agency imposes on which law enforcement officers may wear a body camera. 3. Any limitations the law enforcement agency imposes on situations, persons, or encounters that may be recorded by a body camera. (b) Train all law enforcement officers wearing a body camera on the policy under par. (a) and on the requirements under sub. (2). (c) Train all employees that use, maintain, store, or release data from a body camera on the policy under par. (a) and on the requirements under subs. (2) and (3). (d) Periodically review practices regarding the body cameras and data from body cameras to ensure compliance with the policy under par. (a) and the requirements under subs. (2) and (3). (e) If the law enforcement agency maintains an Internet site or has an Internet site maintained on its behalf, make the policy under par.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Pressley v. City of South Milwaukee (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 2022)“…3. The plaintiff argues that the defendants have relied on Wis. Stat. §165.87(3)(c) to avoid giving him the body came…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Police Body Camera Laws: Wis. Stat. 165.87, Wisconsin Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Wisconsin Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limitations (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2721Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from State motor vehicle recordsIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
A State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor thereof, shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity: personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(3), about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section; or highly restricted personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(4), about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record, without the express consent of the person to whom such information applies, except uses permitted in subsections (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(9): Provided, That subsection (a)(2) shall not in any way affect the use of organ donation information on an individual’s driver’s license or affect the administration of organ donation initiatives in the States.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 377 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Maracich v. Spears (2013) held an attorney's solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose under the DPPA litigation exception in 2721(b)(4). Reno v. Condon (2000) upheld the statute's restrictions on disclosing state motor vehicle records as a valid exercise of the commerce power that does not conscript state officers.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Maracich v. Spears (Supreme Court of the United States 2013, 570 U.S. 48)✓Lawyers used South Carolina DMV records to mail over 34,000 car buyers letters recruiting them as clients; the Supreme Court held that sending communications with the predominant purpose of solicitation is not a use exempt under the section 2721(b)(4) litigation exception.
- Reno v. Condon (Supreme Court of the United States 2000, 528 U.S. 141)✓South Carolina, whose law let almost anyone buy DMV records, argued the federal driver-privacy law commandeered the states; the Supreme Court held section 2721 regulates states as owners of databases and upheld it under the Commerce Clause.
- Pichler v. UNITE (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2008)✓Union organizers copied license plates from a company parking lot and pulled the owners' DMV records to make house calls; the Third Circuit held union organizing is not among the permissible uses in section 2721(b), and a parallel lawful purpose does not excuse it.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Are Police Reports Public Record? What's Open and What's Not, Alabama Traffic Camera Tickets: Work Zone Pilot and City Camera Laws, Indiana Data Privacy Laws: ICDPA Consumer Rights Guide (2026)
United States Code Title 23
§ 407Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveysIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Courtois v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2024)“…issibly relied on data that should be excluded pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 407. Contrary to the Defendants’ 1Secti…”
- Garcia v. N.M. Dep’t of Transp. (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2023, 535 P.3d 728)“…volves a federal statutory evidentiary privilege created by 23 U.S.C. § 407 (hereinafter § 407). 1 The cross-appeal…”
- in Re Texas Department of Transportation (Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District 2021)“…is original proceeding, 23 U.S.C. § 409 was transferred to 23 U.S.C. § 407 without substantive change. We refer to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 5
§ 552Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedingsIn forcecited in 36 of our articles
Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows: Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public— descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions; statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available; rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 11,434 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1989) held categorically that releasing a private citizen's FBI rap sheet to a third party is an unwarranted privacy invasion under Exemption 7(C). Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (1980) applied Exemption 3, 552(b)(3).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society (Supreme Court of the United States 1975, 421 U.S. 240)“…Pub. L. 93-502, § 1 (b) (2), 88 Stat. 1561 (amending 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)); Packers and Stockyards Act, 42…”
- Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1980, 447 U.S. 102)✓Consumer groups filed FOIA requests for accident reports manufacturers had given the CPSC as confidential; the Court held that the Consumer Product Safety Act's section 6(b)(1) applies to FOIA requests and that its standards fall within Exemption 3, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3).
- Taylor v. Sturgell (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 880)✓An aircraft enthusiast made a FOIA request for FAA records after a friend's identical suit failed; the Court disapproved preclusion by 'virtual representation' and read § 552(a)(3)(A) as directing agencies to release records to the requesting person, not the public at large.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Public Records Laws by State: FOIA Guide for All 50 States (2026), How to File a FOIA Request (Step by Step, 2026), Virginia Freedom of Information Act: Who Can Request and How (2026)
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.145c — Definitions; child sexually abusive activity or material; penalties; possession of child sexually abusive material; expert testimony; defenses; acts of commercial film or photographic print processor; report to law enforcement agency by computer technician; reasonable availability of evidence to defendant; applicability and uniformity of section; enactment or enforcement of ordinance, rule, or regulation prohibited view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520b — Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; circumstances; felony; consecutive terms view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520c — Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520d — Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520e — Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree; misdemeanor view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520g — Assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 18 U.S.C. § 2721, Driver's Privacy Protection Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 23 U.S.C. § 407, Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys (the federal-aid highway safety-data privilege, renumbered from the commonly cited § 409)(uscode.house.gov).gov
- 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7), Freedom of Information Act, law enforcement records exemption(govinfo.gov).gov
- Texas Department of Transportation, Crash Reports and Records (CRIS)(txdot.gov).gov
- California Highway Patrol, Collision Report (CHP 190)(chp.ca.gov).gov
- Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Traffic Crash Reports(flhsmv.gov).gov
- New York DMV, Order and Access Motor Vehicle Crash/Accident Reports(dmv.ny.gov).gov
- New Jersey Statutes, N.J.S.A. 39:4-131 (crash reports open by statute, not confidential)(lis.njleg.state.nj.us).gov
- Indiana Code § 5-14-3-4, Records and recordings exempted from disclosure(iga.in.gov).gov
- LexisNexis Risk Solutions, BuyCrash (agency crash-report distribution platform)(risk.lexisnexis.com)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Open Government Guide (state-by-state police-records survey)(rcfp.org)