PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 11, 2025
Police Creating Accountability by Making Effective Recording Available Act of 2025 or the Police CAMERA Act of 2025
This bill authorizes the Bureau of Justice Assistance within the Department of Justice to make grants for states, local governments, and Indian tribes to purchase or lease body-worn cameras for use by law enforcement officers and to implement body-worn camera programs.
People & committees
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 9, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1188 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1188 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1188 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1188 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-11 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Police CAMERA Act of 2025 would create a federal grant program to help state, local, and Tribal governments buy or lease police body cameras and operate camera programs. Recipients would have to adopt public policies covering privacy, recording, data security, and facial recognition, and limit how recordings are used and shared. The proposal would affect participating police agencies, their officers, and people they record.
This Act may be cited as the Police Creating Accountability by Making Effective Recording Available Act of 2025 or the Police CAMERA Act of 2025.
The Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (in this section referred to as the Director) may make grants to States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes to purchase or lease body-worn cameras
(C) making the policies and protocols described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) available to the public; and (D) complying with the requirements for use of recorded data under paragraph (5).
(iii) protecting the privacy rights of any individual who may be recorded by a body-worn camera; (iv) protecting the constitutional rights of any individual on whom facial recognition technology is used;
Section 2 would add the grant program to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. It would authorize the Bureau of Justice Assistance Director to make grants intended to deter excessive force, improve accountability, help address complaints, and improve evidence collection. These are stated goals, not demonstrated results.
Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
in order to deter excessive force, improve accountability and transparency of use of force by law enforcement officers, assist in responding to complaints against law enforcement officers, and improve evidence collection.
Grants would last two years. The Director would pay half when awarding a grant and the remaining half after the recipient demonstrates completion of the requirements in proposed section 3031(d)(1).
Grants awarded under this part shall be 2 years in duration.
(A) upon awarding the grant to the entity, the Director shall disburse 50 percent of the total grant amount to the entity; and (B) upon demonstration by the entity of completion of the requirements in subsection (d)(1), the Director shall disburse the remaining 50 percent of the total grant amount to the entity.
Grant money would go directly to the government receiving it. Permitted uses would include buying or leasing cameras for patrol officers, training officers, storing and securing recordings, and implementing required policies.
(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local government, or Indian Tribe; and (2) used for— (A) the purchase or lease of body-worn cameras for law enforcement officers on patrol in the jurisdiction of the grantee; (B) any costs relating to the implementation of a body-worn camera program, including law enforcement officer training or the storage, maintenance, or security of recorded data collected under a body-worn camera program; or (C) implementing policies or procedures to comply with the requirements described in subsection (d).
The grant requirements would direct the Director to award a grant to a requesting government that commits to the listed safeguards. Those commitments would include establishing camera policies and recording and retention rules before officers use the cameras, publishing those policies and rules, and complying with recording-use restrictions.
The Director shall award a grant under this section to a State, unit of local government, or Indian Tribe requesting the grant that commits to— (A) establishing policies and procedures in accordance with the requirements described in paragraph (2) before law enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras; (B) adopting recorded data collection and retention protocols as described in paragraph (3) before law enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras; (C) making the policies and protocols described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) available to the public; and (D) complying with the requirements for use of recorded data under paragraph (5).
Recipients would have to develop policies with community input and publish them. Policies would cover camera use, secure storage and destruction of recordings, privacy, release under any applicable state open-records laws, and access for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other court officers under the bill's recording-use rules. Recipients would also periodically evaluate data security.
(A) develop with community input and publish for public view policies and protocols for— (i) the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras; (ii) the secure storage, handling, and destruction of recorded data collected by body-worn cameras; (iii) protecting the privacy rights of any individual who may be recorded by a body-worn camera;
(vi) the release of any recorded data collected by a body-worn camera in accordance with the open records laws, if any, of the State; and (vii) making recorded data available to prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other officers of the court in accordance with paragraph (5); and (B) conduct periodic evaluations of the security of the storage and handling of the body-worn camera data.
Required policies would address constitutional rights when facial recognition is used. They would limit its use with body cameras to situations with judicial authorization and involving imminent threats or serious crimes, and require double verification of identified faces.
(iv) protecting the constitutional rights of any individual on whom facial recognition technology is used; (v) limitations on the use of body-worn cameras in conjunction with facial recognition technology for instances, including— (I) the use of facial recognition technology only with judicial authorization; (II) the use of facial recognition technology only for imminent threats or serious crimes; and (III) the use of facial recognition technology with double verification of identified faces;
Recording rules would require officers wearing cameras to explain failures to record activities that must be recorded. Officers would have to obtain a crime victim's or witness's consent to recording before interviewing them. Collection unrelated to a legitimate law-enforcement purpose would have to be minimized as much as practicable.
(i) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a body-mounted camera to provide an explanation if an activity that is required to be recorded by the body-mounted camera is not recorded; (ii) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a body-mounted camera to obtain consent to be recorded from a crime victim or witness before interviewing the victim or witness; (iii) the collection of recorded data unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement purpose be minimized to the greatest extent practicable;
Storage systems would have to log every viewing, modification, or deletion of recordings and prevent unauthorized access or disclosure as much as practicable. Officers would be prohibited from accessing stored recordings without an authorized purpose.
(iv) the system used to store recorded data collected by body-worn cameras shall log all viewing, modification, or deletion of stored recorded data and shall prevent, to the greatest extent practicable, the unauthorized access or disclosure of stored recorded data; (v) any law enforcement officer be prohibited from accessing the stored data without an authorized purpose;
Participating agencies would collect and report use-of-force statistics broken down by the victim's race, ethnicity, gender, and age; complaint numbers and outcomes; and how often footage is used to collect evidence in criminal investigations. The Director could require additional statistics and would establish standardized reporting and a national statistical database.
(vi) the law enforcement agency to collect and report statistical data on— (I) incidences of use of force, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, and age of the victim; (II) the number of complaints filed against law enforcement officers; (III) the disposition of complaints filed against law enforcement officers; (IV) the number of times camera footage is used for evidence collection in investigations of crimes; and (V) any other additional statistical data that the Director determines should be collected and reported;
Statistical data required to be collected under paragraph (3)(A)(vi) shall be reported to the Director, who shall— (A) establish a standardized reporting system for statistical data collected under this program; and (B) establish a national database of statistical data recorded under this program.
Recording and retention rules would have to allow individuals to file complaints with a law-enforcement agency about improper camera use. Those rules would also have to meet any additional requirements established by the Director.
(B) allows an individual to file a complaint with a law enforcement agency relating to the improper use of body-worn cameras; and (C) complies with any other requirements established by the Director.
Recipients could use recordings only for internal or external investigations of police misconduct, when there is reasonable suspicion that a recording contains evidence of a crime, or for limited training purposes. The Director would have to establish rules to enforce those use limits.
Recorded data collected by an entity receiving a grant under this section from a body-mounted camera shall be used only in internal and external investigations of misconduct by a law enforcement agency or officer, if there is reasonable suspicion that a recording contains evidence of a crime, or for limited training purposes. The Director shall establish rules to ensure that the recorded data is used only for the purposes described in this subparagraph.
Recipients generally could not transfer recordings to another law-enforcement or intelligence agency. Transfers would be permitted for criminal investigations when the requesting agency reasonably suspects the data contains evidence relating to the crime. A separate exception would permit transfers to another law-enforcement agency to investigate federally protected rights.
Except as provided in subparagraph (C), an entity receiving a grant under this section may not transfer any recorded data collected by the entity from a body-mounted camera to another law enforcement or intelligence agency.
An entity receiving a grant under this section may transfer recorded data collected by the entity from a body-mounted camera to another law enforcement agency or intelligence agency for use in a criminal investigation if the requesting law enforcement or intelligence agency has reasonable suspicion that the requested data contains evidence relating to the crime being investigated.
An entity receiving a grant under this section may transfer recorded data collected by the law enforcement agency from a body-mounted camera to another law enforcement agency for use in an investigation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
The federal grant ordinarily could cover no more than 75 percent of a program's cost, leaving at least 25 percent to be matched. The Director could waive all or part of that matching requirement for fiscal hardship. A special rule would allow congressionally appropriated funds for Tribal-government agencies or Bureau of Indian Affairs law-enforcement activities on Indian lands to count toward the non-federal match.
Except as provided in paragraph (3), the Federal share of the cost of a program carried out using a grant under this part may not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the program.
Any funds appropriated by Congress for the activities of any agency of an Indian Tribal government or the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing law enforcement functions on any Indian lands may be used to provide the non-Federal share of the matching requirement described in paragraph (1).
The Director may waive, in whole or in part, the matching requirement described in paragraph (1) in the case of fiscal hardship, as determined by the Director.
For fiscal years 2026 through 2028, the proposal would direct $30 million from amounts appropriated to the Bureau of Justice Assistance to this program. This is a direction for using appropriated agency funds; the clause does not itself provide a separate new appropriation.
For fiscal years 2026 through 2028, of the amounts appropriated to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, $30,000,000 shall be used to carry out this part.
Within two years after enactment, the Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management would assess the program and recipients' policies. That official would also evaluate those policies and take steps considered necessary to ensure compliance.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this part, the Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management shall perform an assessment of the grant program and the policies and protocols of the grantees.
The Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management shall evaluate the policies and protocols of the grantees and take such steps as the Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management determines necessary to ensure compliance with the program.
Beginning two years after enactment, each recipient would submit an annual report by September 1 to the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management Director. Reports would describe program progress and recommend ways federal, state, and local governments could further support implementation.
Not later than September 1 of each year, beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this part, each recipient of a grant under this part shall submit to the Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management a report that— (A) describes the progress of the body-worn camera program; and (B) contains recommendations on ways in which the Federal Government, States, and units of local government can further support the implementation of the program.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance Director would establish and maintain a training and technical-assistance toolkit for law-enforcement agencies, academia, and other relevant organizations. It would include implementation practices, model policies, and research, and could consolidate existing materials from experts and law-enforcement agencies.
The Director shall establish and maintain a toolkit for law enforcement agencies, academia, and other relevant entities to provide training and technical assistance, including best practices for implementation, model policies and procedures, and research materials.
the Director may consolidate research, practices, templates, and tools that been developed by expert and law enforcement agencies across the country.
A state, local, or Tribal chief executive would apply for a grant using the form and information reasonably required by the Director. The Director would have to issue implementing regulations, including application requirements, within 90 days after enactment.
To request a grant under this part, the chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or Indian Tribe shall submit an application to the Director in a form and containing information as the Director may reasonably require.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this part, the Director shall promulgate regulations to implement this part, including the information that shall be included and the requirements that the States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes must meet in submitting the applications required under this section.
Within two years after all grants are awarded, the Director would conduct a study of camera effectiveness. It would examine excessive force, accountability, complaint handling, officer and public safety, and evidence collection.
Not later than 2 years after the date on which all grants are awarded under this part, the Director shall conduct a study on— (1) the efficacy of body-worn cameras in deterring excessive force by law enforcement officers; (2) the impact of body-worn cameras on the accountability and transparency of the use of force by law enforcement officers; (3) the impact of body-worn cameras on responses to and adjudications of complaints of excessive force; (4) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on the safety of law enforcement officers on patrol; (5) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on public safety; (6) the impact of body-worn cameras on evidence collection for criminal investigations;
The study would also examine recording security, privacy, facial-recognition rights and limits, public access to footage, officer training, and camera policies. It would include agencies that found cameras unhelpful and other factors the Director considers relevant.
(7) issues relating to the secure storage and handling of recorded data from the body-worn cameras; (8) issues relating to the privacy of citizens and officers recorded on body-worn cameras; (9) issues relating to the constitutional rights of individuals on whom facial recognition technology is used; (10) issues relating to limitations on the use of facial recognition technology; (11) issues relating to the public’s access to body-worn camera footage; (12) the need for proper training of law enforcement officers that use body-worn cameras; (13) best practices in the development of protocols for the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras; (14) a review of law enforcement agencies that found body-worn cameras to be unhelpful in the operations of the agencies; and (15) any other factors that the Director determines are relevant in evaluating the efficacy of body-worn cameras.
Within 180 days after completing the study, the Director would report to Congress and include any policy recommendations considered appropriate.
Not later than 180 days after the date on which the study required under subsection (a) is completed, the Director shall submit to Congress a report on the study, which shall include any policy recommendations that the Director considers appropriate.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated April 9, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-04-09T15:38:39Z. 2025-02-11: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-11: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-11. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Its provisions concern the camera grant program and associated safeguards, administration, and evaluation. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No recipient- or place-specific spending earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. General program funding alone does not establish an earmark. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a special matching-fund exception within the main grant policy. Identifying this targeted treatment is not a judgment about its justification.
The Indian-assistance provision would give qualifying Tribal law-enforcement programs special flexibility to meet the grant match: congressional appropriations for Tribal-government agencies or Bureau of Indian Affairs law-enforcement activities on Indian lands could count as the non-federal share. This is a targeted exception to the program's ordinary funding-share rule, rather than merely making Tribal governments eligible to apply.
Except as provided in paragraph (3), the Federal share of the cost of a program carried out using a grant under this part may not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the program.
Any funds appropriated by Congress for the activities of any agency of an Indian Tribal government or the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing law enforcement functions on any Indian lands may be used to provide the non-Federal share of the matching requirement described in paragraph (1).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 9, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI