Federal Police Accountability Act Mandates Cameras, Bans Facial Recognition, and Sets 5-Day Release for Use-of-Force Footage

The new Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act is a massive overhaul of how federal law enforcement interacts with the public, focusing heavily on transparency through technology. Think of it as putting a camera on every federal officer—from the FBI to the Border Patrol—and then writing a very strict user manual for that camera. The bill requires federal officers to wear body cameras and equip patrol cars with in-car video systems, and it lays out exactly when those cameras must be rolling. If they’re responding to a service call or starting any kind of stop with a member of the public, both video and audio must be turned on immediately (SEC. 2).

Putting the Brakes on Biometrics

This is the part that civil liberties advocates will be watching closely: the bill contains a hard, clear ban on facial recognition technology. The cameras required by this Act absolutely cannot be equipped with or use facial recognition or any other biometric surveillance technology (SEC. 2). Furthermore, federal agencies can’t even ask a third party—like another law enforcement group or a tech company—to run facial recognition on the footage later (SEC. 4). This means the video is primarily for documenting the interaction, not for automated, mass identification, which is a huge win for privacy.

The Fine Print of Privacy and Consent

While the goal is accountability, the bill carves out specific protections for privacy. If an officer enters your private home without a warrant, they have to ask you if you want the camera turned off. If you say yes, they must stop recording immediately (SEC. 2). The same rule applies to crime victims or anonymous tipsters—officers must ask them if they want the camera off. This is a crucial balance, ensuring that the push for transparency doesn't inadvertently expose victims or violate home privacy. Importantly, the officer must record the moment they offer to stop recording and your response, before they actually hit the off switch.

When the Footage Hits the Fan

One of the most impactful provisions deals with serious incidents. If an officer is involved in a use-of-force incident that results in death or serious injury, the footage request gets top priority. The agency must provide this footage to the public within five days of receiving the request (SEC. 2). This is a game-changer for timely public review and accountability. For routine stops, footage is kept for six months, but it automatically extends to three years if there’s a use-of-force incident or if a subject files a complaint.

No Homework Before the Test

Another significant change deals with internal investigations. If an officer is involved in a serious incident, they are generally not allowed to review their own body camera footage until after they have completed all their initial reports and interviews (SEC. 2). This is designed to ensure that the officer’s initial account is based on their memory and perception of the event, not on a review of the video evidence, which is a major shift in standard procedure for many agencies.

The Cost of Non-Compliance

This bill has teeth. If an officer or agency fails to record an interaction, destroys evidence, or manipulates the footage, there are consequences that directly benefit the public. If a criminal defendant or a civil plaintiff (someone suing over misconduct) can show that exculpatory or supporting evidence was lost due to the agency breaking the rules, the law creates a “rebuttable presumption” in their favor (SEC. 2). Essentially, the court starts out assuming the lost evidence would have helped the citizen, and the agency has to work hard to prove otherwise. This is a powerful deterrent against non-compliance.

The Catch: Short Retention and Vague Exceptions

While the accountability measures are strong, there are a few practical catches. The required in-car video systems must record continuously during patrol duty, but standard recordings from these car cameras only have to be kept for 90 days before they can be erased (SEC. 3). That’s a pretty short window to request footage from a routine traffic stop. Also, officers can delay turning on their body camera if an “immediate threat to their life or safety makes it impossible or dangerous” (SEC. 2). While understandable in theory, this subjective exception could be broad enough to allow officers to avoid recording the critical initial moments of a rapidly escalating situation. Overall, the Act represents a massive new standard for federal law enforcement transparency, but the real-world impact will depend heavily on how agencies handle those small, vague exceptions.