Back to District of Columbia

B26-0603 • 2025

Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Amendment Act of 2026

Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Amendment Act of 2026

Children Parental Rights
Active

The official status still shows this bill as active or still awaiting another formal step.

Sponsor
Pinto
Last action
2026-03-06
Official status
Under Council Review
Effective date
Not listed

Plain English Breakdown

The official source material does not provide specific details on what happens if consent is denied for releasing footage, leaving this as an open question.

Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Amendment Act

This bill would require the release of body-worn camera recordings from Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers and other law enforcement agencies involved in serious use of force incidents or officer-involved deaths, enhancing transparency.

What This Bill Does

  • Requires MPD to release body-worn camera footage for all officer-involved deaths and serious uses of force involving any law enforcement agency, not just the MPD.
  • Includes names of directly involved federal law enforcement officers in MPD's public database for incidents since January 1, 2026.
  • Requires daily roll call records to include information about all federal agents present when working with MPD.

Who It Names or Affects

  • Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers and other law enforcement agencies operating in the District of Columbia.
  • Victims involved in officer-involved deaths or serious uses of force, as well as their guardians if they are minors.
  • The public who will have access to information about joint patrols between MPD and federal agencies.

Terms To Know

Body-Worn Camera
A camera worn by police officers that records interactions with the public, especially during incidents involving use of force or officer-involved deaths.
Serious Use of Force
An incident where a law enforcement officer uses significant physical force against someone, requiring special attention and transparency.

Limits and Unknowns

  • The bill does not specify what happens if consent is denied for releasing footage from serious use of force incidents.
  • It's unclear how the additional requirements will affect MPD’s resources or operations.

Bill History

  1. 2026-03-06 Council of the District of Columbia LIMS

    Notice of Intent to Act on B26-0603 Published in the District of Columbia Register

  2. 2026-03-03 Council of the District of Columbia LIMS

    Referred to Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety

  3. 2026-02-25 Council of the District of Columbia LIMS

    B26-0603 Introduced by Councilmember Pinto at Office of the Secretary

Official Summary Text

Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Amendment Act of 2026

Current Bill Text

Read the full stored bill text
COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF COUNCILMEMBER BROOKE PINTO
THE JOHN A. WILSON BUILDING
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 106
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004

February 24, 2026
Nyasha Howard, Secretary
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Secretary Howard,

Today, I, along with Chairman Mendelson, am introducing the “Body-Worn Camera Transparency
for Use of Force Amendment Act of 2026.” This bill would enhance transparency with use of force
incidents involving federal agencies.
District residents deserve transparency when there is a serious use of force or officer -involved
death involving federal agencies. Current law requires that the Mayor release body -worn camera
recordings of Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) officers present in the event of an officer-
involved death or serious use of force by an MPD officer. However, there is no such requirement
for release of MPD body-worn camera recordings when the officer-involved death or serious use
of force involves a law enforcement officer from another agency.
Additionally, on December 18, 2025, Councilmember Pinto sent a letter to MPD requesting data
about how federal law enforcement officers are being deployed in joint patrols with MPD officers.
While MPD’s initial response to the letter did not address these specific questions, MPD
subsequently provided responses to performance oversight pre -hearing questions from the
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety and indicated that such information was not able to
be shared.
To enhance transparency around federal law enforcement serious uses of force as well as patrols
with MPD, t he Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Amendment Act of 2026
would:
• Require the public release of MPD body -worn camera recordings of all officer -involved
deaths or serious use of force incidents as well as the names of all officers involved and a
description of the incident. For body -worn camera recordings involving an off icer-
involved death, the decedent’s next of kin must provide consent for the footage to be
released. For recordings of a serious use of force incident, the alleged victim or guardian if
the victim is a minor must consent to its release.
• Require that MPD’s public database of MPD body-worn camera recordings and names of
all officers directly involved with an officer-involved death since January 1,
2026, include names of directly involved federal law enforcement officers, as available.

• Require a roll call record of all federal agents in attendance at daily MPD roll call to provide
transparency with MPD joint patrols with federal agencies.
Should you have any questions about this legislation, please contact my Committee and Legislative
Director, Linn Groft, at lgroft@dccouncil.gov.

Thank you.

Best,

Brooke Pinto

1
2
________________________ ________________________ 3
Chairman Phil Mendelson Councilmember Brooke Pinto 4
5
6
7
A BILL 8
9
_________________________ 10
11
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 12
13
_________________________ 14
15
16
To amend the Body-Worn Camera Regulation and Reporting Requirements Act of 2015 to 17
require release of body-worn camera recordings of Metropolitan Police Department 18
Officers present in the event of an officer-involved death or serious use of force by a law 19
enforcement officer other than a Metropolitan Police Department officer; and to require 20
that the Metropolitan Police Department record and share information about all law 21
enforcement officers present at roll calls. 22
23
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this act may 24
be cited as the “Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Amendment Act of 25
2026”. 26
Sec. 2. Section 3004 of the Body-Worn Camera Regulation and Reporting Requirements 27
Act of 2015, effective October 22, 2015 (D.C. Law 21-36; D.C. Official Code § 5-116.33), is 28
amended as follows: 29
(a) Subsection c(2)(A) is amended as follows: 30
(1) Sub-subparagraph (i)(I) is amended to read as follows: 31
“(I) The names and body-worn camera recordings of all 32
Metropolitan Police Department officers as well as the names, as available, of all other law 33
enforcement officers directly involved in the officer-involved death or serious use of force; and”. 34

(2) Sub-subparagraph (ii) is amended by striking the phrase “; and” and inserting 35
the phrase “, provided that for all officer-involved deaths since January 1, 2026, the information 36
reported pursuant to this sub-subparagraph shall include the names of all Metropolitan Police 37
Department officers, as well as the names of other law enforcement officers, as available, 38
directly involved in the officer-involved death; and” in its place. 39
(b) Subsection (e)(1) is amended by striking the phrase “serious use of force” and 40
inserting the phrase “serious use of force directly involving an MPD officer” in its place. 41
(c) Subsection (g)(3) is amended as follows: 42
(1) Subparagraph (A) is amended by striking the phrase “Metropolitan Police 43
Department officer” and inserting the phrase “Metropolitan Police Department officer, or any 44
other law enforcement officer while an MPD officer is present” in its place. 45
(2) Subparagraph (B) is amended by striking the phrase “Metropolitan Police 46
Department officer” and inserting the phrase “Metropolitan Police Department officer, or any 47
other law enforcement officer while an MPD officer is present” in its place. 48
(3) Subparagraph (C) is amended by striking the phrase “Metropolitan Police 49
Department officer” and inserting the phrase “Metropolitan Police Department officer, or any 50
other law enforcement officer while an MPD officer is present” in its place. 51
(4) Subparagraph (D) is amended by striking the phrase “Metropolitan Police 52
Department canine” and inserting the phrase “Metropolitan Police Department canine, or canine 53
of any other law enforcement officer while an MPD officer is present” in its place. 54
Sec. 3. (a) Beginning on the effective date of this Act, the Metropolitan Police 55
Department shall record the following information for all law enforcement officers, other than 56
MPD officers, present at roll call: 57

(1) Full name; 58
(2) Badge identification number or other identifying number; 59
(3) Law enforcement agency represented; and 60
(4) Assignment for the shift. 61
(b) The Department shall make the information recorded pursuant to subsection (a) of 62
this section available to the Chairperson of the Council Committee with jurisdiction over the 63
Metropolitan Police Department (“Chairperson”) upon request within 5 business days of such 64
request. 65
(c) The Department shall provide aggregate information regarding paragraphs (3) and (4) 66
of subsection (a) of this section available to the public upon request by the Chairperson within 5 67
business days of such request. 68
Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement. 69
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the fiscal 70
impact statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975, 71
approved October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a). 72
Sec. 4. Effective date. 73
This act shall take effect after approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the 74
Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of congressional review as 75
provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 76
24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of 77
Columbia Register. 78