Statement From South Bend Common Councilwomen Sherry Bolden-Simpson District 5 Re: My opposition to Bill 43-25
- Letters
- Aug 10
- 2 min read
From: South Bend Common Councilwoman Sherry Bolden-Simpson District 5
Re: My opposition to Bill 43-25
Statement in Opposition to Bill 43-25
I oppose Bill 43-25 for three key reasons.
First – The bill was introduced in a confusing manner. It was initially framed as a workload issue, with emphasis on the time-consuming nature of video redaction. The legal department stated that its staff were overwhelmed by these duties. However, I later learned that the fees generated by this ordinance would not go to the legal department at all, raising serious questions about the bill’s stated purpose.
Second – The ordinance is not supported by data. City legal has claimed that the proposed fees would encourage people requesting bodycam and dashcam videos to narrow their requests, thereby reducing workload. No data has been provided to support this assumption. In reality, the fees would likely be prohibitive for the average citizen, but not for media outlets, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies, or large advocacy organizations. These groups will continue to request and pay for videos, meaning the workload for the legal department will remain unchanged.
Third – And most importantly, this bill risks damaging public trust between citizens and the South Bend Police Department. There are unanswered questions about who decides whether a person qualifies as a “requester” under state statute, and how appeals would work if a request is denied. The bill does not address situations where a victim wants to view a video but avoid interaction with law enforcement. City legal has not established where such videos would be viewed or who would supervise the process.
The state statute allowing municipalities to assess fees on police videos has been in place since 2016 and municipalities are not mandated to establish a fee schedule. South Bend is not out of compliance, so there is no reason to rush this ordinance through without fully studying its impacts in other communities. Our city is not obligated to follow St. Joseph County or any neighboring government; we should make decisions based on the needs and trust of our own residents.
In recent years, South Bend has made gradual progress in rebuilding trust between citizens and SBPD. Passing Bill 43-25 would set that progress back—potentially erasing years of work. That would harm our citizens, our police department, and our city.
For these reasons, I oppose Bill 43-25.
