What are they trying to hide?
That's the first reaction of reasonable people when their government moves to restrict access to information with an unnecessary law.
While that might not be the intent of the Indiana Legislature as pertains to committee hearings on the release of body-camera or dashboard-camera video taken during police stops, it would be the result.
As reported Wednesday by Jill Disis of The Indianapolis Star, if approved, House Bill 1019 would compel police departments to show recordings of law enforcement actions only to either the person depicted in the video or that person's relatives or attorney — and it does not compel law enforcement to share a physical copy of the video.
For anyone else, including media, the decision to release is up to the department.
If the police say no, the burden falls on the person requesting access to take legal action.
Proponents cite privacy concerns for members of the public pictured in the videos, saying that overrides the public's right to know. Opponents say it leaves all control with police, who can release footage that is favorable to them and not release footage that shows wrongdoing.
As State Sen. Greg Taylor, a Democrat from Indianapolis, said during an earlier discussion, if the police and cruiser camera footage isn't going to be made available to the public, then why have the officers carry the cameras?
As we'd like to point out, there already are steps in place for police to restrict access, so why are more needed?
Courier & Press investigative editor Jay Young testified during a committee hearing on Tuesday about this newspaper's attempts to view footage from an incident at an Evansville convenience store on July 9.
A police officer's 21-year-old son, in the squad car on a sanctioned ride-along, interacted with a witness filming an arrest. The witness said the son grabbed his phone and threw it to the ground.
The witness shared his footage on social media then filed a complaint. When the newspaper asked to view the officer's body-camera video, for another view of what occurred, the request was denied as part of an "investigatory record."
That investigation has languished, the case file pushed to a special prosecutor in Daviess County, and the video remains unavailable.
It's doubtful allowing the public to view the video six months after the incident would affect the investigation. But it's legal under current law, which raises the question: Why write a different standard on this specific area of public access?
Police say body cameras in many instances exonerate their officers; they often release the video in such cases. Fewer excessive force complaints are filed, they say, because the perpetrators know there is video evidence.
That's a positive to the body cameras. It would be much more positive if the Legislature would either leave current law alone or designate an impartial process that keeps police video transparent.
The Hoosier State Press Association suggested a three-person panel, made up of the state's public access counselor, a police appointee and a public or media appointee, be created to determine when release of video is justified, rather than forcing the public to go through the courts.
The HSPA also has addressed concerns with minors, nudity, informants, undercover officers, witnesses and private dwellings.
As HSPA Executive Director Steve Key said, "The public has a right to know what police departments are doing."
Take away that right, and the public is justified in wondering what officials are trying to hide.