Body Camera Redaction Laws: What Agencies Must Do Now

California's body camera redaction laws grew more specific on September 20, 2026, when Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 691 (SB 691), authored by Senator Aisha Wahab. By July 1, 2027, the new law will require every law enforcement agency in the state that has a body-worn camera (BWC) policy to add a procedure letting emergency medical services (EMS) personnel request redaction of footage showing a patient undergoing medical or psychological evaluation, procedure, or treatment. It is the latest sign of a pattern playing out across the country this year: state legislatures are moving past the broad question of whether body-worn camera footage should be public and are instead writing increasingly specific body camera redaction laws that carve out particular categories of sensitive footage. Florida took a related but different approach in the same legislative cycle with Senate Bill 506 (SB 506), creating a public records exemption for code inspector body camera recordings made inside private homes and other sensitive locations. Read together, the two laws are a useful case study in where body camera redaction laws are headed, and in what agencies, and the vendors who redact footage on their behalf, need to do to keep pace.

California's New Body Camera Redaction Laws for Medical and Psychological Footage

SB 691 began its life with a compliance date of July 1, 2026, but that date was pushed back a year during the bill's later amendments, and the version Governor Newsom signed sets the deadline at July 1, 2027. The statutory text is specific about what an agency's updated policy has to cover. On or before that date, each law enforcement agency with a body-worn camera policy must update it to include a procedure for emergency service personnel to request, prior to any public release, the redaction of evidentiary and nonevidentiary recordings of a patient undergoing medical or psychological evaluation, procedure, or treatment by emergency service personnel.

A few features of the law are worth flagging for agencies building compliance into their existing body camera redaction laws framework:

• The request comes from EMS, not the agency. The redaction procedure is triggered by emergency service personnel asking for it, which means an agency's policy needs a defined intake channel for that request rather than leaving it to case-by-case discretion.
• Redaction applies before public release, not before internal retention. The law is aimed at what goes out the door in response to a records request or other public disclosure, not at what the agency keeps in its own files.
• An unredacted copy has to survive. Agencies must maintain the original, unredacted recording under their existing retention procedures, so the redaction is a release-time step layered on top of the underlying evidentiary record, not a replacement for it.
• The policy has to address embarrassment and humiliation, not just clinical privacy. Earlier drafting analysis of the bill describes guidance for agencies to reasonably and temporarily limit recording of medical or psychological care that could cause embarrassment or humiliation to the patient, a standard that goes beyond simply withholding a diagnosis.

For a records unit, SB 691 effectively adds a new redaction category, alongside faces, license plates, and minors, that has to be identified and handled every time a request touches footage from a medical call, a psychiatric hold, or an in-custody restraint involving treatment. Our earlier guide on what courts look for in defensible video redaction covers the documentation habits that apply just as much to a new statutory category like this one as to an established one.

Florida's Body Camera Redaction Laws for Code Enforcement Recordings

Florida's SB 506 addresses a narrower but related problem: what happens when a body camera is worn not by a police officer but by a code enforcement inspector walking through a resident's yard or, in some cases, a private home. Signed into law on April 23, 2026 and effective July 1, 2026, SB 506 creates a public records exemption for code inspector body camera recordings that depict a private residence, a healthcare or mental health facility, or another place a reasonable person would expect to be private. A companion measure, SB 504, separately establishes statewide requirements, including written policy and training, for local governments that let code inspectors use body cameras at all.

SB 506 shares a structural feature with California's approach, even though the two statutes protect different subject matter. Both belong to the same wave of 2026 body camera redaction laws that narrow what the public automatically sees rather than rewriting BWC public-records rules wholesale:

1. Retention still applies. Code inspectors must preserve the recordings for at least 90 days, and Florida's Division of Library and Information Services has to fold that requirement into the state's general records retention schedule by October 1, 2026.
2. Disclosure is not banned outright. The exemption allows disclosure in defined circumstances, and a court weighing release has to consider specific statutory factors, with local governments entitled to reasonable notice and a chance to participate before a recording goes out.
3. The exemption is not permanent by default. Like most exemptions created under Florida's Open Government Sunset Review Act, SB 506's carve-out repeals automatically on October 2, 2031 unless the legislature reenacts it.

The bill passed with lopsided bipartisan support, clearing the Senate 38 to 1 and the House 114 to 0, which is a signal that lawmakers on both sides increasingly see targeted privacy carve-outs, rather than blanket public access or blanket exemption, as the workable middle ground for this kind of footage.

The Broader Pattern Behind 2026's Body Camera Redaction Laws

Neither SB 691 nor SB 506 rewrites the underlying public-records statute in its state. Instead, each one adds a defined, subject-matter-specific exception on top of an existing framework, which is a meaningfully different legislative strategy than setting a single statewide redaction standard. That approach has two practical consequences for anyone tracking body camera redaction laws on behalf of an agency or a client.

• The categories keep multiplying. Minors, medical and psychological treatment, code enforcement on private property, and jurisdiction-specific carve-outs for particular incident types are all now live categories in different states, and an agency operating across state lines, or a vendor serving multiple agencies, has to track each one separately rather than applying a single rule everywhere.
• Compliance dates are staggered and can move. SB 691's deadline shifted by a full year during the legislative process, from July 1, 2026 to July 1, 2027, while SB 506 took effect the same year it was signed. Agencies cannot assume a bill's introduced version, or even an earlier news report about it, still reflects the final compliance date.

The practical lesson is that a redaction program built around today's specific statutory categories will need to be revisited every legislative session. A program built around a general capability to identify, flag, and redact any newly defined sensitive category, and to document that it was done, adapts to new body camera redaction laws without a rebuild each time one passes.

What These New Body Camera Redaction Laws Mean for Redaction Workflows

For a records unit or a redaction vendor, a new statutory category is not just a legal update, it is a workflow change. A few steps make the transition manageable rather than reactive:

1. Map each new category to a specific redaction trigger. SB 691's medical and psychological evaluation category needs its own flag in an agency's intake process, separate from the existing flags for faces, plates, minors, or interior-of-home footage, so reviewers know to look for it.
2. Define who can request the redaction. Under SB 691, the request comes from emergency service personnel, not from the records unit itself, so the policy needs an intake path for that request that a records team may not have needed before.
3. Confirm the unredacted original is retained separately. Both new laws assume the underlying, unredacted recording survives in agency custody under normal retention rules; the redaction only affects what goes out publicly.
4. Update training before the deadline, not at it. SB 691 gives agencies until July 1, 2027, which sounds distant but is not, once policy drafting, staff training, and vendor coordination are accounted for.
5. Watch for the companion bill. Florida's SB 506 only functions alongside SB 504's statewide framework for code inspector body cameras, a reminder that a single bill number rarely tells the whole story of what changed.

Our earlier guide to defensible video redaction fees for FOIA requests covers how to structure cost recovery once a new redaction category adds work to an existing request queue, and our roundup of what changed in body camera public records law earlier in 2026 covers several other statutory shifts agencies are tracking alongside these two.

Building a Redaction Process That Keeps Up With Changing Body Camera Redaction Laws

Because the categories covered by body camera redaction laws keep expanding, the most resilient redaction process is one built to add a new category quickly rather than one tuned narrowly to today's list. That generally means:

• A documented intake checklist that records staff update as soon as a new statutory category takes effect, rather than relying on informal knowledge of the latest law.
• Frame-by-frame human review on every release, so a new category like medical or psychological treatment footage is caught even when it was not the primary reason for the request.
• A redaction log for every file noting what was redacted, the specific statutory basis, and who approved the release, so an agency can show exactly which body camera redaction laws applied to a given recording if the release is ever questioned.
• A retention procedure that keeps the unredacted original intact and separately accessible, satisfying both new laws' requirement that redaction happen only at the point of public release.

Conclusion

California's SB 691 and Florida's SB 506 both became law in 2026, and both illustrate where body camera redaction laws are headed: not a single sweeping rewrite of public-records statutes, but a steady accumulation of specific, subject-matter carve-outs that agencies have to track individually. SB 691 gives EMS personnel a defined path to request redaction of medical and psychological treatment footage by July 1, 2027, while SB 506 exempts sensitive code enforcement recordings starting July 1, 2026. Agencies that build a redaction process flexible enough to add a new category on short notice, rather than one built around today's rules alone, will be in a stronger position the next time a legislature adds another line to this list.

Focal Forensics helps law enforcement agencies, code enforcement divisions, and their counsel keep pace with new body camera redaction laws, with automated detection, frame-by-frame human review, and a documented redaction log built into every release. Learn more about our video redaction services or reach out to discuss how your agency's current policy would handle a new statutory redaction category.

Phone: 303-900-3585 · Email: info@focalforensics.com

Sources

• California Legislative Information: SB 691 (2025-2026) Bill Status, Body-Worn Cameras: Policies
• California Legislative Information: SB 691 Bill Text
• Office of Governor Gavin Newsom: Legislative Update, September 20, 2026
• CalMatters Digital Democracy: SB 691, Body-Worn Cameras: Policies
• The Florida Senate: SB 506 (2026) Bill Summary, Public Records/Body Camera Recordings
• Becker & Poliakoff: Florida Senate Bill 506 (2026), Code Enforcement Body Camera Recordings and Public Records Law