Eleanor Norton (D-DC)
Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act
A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill requires federal law enforcement officers to wear and use body-worn cameras during interactions with the public. It sets strict rules for when these cameras must be turned on or off, including shutting them off in private homes or around crime victims if requested. The legislation also bans the use of facial recognition or biometric surveillance technology on these cameras. Additionally, the bill mandates the installation of in-car video recording systems in federal patrol vehicles. Finally, it requires the Government Accountability Office to study federal law enforcement training, vehicle pursuits, and use of force.
Yes· 3 of 24
- Scored +8
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Mandates recording of federal law enforcement and sets strict timelines for public release of force-related footage.
- Scored +8
Does this change how police departments operate?
Mandates body cameras, prohibits biometric surveillance, and creates evidentiary presumptions for missing footage.
- Scored +7
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Creates a legal presumption in favor of defendants if required evidence is destroyed or not captured.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
Increases the amount of video recording of citizens by federal agents, despite restrictions.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Privacy Protections in Private Homes: Under Section 2(e)(1), a federal officer must ask occupants if they want the body camera turned off before entering a private residence without a warrant, and must turn it off immediately if the occupant says yes. This protects people's personal privacy inside their own homes.
-
Support for Crime Victims: Under Section 2(e)(2), officers must ask apparent crime victims if they want the body camera turned off and comply immediately if requested. This helps victims feel safer and more secure when reporting or discussing crimes.
-
Transparency and Access to Footage: Under Section 2(i)(2) and Section 2(l), subjects of the footage, their legal counsel, and the general public have specific rights to inspect or request public release of the video recordings. This holds law enforcement accountable to the people they serve.
-
Ban on Invasive Surveillance: Under Section 4, cameras and recording devices used under this Act are strictly prohibited from employing facial recognition or other biometric surveillance technology. This protects citizens from invasive tracking and automated profiling by the government.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Destruction of Evidence After Six Months: Under Section 2(i)(1), general body camera video footage is permanently deleted after six months unless it meets specific criteria for a three-year retention period. This creates a risk that helpful or necessary video evidence could be permanently lost before individuals realize they need it.
-
Restrictions on Public Release of Footage: Under Section 2(l)(2), video footage that is not subject to a minimum three-year retention period cannot be released to the public without express written permission from the non-law enforcement subjects. This could make it more difficult for the public to access everyday police interaction recordings.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Enhanced accountability and transparency reduce the risk of unchecked police misconduct. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Enhanced accountability and transparency reduce the risk of unchecked police misconduct. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Enhanced accountability and transparency reduce the risk of unchecked police misconduct. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Enhanced accountability and transparency reduce the risk of unchecked police misconduct. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides greater legal protections and evidentiary presumptions for those often disproportionately targeted. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Increases accountability in high-density areas where federal enforcement is common. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Increases accountability in high-density areas where federal enforcement is common. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases transparency and accountability of federal agents. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Increases transparency and limits biometric surveillance during federal stops. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increases accountability during interactions with federal law enforcement. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases transparency and accountability of federal agents. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increases accountability during interactions with federal law enforcement. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Increases general transparency and accountability of federal agents. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases accountability during interactions with federal law enforcement. Would children be better off under this? — Protects minors and their guardians by allowing inspection of footage.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Mandates recording of federal law enforcement and sets strict timelines for public release of force-related footage. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Creates a legal presumption in favor of defendants if required evidence is destroyed or not captured. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Provides rights for victims and residents to request cameras be turned off in private residences. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Protects First Amendment activities from biometric intelligence gathering.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — Mandates body cameras, prohibits biometric surveillance, and creates evidentiary presumptions for missing footage. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Increases accountability and transparency in federal law enforcement interactions. Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — Prohibits use of cameras to gather intelligence on First Amendment protected speech. Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion? — Prohibits use of body cameras to gather intelligence based on religious associations.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Explicitly prohibits facial recognition and biometric surveillance in police cameras.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — Increases the amount of video recording of citizens by federal agents, despite restrictions.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/29/2025
- Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E792)
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Donald BeyerDemocrat · Virginia
Al GreenDemocrat · Texas