ACLU-DE Files Lawsuit Seeking Dewey Beach Officers’ Body Worn Camera Footage

Dewey Beach, DE — The ACLU of Delaware filed a lawsuit today against Dewey Beach in the Superior Court of New Castle County alleging that the town unlawfully denied access to body worn camera footage from six officers. In its denial, Dewey Beach stated that the Freedom of Information Act request was denied under exemptions for investigatory files, criminal records, and common or statutory law.

“One of the key reasons Delaware mandated that law enforcement officers wear body worn cameras is to provide greater transparency and accountability to the public,” said ACLU-DE Civic Engagement Counsel Andrew Bernstein. “Unnecessarily blocking access to that footage undermines the public’s trust.”

The ACLU-DE requested the body worn camera footage after it received a report that a group of young people had faced potential discrimination due to their race during the summer of 2025. None of the young people were charged with a crime, and there appeared to be no active investigation into their conduct.

In its denial letter to the ACLU-DE, Dewey Beach invoked the investigatory file exemption but provided no indication the body worn camera footage was gathered following any allegation or report of a criminal or civil law enforcement investigation. Dewey Beach also cited the criminal records exemption, but this exemption applies only where the requested records would invade privacy, and Dewey Beach provided no justification for how releasing the footage would do so.

“The body worn camera footage shows law enforcement officers working in their public capacity in a public space, so it is difficult to imagine how its release could violate their personal privacy,” added Bernstein. “We do not live in a society with secret police, so merely being able to identify who the law enforcement officers are cannot be a reason to deny access to this footage.”

Finally, Dewey Beach utilized the common or statutory law exemption, citing to statutes shielding criminal record history and criminal justice information from release. However, officials provided no justification for how the footage would have fallen under these exemptions.