<body><div>A Pennsylvania appeals court has rejected Falls Township’s latest attempt to get a copy of police body camera recordings of a 2021 arrest of a former police officer.The Commonwealth Court in August upheld a Bucks County court ruling last year dismissing the township’s petition to compel the Buckingham Township Police Department to release the video recordings on the grounds the township missed the deadline and the court did not have authority to extend it.A Falls spokeswoman did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday asking if the township plans to appeal to Pennsylvania Supreme Court.<figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=0THkoD_0w8qDOw300" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=0THkoD_0w8qDOw300" width="660" height="439" ><figcaption>Falls Township officials have spent more than $14,000 in an effort to obtain police body camera footage of the 2021 DUI arrest of a former Falls police officer. A state appeals court recently upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed the township's petition.</figcaption></figure>More Bucks County news Warminster man facing homicide charges in fatal crash that killed man, 78. What happenedTaxpayers have spent more than $14,000 in legal fees pursuing the body camera video showing the arrest of William Tanner IV, who was terminated by Falls Police in March for undisclosed reasons for the second time in two years. But the exact legal services costs are unknown.This news organization filed Right to Know requests with the township to review the total cost of litigation in the Buckingham Police matter, but the township only provided invoice and billing records for March 2023 through April 2024, totaling $14,127.The township said it is unable to provide earlier itemized charges because legal services related to the matter billed before March 2023 were handled under a separate file for general personnel matters, according to a township spokeswoman.Tanner was arrested Aug. 30, 2021 when, while off-duty, he rear-ended a vehicle in Buckingham. He was charged with DUI and careless driving and approved for entry into a nonviolent first-time offenders probation program in August 2022.One month after Tanner's DUI case closed, Falls submitted a public records request to Buckingham Police for a copy of the body camera recordings of Tanner’s arrest. Buckingham denied the request citing an exemption in the law for criminal investigations.Falls appealed the denial to the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office, which also denied the request on the grounds that access to law enforcement video and audio recordings falls under a different public records law called Act 22.Meanwhile, Falls supervisors privately terminated Tanner in October 2022 for alleged conduct unrelated to his DUI arrest; Tanner appealed the discipline and an arbitrator ordered the township reinstate him with back pay in June 2023.Falls also appealed the Buckingham Police and Bucks County District Attorney denials to the Bucks County Common Pleas Court. In its legal filings the township contended that it needed the recordings of the arrest as part of an internal investigation into the 2021 incident.“The township must fully investigate the arrest of an off-duty police officer in order to ensure appropriate steps are taken to protect the integrity of its police force, and the ability of that police force to properly serve the township community,” according to the petition.In filings, Falls contended that it didn't request the recordings sooner because of a belief they would not be available until after Tanner's DUI case was over, which was beyond the 60-day window from the date of the incident under Act 22.In court documents, though, Tanner countered that the township had no legitimate reason to seek the body camera footage because the township had already investigated and disciplined him for the DUI incident.“It strains credulity for Falls Township to argue, on one hand, that they required the video to make a fair and proper investigation, and then, on the other hand, move forward with disciplinary procedures against William Tanner without having the video that Falls Township is now claiming is needed to ‘investigate and properly respond to off-duty misconduct,’” according to his petition to intervene in the matter.Tanner has an active lawsuit in Bucks County Common Pleas Court against the Falls Township alleging its supervisors have engaged in an ongoing pattern of retaliation and “unjustified” discipline against him for assisting in a 2020 federal investigation into the township.Reporter Jo Ciavaglia can be reached at jciavaglia@gannett.comThis article originally appeared on Bucks County Courier Times: Why has Falls spent over $14K to get video of former officer's arrest?</div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Falls loses second round in legal battle to get video of ex-officer's DUI arrest

A Pennsylvania appeals court has rejected Falls Township’s latest attempt to get a copy of police body camera recordings of a 2021 arrest of a former police officer. The Commonwealth Court in August upheld a Bucks County court ruling last year dismissing the township’s petition to compel the Buckingham Township Police Department to release the video recordings on the grounds the township missed the deadline and the court did not have authority to extend it.