12tldr is a free AI article summarizer. Paste any article URL and get a structured summary with TL;DR bullet points, context, key details, and why it matters — all in seconds.

How does 12tldr work?

Paste an article URL into the input field and click Summarize. Our AI reads the article and generates a clear, structured summary. No signup or account is required.

Is 12tldr free to use?

Yes, 12tldr is completely free. No account, no subscription, no tracking required.

Which websites does 12tldr support?

12tldr works with articles from most major publications including The Economist, New York Times, Bloomberg, BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, Wired, and thousands of other websites.

What does the AI summary include?

Each summary includes a TL;DR with three bullet points, a 'What it's about' section, 'The details' with key facts, and 'Why it matters' — giving you a complete picture without reading the full article.

Who foots police body-cam FOI bill?

Source: theday.com

TL;DR

New London police demanded $628.99 to redact body-cam footage requested under Connecticut's FOI law by The Day columnist David Collins.
The 2020 police accountability bill mandated body cameras but left FOI fee rules ambiguous, prompting police to seek labor costs for editing.
Connecticut FOI Commission rejected the fee and ordered free release, highlighting tension over who pays for public access to police videos.[[1]](https://theday.com/news/492717/new-london-demands-62899-for-police-to-edit-foi-requested-body-cam-video)[[2]](https://theday.com/news/513482/opinion-new-london-loses-appeal-of-order-to-release-police-body-cam-videos)

The story at a glance

The Day's opinion piece examines New London police charging $628.99 to process and redact body-cam video from a specific incident, requested by columnist David Collins. The city argued it covered staff time for reviewing and editing under FOI rules, tied to the 2020 police accountability bill's body camera mandate. This is reported now as departments grapple with storage and disclosure costs post-mandate, amid ongoing FOI disputes.[[2]](https://theday.com/news/513482/opinion-new-london-loses-appeal-of-order-to-release-police-body-cam-videos)[[1]](https://theday.com/news/492717/new-london-demands-62899-for-police-to-edit-foi-requested-body-cam-video)

Connecticut's 2020 law required all police to use body cameras by 2022 but did not clarify FOI processing fees.

Key points

Connecticut's 2020 police accountability bill approved body cameras for accountability but did not address costs for FOI requests or digital storage.[[3]](https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-day/20220508/281719798169114?srsltid=AfmBOoqFqDwT0acuKc77Y6KRwkCiZ8tjVvfcSxRkrrWz7JNt9-GO5F95)
New London police billed $628.99 for 9.5 hours of lieutenant and captain time to redact footage of a police officer's interaction.[[1]](https://theday.com/news/492717/new-london-demands-62899-for-police-to-edit-foi-requested-body-cam-video)
FOI Commission ruled agencies cannot charge for redaction labor time, only actual copying costs; ordered video released without fee.[[2]](https://theday.com/news/513482/opinion-new-london-loses-appeal-of-order-to-release-police-body-cam-videos)
City appealed the order, then lost in Superior Court, as part of broader debates on body-cam access.[[2]](https://theday.com/news/513482/opinion-new-london-loses-appeal-of-order-to-release-police-body-cam-videos)
Police officials say editing for privacy burdens staff, while FOI advocates argue public pays taxes for transparency.[[4]](https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-day/20220508/281719798169114?srsltid=AfmBOorLHnnMYaNylekOyPRu1v5OcFGHLtHnXL8H3dRhgwJ0N_iUc7AS)

Details and context

The 2020 bill (Public Act 20-1) required body cameras to boost accountability after national protests, with state grants covering some equipment but not ongoing storage or FOI processing.[[5]](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2020/BA/PDF/2020HB-06004-R00SS1-BA.PDF) Departments like New London now face high video volumes, needing redaction for victims or juveniles before release.

Under Connecticut FOI law, agencies can charge for copies but not search or review time—FOI staff like Thomas Hennick confirmed redaction falls in the no-fee category.[[4]](https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-day/20220508/281719798169114?srsltid=AfmBOorLHnnMYaNylekOyPRu1v5OcFGHLtHnXL8H3dRhgwJ0N_iUc7AS)

This case echoes failed 2023 legislative pushes to allow redaction fees up to $100/hour, opposed by FOI Commission and ACLU as chilling access.[[6]](https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/should-connecticut-police-be-able-to-charge-for-body-cam-footage)

New London fought release through appeals but ultimately lost, per later columns on the saga.[[2]](https://theday.com/news/513482/opinion-new-london-loses-appeal-of-order-to-release-police-body-cam-videos)

Key quotes

"The initial bill I got was $628." — David Collins, on New London police fee.[[2]](https://theday.com/news/513482/opinion-new-london-loses-appeal-of-order-to-release-police-body-cam-videos)

"Its interpretation of the FOI law is that [no labor charge for redaction]." — Thomas Hennick, Connecticut FOI Commission public education officer.[[4]](https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-day/20220508/281719798169114?srsltid=AfmBOorLHnnMYaNylekOyPRu1v5OcFGHLtHnXL8H3dRhgwJ0N_iUc7AS)

Why it matters

Body cameras aim for police transparency, but unresolved FOI costs strain small departments and slow public access to evidence in use-of-force cases.

Residents and media face barriers to oversight if fees stick, while police bear unrecovered labor—readers in Connecticut towns may see slower responses to their requests.

Watch FOI Commission rulings and future bills on redaction fees, though courts have upheld no-charge rule so far.[[6]](https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/should-connecticut-police-be-able-to-charge-for-body-cam-footage)