San Diego police officers logged more than 492,000 video clips since the department began using body cameras more than a year ago. None has been released to the public. About 1,250 miles north on the Pacific Coast, the Seattle Police Department has posted all of its body camera footage — 4,332 videos ­­— to its YouTube page. Most of the clips are intentionally blurred and stripped of audio tracks, but they retain enough detail to get the gist of what happened. Departments in Western Pennsylvania and elsewhere are wrestling with approaches that could favor one extreme or the other as body cameras multiply and digital footage swells. “It's not a decision that is made just by police or the prosecutors. It should be made by the community,� Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. said in response to questions about how his office would handle releasing video clips to the public. “Wherever we start at doesn't mean we have to end there.� Zappala offered to handle public requests for police videos on behalf of the more than 100 police departments in the county. He intends to use $90,000 in the county's capital budget this year to build a computer system to store, edit, redact and release videos. The district attorney's office doesn't have a policy dictating when it would release body camera footage. Zappala expects releasing videos would hinge on whether his office could use the footage as evidence in a case. If a video implicates someone, his office might release a redacted version. Key evidence might not be released until a case goes to trial. Zappala said his offer eases a potentially expensive burden on many smaller departments. Vic Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, has said he's not concerned about Zappala taking control of police videos as long as there are written procedures for requesting and releasing footage. Zappala said he is interested in talking with the ACLU, municipalities, police and news media as his department develops a policy. “Part of the issue about the use of body cameras is that somebody has to be in charge. Someone has to be the repository,� Zappala said. “If you want access to footage and there are no legal impediments, I think it's going facilitate faster and better access.� Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said police chiefs in the county haven't expressed much interest in body cameras. “Typically we don't provide physical evidence of a crime, so there would be some question about releasing that,� Peck said. Pittsburgh adding cameras The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police appears to be the only department in Western Pennsylvania using body cameras. About 37 officers who patrol on bicycles or motorcycles wear the cameras, said Lt. Ed Trapp, who oversees the program. Chief Cameron McLay plans to equip patrol officers with cameras through a $250,000 federal grant. Trapp said the department likely wouldn't release video that could be used as evidence of a crime. Such requests must go through the Right to Know Law process. “I can see the value in a controversial case of a video being released once it gets to a point where it can safely be released,� Trapp said. “And I tend to agree that the district attorney's office is probably the best one to decide that because they'll know when we can release this video without damaging any potential investigation or case. “The last thing I would want to do is release a video that causes us to lose an investigation and lets a dangerous person walk the streets because of a violation I made.� More than 100 police departments nationwide have established policies governing public access to body camera footage, according to the Washington nonprofit Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Legislatures in 10 states have passed laws governing the release of footage. South Carolina exempts all body camera footage from its public records law. Georgia's limits access to those appearing in the video and their family or legal representatives involved in criminal or civil cases related to the footage. Florida and North Dakota restrict access to video taken in a private residence. Give and take Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a bill with similar restrictions. If passed, it would amend Pennsylvania's wiretap law to allow police to record video in homes but would block public access to those recordings. Police chiefs asked for the provision to protect the privacy of homeowners and control the cost of body camera programs, said state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery County, a bill sponsor. The Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association contends that would restrict access to a public record. “I want to make sure that body cameras are used. They won't be used without these reforms,� Greenleaf said. “We're not taking away all the body camera footage, but sometimes, in order to get legislation passed, you have to give and take.� The ACLU has drafted model legislation that proposed to restrict access to footage only when it is evidence in a case, used for training or if someone in the video requests it not be released because of a complaint against an officer depicted in the video. Police departments often pressure state legislatures to enact strict access laws, said Adam Marshall, a legal fellow at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Marshall said it's the “Wild West� of body cameras, but he thinks existing public records laws are capable of dealing with video requests. “Everyone is still trying to figure out what the best balance is,� Marshall said. Aaron Aupperlee is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7986 or aaupperlee@tribweb.com.