UVA Improperly Preserved Bodycam Video Used to Embarrass Board Member

University of Virginia officials violated the University’s own document-retention policies when it preserved bodycam videos of a University Police Department (UPD) encounter with Board of Visitors member Bert Ellis in March 2023. The videos were posted online in a Washington Post article critical of the activist board member this March, two years later, in the run-up to Governor Glenn Youngkin’s firing of Ellis.

A University Police written directive states that video from “body worn cameras” are to be downloaded daily to www.Evidence.com, a law-enforcement cloud storage system. Unless needed for investigations, trials or training purposes, video is to be “automatically … purged 90 days within creation.”

Furthermore, the guidelines put tight controls on access to the videos, stating that “accessing, copying, or releasing files is strictly prohibited except as approved by the Chief of Police.” Officers who deviate from the guidelines set forth,” the document says, “may be subject to disciplinary action.”

Retaining video for the purpose of embarrassing a board member critical of the University administration is not one of the exemptions permitted by the guidelines.

The videos came to the public’s attention March 24 when the Washington Post broke the story that Youngkin wanted to remove Ellis, a board member he had previously appointed and had become a lightning rod for criticism. Ellis backed Youngkin’s goals to cut spending, pursue intellectual diversity, and dismantle the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion infrastructure, but the Governor found his style unbecoming of a UVA board member. Ellis had been organizing board opposition to policies enacted by President Jim Ryan and had clashed openly on at least once occasion with Ryan board ally, Rector Robert Hardie.

In the article, the WaPo recounted past quotes and actions that had embroiled Ellis in controversy. The only new material came from video footage from two bodycams of Ellis taken April 1, 2023, which amplified the message that Ellis was a hothead.

Ellis was standing on the sidewalk in the Corner retail strip adjacent to the University when he spotted two UPD officers in a police car across the street and began staring at them. The videos began as Ellis was saying something that was unintelligible in the recording and walked across the street toward him. Ellis told them that he was a Board of Visitors member and berated them for sitting in their patrol car across the street from the Corner retail strip adjacent to the University. A wave of criminal violence had the community in an uproar at the time, and Ellis, who co-owns the White Spot restaurant on the Corner, asserted that the UPD officers should be maintaining a more visible presence. One of the officers called Ellis’s manner “unkind,” broke off the discussion, and walked away.

A third video recorded a University police officer’s brief encounter with Ellis concerning a traffic violation.

According to the Post article, its reporters used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the recordings as well as Ellis emails to the police chief questioning the University’s safety measures.

The Post reporters, it can be safely assumed, did not learn of the videos and emails through mental telepathy or divine revelation. Someone tipped them off.

The Post reporters cited two anonymous sources for their article about Youngkin’s intention to remove Ellis from the Board, one of whom was described as a “senior member” of the administration. It is not clear from the context of the attribution whether one, both or neither of those two sources alerted the reporters to the existence of the recordings. Whomever it was, knowledge of the recordings, traced to the source, had to originate from a source within UVA.

Virginia’s Model Bodycam Policy

UVA’s policy regarding police Body Worn Cameras (BWC) closely follows the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services model policy. The widespread use of body cams arose as a result of criticism of police treatment of minorities in the mid-2010s. The intent was to provide objective information by which to determine if police actions were justified. Digital recordings also came to be used to assist investigations and as evidence in trials.

Virginia’s model policy, which was last updated in 2021, clearly envisions police bodycams as tool for use in law enforcement: “Officers/deputies shall activate the BWC during each law enforcement-public encounter related to a call for service, law enforcement action, subject stop, traffic stop, and/or police/deputy services. …. Additionally, the BWC shall be activated for tactical activities such as, searches of buildings and vehicles, searches for suspects and missing persons, seizing and processing evidence, and building checks when security alarms are triggered.”

All data, images, sounds, video, and metadata captured, recorded, or otherwise produced “shall be the exclusive property of the issuing Department,” and access to all data must be specifically authorized by “the Chief of Police/Sheriff, or a designee.” Officers’ use of the cameras shall be audited monthly.

Regarding the release of video data, the model policy states, faces and other identifying information (license plates, addresses) will be blurred for crime victims and individuals not involved in law enforcement actions.

The UVA Bodycam Policy

The University Police Written Directive bodycam policy, which can be found on the ACLU website, aligns closely with the model state policy. The purpose of bodycams is to document “police-public contacts, arrests, and critical incidents” and to enhance the accuracy of officer reports and court testimony. UPD officers are to wear the cameras “at all times while on duty” and record all law-enforcement contacts and “citizen contact for law enforcement purposes.”

Each officer shall download and tag the video for storage on www.Evidence.com at the end of the shift. The reason for any delays must be documented in writing. All “data, images, video and metadata” are the “sole and exclusive property” of the UPD. Accessing, copying, or releasing files is prohibited unless approved by the Chief of Police. All access to BWC files will be “strictly monitored” by the Chief of Police or his/her designee.

States the UVA policy: “At no time shall any officer allow any unauthorized person to review any portion of a video/audio recording without prior approval of the Chief of Police or his/her designee.”

Requests for release of BWC recordings, the policy also states, will be directed to the Support Services Captain or designee. “This includes subpoenas duces tecum, other legal petitions, and requests under the Freedom of Information Act.”

Each UPD officer shall be audited monthly, and a supervisor shall review at least two videos per month to ensure that officers are using the devices appropriately.

Police bodycam video consumes significant computer storage space, so it is subject to the University’s document retention policy. Original digital recordings are purged automatically within 90 days after creation. Exceptions are made for recordings entered into evidence, which shall be handled in accordance with evidence-retention schedules. The policy does not allow for other exemptions.

Discussion

The officers began recording their bodycams when Ellis initiated the contact by motioning and yelling to them across University Avenue. Although the interaction was not a “law enforcement” encounter, it appears that they were following standard procedures in turning on their cameras.

At the end of the shift, the officers were supposed to download their recordings to www.Evidence.com where they would be preserved for 90 days and then destroyed unless required for an investigation, a court case, or for training.

There was no valid law-enforcement reason to retain recordings of the conversation with Ellis beyond 90 days. The incident triggered no criminal investigation, and the recordings were not relevant to any upcoming trial. Access to the recordings was prohibited to anyone outside the UPD unless the Chief of Police granted approval. The policy was explicit: No one can review any portion of the recording without prior approval.

However, Ellis was highly controversial in the University community. Moreover, in his interaction with the UPD officers, he identified himself as a Board of Visitors member. It is reasonable to conjecture that the officers were offput by his demeanor and that the encounter became a matter of conversation in the department. It is reasonable to infer that the existence of the recordings became known to others outside the department.

It is impossible at this time to reconstruct exactly what happened next.

Nevertheless, it is incontrovertible that there was no law-enforcement justification for retaining the recordings beyond 90 days. Ellis committed no offense, and no law-enforcement action was pursued.

It is incontrovertible that the recordings were retained longer than 90 days and never destroyed.

It is incontrovertible that granting access to the recordings required authorization by the police chief.

And it is incontrovertible that copies of the recordings were kept on file, whether on Evidence.com or somewhere else, and provided to the Washington Post two years later.

An interesting question is whether someone at UVA tipped off the Post reporters directly or if they passed along knowledge of the recordings (or the recordings themselves) to someone within the Youngkin administration, who in turn told the reporters of the recordings. Whoever did the leaking also had knowledge of Ellis’ emails to Police Chief Tim Longo complaining about inadequate police presence on the Corner. As with the videos, knowledge of the email exchange had to originate from someone within the UVA administration.

Serious consideration must be given to the theory that someone within the Ryan administration preserved the bodycam recordings in violation of UPD policy; that access to the recordings was authorized or acquiesced to by the police chief (whether acting on his own or under inducement from higher-ups); that the recordings or knowledge of the recordings were shared within the University administration; that the recordings were held for roughly two years; that knowledge of them was leaked to the media, either directly or through the intermediation of someone in Youngkin’s office, for the express purpose of embarrassing and undermining an inconvenient member of the Board of Visitors; and that recordings that should have been destroyed were then made available.

Ironically, Ellis was pilloried and forced to apologize to the Board of Visitors in March 2023 for referring to a University official as a “numnut” in a private communication revealed only after a freelance writer exhumed it in a Freedom of Information act request. The calculated and very public embarrassment of Ellis in the pages of Virginia’s largest circulation newspaper was an infinitely greater offense.

Ellis no longer serves on the Board. But his former Board colleagues need to know who they’re dealing with. Did someone in the Ryan administration use the recordings — in violation of its own policies — to target a member of the Board? Did Ryan know? If so, is such behavior acceptable?

James A. Bacon serves on the executive committee of the Jefferson Council, an alumni organization dedicated to preserving the Jeffersonian legacy at the University of Virginia.

Bacon’s Rebellion reached out Friday to the University of Virginia spokesman Brian Coy for answers to questions raised in this post. We received no response.

Hi, Brian,

On March 24, 2025, the Washington Post published police bodycam videos of a UPD encounter with Bert Ellis.

The videos were recorded on a Saturday night in March 2023, approximately two years earlier.

According to the University Police Written Directive on bodycam videos (2015UniversityofVirginiaPDPolicy.pdf), bodycam videos will “automatically be purged 90 days after creation” unless it is preserved on the cloud for the following purposes:

Accurate documentation of police-public contacts, arrests, and critical incidents and enhancing the accuracy of officer reports and testimony in court .

Enhancing the ability of the agency to review probable cause for arrest, officer and suspect interaction, evidence for investigative and prosecutorial purpose.

Given the fact that the videos were distributed to the Post two years later, we can reasonably conclude that they were not purged within 90 days.

The directive does not allow for copying, storing, or disseminating a police bodycam video outside its use in a criminal, civil, administrative investigations or court proceeding. (If I have misread the policy, please correct me.) Ellis was not the subject of a criminal, civil or administrative investigation – at least none that was made public.

Here are my questions to you:

What was the policy authorization for preserving the bodycam videos of Ellis?

What University policy was served by releasing the bodycam videos?

Who authorized the release of the videos? Does any documentation exist that the videos were authorized by the Chief of Police or his designee, as called for in the official policy?

Whom were the videos shared with internally, within state government, or within media? Is such sharing consistent with UVA’s policies regarding the privacy protection of personal data?

I would like to give you reasonable time to get answers to these questions, so I will hold off publication of an article in Bacon’s Rebellion until next Wednesday morning.

Note: This article has been slightly amended to more accurately reflect the encounter between the UPD officers and Ellis.