\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"There Was None\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" — The Body-Camera Answer On the Record
What This Video Is
Thirty-five seconds of audio from the same Utah public-records appeal hearing covered by the other two clips in this section, captured as a vertical screen recording of a media player. The playhead sits at about 34:05 of a total 2:14:06 recording, and the caption strip under the waveform changes during playback from "Scripps (Gliha) appeal: initial presentation argues for release" to "Scripps (Gliha) appeal: Utah and Robinson intervene to oppose Scripps release."
Those captions were added by whoever assembled the excerpt. They indicate that the two-hour recording covers more than one appeal — a request by a second news organisation as well as the CBS request quoted in the companion clip — and that the State of Utah and the defence both appeared to oppose release.
Circulated on X by Steve Cameron. Nothing is on screen but the player.
What Is Said
A short exchange, three voices: the hearing officer, counsel, and a second respondent.
[Hearing officer]: We will turn to you, Ms. Cole, and maybe you can address that question as well, just as far as body camera footage or other photos, because I think that is a distinct request in this appeal. You have up to 5 minutes.
[Counsel]: Thank you. Again, the records are maintained by ... Washington County. I'm not sure what search was done or whether those exist, but ...
[Hearing officer]: Okay, maybe we can ask Mr. Snow to just address that first.
[Mr. Snow]: Sure, there was a search made for body cam footage and there was none.
[Hearing officer]: Okay, thank you very much.
That is the whole clip. It is nine seconds of substance inside thirty-five seconds of audio, and the nine seconds matter.
What is established. On the record, at a formal appeal hearing, a representative for the county states that a search was made for body camera footage and that none was found. Not that it exists and is exempt — that it does not exist.
Why that is significant. It puts the body-camera question on a different footing from the lobby surveillance question. For the lobby video, the county's stated position is that release could interfere with the investigation and the prosecution, which presupposes something to release. For body-camera footage, the stated position is that there is nothing there at all. Those are two distinct answers to two distinct requests, and they should not be collapsed into one another.
What is not established. Nothing in this exchange explains why no body-camera footage was found — whether cameras were not activated, whether the encounter was not one that triggers recording, whether footage was recorded and later purged under a retention schedule, or whether the search was scoped narrowly. Counsel for the requester says plainly that she does not know what search was done. The clip does not answer that, and this page does not assume an answer. Nobody in this exchange is accused of anything, and none is implied here.
The related question of whether other body-camera recordings in this case exist, and what became of them, is examined separately on this site; a comparable gap was reported for an officer's camera on the Losee Center roof.
What The Footage Shows
Nothing but the media player: dark interface, white waveform, playhead at 34:05, total 2:14:06, an orange position marker on a lower timeline scaled at thirty-minute intervals, partial file titles, and the changing caption strip. Handheld phone pointed at a screen, static throughout.
As with the other excerpts, the underlying recording runs two and a quarter hours and this is thirty-five seconds of it, selected by a third party. The full hearing recording is the document; these clips are pointers to it.
How It Connects
- Missing Bodycam and the GRAMA "No Footage" Admission — the page built on exactly this exchange.
- Baron Coleman: Early Turn-In and the Refused Surrender Video — the wider appeal this hearing decides.
- Tyler Robinson Surrender Video Not Publicly Released — the companion withholding question.
- Washington County Sheriff's Office (Surrender Site) — the agency holding the records.
- Officer's Body Camera Died on the Roof — a separate reported body-camera gap in this case.
- Counterpoint: The 24-Hour Investigative Hold — the lawful-withholding argument.
- Tyler Robinson — the defendant whose custody these records concern.
- Steve Cameron — X Posts — the account that circulated the hearing audio.