By Aimee Green
oregonlive.com
HILLSBORO, Ore. — An Oregon ambulance worker who says she inactivated cameras that her employer pointed “directly at patients” in the back of ambulances has filed an $800,000 lawsuit — alleging she was fired for protecting the privacy of patients.
Brittany Martin, a former emergency medical technician for Metro West, which provides ambulance service across the Portland area, says the privately owned ambulance company began installing cameras in late 2025 or early 2026, but patients were not informed that they were about to be video- and audio-recorded. Her suit says she believed that violated Oregon law.
| WEIGH IN: The EMS Pulse: Medics remain divided on the McClain ruling
Jesse Lee, a Metro West spokesperson, declined to comment for this story because of the pending litigation.
Cameras in the patient compartments of ambulances are still rare, but it’s an emerging trend as lawsuits proliferate and ambulance companies are eager to shield themselves from punishing payouts, experts say. More so than patient-compartment cameras, body-worn cameras have been making a splash as a limited number of ambulance providers introduce them, including in New Orleans, upstate New York and Vermont.
Martin’s suit is sure to be nationally watched, experts say, with legal and ethical concerns at the forefront of a new national debate:
Does recording patients at their most vulnerable moments — some unconscious, writhing in pain or in various states of undress — violate their rights? Is posting signs inside ambulances notifying patients that cameras are recording enough notification? And are some patients, given their bodily trauma, even capable of consent?
“Both the states and the federal government have been slow in really hammering out what’s legal and what’s not,” said Geo Henderson, an Albany, New York, paramedic and an expert witness in emergency medical services lawsuits nationwide. He is not associated with Martin’s case, but he says he’ll be watching to see how the lawsuit pans out.
Cameras show up in Oregon ambulances, suit says
Metro West’s 1,400 employees provide ambulance service across pockets of Washington, northern California and Oregon, including Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties. But in the Portland area, it provides mostly facility-to-facility transports, such as patients transferring from a hospital to a rehabilitation center or from a hospital to home.
The private company, with headquarters in Hillsboro, also staffs major events, such as the Portland Marathon, the Oregon International Air Show in McMinnville and the Prefontaine Classic in Eugene, which draws track and field athletes from across the world.
Martin’s lawsuit was filed in late June in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
According to Martin’s suit, a Metro West manager emailed her and other employees in late 2025 about a new “test phase” during which patients would be video-recorded but not audio-recorded while receiving treatment in ambulances.
The suit says that in early February 2026, Martin was assigned to a rig with a camera in the “crew compartment,” where she or the driver might sit. The camera was “pointing directly at patients,” according to the suit.
The suit says that a few days later, she found a camera in the “patient compartment,” which is the back of the ambulance where patients ride, of another ambulance.
In both cases, the lawsuit states, the cameras were recording visuals as well as audio, so Martin covered the lenses and shut off the microphones. She and her partner told supervisors about their concerns that the cameras were illegal, the suit states. Within days, the suit says, Martin was put on administrative leave and fired for interfering with the cameras.
Refuting lawsuits
Metro West’s competitor, American Medical Response, declined to answer questions about whether it records patients in its ambulances. AMR is the Portland area’s largest ambulance provider, contracting with governments across the Portland area to respond to all 911 calls.
John Everlove, a Southern California paramedic who also has served as an expert witness in emergency medical services cases, said cameras that record the outside of ambulances or the crew compartment have been standard for at least a decade.
What’s much newer are cameras installed in patient compartments or body-worn cameras on EMTs and paramedics. Body-worn cameras have become commonplace in police departments, with the first in the U.S. rolling out nearly 15 years ago. They’ve also been appearing in hospitals, as emergency-room and other staff experience increasing levels of violence.
Everlove said he’s a fan of the concept in ambulances because cameras allow patients and providers alike to get to the bottom of any accusations made.
“I’ve got video footage of the totality of the events to be able to either confirm or refute that,” Everlove said. “And that is invaluable.”
Aside from lawsuits, Everlove said the cameras can help document the rising number of assaults against emergency medical providers by people they encounter out in the field.
Legalities still to be sorted out
When it comes to recording people without their knowledge or consent, Oregon law is complicated and peppered with exceptions, such as recording police or phone conversations.
According to a FAQ page created by local attorneys and the Oregon State Bar, video-recording without audio is usually legal in public places. But it’s not allowed in places where there’s “an expectation of privacy,” like bathrooms or changing rooms.
Someone who wants to record in-person conversations outside their home “will most likely need” the permission of all participants, the FAQ page says. But it also says police “can usually record your interactions if they do it as part of their job.”
Benjamin Barr, an attorney familiar with recording laws across the nation and who has fought for less restrictive recording laws in Oregon , said the state has one of the strictest laws. He said he believes that recording in the back of ambulances in Oregon without informing patients is illegal.
Even if patients are informed, he said such a practice would raise some prickly privacy questions.
“‘Should we have cameras to protect patients and providers? Is it too much of an intrusion?’” asked Barr, who is not associated with Martin’s case. “I think it’s a good policy debate for people to have.”
The suit was filed by Portland attorneys Robert Meyer and Holly Carone.
©2026 Advance Local Media LLC.
Visit oregonlive.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Would you be comfortable with cameras recording inside the patient compartment of your ambulance? Should they be used for provider safety, training and liability protection, or do the privacy concerns outweigh the benefits?
EMS1 readers respond
“No.”
“Absolutely not. It’s the equivalent of putting cameras in a doctor’s exam room. Privacy has to be awarded to every pt. EMS needs to protect its workers but not at the privacy of the patients.”
“I would be comfortable with the camera for the simple fact that is something that could protect both the patient and the providers from litigations. People do stupid stuff on both sides. This provides a safe way to keep all honest. I have seen it work.”
“Being a 23-year medic, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, @#&$ the surveillance state. On the other hand, I’d like to have proof of innocence should any BS be accused. I think the best solution would be to have a second provider in the back. However, with current reimbursements, there’s no way that can happen. I think I would protest a camera in the patient care compartment.”
“Body-worn cameras are a good idea and should become the norm. However, patients should be informed and given the chance to ‘opt-in.’”
“No. Absolutely not. Furthermore, the release of medically related 911 conversations should be restricted as well. When did our personal lives, especially in times of crisis, become an open book? To validate my point, listen to the 911 call from the recent alligator attack in Seminole County, Florida. Why does the public automatically have a right to hear the dying screams from a horrified victim? Why not record audio in the trauma bay and release that to the world as well? It’s depraved and disgusting. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.”
“While we use cameras in the driving compartment, I still feel it’s an invasion of privacy for the patient as well as provider. It’s no different than patient-doctor privilege; the things we either see in back of ambulance or are told are private/HIPAA protected for all extents and purposes so placing a video back there should not be common practice. On the other hand, if you have a patient who starts getting combative or dangerous or in custody, the provider should have the option to push a public and record after informing patient that it will be recorded as a safety factor due to their untoward behavior, that might encourage them to behave better.
“I would and I am currently in agreement with the cameras not only in the front but also in the back. As a clinician, I feel it does help with transparency and safety. With the rise of assaults in EMS crews, the safety of body cameras are essential to keeping our people safe from attacks and allegations and false litigation. My department has been using them for about a year and a half with a reduction in false complaints.”
