This report examines the various uses of video surveillance and other visual technology by public and private entities to prevent and discourage crime, including law enforcement practices, the conditions which may warrant public video surveillance, the associated legal and constitutional implications, and whether the technology has been effective in preventing crime.
"Welcome! Surveillance cameras and music are for your enjoyment," is the greeting pedestrians receive upon entering the underpass under I-5 between "Old Town" Sacramento and the downtown area. For over 20 years, businesses, individuals and commercial and residential associations have embraced video surveillance technology as a means to protect residential privacy and property against intrusion and other forms of crime. During the last decade, law enforcement agencies in Great Britain, France, Monaco, Spain and other countries have increasingly relied on Close Circuit Television (CCTV) surveillance to enhance public security. According to the survey presented in this report, an increasing number of U.S. municipalities (mostly outside California) have begun using CCTV public video surveillance as a law enforcement tool to monitor public areas, schools, and residential districts.
CCTV video surveillance systems can either passively record and play back video at certain intervals, be actively monitored by security personnel, or use a combination of these methods. Law enforcement personnel actively monitor most U.S. municipal-operated systems, although volunteers and private security are also involved in some projects. School-based CCTV surveillance systems employ active, passive, and combined monitoring methods, depending on the financial resources and number and type of personnel available.
This report examines the various uses of video surveillance and other visual technology by public and private entities to prevent and discourage crime, including law enforcement practices, the conditions which many warrant public video surveillance, the associated legal and constitutional implications, and whether the technology has been effective in preventing crime. Use of other new and innovative technologies, such as computerized mapping for crime control and non metallic weapon surveillance, show potential for targeting public video surveillance activities. In addition, the report considers the role that public video surveillance might play within the context of community policing and other elements of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
Generally, the data suggest that CCTV video surveillance is successful in reducing and preventing crimes and is helpful in prosecuting individuals caught in the act of committing a crime. In addition, there may be public law enforcement cost savings. Critics argue that public video surveillance conflicts with the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. These concerns and other related issues are discussed in this paper.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The Evolution of U.S. Military and Civilian Intelligence Operations and Public Safety
The Civil War marked the first American use of systematic military intelligence collection methods such as aerial reconnaissance, signal intercepts, and the establishment of intelligence as a distinct organizational unit within the army. However, these techniques and organizations were soon forgotten after the cessation of hostilities, and a permanent intelligence unit was not established by the United States military until the turn of the century.
By the beginning of America's entry into World War I in 1917, American intelligence gathering had grown dramatically. A new Military Intelligence Section was created within the U.S. War College, modeled after the British Secret Intelligence Service. The intelligence unit promoted new concepts such as "espionage and counterespionage," or what was called positive and negative intelligence (collecting intelligence about the enemy and denying the enemy intelligence about oneself). Before the end of World War I, this unit would transform itself into a new civilian counterespionage organization (the Federal Bureau of Investigation ) with ties to the US Justice Department, Secret Service Department, and State Department.
In November of 1919, the new Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began a nationwide surveillance and dragnet against suspected communists and anarchists, known as the Palmer Raids. By January 20, 1920, some 4,000 people in 33 cities had been arrested, of whom 600 were eventually deported. These activities resulted in the arrest of several thousand innocent people.
In 1938, the FBI was reorganized under J. Edgar Hoover and given the responsibility to enforce criminal investigations and espionage laws. President Roosevelt authorized the FBI to investigate all subversive activities carried on by communists, fascists, and other agents of foreign governments within the U.S. With the approach of World War II, the FBI's investigation of espionage cases jumped dramatically from an average of 35 per year during 1933-37, to 634 in 1938. The FBI's surveillance workload during World War II was enormous: over 1 million registered "enemy" aliens were living in the U.S.; many were nationals from Axis power nations awaiting citizenship.
At the conclusion of World War II, the need for extraordinary national security surveillance measures decreased. However, concerns about communists and their associates increased during the 1950s, leading to widespread use of wiretapping by law enforcement.
In the 1960s, Congressional proposals to regulate and clarify wiretapping for a national security mission applied to investigating organized crime. The Kennedy administration endorsed legislative proposals for a wiretapping law authorizing federal agencies to wiretap in cases involving national security, organized crime, and other serious crimes. State wiretapping, except in certain cases involving serious crimes, was not allowed.
In 1968, Congress passed the first major electronic surveillance law (Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control And Safe Streets Act of 1968). The purpose of the law was to define the proper use of electronic surveillance. Congress sought to balance the privacy interests of the individual with the legitimate law enforcement and intelligence needs of the state. Title III did not specifically address video surveillance. However, in United States vs. Torres, 751 F. 2nd 875, 876 (7th Circuit, 1984) challenging the legality of video surveillance, the Circuit Court found that although Title III did not include video surveillance, its principles could be adapted to determine if evidence obtained by that method had been obtained legally.
In 1986, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which allowed law enforcement to use rapidly expanding technologies such as video surveillance. The law sought to balance an individual's right to privacy with law enforcement's need to collect information for public safety. The New York Trade Center bombing is a recent example applying the 1986 Act. A key confidant of the defendant became a government witness. As a result, the FBI was able to conduct extensive video surveillance (April to June of 1993) of the defendant at his home, collecting the evidence that was used to convict him. IMPORTANT LEGAL ISSUES
In the opinion of most legal scholars, the continuous video surveillance of public areas does not present significant legal obstacles. Although no court has directly addressed this issue, under current interpretations of the First and Fourth Amendment and
California tort law, video surveillance appears to represent a valid use of the state's power to protect its citizens. In this view, continuous video surveillance is analogous to a mechanical police officer. It does not intrude upon an individual's sphere of privacy, but rather records events occurring in public space for which individuals do not have reasonable expectations of privacy.7
Silent Video Surveillance
Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. Section 2510), limits the ability of law enforcement to execute wiretaps. Under Title 1, police departments must obtain warrants prior to secretly intercepting some communications. In contrast, silent video surveillance (involving no recording of sounds) on public streets does not have to comport with Title 1 because the Act concerns itself only with devices which capture audio signals. The U.S. Senate report on the Act noted that:
If law enforcement officials were to install their own cameras and create their own CCTV picture of a meeting, the capturing of the video image would not be an interception under the statute because there would be no interception of the contents of an electronic communication."
Title 1 limits video surveillance with audio capabilities;
it covers orders "authorizing or approving the interception of a wire or oral communication." (The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs. New York Telephone Company, 434 U.S. 159 (1977), recognized that all audio surveillance falls within the ambit of Title III, the predecessor statute to Title I. The Court, in holding that pen registers do not implicate Title III, stated pen registers "do not hear sound...They do not accomplish the 'aural acquisition' of anything [and they] present the information in a form to be interpreted by sight rather than by hearing." In contrast, a device with audio capabilities falls within the guidelines established by Title I.) Thus, any continuous video surveillance that also has an audio component must comport with Title I. If a continuous video surveillance device can intercept sound, and the surveillance constitutes a search, the police must first obtain a warrant prior to the installation of the device.
Fourth Amendment Implications
The U.S. Supreme Court in Katz vs. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967), defined modern "search and seizure" law under the Fourth Amendment. The Court declared that "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Generally, a person walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police.12 As recognized by the Supreme Court in United States vs. Knotts 368 U.S. 276, 281-82 (1983):
A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [an individual] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.
Following this reasoning courts, for the most part, have allowed police to videotape individuals on public roads.
Transactions in plain view in a public forum generally do not raise Fourth Amendment issues. This is known as the plain view rule and open field doctrine. If a person does something illegal in plain view (e.g. in front of a video camera), an officer would not need a warrant to search that person to find the incriminating evidence. Court decisions interpreting and applying the Fourth Amendment do not classify this situation as a person, house, paper, or effects that are protected against unreasonable search and seizures. In a recent unpublished opinion,, United States vs. Sherman, 990 F. 2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1993In contrast, surveillance by the government of activities occurring within an individual's house may violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has developed a test to determine if such surveillance violates the Constitution:
1. Does the surveillance occur from publicly navigable airspace?
<2. Is the surveillance conducted in a physically non-intrusive manner?
No cases have been adjudicated under the Fourth Amendment testing the use of rotating video surveillance cameras in a public setting. If a video camera monitored by police has an infrared filtering device with the capability to view activities that a reasonable person might expect to not be visible from public view, Fourth Amendment concerns might arise.
Chilling EffectSome commentators have argued that public video surveillance has a "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights. Most federal appeals courts have required proof of actual mental anguish or distress as a result of the surveillance before finding First Amendment violations. Several courts have recognized video surveillance as one of the most mentally disconcerting forms of monitoring performed by government. For example, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court noted that "this type of surveillance provokes an immediate negative visceral reaction: indiscriminate video surveillance raises the specter of the Owellian State."However, since police officers already patrol the streets, it seems unlikely that a court would consider a video camera which "observes" the same public area as harming an individual. The protection of individuals from crime is a paramount concern of the state, and legislatures have broad powers to protect communities from such harm. Potential Tort Liability Under California Law Legal analysis suggests that public video surveillance probably does not give rise to a cause of action for the invasion of an individual's privacy under current California law. California courts have been reluctant to expand tort liability to cover an individual who knowingly exposes himself to the public view. A California court held in Aisensio vs. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 220 Cal. App. 3rd 146 (2nd Dist. 1990), that the videotaping of an individual on a public street does not constitute an unreasonable intrusion into that person's solitude.The Aisenson court further noted that video cameras with sensory enhanced devices (zoom lenses for example) do not give rise to tort action if the use of video taping occurs in a public forum, such as a city street. Since the cameras do not physically intrude into a person's sphere of privacy, any invasion of privacy is minimal. Thus, it would appear that since public video surveillance occurs in a public forum (such as a city street) and because the surveillance is physically non-intrusive, tort liability is precluded under current California tort law.
In summary, past Supreme Court and lower court decisions strongly suggest that within certain limitations, continuous video surveillance is a valid exercise of a state's police powers.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Many European countries now employ public video surveillance as a primary tool to monitor population movements and to prevent terrorism. The United Kingdom (UK) in particular relies extensively on video surveillance as a tool to fight crime and prevent terrorism. According to some researchers, the camera surveillance systems in the UK are discouraging and thus preventing crime.
In Liverpool, crimes such as shoplifting, prostitution, graffiti, and other nonviolent crimes have decreased by 25 percent over the last 3 years. The city has installed one of the largest CCTV surveillance systems is Great Britain. Liverpool residents report that they feel safer downtown, even at night. There is anecdotal information that in the face of videotape evidence, a higher percentage of those charged with crimes plead guilty.
There are currently nearly 800 local public video surveillance programs in operation in the UK. The British government provides $22 million annually in matching grants.
Chart 1 However, not all commentators are as sanguine. One researcher recently stated that United Kingdom streets now resemble Orwell's 1984, and that the public should be howling against these "electronic stasi" proliferating like poison ivy across the buildings and streets. Advocates of CCTV video surveillance emphasize the technology's value in quickly apprehending criminals. Two recent well publicized events confirm this point. In mid-February 1996, the UK media broadcast a harrowing set of pictures taken in a shopping centre in Bootle, near Liverpool, and outside a builder's yard less than a mile away. They showed the grainy images of a small child being led away by two youths. Two-year old James Bulger, who had wandered from his mother's side in the shopping centre, was later found murdered. The second case involved a terrorist bombing. Video images of two men recorded on security cameras at Harrods and Victoria Station before a bomb exploded were shown on television. In both cases, arrests followed shortly after the images were broadcast to the public.
CCTV surveillance is also helping UK officials to clean up the country's tarred international soccer image. At the recent Euro '96 soccer championships, up to 50 British soccer hooligans who had disrupted games in previous soccer matches were barred from attending the championship matches after being identified by video surveillance cameras.
United Kingdom CCTV Video Surveillance System Operations Most CCTV surveillance system in the UK are jointly operated and managed by law enforcement and the private sector. Typically CCTV surveillance systems are installed by British Telecom, using fiber-optic cables in strategically positioned downtown business districts or in new shopping centers. Additionally, some townships are beginning to install videotelephony, a new technology which allows transmission of video images from a monitoring site to another location via telephone lines. This allows law enforcement quick and easy remote access to the video images. Generally, the cameras are perched atop 20-foot poles or 4-6 story buildings at intervals next to an area that is to be watched. Most systems are actively monitored by a single operator, or in some cases multiple operators, in continuous 8 hour shifts. Pictures from all cameras are visually recorded by time-lapse recorders which take one frame from each of a group of cameras in turn. If an operator sees anything suspicious, a camera can be switched to continuous recording, thereby capturing the action in more detail.
Nearly all video surveillance systems are linked to police stations. They may also be monitored by private security guards at a centrally located area within the boundaries of the surveillance area. Should a private security guard notice an illegal act taking place, he or she can instantly send the image to local police monitors so the police can observe the crime and dispatch officers.
Civil Liberty Concerns Public Video Surveillance in Other Countrieses CanadaCanadian customs agents systematically record by video the license number of every car crossing the busier boarder crossings to the United States. The British Columbia Highway Ministry even keeps video records of every car that passes through its highway toll booths. Commentators predict that CCTV surveillance will grow dramatically as a crime prevention tool in Canada in the coming years.
The type of surveillance (active or passive) makes an important difference. Several Canadian studies show that unmonitored cameras are one of the least effective deterrents to robberies in banks and convenience stores. A spokesperson for the Peel Regional Police in Brampton, Ontario questions whether unmonitored CCTV will deter burglaries on school property (the presence of expensive and easily removed computer equipment is attractive to professional burglars).
In France, wiretapping and electronic and video surveillance are illegal if used to uncover information about a person's sexual life or personal finances, but are permissible for spying on a person's business or political activity. Because of recent terrorist activity, the French government now permits electronic and CCTV surveillance in public places, including monitoring major roads and city and urban public areas. For example, police officers have established a station in the Parisian suburb of Levallos-Perret to monitor 18 television screens connected to hundreds of CCTV cameras around the city. In the business and financial district of Paris, police monitor over 160 CCTV surveillance cameras which scan area streets 24 hours-a-day. The French cities of Enghein-Les Bains, Roubaix and Saint-Gratien also plan to install their own CCTV video surveillance systems.
The French transportation system uses video surveillance on streets to regulate traffic flows, detect traffic jams, and to observe roadside disturbances. In Paris, for example, the Metro has installed 2,500 video cameras on municipal buses to identify criminal acts as they occur. A similar video surveillance system is operating on the national rapid transit (RATP), which has detected 83 percent of all criminal incidents; petty crime has declined as a result. French department stores now use video surveillance to observe all entering shoppers. Security at airline terminals includes monitored CCTV surveillance.
In n IrelandIn Spain, the threat of terrorist attacks has caused extraordinary security measures to be taken by federal authorities, especially in tourist areas. The Spanish Interior Minister has also begun installing video surveillance equipment in public areas in the Basque region in an effort to combat street violence and politically motivated vandalism. According to news reports, a new law will regulate how police and judges may use CCTV surveillance to prosecute offenders. The law also gives citizens more information about surveillance methods and creates standards for access to video tapes.
The principality of f Monaco Russia a relies on public video surveillance to protect private and state property such as banks, ATM teller machines, and state ministry buildings. Italy Chinana, Iran, and especially Iraq. In Iraq, video surveillance cameras are even hidden in public statues.39
CONTEMPORARY USE IN THE UNITED STATES Commercial and Private Use Ppassively record events, with little or no means for remote active monitoring. On many occasions, police officials were unable to use remote video cameras images to prosecute criminals because quick movements by the criminals resulted in blurred pictures.
Video technology improved during the mid-1980s with the introduction of camcorder technology, and in the 1990s with digital and multiflexer technology. These powerful new advances in video technology extend its range and law enforcement/surveillance applications. Video cameras have powerful zoom lenses which can tilt and pan to offer a 360-degree coverage. They also are able to gather sharp, clear images in extremely low light. Moreover, new digital video technology requires less labor intensive monitoring. Digital video surveillance cameras can link computer data processing power with sensor or motion detectors to filter out unrelated activities. Such systems can search through a video database of events, allowing the user to isolate only those details in which a particular image occurs. This technology helps police with criminal investigations in order to solve crimes. An executive for a major security firm contends that, "new surveillance cameras document indisputable events with incredibly high resolution."
Many businesses in the United States have invested heavily in the new video surveillance technology to protect products and to promote safe workplace and consumer environments. A recent nationwide survey of a wide variety of companies found that 75 percent utilize CCTV surveillance. Private sector CCTV surveillance technology is operated in a wide variety of industries: industry/manufacturing, retailing, financial/insurance/banking, transportation and distribution, utilities/communications, health care, and hotels/motels.
The popularity of CCTV security systems has not gone unnoticed by the manufacturers of camera surveillance systems. Commercial sales of CCTV camera surveillance equipment in 1995 reached record levels. A leading CCTV manufacturer reported net earnings of $120 million in 1995, compared with net earnings of $16 million the previous year. According to one security official, American businesses are now spending nearly $100 billion a year on high security products and equipment to help counter $200 billion in annual losses due to crime. Over 50 percent of all CCTV surveillance equipment sales are to industrial and commercial clients.
CCTV surveillance is also very common in the American workplace. According to the publisher of Privacy Journal, an employer, manager, board member, or supervisor can legally videotape employees with hidden cameras if they suspect wrongdoing. CCTV surveillance is one of 5 legally approved methods to observe suspected employees. Businesses also rely on CCTV video surveillance to detect sexual harassment in the workplace and to observe employees outside the workplace who may be involved in medical malpractice or worker compensation lawsuits. Some research suggests that American workers feel safer in the presence of security camera equipment.
Events such as the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue at the White House have raised public concerns about security. This in turn has made the video surveillance industry more acceptable to the general public. A leading security industry spokesperson asserts, "years ago shoppers objected to electronic eyes recording their moves; today it's not only accepted, it's preferred."
A 1995 study asked armed convenience store robbers serving time in Washington state prisons to rank the most important factors that would deter them from robbing a convenience store. Their answers were compared to responses given 10 years earlier by a different group of robbers. As shown in Table 1, video recording or camera systems were of little consequence to the robbers.
Table 1 1 Least To Most Important Deterrent In Robbing A Convenient Store (* Washington State prison sample of robbers)
Factor Rank Order 1985 Rank Order 1995
Amount of Money 1 2 Escape Route 2 1 Anonymity 3 3 Interference 4 6 Active Police Patrol 5 4 Armed Clerk 6 5 Number of Clerks 7 7 Number of Customers 8 9 Camera System 9 10 Alarm System 10 8 Video Recording 11 11 Source: Rosemary Erickson, Athena Research Corp., 1995 State and Local Law Enforcementnt
Initial Pilot Projects The first two documented instances of public video surveillance by American police departments were in the cities of Hoboken, New Jersey, in 1966, and Mount Vernon, New YorkThese early systems generally consisted of cameras either located in downtown business districts or in shopping centers. According to researchers, the Hoboken CCTV system produced only two arrests during the five years it was in operation. The system was dismantled because the city police department considered it an ineffective law enforcement device. In Mount Vernon, the system lasted for three years and did not produce a single arrest. A system in Miami Beach, Floridada, was dismantled due to manpower shortages to monitor the cameras and because criminals were moving out of the camera's range. In Charleston, West Virginia Detroit, Michiganan Potential Pairing With Other New Technologieses The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act authorizes federal funding for state and local law enforcement crime prevention programs. Among other activities, the U.S. Department of Justice funds innovative programs to combat criminal activities of gangs and juveniles with firearms. Recently, Salinas, California received federal funding for a Geographic Information System (GIS) crime tracking system for gangs.
The 1994 federal crime bill also established Regional Law Enforcement Technology Centers to provide information on technology for public safety purposes, along with guidelines and standards for use. For example, the Western Regional Law Enforcement Center located in El Segundo, California, provides technical assistance to state and local law enforcement interested in new surveillance technology. The focus of the Center's current research is on the development of technology to protect law enforcement personnel in the field. In particular, a new form of video imaging under development has the potential to detect concealed metallic and non-metallic weapons. When this video imaging system is perfected, it could be used in conjunction with CCTV surveillance cameras, for example to detect weapons at the entrance to public buildings. Fourth Amendment concerns about unreasonable searches may not arise if the technology enables law enforcement to formulate a reasonable suspicion that a person is carrying an illegally concealed weapon.
Public Video Surveillance in U.S. Citieses Baltimorere
As part of the grant, crime statistics are being gathered to determine the impact of the project on the amount and types of crime occurring in the project area. Factors such as criminal displacement, location of crimes, and arrests within the project are to be considered. At the time of this writing, no useful data has been published. Anecdotal information from businesses and consumers suggests that the system is providing a certain degree of comfort. One Baltimore citizen says, "From time to time, thanks to surveillance cameras, crooks are caught in the act. It helps put down some of the crime that's going on in the area."
Table 2 CCTV Program Information-Baltimore, Maryland Sitete Downtown Baltimore Dated Installed June 1996 Hours of Surveillance 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source Private and Public Grants Implementation Cooperative with Police and Community Groups Reasons For Its Use Drug Dealing and Street Crime Results Anecdotal Evidence Suggests the System is Working Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 Newark, New Jersey
No official crime-related data measuring the effectiveness of the system has been kept since the system was installed. According to a police spokesperson for Newark, car theft in the downtown district has declined significantly since the CCTV system has been in operation. There has also been steady commercial growth in the business district of Newark over the last four years.
Table 3 CCTV Program Information-Newark, New Jersey Sitete Downtown Business District Dated Installed June 1991 Hours of Surveillance 24 Hours a Day Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source Federal Economic Development Grant Implementation City Police Downtown and Business Community Reasons For Its Use Discourage Crime and Promote Safety Results Commercial Growth Continues in Video Surveillance Areas Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 St. Petersburg\Tampa Bay, Florida
In 1994, an area between St. Petersburg and Tampa Bay known as Gateway experienced increasing numbers of car thefts. Of the 10,000 auto thefts that occurred in the area between the two cities, 3,000 took place in the Gateway area. The State of Florida provided St. Petersburg a $42,000 grant to purchase mobile video equipment and night scopes for police officers in a surveillance vehicles. Within months, the number of auto thefts had decreased. According to police officials, the video surveillance combined with police officers with night scopes had a major impact.
Table 4 4 CCTV Program Information-Tampa, Florida Site Ybor City District Dated Installed September 1996 Hours of Surveillance 24 Hours a Day with Monitoring from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source Cooperative Public/Private Initiative Implementation Reasons For Its Use Safety of the Ybor City District, Mainly on Weekends Resultsts Preliminary Results Show That Crime is Down in Video Surveillance Areas But Other Factors May be Contributing Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 Virginia Beach, Virginia Table 5 CCTV Program Information-Virginia Beach, Virginia Sitete Beachfront Property Dated Installed August 1993 Hours of Surveillance 13 Hours a Day on Average Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source Cooperative Between the Business Community and the City Implementation Virginia Beach Police Department Reasons For Its Use Overall Safety of Residents and Visitors Results Anecdotal Evidence of Increased Effectiveness of Police Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 Memphis, Tennessee
Table 6 CCTV Program Information-Memphis, Tennessee Sitete Downtown Memphis Dated Installed Early 1996 Hours of Surveillance 24 Hours a Day Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source City Government and Private Business Implementation City Government and Private Business Reasons For Its Use To Prevent Crime and Provide Increased Safety Results Crime is Down 10 Percent and Data Collection is in Place California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 Dover, New Jersey
Table 7 7 CCTV Program Information-Dover, New Jersey Site Downtown Dover Dated Installed September 1993 Hours of Surveillance 24 Hours-a-Day Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source Public Funding Implementation Local Government and Police Department Reasons For Its Use Loitering and General Crime Deterrent Results Reduction In Loitering and General Crime Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 South Orange, New Jersey
Table 8 CCTV Program Information-South Orange, New Jersey Sitete Downtown Area Parking Lots, Streets, and Parks Dated Installed 1994 Hours of Surveillance 6 Hours a Day Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source Federal Grant And Municipal Funds Implementation City Officials and Local Police Reasons For Its Use General Crime Prevention Results Auto Thefts Are Down 40 Percent Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 Tacoma, Washington
The success of the Tacoma neighborhood system has led to development of a CCTV video surveillance system in the nearby community of Tukwila to combat robbers and prostitution. A recently installed 6 camera CCTV system covers an 8 block area. Police and trained volunteers monitor the images from a centrally located storefront as part of Tukwilla's community-policing program. Residents and local merchants support the high-tech strategy: "This is a very tough neighborhood, especially at night," said the manager of a Kentucky Fried Chicken store.
Table 9 CCTV Program Information-Tacoma, Washington Sitete Hilltop Neighborhood Dated Installed August 1993 Hours of Surveillance 24 Hours a Day Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source City of Tacoma Implementation Community Residents and the Police Department Reasons For Its Use Drug and Prostitute Crimes Results Reduction In Criminal Activity in the Area Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 Hollywood, California
The Yucca corridor project has attracted interest in other areas of Los Angeles. In mid-1995, business tenants of a large urban shopping mall (Northridge Shopping Center) pooled resources and installed 64 CCTV cameras to scan the 72 acre complex. The immediate benefit was a sharp reduction in auto theft and burglaries. Other Los Angeles community-based groups and businesses are also interested in replicating the Yucca and Northridge CCTV approach. The Los Angeles City and County governments have expressed support for resident-initiated CCTV video surveillance systems, but are not currently planning to fund such an activities.
Table 10 CCTV Program Information-Hollywood, California Sitete Yucca Street Corridor Dated Installed Early 1995 Hours of Surveillance 24 Hours-a-Day Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source Private Funds Implementation Community Association and Local Police Reasons For Its Use Drugs, Prostitution, and Gangs Results Criminal Activity in the Area Has Diminished Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 Anchorage, Alaska
Table 11 CCTV Program Information-Anchorage, Alaska Site Spenard Section of Anchorage Dated Installeded Early 1992 Hours of Surveillance Nightly From 7 p.m. to 4 a.m. Type of Surveillance Passive Monitoring From Mobile Units Funding Source Private and Public Grants Implementation Reasons For Its Usese To Reduce Drugs, Brothels, and Illegal Gambling Results Anecdotal Reduction In Drugs, Prostitution, and Gambling Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 San Diego, California (Park District)
Table 12 CCTV Program Information-San Diego, California Sitete Balboa Park Dated Installed Summer 1993 Hours of Surveillance 24 Hours a Day Type of Surveillance Actively Monitored During Business Hours Only Funding Source Equipment Donated Implementation Balboa Park Security Reasons For Its Use Car Theft and General Crimes Results Reduction In Criminal Activity in the Park Area Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 Selected Other Cities During the 1996 Atlanta Olympic games, thousands of surveillance cameras were installed to protect Olympic athletes and spectators. High-speed programmable zoom cameras feed information to a central command post, recording the movements of some of the two million Olympic visitors. The cameras were located atop the scoreboard in Olympic Stadium, mounted on walls and hung from poles in Olympic Park. According to security officials, the cameras were so well concealed that many visitors thought they were lights. Although surveillance camera were operating in Centennial Park on the night of the Olympic bombing, they were not focused on any particular area nor were they actively monitored at the time.
Fort Lauderdale The San Francisco Police Department recently began a passive CCTV video surveillance program to monitor vehicle traffic at busy intersections of the city. According to a police department spokesperson, the surveillance program was prompted by public demand to crack down on "speeders" who consistently run red lights and endanger other vehicles and pedestrians. The surveillance cameras are electronically activated once a red light change occurs at an intersection and record the front and rear license plate of all cars in view. A moving violation ticket is sent to the registered owner of vehicles involved in infractions.
New Orleansns and PortlandOther major cities such as Phoenix, Cleveland, and New York are also considering setting up similar video surveillance programs.
Future Plans of California Citieses Table 13 briefly summarizes public CCTV surveillance programs in California.
Table 13
City Active CCTV Surveillance Location of Systemem Future Consideration Sacramento Two surveillance cameras are passively operated by local business associations. Old town and downtown plaza areas. Yes San Francisco Yes-to improve traffic safety and reduce traffic violations Various traffic intersections Yes-as the necessity dictates Oakland Currently proposed High crime area of downtown Yes San Jose No None Not at this time Fresno No None Not at this time Los Angeles Funded privately and limited to the Hollywood Division. Yucca Street corridor Yes Riverside No None Not at this time Stockton No None Not at this time Bakersfield No None Not at this time San Diego Yes-in the park system Balboa Park Not at this time Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 Public Housing, Transit Authorities and Schools Neighborhood activists and police have teamed up over the past several years to address crime concerns in public housing projects by incorporating video surveillance with other crime prevention measures. The most effective projects combine video surveillance in a large collaborative effort involving the community and community policing.
In Boston,In Kinston, North Carolina, the local housing authority installed 20 CCTV surveillance cameras on street poles at a cost of $35,000 in spring 1996. There is no statistical information available yet to determine whether the project has been successful in reducing crime. According to the Kinston Housing Authority Director, the CCTV cameras have already served to deter street crime in the projects.
In spring 1994, , Camden, New JerseyIn 1993, thehe Garfield, New Jersey Public Transit
Some public transit systems have been using video cameras on buses and in rail stations for several years. In Portland, for example, CCTV surveillance cameras have been operating in all 3 of the city's rail stations since 1992. The cameras are monitored from a centrally located area at each rail station. The Portland public rail system is considered a model for the country.
Municipal bus systems in San Francisco, Cleveland, and Portland rely on video cameras mounted on bus ceilings to record passenger activity. Public transit systems in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Sacramento also use video surveillance cameras inside of buses to help prevent fraudulent claims and reduce incidents of passenger harassment and vandalism. Other cities are contemplating similar uses.
Amtrakak School Districts
Schools are increasingly targets of burglaries due to the expensive computer equipment on site. In California, the Department of Education and the Attorney General's office recently developed a model plan for school safety, emphasizing prevention and interagency cooperation. CCTV or video surveillance is not part of the crime prevention plan. According to a California Department of Education spokesperson, CCTV video surveillance was not considered as part of the crime prevention strategy. When asked why not, the spokesperson did not have an explaination.
However, school districts in other states are experimenting with CCTV video surveillance as a principal security measure to reduce campus violence and prevent crimes such as theft and graffiti. The CCTV surveillance systems either passively record activities and are played back at certain intervals, or are actively monitored by personnel. According to a 1996 survey of secondary school administrators conducted by the American Society for Industrial Security, schools which use either passive or active CCTV surveillance systems, contend that the systems have contributed to reduced property crimes such as break-ins, theft, and vandalism. Advocates point out that schools are well designed for effective video surveillance since they have a captive student population and staff in a restricted campus area.
Nationwide, 31 percent of all elementary and secondary public school classrooms use CCTV for classroom education. In addition, 49 percent of all elementary and secondary public school administrative offices rely on CCTV to monitor classroom activities.
In a recent nationwide telephone survey of public schools, 47 percent of the respondents indicated that CCTV video surveillance is being used in some capacity in a school as a crime prevention measure. According to the survey, most schools use the CCTV video surveillance to monitor entranceways and parking lots, hallways, stairways, and cafeterias. The following discussion examines a sample of school districts in the United States which operate passive or active CCTV video surveillance at elementary, middle or high school campuses. Many schools and city and county school boards are considering installing video surveillance systems to enhance school safety and prevent crime and violence. According to educational researchers, no one has evaluated the effectiveness of video surveillance in schools or on school buses. In addition, many schools which use CCTV video surveilance do not undertake professional security assessments, which serve as a proactive approach to prevention and intervention. Most of the literature describes programs which district administrators claim have positive results.
As noted above, some school districts have installed video cameras on buses to curtail violence and particularly the use of weapons. They generally are passive systems which record but are not monitored. Some districts mount boxes in all their buses and rotate surveillance cameras among them so the students never know whether they are being taped. This is less expensive than spending $1,000 per bus for a surveillance camera.
LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPTIONSNS
While not necessary the recommendations of the author or the Bureau, the following are potential options for action.
I. Should The Legislature Develop A Framework For Public CCTV Surveillance Technology?
The Legislature could review the role that CCTV video surveillance technology might play as a component of the state's comprehensive crime prevention strategy. Factors to be considered for a statewide framework might include: community participation in establishing projects; minimum standards for implementation; training requirements for monitoring personnel (including volunteers); criteria to ensure confidentiality; and clearly articulated links with community policing. The goal of the framework would be to provide for the appropriate and beneficial use of public video surveillance in California. The framework might also provide the means by which other new technologies could be evaluated and introduced in California for law enforcement purposes.
Funding Strategieses Trainingng Confidentiality II. Other Crime Prevention Technologies Innovative crime prevention projects using new technologies are operating across the country, including one in Salinas, California (see page 16). The Western Regional Law Enforcement Technology Center located in El Segundo, California provides technical assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies interested in new surveillance technology, (see page 27) among other activities.
III. Commercial Business and City Partnerships The popularity of CCTV video surveillance as a crime prevention tool is an important component of the re-emergence of downtown entertainment and commercial business districts. Business partnerships composed of retailers and various agencies of local governments have been created in cities such as Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and Memphis to provide the funding capital for CCTV video surveillance crime prevention projects. Community-oriented policing programs help monitor the surveillance systems and respond to criminal activity.
The California Property and Business Improvement District Law was created in 1994 to promote economic revitalization within city or county business districts through a levied assessment. A "management district plan" is required with approval, by either a city council or county board of supervisors, prior to the formation a business district.
IV. Residential and City Partnerships Residential neighborhood initiatives to improve public safety using CCTV video surveillance have been undertaken in the cities of Tacoma and Hollywood (see pages 21 and 22).
Local residential security districts could be created upon meeting standards specified by the OCJP or the Department of Justice. The community security districts could be given authority t o install and operate CCTV video surveillance within the district's defined geographical boundary, consistent with state guidelines. Some related activities might include: 2. Improve truancy enforcement.
3. Look for and identify people who display firearms in the community. This might include pilot projects using new concealed weapons identification surveillance technology.
4. Identify speeding vehicles to enhance the effectiveness of traffic laws. Information presented in this study suggests that CCTV video surveillance is widespread in schools across the country. Its primary purpose is to serve as a deterrent against acts of vandalism, graffiti, fights or gang-related activities, drug use, and thefts. However California schools do not currently employ CCTV video surveillance as a security measure. Instead, metal detectors and school district police personnel are the primary mechanisms used by California schools to prevent acts of violence, especially gun violence. For example, school districts in Los Angeles spend about $12 million annually for campus security.
CCTV video surveillance in schools raises some important questions, including:
VI. CCTV Video Surveillance in Public Housing Security in public housing projects in the United States has been a major concern of residents and housing officials for years. In California, gang-related activity is a major concern in most housing projects located throughout the state and particularly in Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco. Some recent efforts by housing officials in other states to incorporate CCTV video surveillance overall with other crime prevention measures have proven to be successful in reducing criminal activity sometimes (see pages 26-27).
VII. Video Surveillance As A Traffic Safety Toolol Urban video surveillance systems are essential components of traffic regulation in France and England. These systems are successful in assisting authorities to regulate traffic flow through busy inner city streets, detecting traffic jams and roadside disturbances. In the U.S., Florida operates video surveillance on busy inner state roads for traffic safety purposes. San Francisco has begun video surveillance on busy surface streets to detect drivers who violate traffic lights.
VIII. Evaluation Studies Given the important role that crime prevention plays in law enforcement, surprisingly little is known about the effectiveness of new technologies such as CCTV video surveillance to prevent or discourage crime.
CCTV Public Surveillance Use By California City Police Departments
1. Identify juveniles who violate local curfews or are loitering in the e
neighborhood. Work with the police to ensure that their activities are consistent with any parole and probation orders.
www.2mcctv.com