Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
CCTV Guidelines to Live By
Richard Chace
Assistant Executive Director
Security Industry Association
For over two years now the Security Industry Association (SIA) has been working
with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) as a member of their
Private Sector Liaison Committee (PSLC). This sixty-member super-committee, headed
by Chief Michael Shanahan, has been the breeding ground for such industry initiatives as
the 1999 CCTV for Public Safety and Community Policing Summit, and most recently the
Guide for Preventing and Responding to School Violence.
Last April, in an unprecedented move, the IACP agreed to partner with SIA to cohost a Summit designed to address the issues associated with the use of CCTV in public
safety applications. Through prior meetings with key members of the PSLC, SIA was
able to deduce that law enforcement was hesitant to institute widespread CCTV programs
due to perceived liability and operational issues.
Concomitantly, SIA was aware of outside attempts to limit law enforcement’s use
of CCTV technology through the courts and certain state legislatures and was concerned
that these actions would severely limit this industry’s accessibility to a viable CCTV
market.
In response to their respective and mutual concerns, SIA and the IACP drafted the
CCTV for Public Safety and Community Policing Guideline. This guideline has evolved
through 9 revisions, with the 9th recently approved by the full PSLC and referred to the
Board of Directors of the IACP with the recommendation that it be disseminated to police
agencies across the country.
This guideline has been reviewed by law enforcement, CCTV manufacturers,
Department of Justice officials, Congressional leaders, Municipal leaders, Civil
Libertarian groups, members of the general public, and Constitutional and tort lawyers.
The guideline builds upon a vast reservoir of public safety knowledge and experience and
serves as a “How To…” document for those law enforcement and private sector entities
seeking to implement a CCTV for Public Safety program.
This sounds great but so what? How does a College or University Security
Director benefit from this document?
Primarily, this two-year effort and document has worked to preserve the
threatened public safety use of CCTV technology. Perhaps it is not clear to the public and
private sectors how dangerously close the CCTV industry has come to losing the CCTV
public safety market due to the litigation efforts of civil libertarian groups. One of the
ways to counter such efforts is to use the CCTV for Public Safety guideline as an
educational and resource tool. The guideline clearly spells out how to responsibly
1
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
promote the use and instruct in the application of CCTV technology while partnering
with law enforcement and the industry. The document recommends ways to institute a
CCTV program and how to build one from the ground up.
It is vital that the CCTV industry understands it must develop and cultivate
working relationships with law enforcement prior to any sales pitch. Five years worth of
research, data and personal interaction demonstrating this fact should be respected. Law
enforcement agencies are traditionally strapped for funding and information; they are
wary of the security industry and the promises made. The industry dangles the CCTV
carrot in front of their noses extolling the force-multiplying virtues of the technologies,
but has previously failed to outline the need to invest in public outreach and education
prior to installing or even purchasing the equipment. Perhaps, even worse the industry
over-sells and convinces municipalities and agencies that they need a color Pan
/Tilt/Zoom camera to address a red light-running problem.
What law enforcement needs from the industry is to tell them that posting an
officer at that intersection during peak traffic hours may solve their red light-running
problem, and if that has the potential to break their budget, or the resources do not exist,
there is an inexpensive B/W fixed camera that can do the trick.
The Security Industry Association has worked hard to cultivate the trust and
respect of the law enforcement community by funding and spearheading such initiatives
as the CCTV for Public Safety Guideline program. Now it is up to the manufacturers and
dealers of CCTV equipment to avail themselves of this foundational work and provide
the services and equipment law enforcement wants, rather than what we think they want.
The following CCTV for Public Safety and Community Policing guideline
demonstrates our industry’s commitment to steer law enforcement in the right direction.
It is an important assessment and educational tool. But if nothing else, when working to
develop your public safety marketing strategy, keep these facts in mind:




1.
2.
3.
4.
85% of U.S. Police Departments are comprised of 1-15 officers (source: IACP);
59% of U.S. Police Departments DO NOT have computers or Internet
access(source: IACP);
The average tenure of a U.S. Police chief is 2-3 years (they are politically savvy)
(source: IACP);
Law Enforcement uses CCTV in the following applications (order of prevalance)
(source: SIA’s 1996-1998 CCTV Reports)
Public Building Security
Traffic Regulation
High Crime Areas
Video Patrol of Public Areas (Most Controversial)
 Strengths of CCTV Technology:
1. Law Enforcement sees CCTV as a Force-Multiplier;
2. CCTV is an answer to dwindling personnel resources
2
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management

1.
2.
3.
4.
Weaknesses of CCTV Technology:
Equipment, Install, and Monitoring costs;
Potential Legal/liability issues;
Civil Libertarian issues;
Potential Negative Community Response, Politics.
For a complete version of the final CCTV for Public Safety and Community Policing
Guideline, a copy of the Guideline’s informational brief, and comprehensive legal
documentation, visit the joint SIA/IACP CCTV Web site at
http://www.siaonline.org/covercctv.html. For copies of past CCTV reports or more
resources on how to tap into the law enforcement CCTV market, please contact Richard
Chace at 703/683-0392 or e-mail at rchace@siaonline.org.
3
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
Security Industry Association
And
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Informational Brief
for
Guideline On
Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
For Public Safety and Community Policing
(Final Revision Number 9; 1/1/00)
Introduction
The manufacturers and distributors of closed circuit television (CCTV) security
products, represented by the Security Industry Association (SIA), and members of the
law enforcement and public safety communities, represented by the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the National Sheriffs Association (NSA), are
committed to enhancing the quality of life of the local community by integrating the best
practices of public and private policing with state-of-the-art security technology.
Several United States and European public safety models have demonstrated that
closed circuit television (CCTV) is a critical component of a comprehensive public safety
and security plan. Although, in the U.S., the constitutionality of CCTV use in public
areas is well established, there are nonetheless concerns within the public arena with
regards to the implications of CCTV use on privacy and civil rights. To consider these
issues and develop a guideline regarding the appropriate use of CCTV technology within
the public sector of the local community, SIA and the IACP Private Sector Liaison
Committee conceived a CCTV Summit. The Summit involved CCTV manufacturers, law
enforcement organizations, civil liberty organizations, tort and constitutional lawyers,
state and federal regulators, state and federal legislators, and local citizens groups.
At present (October 1999), there are an estimated 1 million + video cameras in
use around the country for the purpose of promoting public safety and security. Many of
these cameras have been in use for years in applications such as Automatic Teller
Machines (ATM’s) and traffic regulation. Despite the prevalence of CCTV use on the
national and local levels, there have been (prior to the Spring 1999 CCTV Summit) no
consistent policies or procedures guiding the use of this equipment. Given the ethical,
legal and other important issues implicated in the use of CCTV technology in the public
sector, the members of SIA, IACP, and NSA recommend that public safety officials and
law enforcement agencies adopt some or all of the following written guideline to assist
and facilitate in the use of CCTV technology within the local community.
Background of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Use
4
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
CCTV has been widely used in public areas by law enforcement and private
security organizations in the United States. Currently, CCTV technology is being used
by city police departments including New York and Baltimore and on University
campuses including the University of Maryland at College Park and soon the University
of Pennsylvania. Much of the existing CCTV use at the local level is currently being used
to monitor traffic; especially traffic signal-controlled intersections and to observe and
sanction aggressive driving.
Critics of CCTV use in the public sector have raised two constitutional issues: 1.)
the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, and 2.) the
right of personal privacy, a generic term encompassing various rights recognized to be
inherent in the concept of ordered liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment. The clearly
established constitutionality of CCTV use in public areas rests on the concepts of “public
area” and “reasonable expectation of privacy,” as defined extensively in case law.
Generally, public areas are those areas open for public use, including unenclosed areas
(public streets, sidewalks, and parks, etc.) and enclosed areas (building lobbies, corridors
and elevators, etc.) To qualify as a constitutionally protected “reasonable expectation of
privacy,” the individual must have an actual expectation of privacy and that expectation
must be one which society recognizes as reasonable.
The courts have consistently found that an individual does not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy when he or she is in a public place. Behavior and activity
exhibited in a public area is obviously available for observation by others. Police
observation of activities conducted in plain view in a public place, therefore, does not
violate the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure,
regardless of whether the observation occurs through the physical presence of a person at
the scene or through the assistance of CCTV technology. Similarly, there is no violation
of personal privacy rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when an individual’s public
behavior is observed by a video camera.
However, it is important to re-iterate, regardless of the green-light given by
current law, responsible and ethical use CCTV technology as a public safety and security
tool is critical to the success of current and future public safety applications of CCTV and
other technologies. SIA, IACP and the NSA are firmly committed to promoting such use
and strongly urge all law enforcement agencies actively using or contemplating the use of
CCTV technology to use the CCTV for Public Safety and Community Policing guideline.
Common Questions and Answers
1.)
Will there be security cameras in public bathrooms or other areas designated
as “public,” where an individual may expect privacy?
No. Despite the name “public restroom” or “public bathroom,” the proposed
guideline recognizes these spaces in which one has a reasonable expectation of
privacy. The proposed guideline prohibits CCTV use in areas where there is a
“reasonable” expectation of privacy, as defined by existing law. This guideline
5
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
would, however, permit CCTV use in the hallway or area outside a public
restroom or similar use facility.
2.)
How will CCTV use change the way law enforcement patrols and interacts
with my community; will such use supersede law enforcement’s current
means of street patrol?
The proposed guideline advocates that each law enforcement agency coordinates
the intended purpose and focus of its CCTV program with the community in
which the CCTV program will reside. This exchange of information and
knowledge should clearly define and outline what problems the CCTV program
was designed to address. This should then become part of a public document
distributed to the community. It is recommended that these programs subscribe to
existing laws and accepted procedures of evidentiary gathering.
However, if an individual(s) is/are perpetrating a crime in a public area they may
still be stopped or addressed by law enforcement, but not necessarily due to the
operation of CCTV equipment. The use of CCTV technology in public areas is
intended to be a force-multiplier designed to assist law enforcement in the
execution of their duties.
3.)
How do I know law enforcement is not using CCTV technology to track my
normal daily activities and movements?
The proposed guideline places a great deal of emphasis on individual privacy and
rights. Subsequently, the vehicles/tools used to store image data are subject to
specific handling protocols. In order to gain public support of CCTV use, law
enforcement agencies should adhere to a specific operational guideline,
specifically the CCTV for Public Safety and Community Policing guideline. This
guideline, among other specifics, clearly states that normal CCTV-obtained
images should be purged on a regular basis and retained in accordance with
applicable public record laws. This affords law enforcement a fail-safe in case an
image obtained through CCTV technology becomes a piece of evidence. Law
enforcement, as a general rule, can only use its time and resources to identify
instances that require action based upon “just cause.”
4.)
Who wrote this draft guideline?
The proposed guideline has been developed over the last two years through
numerous discussions and meetings by the International Association of Police
Chief’s (IACP) Private Sector Liaison Committee whose members include
representatives of the law enforcement, public/private security professional,
CCTV manufacturer, legal and regulatory communities. This committee
considered the ethical, social, legal and practical implications of CCTV use for
safety and security purposes. A draft guideline was constructed based on the
6
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
committee’s discussions, the University of Pennsylvania’s CCTV Monitoring and
Recording of Public Areas for Safety and Security draft policy, and the United
Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police Service Public Place CCTV Systems Guidance
Guideline.
The resulting draft was prepared for discussion and debate at a CCTV Summit in
the Spring of 1999 in Washington, DC. There, over a two-day period, members of
the law enforcement, public/private security professional, CCTV manufacturer,
legal and regulatory communities edited the guideline and offered revision
suggestions to key elements of the document. The IACP’s PSLC CCTV Subcommittee reviewed the recommended edits over a two-day period, incorporating
suggested edits into the draft guideline document. The resulting 5th Revision was
presented to the PSLC with the recommendation that the draft be moved into the
three-month Review and Comment Period, starting in June 1999 and ending in
September 1999. The responses from this three-month comment period were then
reviewed by the PSLC CCTV Sub-committee and incorporated as necessary. The
resulting 6th revision was then reviewed for continuity and substance. The final 7th
revision was presented to the full PSLC with recommendation that it be approved
and disseminated to all interested constituencies.
5.)
What was the CCTV Summit and who participated?
The two-day CCTV Summit, held April 8-9, 1999, Washington, DC, at the
Capital Hilton, hosted representatives of the CCTV manufacturer, public/private
security, law enforcement, legislative, regulatory, civil-libertarian, and legal
communities who came together to develop a consensus CCTV for Public Safety
Operational Guideline document.
The goal was to create a document that discusses the privacy and legal issues
associated with the public safety and community policing applications of CCTV
technology.
7
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
Security Industry Association
And
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Revision Number 9
Date: 1/1/00
GUIDELINE:
Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) for Public Safety and Community Policing
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to law enforcement in the
responsible use of overt closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras in public
areas, without a court order, for the purpose of safety and security.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
A.
In promulgating these guidelines, the security industry and law enforcement agencies seek to
establish voluntary parameters restricting the non-court-ordered use of CCTV to public places, to
enhance public safety and security in a manner consistent with accepted rights of privacy.
B.
Except in situations of the investigation of a crime committed by a person(s) whose description is
known, CCTV programs must not be based on individual characteristics, or classifications,
including race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability.
C.
These guidelines are intended to demonstrate that the security industry and law enforcement
communities are committed to enhancing the public’s quality of life by integrating the best
practices of public and private policing with the responsible use of technology.
D.
The principle objectives of any CCTV program should include:
1.)
Enhancing public safety;
2.)
Preventing/ deterring crime and public disorder;
3.)
Reducing and removing the fear of crime;
4.)
Identifying criminal activity;
8
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
E.
5.)
Identifying suspects;
6.)
Gathering evidence;
7.)
Documenting police actions to safeguard citizen and police officer rights;
8.)
Reducing the cost and impact of crime to the community; and
9.)
Improving the allocation and deployment of law enforcement assets.
CCTV use for safety and security purposes should be conducted in accord with accepted legal
concepts regarding privacy, and in a professional, and ethical manner. Personnel involved in
CCTV use should be appropriately trained and closely supervised in the responsible use of this
technology. Violations or breaches of any program protocols should result in appropriate
discipline and may subject those involved to civil or criminal liability under applicable state and
federal laws governing CCTV video monitoring.
F.
Initial and ongoing needs assessments should be conducted as a part of any CCTV for safety and
security program or protocol. Such needs assessments should consider that CCTV is only one of
many tools available in protecting the public’s safety and that other alternatives may be more
appropriate or cost effective.
G.
Information obtained from CCTV use should be used exclusively for safety and law enforcement
purposes. Information in any form obtained through the use of a CCTV program, or CCTV
technology should be handled according to accepted law enforcement procedures and legal rules
governing the handling of evidence. Dissemination of such information should be conducted in
accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. Unusable or non-case specific video or digital
image data should not be retained, and should be purged from data storage within an appropriate
time, and in conformance with governing State and federal legal and public policy requirements.
H.
Law enforcement agencies should actively seek consultation and input from their community prior
to implementing any CCTV program, or any significant expansion or alteration of such a program.
RESPONSIBILITIES
A.
Law enforcement agencies implementing a CCTV program shall be responsible to oversee and
coordinate the use of CCTV for public safety and security purposes, and shall establish a liaison
with their community regarding the program’s policies and procedures.
B.
Each law enforcement agency implementing or using a CCTV program should identify a
responsible party for the implementation and oversight of the CCTV program. The designated
9
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
CCTV oversight officer shall be charged with facilitating input from and conducting consultations
with the community. Such consultations should identify the positive aspects of CCTV use, and
should work toward securing community support for CCTV use in public places to enhance public
safety and security.
C.
Any local law enforcement agency implementing a CCTV program should monitor relevant law
and security industry practices to ensure that their CCTV program is consistent with appropriate
industry standards and legal protections.
E.
Each local law enforcement agency implementing or using CCTV in public places should conduct
ongoing program needs assessments and periodic review of CCTV camera locations, perimeter
view, monitoring, training, and administration.
D.
All local law enforcement agency personnel involved in the application, use or monitoring of
CCTV installations, collection of video or digital data, or other aspects of CCTV use shall receive
appropriate training, including but not limited to the ethical limits of CCTV use, and instruction in
applicable civil and criminal law. Law enforcement agencies and the security industry shall assist
in the establishment of standards or criteria for such training programs.
H.
All operators and supervisors involved in use of CCTV in public places will be responsible to
perform their duties in accordance with applicable law, department or agency policy, and this
guideline.
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES:
A.
All existing public safety and security uses of CCTV technology should be brought into
compliance with this guideline.
B.
Local law enforcement agencies implementing or conducting a CCTV program shall establish and
enforce operating procedures that implement this guideline.
C.
Any local law enforcement agency implementing a CCTV program should consider posting
signage at appropriate locations notifying citizens that the location may be using CCTV
technology. The posting and content of signage should be reviewed with agency legal counsel.
D.
Any use of CCTV to observe locations consisting of residential or commercial housing should
limit the view available to that which is only available to the unaided vision of an officer that may
10
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
be on sight. Furthermore, any view of any residential or commercial housing area must not violate
reasonable expectations of privacy, as current case law or statute defines that term or concept.
E.
Any monitoring center of a local law enforcement agency implementing a CCTV program must be
configured to prevent camera operators from tampering with or duplicating recorded information.
Law enforcement agency policies must provide for discipline where this guideline is violated, and
must notify all agency personnel that the unauthorized or illegal use, viewing, dissemination, or
duplication of video recordings, images, or data, may subject the offending officer to civil or
criminal liability.
F.
Recorded analog videotape and collected digital video images should be stored for an appropriate
time period, consistent with established policy and public records laws, and then should be erased
or deleted, unless retained as part of a criminal investigation or civil or criminal court proceedings.
G.
Videotapes and digital video images should be stored in a secure location with access, controlled
and logged, limited to authorized personnel as defined and designated by the agency.
H.
Law enforcement agencies using CCTV must establish and implement programs for the training of
personnel involved in the use of CCTV, including camera control operators. Such training shall
include technical training related to all equipment and technology used in the program, and shall
include all aspects of this guideline.
I.
Camera control operators must not use CCTV to track/observe individuals based on characteristics
of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or other classifications protected by law.
TECHNICAL PROCEEDURAL GUIDANCE:
A.
In constructing a CCTV program it is necessary to establish each individual program’s
Operational Requirements. These requirements should include:
1.) Identification of areas requiring CCTV use;
2.) Assessment of the number of cameras, their locations and optimum required
positions;
3.) Evaluation of existing light levels and positioning of artificial and natural lighting
sources in both day and nighttime conditions; and
11
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
4.) Choice and identification of the most appropriate camera technology and equipment
in relation to the proposed operating environment.
B.
A system review or audit should be undertaken periodically by accredited and/or qualified
personnel, and measured against the specifications developed by each CCTV program’s respective
Operational Requirements. Any such audit must also include an assessment of the CCTV
program’s compliance with this guideline, including an ongoing assessment of the involvement
and support of the community.
C.
Any CCTV program must include a system management plan that provides for:
1.) Formulation of control room location, configuration, and staffing;
2.) Development of the CCTV program’s functional mission and
operational protocols;
3.) Assignment of a supervisor to oversee the operation of control rooms,
system equipment, monitors and data collection/storage procedures;
4.) Formulation of security protocols for control rooms, related personnel,
equipment and any other component of the CCTV program’s system;
5.) In cases of real-time monitoring, formulation of incident response
protocols;
6.) Assessment of power supply and backup requirements; and
7.)
Formulation and establishment of a routine system
maintenance/upgrade program.
POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF CCTV IN PUBLIC AREAS:
Legitimate public safety and security purposes may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
12
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
Purpose
Example Uses:
Protection of Persons and Property
Patrol of building perimeters, entrances and exits, public
lobbies/corridors/ elevators, public docks, public storage
areas;
Monitoring of Access Control Systems
Monitoring of restricted access transactions at entrances to
public buildings and other public areas;
Verification of Security Alarms
Confirming, prior to deployment of resources, public building
intrusion alarms, trips on exit-door controls, hold-up alarms;
Video Patrol of Public Areas
Remotely observe or document activity at transit stops,
parking lots, public streets, shopping areas, public parks,
school playgrounds, and vehicle intersections;
Criminal Activity
Remotely observe or document instances of robbery, burglary,
prostitution, vandalism, street crimes, or loitering;
Traffic Regulation or Control
Remotely observe and/or document red light running,
aggressive driving, and pedestrian/ vehicle traffic at
intersections and on major
Highways.
13
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
Staking out the ACLU’s Position on CCTV Use
The following is a transcript of the presentations provided by Barry Steinhardt of
the American Civil Liberties Union and James Falk, Sr. an constitutional law attorney at
the 1999 CCTV for Public Safety and Community Policing Summit in Washington, DC.
This transcript provides a first hand account of the issues the ACLU, law
enforcement and constitutional lawyers have with the use of CCTV technology. The
audience Q&A with the speakers have been included to provide greater depth into the
rationale behind each presenter’s arguments.
- Begin Transcript BARRY STEINHARDT: In preparation for this meeting, Richard Chace
was good enough to send me an advance copy of the briefing book that you all
received this morning. There is a characterization in this book of the ACLU's
position, which I just want to read for you and see if I can clarify. It says that the
ACLU's main argument against CCTV technology centers on the lack of
standards and operating/training protocols employed by CCTV's monitoring
companies. The ACLU is seeking a moratorium on CCTV use until such
standards and protocols are in place. Such a moratorium in the private sector is
unlikely to happen but one in the public sector is likely if operation protocols and
code of ethics documents are not established by the industry. I need to tell you
that that statement is about half right, which suggests, of course, that it's also half
wrong. Let me see if I can clarify what the ACLU's actual view are.
Our concerns go well beyond the question of the adoption of guidelines.
We believe that the widespread use by law enforcement of CCTV for
investigatory purposes without a warrant, without probable cause to conduct what
is, in fact, a search and without individualized suspicion violates the Constitution.
We also believe that CCTV video surveillance technologies as they are
developing are an extraordinarily intrusive form of search. In many respects, as
the technology develops, they will be even more intrusive than wire tapping or
other similar efforts.
CCTV, from our perspective, can be grossly abused by recording intimate
and private conduct, in marking the innocent for tracking solely on the basis of
characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation or political beliefs. No
other technique available to police can in such graphic detail record personal and
private behavior. As one federal court said, quote, video surveillance is more
invasive of privacy than audio surveillance just as a strip search is more invasive
than a pat-down search. Now, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that
the police will, in fact, be allowed to use CCTV without a warrant, without
judicial supervision, it is not just the absence of voluntary guidelines and
protocols or the sort that you are discussing over the course of the next two days,
which alarms us. It is the absence of federal and state laws that limit the scope of
CCTV and provide meaningful remedies for the victims of the abuse of CCTV
and criminal penalties for public officials, including law enforcement officers
who violate the rights of individuals.
14
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
Now let me hasten to add that we do not concede that the routine by law
enforcement of CCTV will ultimately pass constitutional muster. Even if the
federal Constitution is interpreted to allow the warrantless use CCTV, as I am
sure most of you know each of our states has its own Constitution. In many of
our states, the state constitutional guarantees for privacy exceed that of those that
have been found by the United States Supreme Court to be in the United States
Constitution.
In Oakland, California, where video surveillance was rejected by the City
Council, one of the factors in the rejection was the understanding that the
California Constitution has a specific provision protecting privacy and that that
provision has been interpreted as providing additional guarantees of rights that go
beyond that given by the United States Constitution. There have also already
been decisions in Hawaii and Indiana under their state Constitutions that call into
question the use of videotape evidence obtained without a warrant.
Now specifically what is it that we fear about CCTV? Why does the
ACLU think that the increasing use of CCTV poses a threat to our civil liberties?
First what we fear is the growing sophistication and power of this technology.
You have had only a taste of what is available and possible even now in the
presentations that you have heard this morning. For example, CCTV essentially
is capable of turning police officers into supermen and superwomen with powers
of observation that go far beyond what they can see with the naked eye. For
example, high resolution that goes beyond ordinary vision is already a fact of life.
As you have seen, systems that allow operators to zoom in from a hundred yards
away and to read the lettering on a twenty dollar bill also allow police officers to
read the print on a political flyer that's being distributed on a public sidewalk.
Technology today includes night-vision systems, as you have seen, which can
work in pitch blackness bringing images up to daylight level. It includes infrared
high sensitivity equipment in systems operating outside the visible light spectrum.
These include forwarded-looking infrared radar systems, FLRs, that can detect
activity behind walls. And we now are undergoing trials with electromagnetic
imaging technology, such as the millimeter wave radar currently being tested in
airports. This technology will allow the operators to see through clothing,
creating a remarkably detailed, and I would hasten to add lurid, picture of naked
bodies. Of course, all this technology will ultimately, as I think it has in Britain
already, converge with other forms of technology. For example, computerized
face recognition technologies that allow for the automatic comparison of facial
images captured by CCTV with databases containing photographs of known
individuals. We already see that that has been implemented in parts of Great
Britain. With the advent of digitized photo licenses here in the United States,
some of which have already been sold to commercial entities, the technology for
this sort of instant recognition based on capture of images by CCTV and the
comparison using the computerized face recognition techniques already exist. It
is already in place.
Now, alone and in combination, the CCTV technology presents are well
the impossibilities for surveillance and I believe invites abuse. The experience of
Great Britain, which I know you will be hearing more about this morning, I would
15
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
like to give you a different perspective on. Private advocates of Great Britain
who have followed this issue believe, and I think have documented, that the
experience is not quite as rosy as I suspect it will be presented to you. First, there
has been a very real issue of racially discriminatory use of CCTV in Great Britain.
After all, this technology is ultimately at the disposal and under the control of
human beings, and we all have our faults and our prejudices. A recent report by
Hall University in Great Britain highlighted the endemic discrimination against
blacks, gays, minorities and young people through the use of CCTV by authorities
who were using it to track movements of individuals of, quote, interest in the
(unintelligible) public meetings, marches and demonstrations. It's work taking a
moment for me to quote for you from a report that is entitled The Unforgiving
Eye CCTV Surveillance in Public Space. This is the report from Hall University.
It found that, quote, the young and male and black were systematically and
disproportionately targeted, not because of their involvement in crime or disorder
but for no obvious reason. Also targeted were young people described as -- and
here we have a British term -- scrotes, the homeless and anyone who directly
challenged the right of the cameras to monitor them. It also found that one in ten
women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons by the male operators of
these cameras. Now, I know that this view will not be popular in this room, but I
am here to tell you that racial profiling and stereotyping is a reality, not just the
British criminal justice system but the American criminal justice system as well.
Just a few weeks ago, the head of the New Jersey State Police, which is now
under Justice Department investigation for racial profiling on the highways, was
fired for a remark by Governor Whitman of New Jersey for remarks suggesting
that minorities could be targeted because they were more likely to use drugs, an
assertion which is not even factually correct. Minorities are more likely to be
arrested for drugs, but no more likely to use them.
One study of police stops on the interstate highways in Maryland also
gives us some insight into the nature of this problem. Over several months in
1995, a survey found that 73 percent of the cars stopped and searched on the
interstate highways in Maryland were driven by African-Americans. Well, only
14 percent of the drivers using the interstate highways were African-Americans.
While the arrest rates, and I think this is important -- while the arrest rates were
about the same for whites and people of color, approximately 28 percent, the
disproportionate number of stops of minorities resulted in a disproportionate
number of persons of color being arrested. Those are examples of racial
stereotyping, racial profiling already existing in the United States which I believe
that problem will be exacerbated by the use of CCTV. And I also believe that
there is every reason to believe that the police will target persons who they
believe, based not on reasonable suspicion, probable cause reviewed by a judge,
but individuals based on their own beliefs, their own belief systems, who are
likely to commit crimes. And that will result in increased racial stereotyping and
profiling.
CCTV can also be used to surveil political activities. At the City
University of New York, a camera was installed, as reported by the New York
press, by the college's security director and a suit was brought against the
16
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
university by student and faculty members. In that case, the security director
conceded in an affidavit that the camera had been concealed in a student meeting
room in order to monitor campus political groups. Also in New York, we
experience the extensive video monitoring of the Million Youth March in Harlem.
Now, recording persons engaged in expressive activities and the use of the rights
of free expression and speech under the First Amendment can and does have a
chilling effect on ordinary people who will shy away from political activities if
they believe they are being recorded, but it is also a reality for those persons who
take to the streets to express their points of view.
Voyeuristic use of CCTV, as I suggested earlier, is also another concern.
Even with the protocols that you have heard about, that bar peering through
windows are targeting women, there have been peeping toms behind the cameras
in Great Britain. The potential privacy danger of private use of this was
illustrated in Great Britain when Barry Golding released a film entitled, quote,
Caught in the Act, which compiled, quote, juicy bits from street video
surveillance cameras that included sex acts and other intimate contact, and
footage involving intimate details of the behavior of the innocent and lawbreaker
alike.
The British, of course, are not unique in their interest in sexual matters.
Last summer the New York media reported on a police sergeant in Brooklyn who
it described as a whistle blower who had blown the whistle on some fellow
officers for their improper use of cameras. According to her attorney, as quoted
in one of our local papers, she said -- he said, rather, quote, They were taking
pictures of civilian women in the area from breast shots to the backside.
Now let me anticipate what I think will be the reaction of many advocates
of law enforcement use of surveillance. Initially I am sure that many of you will
think, well, privacy is not absolute, we have to balance it against the good that is
done and the crime reduction that is accomplished by the use of this technology.
But I am not convinced by the available hard evidence that CCTV use actually
cuts crime and I don't think you should be either, especially when we are talking
about spending substantial amounts of taxpayer dollars that could be spent on
what I believe are less intrusive and more effective means of policing. Now, in
evaluating these rosy statistics claiming reductions in crime, we really need to
look to the evidence in Great Britain, which is the country that has had the longest
history with CCTV and which the most studies have been conducted by
criminologists, sociologists, et cetera.
Now I know that these rosy predictions and claims have a very superficial
appeal. But let me suggest to you that the criminologists who have studied these
matters in Great Britain are not quite so sure that these statistics are, in fact,
proving that CCTV reduces crime overall. They ask the question, for example, do
the statistics reflect other factors that might be playing a role in the reduction of
crime in a particular area. For example, are there other crime techniques that are
being employed -- anti-crime techniques, rather, that are being employed
simultaneously with the camera; does the community have better lighting, a
greater presence of police officers on the street; are there neighborhood watch
groups who are also present on the street. All of those factors may well be
17
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
contributing to and may be the real cause of reductions in crimes in particular
neighborhoods. The criminologists also ask the question whether or not crime
reductions within surveillance areas are being offset by crime increases in other
areas, the so-called displacement effect that you've all heard a little bit about.
Now as I said, the evidence from Great Britain is at best mixed and I think
that the glowing reports that we hear in the United States of the benefits of CCTV
cannot be proven. For example, there have been three recent criminological
reports in Great Britain done by the home office, the Scottish office and
Southbank University which have discredited the conventional wisdom about the
use of these cameras. And a report to the Scottish office on the impact of CCTV,
a fellow by the name of Jason Ditton who is Director of the Scottish Center for
Criminology, argued vociferously that the claims of crime reduction are a little
more than fantasy. He said, quote, All evaluations and statistics we have seen so
far are wholly unreliable. The British Journal of Criminology described the
statistics as, quote, post- hoc shoestring efforts by untrained and self-interested
practitioners.
Finally, let me try to anticipate what I think many of you may be thinking
in this room, which is -- and I believe that everyone in this room is a person of
good faith and I am very grateful for the opportunity to be here today and to speak
with you, and I know that many of you put greater weight than I do on some of
the anecdotal evidence you have heard about crime reduction this morning, and
you will hear from Great Britain, than I do. Many of you are convinced of the
law enforcement benefits of CCTV in ways that I am not convinced. But even if
we assume that we are going forward with CCTV extensively within the law
enforcement community, let me suggest that I would like to challenge the premise
of this conference, that the abuses of this technology can be controlled by
voluntary guidelines. That is simply not enough. The stakes are way too high. If
law enforcement use of CCTV is to be greatly expanded, and as I think I made
clear I hope that it will not be, the victims of abuse, the victims of rights
violations must be guaranteed those rights and they must be given enforceable
remedies for the violations of those right.
We already have, as I am sure most of you know, federal and state laws
which create criminal penalties for illegal wiretapping and give the victims of
illegal wiretapping civil remedies. At this same conference that I spoke about two
days ago, Scott Charney from the Justice Department described a case prosecuted
by the Justice Department of a sheriff who was illegally, without (unintelligible),
without a warrant, without probable cause, wiretapping a teacher because of the
belief that that teacher was gay. And the Justice Department had brought criminal
charges against this particular sheriff.
Those laws exist for audio surveillance, for wiretapping. They need to
exist for video surveillance, as well. Modern video surveillance has all and
perhaps greater potential dangers than does wiretapping and we need analogous
laws to the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect us from the
illegal use of video surveillance. Voluntary guidelines are not enough. They will
always be weak and by their nature they are unenforceable. That's what voluntary
means. There must be laws that create real remedies when CCTV is used for
18
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
political surveillance purposes, to target people of color, to target women for
voyeuristic purposes and to target sexual minorities. When camera cops act as
voyeurs, as they have in Great Britain, there must be significant civil and criminal
penalties.
In the age of America's funniest home videos and the widespread
commercial use of amateur television, we also need laws, not guidelines, laws,
that protect the privacy and security of tapes and guarantee their swift destruction
after their evidence or value has been used up. Our open records laws and
freedom of information laws also need to be amended to take into account that
public records are being created here by public bodies, by police officers
employed by the government, which are subject in many states now to open
records requests.
Now, CCTV is a path I hope that law enforcement will not go down. But
at a minimum, I think it's incumbent on you if you intend -- both the law
enforcement community and the security industry, if you intend to go down this
path, that you take serious steps, enforceable and seek enforceable remedies for
persons who are the victims of abuse. Let me suggest to you that you need to go
beyond toothless guidelines. I urge you to join with the ACLU and the civil
liberties community in a campaign to the congress in federal, state and local
legislatures to enact meaningful legal protections. Guidelines are not enough.
Guidelines can and will be violated and in most cases the penalty for violation is
quite limited and will have very little deterrent effect, as we will be discussing at
some length today, preventing the misuse of this technology.
Thank you.
LESSING GOLD: Barry, thank you very much. Barry, how long are you
going to be here this morning?
BARRY STEINHARDT: I can only be here until about 11:15.
LESSING GOLD: Well, then let's open it up for about ten minutes of
questioning now.
For those of you who are going to ask questions, please get up and state
your name and ask the question.
MICHAEL O'CONNELL: My name is Mike O'Connell, the Police Chief
in Tinley Park, Illinois. Is there any aspect at this point that the ACLU does
support? And the second part of the question is if there is federal and state law
which covers what you have espoused now, where do you think the ACLU will
go as far as supporting this?
BARRY STEINHARDT: What we are talking about here, of course, is
CCTV use by law enforcement. We'll put aside the questions of its private use. I
think there may be some role for CCTV in situations where it is important to
monitor the behavior of police officers themselves in order to verify that police
are acting properly. You know, there have been discussions about the use of
CCTV in patrol cars, interrogation rooms. We have some doubts about that,
because we are interested in the rights not only of criminal suspects but the police
as well, but that's something I think is discussible.
19
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
Let me reach to your second question, which is the question of if there
were adequate state and federal laws that protected against these abuses, would
we support CCTV. Now, the answer in the first instance is no. We still think that
these are searches that should be preceded by a warrant, should be preceded by
judicial review. But we are making the assumption that that may not turn out to
be the law. It may turn out that when this question ultimately reaches the United
States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will allow this kind of warrantless
search to go on. Although as I said, in many states, the state supreme courts may
not allow it to go on.
To the extent to which it exists, we think that it's incumbent on you all to
support legislation that will protect against these abuses. You know, in a sense I
am asking you to prove me wrong, to prove that my skepticism is misplaced and
my fears are misplaced, that this technology can be controlled. It will be
controlled and the best way to do that is through enforceable laws.
LESSING GOLD: You anticipated the second question. Well, we'll move
on. Pete, do you have a question?
PETER LESSER: Yeah. Peter Lesser of Security Industry Association.
Does the ACLU spend any time whatsoever and any money researching the
public and how consumers feel about CCTV?
BARRY STEINHARDT: We have had some professional polling done on
privacy issues. I don't think that they have specifically included CCTV. I have
not seen the results of that. The interesting thing about this polling, however, is
that it shows that in overwhelming numbers the American public is concerned
about their privacy, is concerned about the erosion in privacy that comes from
technology like CCTV which is exposing all of us to increasing amounts of
surveillance and data collection.
LESSING GOLD: Next question?
MICHAEL BRASSFIELD: Mike Brassfield, Ft. Lauderdale Police
Department.
Mr. Steinhardt, first I want to thank you for agreeing to come here,
because it's not often that we have someone who might be perceived or an
organization that might be perceived to (unintelligible). I am curious, though,
with your role in protecting the freedoms on the Internet. I take that to be the
thrust of some of your -- there are a number of websites with fixed cameras right
now in public places twenty-four hours a day, and observe either the sun coming
up over San Francisco Bay or Ft. Lauderdale Beach, for instance. Does the
ACLU have any position on fixed cameras in public places that are beyond the
control of pan, tilt and zoom? They record what they see in a public place. Do
you have any concerns of that?
LESSING GOLD: The question is: Does ACLU have any concerns about
cameras in a fixed public place that are not whether manually guided?
MICHAEL BRASSFIELD: Connected to the Internet.
MICHAEL BRASSFIELD: Let me clarify that. Answer it both ways, if
you will -BARRY STEINHARDT: Okay.
20
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
MICHAEL BRASSFIELD: -- even if it is not connected to real time for
the general public but assuming the state's public laws, which in Florida are very
(unintelligible).
BARRY STEINHARDT: Well, I certainly know about those.
Periodically as I drive up to Cape Cod for vacation and have looked at the Bourne
Bridge on the Internet to see what the traffic is like -- you know, our concerns, of
course, are much less about cameras that are used for, you know, for example,
traffic control that are just wide shots of general conditions and don't really allow
for the surveillance of individuals or the collection of personally identifiable
information. Our concerns are much less about that kind of technology than what
is becoming the reality of CCTV use by law enforcement, which is high
resolution, highly detailed, highly informative kinds of surveillance and camera
shots.
LESSING GOLD: Let's get a question over here.
JOHN FIRMAN: Hi. My name is John Firman. I'm the Director of
Research for the International Association of Chief of Police. I'll admit my bias
right away.
A quick comment on voluntary guidelines and then my question. Just to
correct the record on voluntary guidelines, the massive amount of policies,
procedures and guidelines in place with eighteen thousand law enforcement
agencies all over the country are voluntary. They are getting -- come from -referred by the National Sheriff's Association (unintelligible) the IACP. And
actually what happens is police departments willingly, aggressively adopt and
enforce those guidelines. So in terms of voluntary guidelines, I'm a big fan.
Actually I was intrigued by something you said and I also compliment
your being here with us. You said that there are other less expensive and more
effective ways to help the police, to assist police in enforcement and prevention
than CCTV. I'd just like to hear you, if you could, articulate what you think some
of those are.
BARRY STEINHARDT: Well, let me actually respond to your comment
first and then I will answer your question.
LESSING GOLD: Can we move on with the question, because we are
going to have to cut the -BARRY STEINHARDT: Oh.
LESSING GOLD: -- debate off.
BARRY STEINHARDT: All right, fine. Then I'll answer it very quickly.
Better lighting, community policing on the streets, use of neighborhood watches,
techniques for investigation that do not accord the police with what amounts to
superhuman powers aided by technology to conduct surveillance.
LESSING GOLD: Okay. One more question.
THOMAS SEAMON: Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Tom
Seamon. I'm the Vice President of Public Safety for the University of
Pennsylvania. And I'd like to try to clarify, if I could -- if you could clarify the
ACLU's position on several things. First of all, is it the position that monitoring
public places where citizens have no reasonable expectation of privacy that is
monitored by the police or other law enforcement agency, if that constitutional or
21
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
unconstitutional. And then taking a variation of that, continuous monitoring by a
private citizen, his video, in a public place where citizens have no reasonable
expectation of privacy, what is the ACL's position on that?
BARRY STEINHARDT: To begin with, we don't accept the premise that
people walking on public streets, public parks ought to have no expectation of
privacy. I think that line of cases that come into the United States Supreme Court
is simply wrong. It has, in fact, been rejected by a number of state courts under
their own Constitution. We all have rights of privacy and the rights of privacy
include our conduct in public places.
What we're talking about here is technology that goes well beyond what
can be seen by the human eye, and it is that technology that we need to be
concerned about. We need to be concerned about empowering,imbuing police
officers with these superhuman powers to conduct covert surveillance of
individuals.
I do want to just take one moment to answer the comment about voluntary
guidelines. Voluntary guidelines are cold comfort to someone who has their
rights violated and who wants to go to court to have those rights enforced. It's
cold comfort to a woman who's the victim of a peeping tom behind the camera. It
will be cold comfort to members of minority groups where the subject of racial
profiling and stereotyping that results in their being the ones who are surveilled.
It will be cold comfort to political activists who are surveilled because of their
expression of their free speech rights. We need to have laws, not just voluntary
guidelines, that give people real remedies and they create real penalties for those
people who violate the laws.
LESSING GOLD: The second part was with reference to private citizens.
BARRY STEINHARDT: Well, I was requested to address the question of
police use of CCTV. We do think that there need to be laws that address the
question of private use of CCTV and to create some reasonable boundaries for the
use of that, yes. But we didn't have time to get into that this morning.
LESSING GOLD: Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry. I have been advised
that we are out of time. We're trying to keep on track here.
Barry, thank you very much and I might add if you have an opportunity to
come back this afternoon, we will be having our workshops. It might be very
useful if you can attend. Thank you very much.
LESSING GOLD: Our next speaker is a very distinguished
member of the bar of D.C. and of Arizona, Mr. James Falk, Senior. He has
practiced in Washington, D.C. for over twenty-five years and served two terms in
the D.C. Bar Judicial Evaluation Panel. His practice is focused on litigation and
constitutional issues. He has served as staff assistant to the president and on the
Domestic Council in the White House through 1976. His responsibility includes
state and local issues, revenue sharing and welfare reform, as well as
constitutional amendments.
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Mr. James H. Falk,
Senior.
22
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
JAMES FALK: Mr. Gold, thank you very much, and Richard Chace,
thank you very much. I want to first congratulate you on what I think has been a
very well organized conference and a conference designed to really flush out the
issues, if you will. I think the only part of the timing that is more than
coincidental is that I always seem to follow the ACLU speaker. I spoke at the
ABA convention in Toronto in August and was on a panel with a member of the
ACLU who, I thought, took a slightly different position than Barry did today. But
notwithstanding that, I think that there is some ground, if you will, for getting the
positions of law enforcement and the ACLU closer together. And while I had
some organized kinds of remarks and wanted to tell you a few things about the
liability panel and wanted to tell you a few things about the Supreme Court's
decision in the Katz case, which sets forth the two-part standard, the two-part test,
which specifies that a warrant is required only where the object of the search has a
reasonable expectation of privacy in a given situation and where that particular
exception is recognized as reasonable by the public as a whole. I think the ACLU
representatives I have met with in the past have conceded that the Katz case
represents the law, have conceded that all of the federal courts that have looked at
the issue have upheld the use of closed-circuit television in public places today.
And I think the Bar Associations adopted guidelines which I would urge you to
take a quick look at. If you can put that -- if you could dim the lights just a little
bit, it will be probably easier to read.
The Criminal Justice Section of the ABA structured a task force on
technology and law enforcement to examine detection devices in general and to
develop a policy guideline. And I think they really were looking at two issues,
because the first issue we have always heard from law enforcement on is that law
enforcement's number one priority is to be able to determine whether or not that
person I'm approaching is armed, does that person have a gun, does that person
have a weapon.
So weapon specific devices were the first thing that the ABA committee
was charged with looking at. But they were also charged with looking at closedcircuit television and video in public. And I think an ACLU member sat on the
task force and I think that they supported these guidelines, the guidelines
providing that as long as the devices could not see into a particular area and that
the Fourth Amendment would allow a traditional search, that that would be
acceptable and that weapon specific devices could also be utilized and contraband
specific devices could be utilized whenever police can articulate a reason to
believe that they might locate contraband. And under these standards, the bottom
paragraph, the use of devices would be permitted if they are reasonably likely to
achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective, have been approved by a
politically accountable public official, local government, and thirdly, have been
presented to the public which must be given an opportunity for fair comment.
And I think that -- I don't know what that buzzer was, but I'm out of time. Thank
you very much. It's been a pleasure being here and I'll see you all later.
LESSING GOLD: No, that was Mr. Steinhardt to let you know that he is
here.
23
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
JAMES FALK: I think that one thing I would say with respect to Barry
Steinhardt's position is that I did not expect him to concede the constitutionality of
CCTV, notwithstanding that several of -- all of the federal courts that I am aware
of that have addressed the issue have upheld its constitutionality without a
warrant. He will not be willing to concede that position until the U.S. Supreme
Court has specifically addressed it in a CCTV case. And frankly there are none
migrating their way through the federal system right now that I'm aware of. So
it's probably going to be a long time before we get the ACLU to concede the
constitutionality of this process that no federal court has been willing to hold was
unconstitutional.
The real issue, as I see it, from the ACLU's perspective is the perception
of fear, and that is why this whole business of public involvement and public
comment is so important. It's important because you have to minimize public
fear. You have to minimize public fear to be able to not just stave off the
lawsuits, but you have to minimize public fear to prevent the other point of attack.
I think this policy statement of the ABA allows organizations like the ACLU
three very direct areas of attack. They can attack it through the political process.
They can go to the mayor and council and argue that it should not be employed,
which they did in Oakland. I think there have been two communities in the
country that attempted to do closed-circuit television and then later abandoned it
because the political process said no. One of those was Oakland. I think the other
was Miami. In Baltimore, the political process has gone the other way. In
Baltimore, the political process has applauded the whole process, but I think that
the key is that organizations like the ACLU have a fair shot at stopping this
process through the political process in any community they want to attack it in.
And secondly, they have a fair shot at attacking the process when public comment
periods are had. But if you have done all those things, you have a stronger case
for defending the installation of closed-circuit television in a community once you
have done so.
The process that you are in the midst of, which is the process of adopting
guidelines, I think would be -- and if you could go to that chart with the one on it.
It doesn't really have much on it, but the next three charts are kind of a play on
this same notion and that is that, number one, if your guidelines, your voluntary
guidelines, satisfy the ABA Criminal Justice guidelines for electronic surveillance
and, number two, I think if there is real consultation with the public, and then
number three, if you inform the public. This little triangular sign is one used in
England: Smile, you are on 24-hour CCTV. And it alerts people to the fact that
they are being watched 24 hours a day if they are in that particular zone of
coverage.
The other element of fear with respect to technology developments that
Barry talked about is more difficult to address, but similarly has been dealt with
by the courts to this point in time by the same kind of response; that is, that it is
constitutional to use forward-looking infrared devices without a warrant. Flare
devices used from helicopters have been sanctioned without a warrant. Flare
devices being used by patrol cars of the U.S. Park Police have been sanctioned as
appropriate.
24
Session: Legal Update on the Use of Technology for Campus Law Enforcement and Human Resource Management
The problem is not, in my judgment, the technology itself. The problem is
the distinction between public areas and private areas. Where does that
distinction lie? Where is that bright line? And the pointing of a camera through a
window and photographing what's going on inside a private area is the kind of a
problem that I think has a whole range of different solutions. We're right now
negotiating a labor contract for one of the hockey leagues and they want to
bargain on this issue. It's a collective bargaining issue. And they want to bargain
on the issue and the players' association wants to make sure that there are cameras
in the corridors outside the locker rooms, because there are so many people that
attempt to get into the locker room. They would like to be able to have cameras
in the tunnels, cameras in the corridors, cameras in various parts of the stadiums,
but not in the locker rooms themselves.
JAMES FALK: -- employees of the hotel using marijuana and they ended
up being sued and having to settle the case paying hundreds of thousands of
dollars for monitoring over a long period of time indiscriminately all of their
employees that were in that locker room.
This example outlines the importance of disclosure. It also outlines the
importance of information about where the cameras are, where they are installed,
and what they are looking at, and if you give people notice. We were talking last
night about some of the emerging in new areas. One of those -- it's at the bottom
of that list but I think it's probably the most important -- is public schools. And in
the public schools today, school buses and public school buildings, the issue is
going to be where are the private areas. Not what is the technology, but where are
the private areas versus the public areas. And I think that's what you really have
to focus on when you're talking and thinking about what the limitations of
voluntary guidelines are going to be.
25