Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "security cameras"

Police surveillance cameras installed

2011-05-03T00:57:08Z

The Sacramento Police Department is almost done installing 13 new surveillance cameras at various public places in the city including at Seventh and K streets and at the Alkali Flat light rail station downtown.

The department used a $600,000 federal Homeland Security grant to purchase the 13 new security cameras, three mobile surveillance trailers and tools to preserve surveillance images. Additionally, the department can now use more than 60 Regional Transit security cameras because it spent some of the grant money to link its surveillance system with Regional Transit’s system.

Installation of the cameras, which started in February, will be complete by Friday, said Sacramento Police Department spokeswoman Laura Peck.

In 2009, the state announced the Sacramento Police Department was selected for the federal grant money.

The new cameras will give the Sacramento Police Department the ability to gather evidence of criminal activity when crimes are reported, Peck said.

Asked how long the police department will keep video footage from the cameras, Peck said the length of time will depend on the situation. The department used the new mobile surveillance trailers at a heavily attended outdoor concert hosted by KSFM 102.5 on Capitol Mall last weekend, she said. There were no incidents as part of the event, Peck said, so there is no reason for the department to hold onto the video footage.

“But, let’s say, for example, a crime had occurred, then the footage would become part of the investigation,” she said.

If that were the case, the footage would be maintained until it was no longer needed, she said.

The KSFM concert was the first event that occurred since the department obtained the surveillance trailers, Peck said. The department will use the trailers at every event that draws a lot of people, she added.

Peck said the locations for the cameras were selected because they are “high-crime areas.”

The 13 cameras are at six spots in the city. “At some of the larger intersections (Mack and Center Parkway, for example), multiple cameras were installed to cover the area,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Sacramento County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has opposed the cameras since the department announced in 2009 that it won the federal grant money.

The local ACLU is “opposed to the use of public money to put surveillance and cameras in public places to watch people who are not doing anything wrong,” said Debra Reiger, the chapter’s president.

“It amounts to watching everybody just so you can find someone doing wrong,” she added.

But Peck disagreed. “There’s no expectation of privacy when you’re in a public place,” she said.

Three people walking near Seventh and K streets Monday were not disturbed by the round surveillance cameras attached to poles above their heads.

Cameras are a “violation of privacy,” said Ron Johnson, age 66. But they are everywhere, he said, giving the example that his cell phone has a camera.

The cameras could prevent crime in the K Street area, according to Sacramento resident Kevin Davis, age 24. They will serve as a “24-7 neighborhood watch,” he said.

And Raylene Vance, 25, said the cameras could be useful if a crime, such as a shooting, occurs.

Click on the link below to view a map that pinpoints the locations of the 13 cameras.

View Locations for new police surveillance cameras in a larger map

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Civil liberties advocates protest city's plans to install surveillance system

2009-05-27T06:09:54Z

Civil liberties lawyers and advocates are objecting to the city of Sacramento’s plans to install new security cameras and related surveillance equipment at several locations in the city.

Jim Updegraff, the chair of the Sacramento County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the City Council Tuesday that the planned surveillance system would be “an affront to the privacy and civil liberties of the citizens of the City of Sacramento.”

Mayor Kevin Johnson and Police Chief Rick Braziel last month publicized the city’s plan to use a pot of $615, 500 in Federal Homeland Security grant funds to fund a new surveillance system with 32 cameras, four mobile surveillance trailers and other related equipment. Johnson said the surveillance system was important because Sacramento has ranked second to Oakland in violent crime statistics over the past seven to eight years.

But Sacramento County’s ACLU chapter and ACLU attorneys in San Francisco are challenging Johnson and Braziel’s views.

Outside the meeting, Updegraff told The Sacramento Press that the ACLU’s opposition does not mean the group plans to sue the city. The group always tries to work with issues, he said.

But the group’s firm opposition is clear. Updegraff told the City Council that the surveillance system will invade citizens’ privacy and will not fight crime. The group is also calling on the City Council to hold a public hearing about the planned surveillance system.

“Study after study, from San Francisco to London, have demonstrated video cameras are ineffective in reducing crime,” Updegraff said.

The Sacramento County ACLU chapter and ACLU attorneys in San Francisco together are directly challenging statements Johnson made last month about the surveillance system.

“The new system will create a powerful deterrent for would-be criminals,” Johnson said last month. “Similar systems have been used in other cities around the country and played a major role in reducing crime.”

Updegraff questioned the accuracy of Johnson’s comments, noting that ACLU attorneys had studied Johnson’s remarks. “Our attorneys in San Francisco are not aware of any studies in the country that support the comments of the mayor,” Updegraff said.

The local ACLU chapter is also challenging one of Braziel’s statements.

Braziel said at a press conference last month: “The cameras we put up will only be in places that are in open view of the public, so it is no different than somebody walking down the street with their videophone and taking pictures.”

The Sacramento County ACLU chapter “disagrees” with and “deplores” Braziel’s comment, Updegraff said.

Images from innocent people’s videophones “do not end up in police files,” Updegraff said, and are not shared with other law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center.

Sacramento Police Department spokesman Konrad VonSchoech said last month that the city will hold a procurement process for the cameras and other surveillance equipment.

Police address privacy concerns over security system

2009-04-21T05:38:24Z

The Sacramento Press talked to members of the Sacramento Police Department Monday about the city’s plans to install a new $615,000 surveillance system in the coming months. Locations for the new equipment have not yet been chosen. The funding, which comes from Federal Homeland Security Grants, was awarded to the city by the state.

Sacramento Press: Can you speak to the issue of privacy concerns?

Sacramento Police Chief Rick Braziel: “The cameras we’ll put up will only be in places that are in open view to the public, so it’s no different than someone walking down the street with their videophone and taking pictures. We’re very sensitive to those issues.

In fact, early on, as we started the process, I actually met with members of the American Civil Liberties Union, when there were other issues coming up with cameras.

Any fixed cameras that we have currently that go into areas that would be considered private, we mosaic-out through software. For example, we have surveillance cameras at some of our facilities…and if they encroach in someone’s personal space, we actually mosaic that out.

But for most part, you’ll see them on K Street Mall, where areas are open to the public, and anyone can video those including the general public.”

SP: How long will you keep the video records?

Sacramento Police Department Spokesman Konrad VonSchoech said that if the police record a criminal activity on video, the department would keep the video for five years. VonSchoech said this timeframe conforms to the code for records retention.

If the video contains evidence, however, police will keep it for as long as it needs to prosecute a crime, VonSchoech said.