Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "surveillance"

Surveillance cameras help prevent crime on Regional Transit

2011-09-03T02:18:23Z

The new cameras that were installed at several Sacramento light rail stations in May have helped prevent crimes and improve passenger safety, according to Doug Voska, a Sergeant with the Sacramento Police Department.

“People want to feel safe when they ride transit,” said Voska, who has a contract position with RT. “If they don’t feel safe, they’re not gonna do it.”

Because the cameras were primarily funded by the federal Department of Homeland Security, their main focus must be on terrorism prevention. But according to Voska, this has many crossover benefits when it comes to crime prevention and passenger safety.

“Even without a uniformed police officer, somebody is keeping an eye on things,” he said. There are officers monitoring all the cameras at the stations, and Voska said he hopes that by the end of the year, there will be people monitoring the cameras on the trains and buses as well.

Voska said that the cameras have helped officers solve numerous types of crimes, from graffiti to robbery.

The videos are often used for prosecution purposes, and the police department even uses the cameras to locate suspects who have fled from a crime scene via bus or light rail. Still, he maintained that “crime is not that high on RT, so they are primarily used for crime prevention.”

But the amount of surveillance on RT is causing some outcry among personal privacy advocates. Cres Vellucci, a member of the board of the Sacramento Chapter of the ACLU, said he is concerned over what he sees as an Orwellian affront on privacy rights.

“Pervasive video surveillance does threaten privacy rights,” he said via email. “The U.S. has … been proud to proclaim that we are willing to give a little bit in security if need be to maintain our unique freedom ... Fear, however, can make us do some terrible things.”

According to Linda Lye, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, everything from data retention to the cost and effectiveness of the cameras has ACLU members worried. “Why are we investing scarce public safety dollars on methods that invade our privacy but don’t make us any safer?” she asked.

“If the government is going to implement measures that do invade our privacy, we want to be sure that they’re actually making us safer, and the data hasn’t really shown that with respect to video surveillance cameras,” Lye said.

She cited studies done by the ACLU in 2007 and by UC Berkeley in 2008 to support her claim that cameras do not make a big enough impact on crime. “The hard research shows that these (methods) don’t make us safer,” she said. “The thing that we find frustrating is this false dichotomy that’s often posed between safety and privacy.”

“There are far more effective, and much less expensive crime prevention tools,” wrote Vellucci, who recommended alternatives such as better lighting, community policing, and job and youth programs to “reduce crime and also help the local economy.”

Despite the ACLU’s opposition, Voska said that he believes the public generally supports the cameras.

“I’ve heard people say that they like the camera surveillance because they do feel safer,” he said. “Since we can’t afford to have a police officer on every train, we try to keep an eye on what’s going on … as efficiently and as effectively as we can. RT is not in a position to violate anybody’s rights.”

Like all other technology, the cameras are in constant need of upkeep. “Everybody who has a camera system has to deal with malfunctions,” Voska said. This includes everything from technical problems to issues with shrubbery growing into the cameras’ fields of vision.

Vandalism has also had an effect, albeit a small one. One camera has been stolen, and several of the cameras have been lightly tagged with graffiti, Voska added.

But Voska insisted that the cameras are worth the trouble. “It’s an overwhelming desire on the part of the passengers to feel safe,” he said. “Sometimes we don’t have any (officers) there, so that’s when we keep an eye on it through cameras.”

Here are links to the studies cited by the ACLU:

UC Berkeley Study: CITRIS Report

ACLU Study: Under the Watchful Eye

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.

Police working on surveillance system

2010-12-05T22:49:21Z

The Sacramento Police Department is moving forward with plans to set up security cameras in multiple locations in the city by May 2011. However, the number of cameras the department plans to use and where they will be placed is unclear.

In April 2009, the department announced it would use $615,000 in federal Homeland Security grant funding to purchase a surveillance equipment package. The deadline for the department to buy and put the surveillance equipment into effect is next May, according to department spokesman Konrad von Schoech.

“Equipment has to be purchased and operational by May 2011, but some equipment will be operational before that date,” von Schoech wrote in an e-mail.

The department is making some headway on its plans. The City Council last week decided on a vendor, Southern California-based Absolute Surveillance, for three surveillance trailers. About $245,000 of the Homeland Security grant funding covers the trailers, according to a Nov. 30 city report.

“The camera trailer is intended to be used as a mobile video recording system where a permanent camera system is unable or undesirable to be installed,” von Schoech explained. “The deployment is usually for a short duration, just a few weeks of remote monitoring. There will be one surveillance trailer assigned to each substation.”

He further said that the department will use the camera trailers in the areas of the city’s three substations, which are located in the northern, central and southern parts of the city.

The department has some ideas for where it wants to place fixed cameras, but von Schoech said the department is not elaborating on those ideas because they are not final.

“Some locations have been identified, but not finalized,” he said. “The locations were based upon input from the area captains with input from the City Council person’s office in each district, past crime statistics and current crime trends.”

The Sacramento Press asked von Schoech to describe the process for how the locations will be selected. “There are many factors that will determine where the cameras will be placed,” he responded. “Among those factors are crime rates, crime trends, special events and areas that may present a threat to public safety. The fixed cameras will be placed based upon recommendations from City Council, the Police Department, and the availability of existing infrastructure.”

At this point, it is unknown how many fixed cameras the department intends to use. When the department announced the grant in April 2009, it said it wanted 32 security cameras to be part of the surveillance package. The police department’s request to the state for the federal grant funding also mentioned 32 cameras.

But the department is no longer saying it will use 32 cameras. Spokesman von Schoech said that he could not provide a specific number for the cameras, saying that the number will depend on many factors, including cost.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union of Sacramento maintains its position that the cameras represent a privacy violation. The group protested the department’s plans in 2009.

“The ACLU wants Americans to have their privacy respected,” said Debra Reiger, chair of the local chapter.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

City/police e-mails describe planned surveillance system

2009-08-04T18:05:26Z

The Sacramento Press is publishing a series of documents and e-mails about the city’s planned surveillance system. In May and June e-mails, city officials and staffers were preparing to defend the city’s planned surveillance system against criticism from the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The city plans to buy a $615,000 surveillance system with 32 security cameras, four mobile surveillance trailers and other related equipment. Sacramento officials announced in April that the city had been chosen to receive Federal Homeland Security grant funds to pay for the surveillance package. However, the city is still waiting for the California Emergency Management Agency to provide the federal funds.

The Sacramento Police Department and the Sacramento County chapter of the ACLU have sparred over the cameras: The ACLU argues that they do not counter crime, while police department spokesman Norm Leong contends that they are a helpful tool.

Police department managers and staffers at the offices of Mayor Kevin Johnson and City Councilman Rob Fong discussed the ACLU’s criticism of the cameras in May 19 and June 1 e-mail messages.

Documents that provide details on the planned surveillance system are available here.

Read about the formal procedures that Sacramento police personnel will follow when working with surveillance cameras.

The California Public Records Act request submitted by the Sacramento County chapter of the ACLU to City Manager Ray Kerridge can be read here.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Police: Security cameras on Del Paso used infrequently

2009-07-14T05:18:08Z

As civil liberties advocates and city officials debate the city’s plans to implement a new surveillance system, three security cameras are already operating on Del Paso Boulevard.

Joann Cummins, district director for City Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy, said the Del Paso Boulevard cameras will be useful for recording evidence to prosecute a couple of liquor stores that are allegedly creating a public nuisance.

The Sacramento Press reported in a July 8 story that the local American Civil Liberties Union has raised objections to new cameras that may be installed on K Street and at other locations, arguing that they do not decrease crime. The city plans to buy 32 security cameras, four mobile surveillance trailers and other related equipment. The $615,000 surveillance package would come from Federal Homeland Security grant funds. The state will distribute the federal grant funds to the city.

The Del Paso Boulevard Partnership, a group that advocates for businesses in the area, as well as other businesses, asked Sheedy’s office to install the three cameras on the street, Cummins said, adding that while the cameras may not capture images of crimes, they will be useful for collecting evidence.

The Del Paso Boulevard cameras, which were installed earlier this year, cost $25,000 and were paid for out of redevelopment funds.

Sacramento Police Department spokesman Norm Leong said there have not been many cases -- of which he is aware -- when the three security cameras have been used as evidence. The cameras may be preventing crime, he said, noting that it is not possible to gauge prevention.

The Sacramento Press asked for statistics on how often the police department uses the security cameras. Police officers document usage of surveillance images in reports, but the department’s computer system does not track how often officers review or make copies of footage from security cameras, Leong said.

Cummins said that the cameras will enable city officials and staffers to collect evidence of public nuisance problems allegedly generated by specific businesses on the street. The cameras will provide surveillance footage that city officials can gather after crimes or problems have been committed, she said. The footage can then be used as evidence, she explained.

Sheedy’s office reviewed numerous studies on surveillance cameras and concluded that cameras do not usually capture crimes, but they do capture evidence, Cummins said.

She also said that the cameras on Del Paso Boulevard are useful because there have been traffic accidents near the cameras. Cars have crashed into city property on the street, Cummins said. Footage from the cameras can give the city information about the vehicles, she said, and make sure that the damage to the city property is paid for by the driver’s insurance company.

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.