Exh 8BAGENDA ITEM #8B
NOVEMBER 14, 200
STAFF REPORT
City of Atlantic Beach
Commission Meeting
AGENDA ITEM: Police/Cameras in Public Parks
DATE: October 28, 2005
SUBMITTED BY: David E. Thompson, Chief of PolicelDPS
BACKGROUND:
Over the past year, a number of suggestions have been made relative to the City
installing cameras in public parks to monitor activities and deter crime. This has been
offered as an alternative to housing a police officer in the parks. The purpose of this
report is to provide an analysis of the issues, strengths, and challenges associated with
placing cameras in public parks, and to compare/contrast it with having a police officer
living on-site.
Before we discuss "putting cameras in public parks", we need to recognize that this
concept has different meanings and implications to different people.
Examples of questions:
1. What type of cameras will be used?
2. Will the cameras work well under low light conditions?
3. What will the cameras look like?
4. Where will the camera be mounted?
5. Where can the photos/video be viewed?
6. Will the camera always be monitoring in real time?
7. Will the camera just record the video to be viewed later?
8. Who will view the video?
9. Will there be restrictions on the use of the video and/or monitoring?
10. How will the video be used?
11. If it is a public record, then will the video be subject to the public records laws?
12. Will the use of the cameras violate the privacy rights of people who are lawfully
using the park?
13. What notification requirements are necessary and desirable for the public?
14. Will the camera be sufficiently "vandalism-proof?"
15. How many cameras are needed?
16. Where should/should not cameras be placed?
17. How much are we willing to spend for adding cameras?
18. Does the need justify the expenditure of funds?
19. What are the hidden costs (ongoing expenses, manpower, maintenance)?
AGENDA ITIJNI #3B
NOVI:bIBIrR 14, 2005
The reason for asking these questions is to underscore the fact that buying cameras for
the parks is not a simple matter. Each decision opens new possibilities and new
questions to be addressed and answered.
Privacy questions are likely to emerge, regardless of the type of camera system that is
installed in a public park.
People have different expectations of privacy on private property as compared to
public property. The perception ofvideo-recording people who are in a public place
and engaged in lawful behavior is disquieting to some people. They worry about the
possible abuses that could evolve from such monitoring.
If the City observes and records video data, then what aze the limitation on the use of
the data? Can someone make a public records request to acquire a video? Are there
any limitations on such requests?
If someone monitors activities and observes people involved in "highly personal"
behaviors, does the person monitoring the behavior have any obligations relative to
viewing, recording, etc.?
Type of Camera:
I. Digital Video with Real Time Data Transmitted to Central Location
One of the possible setups is to place a camera or several cameras at locations where
the cameras will feed video back to a central location to be monitored, recorded, etc.
This is a common setup for security inside of buildings and facilities where they have
a security person who constantly views the videos. The person can take action; as
necessary, to deal with problems that arise. Typically, the video is recorded, and it is
erased after a specific timeframe.
' ' In the private world, this information is not a public record, and the private company
has no obligation to provide the video data to the public. The company posts
warnings relative to the video systems, and anyone entering the property does so with
the understanding that they may be monitored.
This type of system provides Real Time video data that can be acted upon
' immediately..Cameras can be set with an alarm, based on motionlinfrared/etc., that
will alert the person monitoring the system tivhile highlightinb that c~nera's specific
view on the monitoring screen. This allows the person to pan/tilt/zoom and record to
' get a better view of the activities.
The system can monitor multiple sites that are literally miles apart from one another,
and the viewing can be done from one monitoring station. The video data can also be
made available to other city staff members so that they can monitor activities, too.
AGENDA ITIr1~I #gB
NOVENIBIJR 14, 2005
• This type of system would be very beneficial in areas with high crime rates or in high
hazard areas. Placing such a video system in a utility plant to monitor tons of
chlorine would be a valid application for this type of technology. In a public park, it
.would allow the police to respond to an incident in progress, and possibly deter
and/or apprehend offenders.
Technologically,
For video cameras to be effective, they must be able to record under very low light
conditions, and this cari increase the cost of the equipment. Based on the lighting at
the location of the camera, it can be very difficult to obtain good images. Lighting
may also require considerable energy on site to run the equipment.
The security of the data would be fairly good because the data stream would be
recorded on disk, probably at the location of the monitoring. For example, if the
video was fed back to the police department, then the data would probably be
recorded at the police department. If someone destroyed the camera, then the data
would still be intact.
The streaming of video data to a central location requires specific equipment for the
data transmission.. If there is city owned cable available for data transmission, then
the cost may be very affordable. If there is no available city cable, then the
transmission will require leasing existing lines or installing a wireless transmission
system. These can be very costly.
The video must be received and monitored, and this requires space and persoruxel.
When the video is sent to a location, it is necessary to have monitors on which to
view the images. The viewing screens must be placed where they can be monitored
' by a person. And, a person must be assigned to the responsibility of monitoring it.
Typically, police departments use Emergency Communications Operators. However,
Atlantic Beach often has one (1) person working on a shift, and other priorities may
' detract from monitoring activities.
Of the various camera options, this is probably the most expensive one.
II. Continuous Digital Wideo Stored On-SiteJNo Monitoring
This would cn~ail installing a ca-nera that would simply record data on-site. The
images would be taken at the site, and they would be stored on disk at that location.
- This option would be less expensive than option #I. This would not require the
expensive equipment necessary for data transmission. Dummy cameras could also be
installed along with the "real" cameras, and the perception of additional coverage .
would be enhanced at a very modest price.
AGIrNDA ITI:NI #8B
NOVElYIBIJR 14, 200
However, if something happened at the location of the camera, then the camera would
provide a record that could be reviewed and used in the investigation.
. If the camera was destroyed/vandalized, then the data stored at that location would
probably be destroyed.
The camera would only be useful after-the-fact. It would not prevent crimes from
occurring, and it would not notify the police to respond.
Without the ability to pan/tiltlzoom, the quality of the video images would be very
limited.
III. Hybrid Systems
With the technology that is available today, alarm systems are only limited by the
imagination. In some places, cameras have been installed with "alarm" systems.
When a sensor is activated, the camera takes a photograph and the alarm system plays
an announcement that the intruder is trespassing, and his/her photograph has already
been taken.
Some systems have radios, and they send a radio message to the local police
department letting them know that an intrusion has taken place at that location.
Some systems are activated by motion, infrared, or pressure sensitive devices.
ComparisonJContrasttyith On-Site Police/Residential Housing:
The concept of having police officers living in or near public parks has been widely
implemented and accepted throughout the country. It has very distinct advantages
and disadvantages relative to security. Among the advantages are the high levels of
public acceptance and tl~e ability of people to communicate directly with a human
being. A police officer assigned to a park should not merely exist for security
purposes. The officer should interact with people at the park, and the officer should
be able to provide information and guidance on environmental and safety issues. The
officer should have specific patroUmaintenance/safety duties that will enhance the
park operations.
Pelow, please see some of lice comparisons/contrasts relative to Poiice OlTicers and
Cameras:
Police Officer/Residences
High level of public acceptance
Cameras
Questionable Privacy Rights Issues
Deterrent value high throughout the park Deterrence limited to camera areas
AGENDA ITEM #SB
NOVEhIBER 14, 2005
Officer required to perform patrols
Vandalism generally low
.Interaction with staff is high
Staff can provide assistance and
information to visitors
Vandalism generally high
Interaction is non-existent
Public exposure is 24/7
Initial $ investment is high
Administration can be challenging
due to personnel issues
Questions/Answers:
Cameras operate 24/7, although low
lighting conditions are problematic
Initial $ investment is variable, can
be done incrementally
Administration does not include
personnel selection and related
issues
Q: Would cameras in the pazk have deterred the crimes that have occurred over the
past several years?
A: Deterrence varies dramatically according to the facts, circumstances, and actors in
each criminal incident. For example, cameras would probably have had very little
deterrent effect on the suspect who assaulted a Parks and Recreation employee at
Tide Views Preserve. A camera mounted in the parking lot would not have prevented
the fires that destroyed sections of the boardwalk at Tide Views several years ago.
' On the other hand, if cam~ra:~ were installed to constantly monitor activities at the
. , park, then chances are good that prostitution and drug offenses would be deterred.
People who intended to commit crimes may have chosen other locations if they knew
' that the area was under video surveillance.
Q: Is an officer living close-by a more effective deterrent?
A: People who ure goi:.g to co:rmit c.^~mcs typically avoid the policc. `,Vhcn it
becomes public knowledge that an officer lives neaz-by and patrols the park on foot,
many of the criminals will move their activities to other sites.
Criminals are comfortable in locations with limited access and very limited visibility.
From an Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design perspective, a safe pazk
will have high levels of visibility with multiple accesses, a lot of public usage, and a
high police presence. Police presence has a track record as an effective deterrent.
AGIJNDA ITEM #8B
NOVEMB>:R 14, 2005
When evaluating the crimes that have been committed in the park over the past
several years, I believe that the police presence would have been a more effective
deterrent than installing cameras in the park.
Summary:
Both options will enhance the security in the parks.
The highest level of security would be to combine the two options into one
comprehensive program. However, I do not believe that such a combination is
necessary or desirable at this time.
BUDGET: None
RECOMMENDATIONS: None
ATTACHMENTS: None
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGE
AG A ITEM NUMBER: