Eyes on you
Police say security cameras are an effective way to fight crime, but how many are too many?By BILL RODGERS, DARCIE LORENO and MARLY KOSINSKI / Tribune Chronicle
Fact Box
what about your right to privacy?
n In 1949, author George Orwell made a prediction about what the world could become by 1984:
''Big Brother is watching you. - You had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized.''
n Today, 37 out of 56 businesses and churches surveyed recently along a busy section of state Route 46 in Howland routinely film the movements and activities of shoppers, clients and visitors to their businesses, many secretly.
n Cities like Warren and Girard have turned to video cameras to protect the public and public property in areas like the Warren Community Amphitheatre, heavy crime areas and highways where traffic problems have been known to occur. Some critics say this is not protection, but a violation of a citizen's reasonable right to privacy.
n The issue has been raised before the U.S. Supreme Court numerous times. Here are a few examples of how the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted:
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
In U.S. v. Jackson, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is not a search to install video surveillance cameras on telephone poles or in any public location. However, if the surveillance requires entry into a constitutionally protected private location to install or service the equipment, a judge must issue a warrant.
AUDIO TAPING
The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to say that ''eavesdropping'' is legal because people who speak loudly enough for others to hear them knowingly expose their conversation to the public and have no reasonable expectation of privacy in that conversation.
In Katz v. U.S., 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that eavesdropping is not a search when the police (1) listen with their ears alone, and (2) are in a location where they are lawfully present.
This could include, for example, renting an apartment or hotel room next to a room or apartment where illegal activity is suspected and listening at the wall with the naked ear. However, police may not use any device to improve their listening skills, include such things as a stethoscope, a glass, or any mechanical or electronic device.
The U.S. Supreme Court has noted, however, that people who take precautions to prevent others from hearing, do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Surreptitious use of an interception device to gain access to private conversations that police are not otherwise in a position to hear generally requires a need for a search warrant.
A 1968 federal law (often referred to as Title III) enacted to expand on the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure issue made it illegal to intercept protected communication with any device (audio tape) unless a judge issues a warrant.
PHOTOGRAPHY
The First and Fourth amendments have been interpreted to give photographers the right to photograph anyone that can be seen in public, determining that if a person is in public, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Media also has the right to publish those photographs, a right protected by the First Amendment.
After some scary experiences and more than a couple strange ones, Rebekah Mancino started taking photographs of the prostitutes walking on her block.
''You can use the flash as a deterrent,'' she said, claiming that the suspected prostitutes move on whenever she takes this approach.
Mancino and her husband moved to Warren from London, England, where she grew up with her American-born parents. London has more crime than her Warren home near Washington Street N.E., but after a man held her husband at gunpoint one night for $20 and a prostitute tried slashing the tires on her husband's car, she said a more aggressive crime crackdown is needed.
For her, that means officers need to take a broad approach: bike patrols, stings and a network of surveillance cameras similar to those used in her former country.
In America, the U.S. Supreme Court maintains that producing video in private business, on street corners or in other public places is legal and not a violation of one's right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The court has determined if someone is in a public place, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Still, some privacy-rights activists say the idea raises concern.
Jeff Gamso, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, agreed businesses do have a right to post cameras to keep an eye on their properties and employees. But more and more cameras are showing up in public places, like on red lights, license plate scanners and street corners.
CAMERAS IN BUSINESSES
Businesses often use cameras in what they say is an attempt to protect their property and the public.
Niles police Chief Bruce Simeone said a lot of city businesses have security cameras, with the Eastwood Mall, for example, having a large number both inside and out. In addition to individual store cameras, there also are cameras in the parking areas, aiding police if a crime occurs at the complex.
''We use them a lot in our investigations. A security video is usually the first thing we ask for when a crime occurs,'' Simeone said recently.
Simeone said his department has purchased computer equipment that enables police to download security footage from most businesses into the department's own system, saving time that would be spent copying videos.
He said the department solved several crimes last year using security videos, noting many of the businesses have taken officers' advice on how to use and position cameras. Simeone said he is hoping tapes from businesses along state Route 46 will help solve a fatal hit-skip in April that killed a Howland woman.
Under Ohio's Sunshine laws, the videos obtained by police or downloaded into police systems would become public record, accessible to anyone who pays the price of copying, once the investigations are complete.
BIG BROTHER?
The chief said he sees surveillance cameras as a useful crime-fighting tool because police cannot be everywhere. In England and big cities like Houston, 24-hour surveillance cameras are a part of life, he said.
''Is it Big Brother?'' Simeone said, referring to George Orwell's 1949 novel "1984," which imagined a world where every aspect of our lives would be subject to monitoring and recording.
''Maybe. But I think cameras do more good than harm most of the time,'' Simeone said.
But the ACLU's Gamso believes in most cases cameras serve no particular function. Giving up such a portion of one's private life may seem small, he said, but ''by the time you add it together, it's an awful lot.''
Still, Warren police detective Lt. Gary Vingle said he believes every business should have surveillance cameras filming the public, one aimed at the front door and a second camera in the cash register area.
''They should be at eye level so we're not just seeing the top of a suspect's head or his hat. And having a zoom feature on the door camera helps because then there is a clear picture of everyone coming in,'' Vingle said.
In addition, Vingle suggests parking lot cameras that could film getaway vehicles.
The idea is not a new one.
Warren detective Geoffrey Fusco said surveillance cameras have been huge for at least 10 years, noting ''even the bad guys use them.''
Mancino and a Warren watch group she belongs to - Take Back the Neighborhood - also believe the benefits of the camera outweigh privacy concerns.
''It (a camera) can be useful. It eliminates the need to have a seen presence on the street at all times,'' she said.
ASKING FOR MORE CAMERAS
Take Back the Neighborhood along with 10 other neighborhood organizations previously sent a letter to Warren administrators, urging more action to combat crime. They called for a surveillance camera plan to be used by both the neighborhood associations and the police.
''We don't feel the city has a plan for preventive law enforcement,'' said Frank Bodor of Take Back the Neighborhood. ''There will be no revitalization unless there is a perception that the city has zero tolerance with crime.''
The association had experimented with cameras in the past, placing them in attic windows of homes overlooking the street. Bodor admitted the cameras could be seen as an invasion of privacy, but he said the group should be able to record what the human eye can see on the street.
In interpreting the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that it is not a search to install video surveillance cameras in public, as long as the installation can be accessed legally and is not in a constitutionally protected private location.
Bodor also wanted to use his right to photograph, and take it one aggressive step further.
The group had considered publishing the pictures of ''johns.'' He said a prostitute may be able to move out of sight of the cameras, but with a broad plan of police stings and surveillance he thinks Porter Street would become an unappealing place for prostitutes to do business.
PRIVACY CONCERNS
But an effort that starts with the intention to clean up an area can lead to other privacy concerns. So much surveillance, Gamso said, could spark problems.
One concern Gamso points out is that cameras produce footage, which most of the time is said to be gone unsaved by those who use cameras.
''Ninety-nine percent of the time, no one is going to see what's on a security video. The police only look at it if a crime occurs, unless someone is watching it 24 hours like in a casino,'' said Warren Detective Fusco. ''Mostly, they are a precaution and provide protection for a business.''
Gamso is not convinced.
''I can't tell you they're lying,'' Gamso said. ''I am, however, reasonably certain one of these days it will dawn on them they will keep those pictures. More and more records will be kept, and there will be documentation, ultimately, of who is where, when.
"Incrementally, we are more and more being subject to constant surveillance. And what we know about data is two things. When it's kept, it will be lost, and it will be misused. Sooner or later, maybe not today or tomorrow, the data will be lost and misused,'' Gamso said.
''We all have things ... that frankly, aren't anyone's business,'' Gamso said. ''Do they really need a picture of you going into a physician's office? Or me going to a sex therapist? I don't really want that to be public.''
Warren Safety-Service Director Doug Franklin has said he would support a more extensive use of surveillance cameras, and the city would consider purchasing them for police to use to view neighborhoods without leaving their cruisers, as soon as the city can find the money.
Warren already has used cameras in areas like the Warren Community Amphitheatre, recording the crowds and activities there from various angles.
MONEY BETTER SPENT?
Gamso believes that money could be better spent.
''Take that cost and put a couple more cops on the street,'' he said. ''I'd rather prevent the guy from robbing the store and hurting the person who works there than be able to prosecute them after the fact.''
Bodor agrees. He acknowledged police presence helps, but it is not always available. He believes crime was decreasing in his neighborhood around Porter Street for a while when an officer was assigned to routinely patrol the area. But in his observations, he said it backslid after police Officer Richard Kovach, who had routinely patrolled the area, was fired then won his job back, but was re-assigned following a disciplinary hearing.
Mancino is aware of the brewing debate and does not let her frustration cloud her reasoning.
She realizes cameras could be abused and could be intrusive. She worries that they could be considered a replacement for police patrols. The camera cannot follow a car after it catches a drug deal on tape, after all.
That's also a concern in Britain, where camera systems make up about 75 percent of money available for crime prevention, according to the BBC.
At least three government and academically funded reports on the effectiveness of close-circuit television as a crime deterrent were released, and each reaches the same conclusion: It does not. Close to 200 million pounds were spent on the cameras since the program began in 1999.
One study suggested that simple, cheaper approaches such as more street lights would be more effective at reducing crime.
Mancino said she tended not to notice the cameras when she lived in London, comparing it to walking through a department store with security cameras. She added, however, that despite her new home's oft-publicized crime problems, London was worse.
Gamso argues that cameras on street corners and other public places doesn't necessarily mean those spots will be safer.
''In some places, they're there as a crime deterrent. All that does is move crime from one corner to another, which is what evidence shows.'' Gamso said. ''Nothing protects us all the time.''
|
smokey
|
|
|---|---|
|
09-08-08 9:24 PM
|
RMancino strenghth in numbers indeed that is what was said at the northeast neighboorhood meeting they said everyone needs to attend the council meetings you don't have to say anything just be there, if anyone is interested september 10 th @ 7:30 is the next meeting..
|
|
RMancino
|
|
|
09-08-08 3:43 PM
|
Sorry all, the website address I posted was removed automatically. Please contact me via www . thisiswarren . com (without the spaces!). Thank you.
|
|
RMancino
|
|
|
09-08-08 3:41 PM
|
"Power in Numbers" I am so pleased to see all of the positive comments in reaction to this article. CCTV cameras or not, I believe that together, we can make a difference. If nothing else, your responses have shown that people care. Would I be out of line asking that those interested in banding together contact me? Please do so via the page I have created at ****thisiswarren**** Rebekah Mancino.
|
|
VoiceOfReason
|
|
|
09-08-08 1:59 PM
|
Rebekah, I applaude you and your husband for your efforts. Stay the course. You have my support and I'm sure many others feel the same way.
|
|
Pandora
|
|
|
09-08-08 12:55 PM
|
Well said Rebekah!
|
|
purple51
|
|
|
09-08-08 10:01 AM
|
You go Rebekah! We all need to be more like you and your husband. Keep up the good work. Maybe you will inspire others to do the same.
|
|
smokey
|
|
|
09-08-08 6:25 AM
|
for all those who don't believe in cameras being usefull in crimes, i have one name JOE KALUZA!!!
|
|
smokey
|
|
|
09-07-08 9:12 PM
|
RMancino AMEN TO THAT !! it doesn't matter where you come from your here now and have every right to live in safty just as the people who have lived here fifty years!! you just have to overlook some people on here have a stupid stamp on their forheads.
|
|
jamesbresslerjr
|
|
|
09-07-08 8:38 PM
|
Community policing has to take place in this city, cops are overloaded because the same old knuckleheads have them at thier house time and time again. If you run into resistance use persistance. You have to take of Warren if you want Warren to take care of you.
|
|
RMancino
|
|
|
09-07-08 8:37 PM
|
"sportguy": I must protest at your labeling myself and my husband ‘crazy’! Perhaps if I lived where I did, complained bitterly, but did nothing about it, then yes. However, I am an active member of my neighborhood, and believe it or not, actually love living here! I have a fantastic job not ten minutes away, wonderful friends, and an excellent prospect for a future life here!! YES!! HERE IN WARREN!! Would you suggest that every person wishing to make a difference should move away to small, quaint towns dotted around the country? Do you want the prostitutes, drug-dealers, murderers, and robbers to win? I arrived in Warren on the waves of life’s sea. I certainly did not plan on being here. I am here for a purpose. I shall stand firm. I will make a difference. Rebekah Mancino.
|
|
smokey
|
|
|
09-07-08 8:30 PM
|
HUSBAND1996, i don't know who your calling that they hung up on you, but i suggest not to give up, start at the bottom document who you talk to and when and go up the chain of command all the way to the top if you have to go to the news and paper if need be, but don't give up thats the worst that could happen and whoever is hanging up on you is the one wishing you would give up. it will look hopeless and a waste of time but eventually someone will pay attention!! i say keep up the good work!!
|
|
HUSBAND1996
|
|
|
09-07-08 5:06 PM
|
EVEN WITH PICTURES THE "LAW" WON"T DO MUCH. THE JOHNS RUN FREE AND SO DO THE HOOKERS. I HAVE SUPPLIED PICTURES AND LICENSE NUMBERS BUT IT STILL GOES ON. SOME OF THIS ACCURES ON SCHOOL GROUNDS AND A CHURCH BUT THE POLICE TURN A DEAF EAR TO IT. THEY HAVE HUNG UP ON ME AND HAVE NOT RESPONDED ON MORE THAN ONE OCASSION ONE JOHN SITS IN THE CHURCH PARKING LOT EVERY NIGHT, SO DON:T THINK THE LAW WILLHELP. THIS GOES ON ON SCHOOL AND CHURCH GROUNDS AND THEY DONT CARE.
|
|
NEWS777
|
|
|
09-07-08 11:56 AM
|
Cameras are always a deterent. It's like how everyone slows down when they see a state trooper. If people think they might be watched they will be less ready to commit a crime. Why have cameras in banks then? Because they know even if they are robbed, because of the cameras eventually they will be caught. Thank god there are video cameras on some of these police cruisers too. It protects the person being arrested and the police officer too.
|
|
momofsrl701
|
|
|
09-07-08 11:36 AM
|
Thank God for people like Rebekah! I live one street over and it's the same thing over here too. Something needs to be done. And if you aren't breaking the law, then why would you have a problem with the cameras? Or are you a "closet criminal"???
|
|
TBTBTB
|
|
|
09-07-08 10:35 AM
|
I don't break the law and would prefer not being filmed all over town.
|
|
CURLEY
|
|
|
09-07-08 9:53 AM
|
If you dont break the law, the camera's shouldn't bother you! That part of town needs cleaned up. Use the camera's.
|
|
VoiceOfReason
|
|
|
09-07-08 9:39 AM
|
Dog - you over analyze it. Does anybody watch the taped footage of the wal-mart cameras, or bank cameras? No. Not unless there is a specific incident that is being investigated. Otherwise the video is archived for a period of time and then overwritten with new footage.
|
|
VoiceOfReason
|
|
|
09-07-08 9:35 AM
|
The camera idea is an awesome idea and great approach. This isn't an invasion of privacy, its a deterrant and protection for law abiding citizens. Nobody cares about the footage of people coming and going that are going about their business, but if a crime is committed, there is recorded evidence to corroborate the story and prosecute the criminal - that's protecting the citizens. I applaud the idea and hope it gets implemented. I'll contribute to the cause.
|
|
DeputyDog
|
|
|
09-07-08 9:35 AM
|
I would have no problem with cameras. And it may help for a while, but the "problems" such as the prostitutes, would just relocate. It's the oldest profession in the world, and cameras aren't going to stop it. Besides, the criminals would tear the cameras down some how. It would become a game. Then we have the issue of who is going to be paid to sit and watch the video? The tax payers will complain about having to pay that bill. Where does it end?
|
|
VoiceOfReason
|
|
|
09-07-08 9:32 AM
|
Sport - depends on where they lived in London. There are very rough spots in London - some worse than warren. Crime in London isn't usually with a gun either, its with a knife. Knife attacks are common and brutally savage.
|
|
sportguy
|
|
|
09-07-08 7:48 AM
|
If you moved here from england, and you ended up living on that street in warren, WHY. Move to some quaint town in the country or many small cities around the county. Sometimes where i live you even hear a car drive by once in a while. Your the crazy ones for even being there.
|
|
NEWS777
|
|
|
09-07-08 7:39 AM
|
That's ok Smokey...I agree with you 100%. I believe in citizens rights. But, what about the rights of the victims? You are right on the money. We need to take back our city. And cameras would definately do it.
|
|
Netrader
|
|
|
09-07-08 6:08 AM
|
Those who are doing nothing wrong will not worry about how many security cameras are in use, or where. Even without cameras on the streets, what's to stop a neighbor from seeing you go into certain places?
|
|
smokey
|
|
|
09-07-08 5:12 AM
|
sorry people i had alot to say, especailly on this particular subject!!
|
|
smokey
|
|
|
09-07-08 5:11 AM
|
Plus being a person raised on the east side of cleveland it is a group effort , i believe with cameras, neighboorhood patrols, neighboorhood watches,ENFORCED CURFEWS and generally neighboors watching out for other neighboors and so on. its not a solution i don't know that there is a total one but it would make a heck of dent and maybe just maybe get warren safe again!!..if the community pulls together i mean EVERYONE OF US who are fed up, then what excuse could the chief have???
|
