Blueprint for Municipal Video

A Blueprint for Municipal Video

Video Surveillance is fast becoming an indispensable tool for public safety and the security of communities and schools. Very few communities, however, focus on the development of a security blueprint, a long range plan for the installation, maintenance and management of these assets. Is it fair to say that your Municipality has a vision of security management for today and for 2015? Video surveillance technology and access control technology have made substantial advancement in a few short years. Video Surveillance is now considered a network application, and planning is the critical fulcrum to both long-term success and proactive use. This paper will highlight the effective planning of a municipal-wide municipal video surveillance network and will highlight select laws which impact its use.

VIDEO FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY

Video Surveillance provides a cost-effective tool to expand the traditional vision of the public safety team. In an era when municipal budgets continue to constrain the number of public safety officials, your community can utilize technology to better control the public spaces throughout your City or Town.

Key benefits of Public Safety Surveillance:

• Resource multiplier: Provides extra 24x7 virtual eyes in the locations they are needed. Enables virtual stakeouts of high crime areas without physical officer presence, and observation of large areas with minimal resources.

• Proactive alarms: Every technology has a human weakness; we become numb to a technology. Advancement in video analytics can now drive alarm conditions of motion, a perimeter breach, glass break, or object left-behind to better assist the public safety official.

• Improves situational awareness: The ability for responding officers to see what is happening at an incident before they arrive has been described as “life saving technology. Advancements in wireless technology, municipal grid systems and handheld computers allow for the real-time sharing of this critical information.

• Enhances tactical command and control: Central Station and field access to live and recorded video has become an important tactical asset.

• Unmanned monitoring of schools and campuses: Continuous recording of high profile areas improves education security and acts as a crime deterrence. In fact, Superintendents tell us of the process improvements and efficiency gained within the schools using cameras as operational aids.

• Preserves important forensic evidence: Visual, often irrefutable evidence reduces court time and associated legal costs by expediting legal proceedings. In fact, video is more often a deterrent of legal proceedings. We have had countless first-hand experience of parents in a school environment coming in accusing the Resource Officer of brutality to realize the truth on the video tape. That deterrent is invaluable to the time and resources of the Municipality.

• Virtual watch: Video surveillance delivers cost effective community protection and crime deterrence.

When we discuss the value to municipal and university administrators, we ask them to quantify the value of 25/50 sets of eyes on their community - without benefits, sick days and overtime.

Traditionally, municipalities in the United States have been more reluctant to deploy video surveillance solutions for public safety monitoring. However, recent spikes in drug trafficking and violent crime in certain cities have prompted police departments, community associations, and local business districts to deploy surveillance technologies to reduce crime, increase property values, and bring customers back into their businesses. In fact, approximately 50 cities in the United States have installed public safety networks, with most being used for video surveillance, and more than 150 cities across the United States have plans to install public safety networks in the next five years.

PRIVACY v. PUBLIC INTEREST

Without wading into the debate, the Courts allow for and have supported the deployment of video surveillance cameras in public areas. The laws are quite clear, let’s look specifically at Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Silent Video Surveillance

Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. Section 2510), limits the ability of law enforcement to execute wiretaps. Under Title 1, police departments must obtain warrants prior to secretly intercepting some communications. In contrast, silent video surveillance (involving no recording of sounds) on public streets does not have to comport with Title 1 because the Act concerns itself only with devices which capture audio signals. The U.S. Senate report on the Act noted that:

“If law enforcement officials were to install their own cameras and create their own CCTV picture of a meeting, the capturing of the video image would not be an interception under the statute because there would be no interception of the contents of an electronic communication."

Title 1 limits video surveillance with audio capabilities; it covers orders "authorizing or approving the interception of a wire or oral communication." (The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs. New York Telephone Company, 434 U.S. 159 (1977), recognized that all audio surveillance falls within the rule of Title III, the predecessor statute to Title I. The Court, in holding that pen registers do not implicate Title III, stated pen registers "do not hear sound...They do not accomplish the 'aural acquisition' of anything [and they] present the information in a form to be interpreted by sight rather than by hearing." In contrast, a device with audio capabilities falls within the guidelines established by Title I.) Thus, any continuous video surveillance that also has an audio component must comport with Title I. If a continuous video surveillance device can intercept sound, and the surveillance constitutes a search, the police must first obtain a warrant prior to the installation of the device.

Fourth Amendment Implications

The U.S. Supreme Court in Katz vs. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967), defined modern "search and seizure" law under the Fourth Amendment. The Court declared that "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Generally, a person walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police. As recognized by the Supreme Court in United States vs. Knotts 368 U.S. 276, 281-82 (1983):
A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [an individual] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.Following this reasoning courts, for the most part, have allowed police to videotape individuals on public roads.

Transactions in plain view in a public forum generally do not raise Fourth Amendment issues. This is known as the plain view rule and open field doctrine. If a person does something illegal in plain view (e.g. in front of a video camera), an officer would not need a warrant to search that person to find the incriminating evidence. Court decisions interpreting and applying the Fourth Amendment do not classify this situation as a person, house, paper, or effects that are protected against unreasonable search and seizures. In a recent unpublished opinion, United States vs. Sherman, 990 F. 2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1993), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that individuals videotaped in public view have no reasonable expectations of privacy, and could not challenge the government's use of videotape at trial as violating the Fourth Amendment. When this test is applied to video surveillance of public streets, the prevailing legal view is that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has developed a test to determine if such surveillance violates the Constitution:

1. Does the surveillance occur from publicly navigable airspace?

2. Is the surveillance conducted in a physically non-intrusive manner?

NOTE: No cases have been adjudicated under the Fourth Amendment testing the use of rotating video surveillance cameras in a public setting. If a video camera monitored by police has an infrared filtering device with the capability to view activities that a reasonable person might expect to not be visible from public view, Fourth Amendment concerns might arise.

CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT

This is the planning part! We see far too many siloed municipal systems. We see far too many municipal systems not budgeting for long term issues: video archiving, camera maintenance, recorder maintenance, storage networks, insufficient bandwidth… I could go on. It is critical for the municipality to bring its stakeholders together to discuss the scope, timing and vision of this advanced technology. Who manages the images, what regulations affect the dissemination of the video, or what group or groups have oversight control?. Schools have greater privacy constraints than do the police, parents have certain rights to view images of their minor child (but not other minor children).

Your City or Town must develop and implement a comprehensive written policy for the operation of the system.

This policy might include:

• The rationale and objectives for implementing the video surveillance system.

• The use of the system’s equipment, including: the location of the recording equipment, which personnel are authorized to operate the system and access the storage device, and the times when video surveillance will be in effect.

• The organization’s obligations with respect to the notice, access, use, disclosure, retention, security and disposal of records in accordance with regulation and Municipal By-Laws.

• The designation of a senior staff member to be designated Chief Privacy Officer

• A requirement that the Municipality or designated department (Police) will maintain control of and responsibility for the video surveillance system at all times.

• A requirement that employees and service providers review and comply with the policy and all applicable laws and regulations in performing their duties and functions relating to the operation of the video surveillance system.

Municipal employees should be subject to discipline if they breach the policy or the provisions of the policy or any applicable law or regulation. Where a service provider fails to comply with the policy or any applicable law or regulation, it should be considered a breach of contract leading to penalties up to and including contract termination.

• A requirement that there is a process in place to appropriately respond to any privacy breaches.

• The incorporation of the policy into all training and orientation programs.

• The policy should be reviewed and updated every two years or sooner if there is a change or upgrade to the video surveillance system.

Access, Use, Disclosure, Retention, Security and Disposal of Video Surveillance Records

It is important to assure that all information obtained by way of video surveillance systems is only used for the purposes of the stated objectives set out in your policy ex. to protect public safety, detect or deter crime, and assist in investigating criminal activity. Information should not be retained or used for any other purposes.

All Municipal departments should ensure that the use and security of video surveillance equipment is subject to regular audits. The audit should also address compliance with the operational policies and procedures. An external body may be retained in order to perform the audit. Any deficiencies or concerns identified by the audit must be addressed immediately.

One suggestion we make to all communities is the formation of a Citizen Panel as an oversight group. This provides an important buffer between the Municipality and its residents. This will save staff countless hours as they direct complaints to the Citizen Panel. It is the ideal check and balance.

Centralized Management & Incident Response

In 2009, video surveillance technology is a network application. The ability to centrally manage some or the entire network is an important consideration. Centralized policy management based on individual or role helps establish proper controls, compliance and ease of audit-ability. In addition, Internet Protocol (IP) Cameras, encoders (for legacy analog cameras), and intelligent routers all enable video to be streamed across the municipal network or even the municipal wireless grid. Planning again becomes important, as there are significant bandwidth considerations within a large municipal network. The security architecture is paramount, and there is no reason this cannot be developed as part of my initial recommendation of creation of an initial blueprint.

Centralized management also maximizes capital expenditure and minimizes operational expenditure. Many siloed solutions run back to an expensive recorder. It is not uncommon to see schools or municipal departments maintaining 2, 4 or 6 terabytes of storage locally. Having the proper architecture assures video is stored in the most economical fashion, utilizing less expensive storage area networks to maintain video archives.

We also find that in siloed deployments, alarm conditions may never go responded to, or are simply viewed as forensic data that following day. Centralizing video management allows for a consistent and proactive incident response.

Centralizing management of video also helps us envision centralized communication for incident response. Whether the emergency is a motor vehicle accident, a crime in progress, or a natural disaster that strikes a wide area, those who are responsible for responding require real-time, accurate information in order to effectively manage the event. Having IP enabled systems provides video, data and voice seamlessly to First Responders.

Push-to-talk (PTT) systems have been the backbone of emergency response for decades. Unfortunately, one of the problems of PTT has been a legacy of incompatibility. Radios that do not use the same frequencies, vendor-proprietary enhancements to established standards, and high infrastructure costs have led to a fractured communication landscape that prevents effective coordination. Today, security hardware available from best-of-breed vendors integrates video, data and voice for a more seamless and effective response.

FUNDING RESOURCES

Possible funding vehicles include the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) and State Homeland Security Program (SHSP). These proposals are due into DHS usually in March. See post on grant sources. In order to have a proposal in place for DHS in March, your Municipality would have to be accepted into your State’s plan at the first of the year, and the stakeholders’ process would need to begin as soon as possible (October 2009).

Urban Areas Security Initiative
Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $798.6 Million
Purpose: The UASI program focuses on enhancing regional preparedness in major metropolitan areas. The UASI program directly supports the National Priority on expanding regional collaboration in the National Preparedness Guidelines and is intended to assist participating jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response, and recovery.
Eligible Applicants: The 62 highest risk Urban Areas are eligible for funding under the FY 2009 UASI program. Cities and States are encouraged to apply for 110% of target funding.

State Homeland Security Program
Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $861.2 Million
Purpose: This core assistance program provides funds to build capabilities at the State and local levels and to implement the goals and objectives included in State homeland security strategies and initiatives in the State Preparedness Report.
Eligible Applicants: Eligible entities for SHSP are all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

SUMMARY

Planning, planning, and more planning! A blueprint, stakeholders meetings, architecture development, integration with the municipal network, the designating of a Chief Privacy Officer, careful consideration of vendor, standards and growth needs, among other components… all critical to your community’s success.
Start small, but like any new construction make sure you have the foundation in place for future expansion. Tap external resources to assure you have the right vendors, architecture and management model.

IAM Technology is happy to assist in your video surveillance blueprint, facilitate a stakeholder process, or assist you in obtaining funding. In this new era of municipal government, we seek to help our partner communities.