Are Corporate Surveillance Video Policies Hampering Police Investigations?

I came across this piece from a Charlotte, NC TV station.

The claim being made by the LE person being interviewed is that corporate surveillance policies are inhibiting their ability to investigate crimes by making them wait for the release of video until they can get a judge to sign a warrant mandating it's release.

However, it seems as if this policy differs depending on what was recorded.

For instance, if the crime in question occurred on the premises of the the business that owns the cameras - the business generally releases their video immediately so the cops can begin to investigate.

But if the cameras from this same corporate entity record a crime occurring on some other, neighboring business' premises, their policy requires LE to get a warrant for them to release this video.

The difference in the policy based on where the crime occurs bugs me... what do you think?

Login to read this IPVM discussion.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

*** *** ** ** *********, *** ** ** ********.

***, *** ******** *** *** ** ******** *** *******.

***** ***** ** ******* * ******* ** *** ***** **** not ******* *** ******** ********, ** ******. ***** ****** *** generally ******** **** * ********* ** ********** ** ****. * write **** *** *** ****.

* **** *** **** ********* ******* ***** ****** *** ****** of ******** **** ** **** *** ** *** *** ****** next ** ****, **** ***** ** ** ***** *** ******* in ****.

* *** ** * ****** ****** *** * ******** ** Charlotte * *** ***** *** ** ******* ******** ** * repeated ********* ***** ** ** ***** ( * ****** ****** to ***** **** !). *** ******* *** ******** ** ***** doing ******* **** ** *********. * *** *** ** **** at *** ****, *** * *** ******** ***** *** ******** to ******* ** ****/** *** ***** ******** ***** ****** ********* any ********. **** ***** ** ****** ** ****** *** ******* the ***** ** *** ****** *** *** *****. *** ***** was ** *** ********, *** *********** ********** *** ** ** employee ** * ********* ****** (***** *** ******* *** ** picked ** ** * ****** *****). *** ********, ** *** zeal *** *********, ******** *** ***** ****** *** ********** * lawsuit. *** *********** ********** ****** ********* **** ***** *** ******* if * ****** ********** *** *** ******. ****** ************ *** our ********.

*** **** ** *** ****** **** **** *** ** ************ by *** ***** **********, *** ********** **** *** ******** ** what **** *** **** ** **.

* *** **** *** ***** ****** **** ** ******* ***** business **** ****** - **** ** * *****.

*** *** **** *** ******** ******** ** *** ***** (*.*. their ******** ** ***** ********* ********) ****** *** ********* ******** in ******* ** ********* ** *** ******** ** ******** ** their ******* **** **** ****** *****?

**** ** **** '**** **'. ***, **** ******* ** **** companies ******** ***** ****** ** ******* ***** *** ********* ******.

*. *** * ******* *******.

**

*. *** ** **** *** * **** ** **** ***** I ******** ** ** **** **** ********** ** *** ******* public *******.

*** *** ******* *** *** ******* ***** ** ******* ** greater **** ** ********* ***** ** ****** ********* ** ***** neighbors ******** ** *** **** **** *** ******* ** ** releasing ***** ** ****** ********* ** ***** *** ********?

* *** *** *** * ***** ** ** ****** **** it, **** **** ** ** *** ***** *** ********, ******* at *** ****** ** *******. ** *** **** * ****** understanding ** ***** *********, *** ******** **** ** ****** **** question ** * ******. ;)

...*** ******** **** ** ****** **** ******** ** * ******. ;)

** ** ******** ************....

**** **** **** ********** **** ****? ***** **** ** *******, please.