Can Police Seize Entire Surveillance Recorders?

Police can seize the whole recorder as evidence if they have probable cause to think evidence of a crime was recorded or that the system was used in the commission of a crime. In the case of a drug dealer in Miami they took the whole system. In some cases police will take the DVR, storage, etc because of the Rosario rule, which requires the original recording be available for the court (even if convenience copies are made). If the owner of a system doesn't hand it over voluntarily, if police have enough reason to they can get a warrant/court order.

In my experience, most juridictions prefer video to be provided with a native version of the player versus pulling the actual device itself. That said, in situations where we have been unable to provide the video quickly (older system etc) some jurisditions will pull the entire system (typically after a search warrant is obtained). I did have one particular jurisdiction and detective that always threatened to pull the full system no matter how minor the incident. There were several situations where we were left without video coverage for a short period of time until we escalated the situation and the system was returned.

To the point of any specific grounds or criteria to pull the full system, we would typically be more inclined to offer that as an option in more serious cases.

Yes, we've had customers that it has happened to, one being a school in FL.

One of the benefits of edge recording that I've pointed out is that in a similar case, you can take-down 2 or 3 or whatever individual cameras, not an entire 32 channel recorder that had only 2 or 3 cameras witness something. Multiple people have commented to me that it is in fact a significant benefit.

I don't think it's the kind of thing that happens daily, but from what I've heard/seen over the years it HAS happened, and it is enough of a threat in some cases to make alternative recording approaches appealing.

Hi all, this is a UK perspective....

in 10yrs of digital multimedia evidence recovery, I have only had to pull to the legislation card twice! As a police officer lawfully on premises I have a power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that enables me to seize property that is, or contains, evidence. If the DVR is unable to export the evidential video then we do quite regularly take the whole unit in order for the recovery to take place in the lab.

When then DVR owner is not connected to the incident, then it is our responsibility to ensure that the premises is not left without protection so we have a number of 'swap out' units. We put these in place whilst we have the DVR in our possession.

If we are likely to have it for some time, or in major cases where it has recorded an incident of very high value, then we liase with the owner or installer to have a new one fitted and the investigation foots the bill!

The only time we seize and don't replace is when the DVR owner is suspected of tampering, or is suspected to tamper, if they are left with it. Also when the DVR owner is a suspect/offender.

Obviously, we would not go down the 'swap out' route on low level crime. In those circumstances we may just take a stream out of a small incident or state that it is not in the publics interest to remove an entire unit for a small value theft.

As people beforehand have stated, it is a poor installation that does not take evidential export into consideration. A DVR must be able to export data that is the same as was recorded, and it must be able to export any amount - 10mins, 10 hrs, or the whole lot!

Also, when people refer to off site storage - this must not be a stream transcode of the original. Any change in the digital make up jeapordises it's evidential worth.

Hope that helps, and thanks IPVM for allowing me to post.

David

Hi John,

yes, in the higher end instalations, I do work together with the installer, to ensure minimum disruption. My priority is to keep the DVR owner 'on side' and the last thing I would want is to give them any reason to deny us access to evidential footage in the future.

Lastly, in regards to the comment by the undisclosed manufacturer,

"There are very few surveillance systems that I've encountered that would not have difficulty in exporting huge blocks of video (like days/weeks, etc) without using a method outside of the surveillance system itself (like copying the entire HDD volume)."

There lies one of the biggest problems in Security DVR manufacturing (IMO).

Bulk export over fast interfaces or the easy removal and reading of HDD's can be a huge selling point if done properly.

All the best

David

Obviously, seizing any video is dependent on the rules of evidence/search and seizure. If the video evidence is physically located at a crime scene, it is good practice to secure the evidence in it's place and apply for a warrant. Many jurisdictions have a telewarrant type of system where the police can remotely make application for the warrant. In their application for the warrant, the police should justify the need to remove the hardware as well as the data. If unsure, they could include an assistance order which would allow them to bring in a technical specialist to assist them in extracting the evidence and in determining if seizing the recording hardware is necessary. Unless emergent, the police should refrain from viewing the video until the warrant is issued.

Remember the Kendrick Johnson case? The FBI just got a subpoena to seize parts of the surveillance system.

Security company owner facing ten years in prison for withholding evidence for not turning over secondary video evidence (crime happened near location; cops think perp would be on video at secondary location wearing the same clothes on the day the crime occurred).

Here is a current, high profile, example of police seizing an entire surveillance system:

Justin Bieber (allegedly) egged his neighbor's house, causing $20,000 worth of damage. Police served a warrant on his place today, and TMZ is reporting law enforcement has seized his video surveillance system. They're looking for footage related to the egg incident.