I spoke to someone today (whose personal details will remain anonymous) involved in a court case where the site/organization is being sued for poor night time video quality. Evidently, they did not have street lights in their parking lot. Because of that the cameras did not capture a usable image of the subject. The police arrested the wrong person. The right person is still at large (presumably), etc.
The person asked me about standards / guidelines / rules, etc. for night time lighting. He mentioned the frequently cited 1 foot candle (10 lux) reference frequently included in such documents.
This brings the question - Is the organization legally at fault for not having that street lighting that directly contributed to unusable video surveillance images?
I am not aware of any specific court cases, but I have to imagine something is out there - one way or the other.
Compare to our review of "Sued for Not Having Enough Surveillance" where the legal trend appears to minimize the importance of having working surveillance cameras. However, would this differ if the cameras were impacting by something more fundamental - insufficient lighting?