Requiring Video Surveillance At Gas Stations

By Carlton Purvis, Published Apr 14, 2014, 12:00am EDT (Info+)

A crowd mobbed and beat a man into a coma after the man accidently ran over a 10 year old boy near a gas station in Detroit. Because of poor image quality and coverage, the police could not identify most of the suspects involved.

Now, the city of Detroit has passed a law mandating surveillance cameras in gas stations. However, until now, no one has reported on the actual technical and operational details of the ordinance.

IPVM looks at the technical feasibility and cost implication of the ordinance.

Less **** **** **********

** *** **** **** *** ** what ****** ******* *** ** ****** have **** ********** *** ******** *** the ******* ** ****** *****. ***** struck * **-****-*** *** **** *** truck ** *** *** ******* **** the ****. **** ** *** *** to ***** ** ***, ** *** attacked, ****** ***. *** **** **** that **** ******* *** **** ********* of ******* ** *** *** ******* let *** ***** ********* *** ****.

Ordinance ******

********** ***** ******, *** ************* ***** ************ ********* (*** **** * ** **), **** if *** ******* ******* *** *** station *** **** ****** ****** *** had * ****** ***** *****, **** would **** **** **** ** ******** the ********** ********.

*** ********* *** *********** ****** ** Detroit **** ******* ** ***** *, 2014. *** *** ***** ***** ** all ****-******* *** ******** ** ******* and **** ** ******** **** *** on *** **** ** ****** ** renew * ******** *******.

*** ********* ** ******* ** *** last ********* **** *** ****’* ********* manager *** *** ******** **** **** until ****** ** ******, * **** official **** ****.

The ************

*** ********* **** *** ******** **** have ************ "** *** *****" ** any ***** ********* ** *** ****** including ******* *****, **** ***** *** air **********.

************** *******:

  • **** ****** ** * ******* ** “seven ****** *** ******, *** ******.”
  • ****** **** ** ****** *** * minimum ** ** ****.
  • **** ** **** ** ****** ** native **** *** ** “******** ******** file ******” ******* ** ******* ** a ******* ********* ******.
  • */*” *** *******
  • *** *** ******* **********

******* *** **********’* ********** **** ****** placement ***** **** ****** *** ******* of *** ******* ****, *** ****** placement ******* ** *** ********* *****'* give **** ******** ********.

****** *******

  • “******* ***** ** ****** ** ***** that * ****** ******** ** ******* activity ***** *** *** ** ******** illegal ****** ** *****."
  • ******* **** ** “********** ** **** the **** ** ** ********** *** be ****,” ****** *** ******* ****** over *****-**-**** *****.
  • ** * ******* **** ** ** feet ** **** *** **** ** in *** ***** **********, *** ******* (or * ****** ****** **** *** IR ***** ** ** ****) *** required.

******* *******

  • **** **** * ******* ** ***** of ** ****. "***** *** ********/**** to ** ****** ** *****-**** (**) feet, **** ***** ******* *** (*) cameras ** * ****** ****** **** an ** ***** ** *****-**** (**) feet."
  • **** **** ** ****** ** ******* “all ********* ******** ** *** ******** and ******** **** ******* *** ****** points.”
  • ******** ***** *** **********.

** ****

******* **** ****** ** **** ** satisfy *** ****** ********* ************ “******* of *** ****** ** **** ******** for **** ******* ** ‘*****’ **** side ** **** ****** *** ******* of ****** *************,” *** **** ****. The ******** **** **** ** *** want ***** ** ** *** *********** to **** ********* ********* *** ** a **** **** ***** ** ** viewed **** ** **** **** **** multiple *******.

4 ****** **** *** ************

** *** * ****** **** *** requirements:

  • '*** *******' *** ******** *** *** of **** ****** *******, ***** *** predominant ***** *** **** ** **** or ******. **** ****, ** ******* the **** ***** *** ****** ** such * *** ***** ********* *****.
  • ** ********* ********** / *********** ************: Regardless ** *** ******* ** *** camera, ******* **** * ***********, ***** could ****** ** *** ** **** on ******* *** *********** ***** ** compliant ***** ********* **** **** ***** quality.
  • ********** ***** ****** **** ***** ** coverage ***** **** ***** ***** ** dead ***** ***/** ***** ***** *** FoV ** ** **** **** *** video ******** ************ *******.
  • *** ******** ***** ****** (** ** 65 ****) **** ********. ************* ********* over ******* ***** *** ****** ** their ********* ******** ** **** ** the ****** ** ***** *** ** feet, ** ***** **** ** ****** to ** ** ** ****. **** the **** ** ** **** **** as **** ** *** **** ***** proof **** *** ************ ****** ** or **** *** *** ******* **** to ****** *** ****** ***** ** 35 / ** ****?

Required ** **** **** *****

**** ******** ******, ** ************* ***** ************ ********* *** **** shops, ******* ****** *** ***** ******* businesses, *** ******* ********* **** ******** the ***** **** ****** ****** **** they *** *** **.

*** ** **** *****, “***** ****** passwords ***** ** **** ********* ** authorized ******* ** *** ******* ****** Department ** ********** ****** ** ***** recordings,” *** ********* ****.

Other ********

** ******** ** *******, *** *** station **** *** *** ***** ** more ******** ********* ** *** ******** will ** ******** ** **** ********** security **** ******.

********

** ***** ** ****** **** *** trend ********* ****** ****** ** ******** ***** cameras** **** **** ***** ** **** for ******* ***** * *****. *** while **** ** ***** *********, *** it ***** **** **** ****** *** comfortable ******** ********* ************, *********** ******** a ******* **** *** ****** ******** they ****/**** ** ******* ****** ** pay ********.

Comments (4)

We need a standard in the US... maybe we can steal Canada's. I mean what is 480TVL going to do for them, among the other things already pointed out.

... as the boy stepped into the road.

From the written account, one of the many troubling aspects of this proposed law is the area of coverage in question. If the accident was in the road (and not on the gas station property), whose responsibility is it? The private property owner's or the city's?

Or the parent's? While the injury the the child was indeed a tragedy, followed by the tragic vigilante response of the crowd, why was the child left unattended or free to roam in such a high-traffic area?

Another tragedy is likely to follow if the property owner and/or station manager is held accountable for the injuries. No new law is needed in my estimation. This looks like a politician's over-reaction to a series of events that likely could have been avoided altogether by a parent paying better attention.

Wishing the injured a speedy recovery!

As for the legal morass, It ironic to think that all this wrangling might have not even got a head of steam if the owner had simply used tried and true dummy cameras.

Four out of ten outside the premises in a crowd, on the roadway is not a bad system in my view. Been watching CSI too much if you ask me.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports