Useless As Evidence, Judge Rejects Video

By: Carlton Purvis, Published on Jan 07, 2014

A claimed confrontation outside of a courthouse leads to a restraining order against a man. There's surveillance video that the man believes will exonerate him, but the court rejects the video in its entirety.

Here's the case out of California: A man is accused of stalking a woman and making violent threats. They go to a trial for a restraining order and after the order is granted, she and her friends say the man yelled and threatened them from his car outside of the courthouse. The woman, a friend of the original plaintiff, ran back into the courthouse out of fear and later got her own (second) restraining order against him.

The man appealed saying the incident never happened and asked for a new trial based on new evidence -- surveillance footage and cell phone tower data. He said the footage would show the exchange never happened, and cell phone tower data would show that he was not near the courthouse and that he was on the phone at the time the incident would have happened.

There are at least five cameras on the exterior of the courthouse. Here are two of them:

Despite this, after viewing footage from courthouse cameras, an appellate judge declined to let him introduce footage to the case and let the restraining orders stand saying:

"The court has viewed those videos and, quite frankly, those videos sometimes show a person walking down the street and the very next moment they disappeared. I'm not sure that the videos are going to assist the court in trying to resolve this dispute. To the extent that it may show people in locations and vehicles moving, for the record, there is no audio on those tapes. Those tapes are depictions of --it appears to be part of what is happening outside the premises, but, again, as I said, some of the vehicles that you see one moment in a position, the very next moment they are not there. And so I'm not sure how accurate they are and to the extent there is foundation that can be laid, that they would be admissible for purposes of evidentiary value. I suppose the court can look at it, and you could probably point out to the court what you believe it depicts. And then it's an interpretation process."

Sound familiar? Skipping footage or "people disappearing" is a main criticism of the footage from the Kendrick Johnson case. It was determined that those cameras were set to record on motion and not calibrated properly, which is what led to irregularities [link no longer available].

However, the cameras here are not set to motion-based recording, according to Lt. Scott Amos of the San Diego Sheriff's Office. The cameras are set to record continuously and to the best of his knowledge the haven't had any technical issues recently. Although, he said, any technology is bound to have glitches from time to time.

Unfortunately, the video footage is not available.

Comments (11) : PRO Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

Verified Response Discontinued in Silicon Valley San Jose on Feb 28, 2019
Almost all security alarms are false. This has driven some municipalities to require verified response before dispatching police. However, now San...
US City Sued For Hiding Surveillance Camera Map on Mar 08, 2019
UPDATE: The judgment is now in and updated information is at the bottom of the post. Should maps of public surveillance camera locations be kept...
UK Camera Commissioner Calls for Regulating Facial Recognition on Apr 15, 2019
IPVM interviewed Tony Porter, the UK’s surveillance camera commissioner after he recently called for regulations on facial recognition in the...
San Francisco Face Recognition Ban And Surveillance Regulation Details Examined on May 14, 2019
San Francisco passed the legislation 8-1 today. While the face recognition 'ban' has already received significant attention over the past few...
Kidnapping Victim Rescued With Video From Ring Doorbell Camera on May 24, 2019
A kidnapping victim was rescued within 24 hours, with the police crediting video from a Ring Doorbell camera as key to solving the case. A girl was...
First Video Surveillance GDPR Fine In France on Jul 08, 2019
The French government has imposed a sizeable fine on a small business for violating the GDPR after it constantly filmed employees without informing...
New GDPR Guidelines for Video Surveillance Examined on Jul 18, 2019
The highest-level EU data protection authority has issued a new series of provisional video surveillance guidelines. While GDPR has been in...
UK Facewatch GDPR Compliance Questioned on Aug 27, 2019
Even as the GDPR strictly regulates biometrics, a UK company called Facewatch is selling anti-shoplifter facial recognition systems to hundreds of...
First GDPR Facial Recognition Fine For Sweden School on Aug 22, 2019
A school in Sweden has been fined $20,000 for using facial recognition to keep attendance in what is Sweden's first GDPR fine. Notably, the fine is...
France Declares School Facial Recognition Illegal Due to GDPR on Oct 31, 2019
France is the latest European country to effectively prohibit facial recognition as a school access control solution, even with the consent of...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Hanwha Wisenet X Plus PTRZ Tested on Feb 14, 2020
Hanwha has released their PTRZ camera, the Wisenet X Plus XNV-6081Z, claiming the "modular design allows for easy installation". We bought and...
PRC Warns Against China Video Surveillance Hacks, Hikvision Targeted on Feb 14, 2020
Hackers are targeting China video surveillance manufacturers and systems, according to the PRC's main cyber threat monitoring body. The hackers...
IPVM Conference 2020 on Feb 13, 2020
IPVM is excited to announce our 2020 conference. This is the first and only industry event that will be 100% sponsor-free. Like IPVM online, the...
Bosch Dropping Dahua on Feb 13, 2020
Bosch has confirmed to IPVM that it is in the process of dropping Dahua, over the next year, as both IP camera contract manufacturer and recorder...
BluB0X Alleges Lenel, S2, Software House Are Dinosaurs on Feb 13, 2020
BluB0X is running an ad campaign labeling Lenel, S2, Software House, Honeywell, AMAG and more as dinosaurs: In a follow-up email to IPVM,...
London Live Police Face Recognition Visited on Feb 13, 2020
London police have officially begun using live facial recognition in select areas of the UK capital, sparking significant controversy. IPVM...
Converged vs Dedicated Networks For Surveillance Tutorial on Feb 12, 2020
Use the existing network or deploy a new one? This is a critical choice in designing video surveillance systems. Though 'convergence' was a big...
Monitoreal "Completely Autonomous" Home AI Tested on Feb 12, 2020
Monitoreal claims to allow users to "see the things you want (people, vehicles, animals) and ignore the things you don’t”, using AI to distinguish...
Cisco Video Surveillance Is Dead, Long Live Cisco Meraki Video Surveillance on Feb 11, 2020
A dozen years ago much of the industry thought that Cisco was destined to dominate video surveillance. They stumbled repeatedly, failing. Now it is...
BICSI For IP Video Surveillance Guide on Feb 11, 2020
Spend enough time around networks and eventually someone will mention BICSI, the oft-referenced but only vaguely known standards body prevalent in...