Police Require Problem Businesses To Get Video Surveillance

By: Ethan Ace, Published on May 31, 2016

Government intrusion or smart practice?

One city is requiring business that cause repeated problems to get video surveillance. In this note, we examine what they are doing and the pros and cons of this approach.

********** ********* ** ***** practice?

*** **** ** ********* business **** ***** ******** problems ** *** ***** surveillance. ** **** ****, we ******* **** **** are ***** *** *** pros *** **** ** this ********.

[***************]

Approach ********

*** **** ** ********* has ***** ********* ********** classified ** ******* ******** Properties [**** ** ****** available] ** ******* ************ systems. ******* ******** ********** are ***** ***** ******* three ***** ********** ** a ** *** ****** (noise, **** *******, *********, harassment, *** ****) ** two ******* ******* ** a ****, ********* ****, weapons, *******, ************, ***. These *************** *** ***** to **** *********** *** business **********, *** **** businesses *** ******** ** install ************.

**** ********** ** * nuisance, ****** *** ******* a **** ** ******* these ********* **** **********. Businesses *** ******** ** install ************ ** **** of **** **** (****:***** ************ *** *** shown ** *** ******** above). ****** **********/**** ******* is *** ********, **** that *** ****** ** installed *** *********.

********** *** ********** ***** *** improvement ** ******** *** ******* (via *****) *** ****** response ** ***** ********, and ***** ***** ********* being *******, ***** ** to $*,*** *** ****** for ********** ***********.

**********

***** *** *** ********* advantages ** ***** ************:

  • ******** *****:** **** ** ****** incidents, ********* ************ ******* may ******* ****** **** video ** ********* ***** none *** ********** *********.
  • **********: **** ******* ************* ********* and *******, ********* *** be **** **** ****** to ****** ****** ******. Some ******** ******** *** stop ******** **** ************** as **** ****** ***'* want *** ****** ** them ********.

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

*******, ***** *** *** disadvantages *** ****** ***, as ****:

  • ********* ********* ************:****** *** ****** ****** in *** ******** ************ system **** *** **** to **** ***** ************, with ****** ******* ***** to ****** ****** *** positioning, ******* *******, ** professional ************, ****** *** system *********** ******* **** the *****.
  • ****** *** ********* ** maintain: *******, ****** ****** *** install ************ ** ***** to **** **** ***********, they *** *** ** motivated ** ******** * system **** **** ****** to *******. *******, ******, or ***** ********** *** fail, ******* ****** **** no ***** ** **** of *********. **** **** no *********** ************ *** codified ** *** ******** ordinance.

** * ********* ******** for *** ******** *****, some *********, **** ***** doing ** *****, *** simply *** **** *** notion **** ****** *** be "********" (****** **** view ****** ** *** required and ** ********) *** stop *********** *** ********, affecting *******. 

****

**** ** *** *****? Is **** ********** * good ****, ****** ** reduce ********* *** **** police *** ***** *****? ** is ** * *** idea, ********** ********* *** unlikely ** ******* *******?

**** ** *** **** and *******:

Comments (15)

Must require a minimum base line spec to be followed and approved by City through permit process.

Is that from a document?

From a UK perspective, this is the default for bars, clubs. Part of the licensing conditions will be the requirement for CCTV.

The issue is its not "to a standard" but its still a general requirement.

More regulations imposed by bureaucracy that has minimal understanding of what they are requiring always sounds like a good idea. Also love the idea of mandating an additional cost of doing business.

The Police tend to find its a waste of time just arresting, charging etc,its often the same people fighting / dealing or causing issues. Using the CCTV they tie in "pub watch" schemes and Police orders banning individuals from the venues or the areas.

To work you need the full circle, councils, businesses and Police to buy in. If you don't its seen as an extra cost and wont be used effectively :)

Businesses are required to install surveillance as part of this plan...

Is this actually part of the Milwaukee Nusiance Ordinance, or some creative police interpretation of the statute?

Well, it would appear to be a strong arm tactic of LE since there is no explicit remediation involving purchasing video surveillance anywhere in the very long statute.

Police must approve of a plan, if they don't they can put a 24/7 cctv truck watching the property and charge you for it.

So I assume that threat is enough to make property owners comply with the far less costly suggestion of self monitoring.

Overreach for sure, but couldn't be for a better cause!

note: I voted "just show me the results".

Detroit is saying they will eventually require businesses that are opened past 10pm to connect to the PD.

"Chronic Nuisance Properties are those which receive three minor complaints in a 30 day period..."

Required upon COMPLAINT? Not upon conviction?

What a great new lever to push! Three noise complaints in a month? Thousands of dollars in costs as well as the disruption of an installation?

In one case, a disgruntled individual made verifiably false official statements which successfully enlisted the coercive power of government to place demands upon business resources. Resultant government inspections cost about half a person-day. Proving the statement false required more than an additional person-day. Beyond these costs, no long term ill occurred, but those false claims had the (unrealized) potential to terminate the business.

The individual wasn't punished -- for him: mission accomplished.

If only I were a trunk slammer....

Step one: purchase a few dozen TracFones (burner phones)

Step two: Call in three noise complaints on each and every piece of city-owned property, forcing the city to install video surveillance.

Step three: Show up at City Hall with a van full of DVRs and Cameras.

Step four: Profit?

As a potential downside for the business owner, some clientele, even those doing no wrong, may simply not like the notion that police may be "watching" (though live view access is not required and is unlikely) and stop frequenting the business, affecting revenue.

Why would the clientele think the police were involved at all, and not just think that the business put in a security system on their own?

Related: I just saw this article about a town in Iowa expanding their surveillance ordinance to businesses other than convenience and liquor stores:

While the current ordinance essentially requires convenience stores and liquor stores to have cameras, the proposal would add banks and credit unions, carry-out restaurants, coin dealers, payday lenders, firearm dealers, hotels, cellular phone dealers, money transmission services, pawn brokers, pharmacies, scrap metal dealers and second-hand goods dealers.

Most of these businesses are likely to have systems anyway (which the police acknowledge in the article) but interesting that they require it by law for this many categories.

Video has not proven to be a deterrent for many of the named crimes listed above so that pro is out the window. Sounds like more uninformed government overreach.

This was mandated by the State of Florida in the late 80's for C-Stores and the like, open after 11PM along with lighting, clear windows, etc. Lots of pushback and rebellion from C-Stores until they could buy $300 DIY systems from Sams!

Another simple solution that might work. 

From the perspective of local municipalities… for private property deterrent alarm systems.   

No permits, no registration, no regulations, no requirements of any kind, except fines/fees for false police reports, paid by the caller.   Calls from monitoring firms for emergency police response to private property deterrent alarm systems will receive the same priority as all other citizens.  

Emergency police response only IF witness to a 911 type emergency.  Lower priority response would apply for all other "suspicion calls".  

Remote Video or remote audio could qualify as remote witness (but not ECV).  This would be motivation for private upgrade to audio/video witness technology if wanting the emergency service. 

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,438 reports, 865 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now

Related Reports

Face Shields Impact On Temperature Measurement And Mask Detection on Jul 27, 2020
First, the use of face masks, and now, plastic face shields are rising...
ADI Branch Burglary on Apr 03, 2020
A security systems distributor branch is an odd target for burglary but that...
London Live Police Face Recognition Visited on Feb 13, 2020
London police have officially begun using live facial recognition in select...
Facial Recognition: Weak Sales, Anti Regulation, No Favorite, Says Security Integrators on Jul 07, 2020
While facial recognition has gained greater prominence, a new IPVM study of...
Dynamic vs Static IP Addresses Tutorial on Apr 16, 2020
While many cameras default to DHCP out of the box, that does not mean you...
IPVM To Disrupt Trade Shows With Launch of Online Shows on Mar 17, 2020
IPVM is launching Online Shows, a series of ongoing events that allow sellers...
Fever Camera Sales From Integrators Surveyed on Jun 01, 2020
Fever cameras are the hottest trend in video surveillance currently but how...
Delayed Egress Access Control Tutorial on Feb 04, 2020
Delayed Egress marks one of the few times locking people into a building is...
Uniview Deep Learning Camera Tested on Jul 14, 2020
Uniview's intrusion analytics have performed poorly in our shootouts. Now,...
Faked Convergint Fever Camera 'Expert' Marketing on Jun 16, 2020
Convergint touts they are "THERMAL CAMERA SOLUTION EXPERTS" while faking...
Disruptive Free Lead Generation Added To IPVM on May 15, 2020
IPVM has added lead generation for sellers, for free, disrupting the...
Wrong Dahua Australia Medical Device Approved on Jul 20, 2020
Dahua's body temperature system is now in Australia's medical device...
The US Fight Over Facial Recognition Explained on Jul 08, 2020
The controversy around facial recognition has grown significantly in 2020,...
Integrated IR Camera Shootout 2020 - Avigilon, Axis, Bosch, Dahua, Hanwha, Hikvision, Panasonic, Uniview, Vivotek on Jan 30, 2020
The best and worst cameras tested in this IPVM shootout showed major...
Video Analytics 101 on Mar 16, 2020
This guide teaches the fundamentals of video surveillance...

Recent Reports

VSaaS Will Hurt Integrators on Aug 06, 2020
VSaaS will hurt integrators, there is no question about that. How much...
Dogs For Coronavirus Screening Examined on Aug 06, 2020
While thermal temperature screening is the surveillance industry's most...
ADT Slides Back, Disappointing Results, Poor Commercial Performance on Aug 06, 2020
While ADT had an incredible start to the week, driven by the Google...
AHJ / Authority Having Jurisdiction Tutorial on Aug 06, 2020
One of the most powerful yet often underappreciated characters in all of the...
SIA Coaches Sellers on NDAA 889B Blacklist Workarounds on Aug 05, 2020
Last month SIA demanded that NDAA 899B "must be delayed". Now that they have...
ADI Returns To Growth, Back To 'Pre-COVID Levels' on Aug 05, 2020
While ADI was hit hard in April, with revenue declining 21%, the company's...
Exposing Fever Tablet Suppliers and 40+ Relabelers on Aug 05, 2020
IPVM has found 40+ USA and EU companies relabeling fever tablets designed,...
Indian Government Restricts PRC Manufacturers From Public Projects on Aug 04, 2020
In a move that mirrors the U.S. government’s ban on Dahua and Hikvision...
Directory of 201 "Fever" Camera Suppliers on Aug 04, 2020
This directory provides a list of "Fever" scanning thermal camera providers...
Face Masks Increase Face Recognition Errors Says NIST on Aug 04, 2020
COVID-19 has led to widespread facemask use, which as IPVM testing has shown...
Dahua Loses Australian Medical Device Approval on Aug 04, 2020
Dahua has cancelled its medical device registration after "discussions" with...
Google Invests in ADT, ADT Stock Soars on Aug 03, 2020
Google has announced a $450 million investment in the Florida-based security...
US Startup Fever Inspect Examined on Aug 03, 2020
Undoubtedly late to fever cameras, this US company, Fever Inspect, led by a...
Motorola Solutions Acquires Pelco on Aug 03, 2020
Motorola Solutions has acquired Pelco, pledging to bring blue back and make...
False: Verkada: "If You Want To Remote View Your Cameras You Need To Punch Holes In Your Firewall" on Jul 31, 2020
Verkada falsely declared to “3,000+ customers”, “300 school districts”, and...