Legal Considerations to Preserving Video Surveillance Evidence

By: Carlton Purvis, Published on Feb 11, 2014

Missing surveillance video, even if you did not 'mean' to do it, can lead to sanctions and penalties in court.

We spoke with attorney Mark Berman [link no longer available] who specializes in electronic discovery issues, such as video surveillance, about when end users have the duty to preserve footage from being lost, destroyed or degraded, and how to use it.

Determining If Content Should Be Preserved

If someone receives a notice of a litigation or they reasonably should have known the information could be potentially relevant, then that is where the preservation obligation kicks in. The most common cases where these issues come up with video surveillance are personal injury.

******* ************ *****, **** if *** *** ***'****'** ** **, *** lead ** ********* *** penalties ** *****.

** ***** **** ******** **** Berman [**** ** ****** available] *** *********** ** electronic ********* ******, **** as ***** ************, ***** when *** ***** **** the **** ** ******** footage **** ***** ****, destroyed ** ********, *** how ** *** **.

Determining ** ******* ****** ** *********

** ******* ******** * notice ** * **************** ********** ****** **** known *** *********** ***** be *********** ********, **** that ** ***** *** preservation ********** ***** **. The **** ****** ***** where ***** ****** **** up **** ***** ************ are ******** ******.

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

Penalties *** **** ********** **** ** ***** surveillance ******* *** ** due ** ********** *** go *** *** *** to ***** *** ****** of ********* ****** *** sanctions ******** ********* ** the ***** ** ****** found ** *** *****. Those ***** ******* ******** sanctions, ********’* ****, * court ********** ******* ** fact, ******** ********** ** in **** ********* *****, awarding * *** ** the ***** *****.

**** ************** ****** *********** is ****, *** ***** is * ******* ** intent **** **** ****** negligence, **** ****** **** instruct *** **** ***** taking ** ******* ********* from *** ******* – “sometimes *** ***** ** directed ** **** **** inference *** ********* *** jury ** ****** ********* to ** **.”

*** *******, ******** *. ******** ******** Manage­ment, * ***** ******* the *********** ******** ***** ******* ********* ** ** ***** ** trial ***** *** ********** company ******** ** ***** after ******* **, **** though *** ********* ***** sent * ****** ****** for **** ** ******** it. How ** ******** **

** ** ****

****** *** ******* *********** can *** *********** ******* "so ************ ****** ** done ** **** ** possible ** **** **** it *****’* ********* ** degrade,” ** ****. ********* organizations **** ********* ********* times, *** **** **’* not ***** *** **** that ******* ** ***** retained, **’* ********* ** preserve *** ****** ** as **** ** ** becomes ******* ** ********.

**** ******* *** ***** What ****’** ***** **** the ****


****** ********** ************* **** video ************ ******* **** needs ************ ** **** an ******* ************ ** do **, **** ** they **** ***** *** system ****. **** *** be * ****** ** integrator **** ********** ***** that ******** ****** *** will **** *** ** export ** *********.

“** ********, ***’* **** your *** **-***** ** person ** **. ** it ** ********* ****** that *** ***** ** needs ** ** *********, have * ************ ** it,” ** ****. "*** have **** **** *** an ********* ****** **** went ** *** ****, took ********** ** *** original, **** * ****, the ******** *** ******** maintained ******* *** ******, and ****** **** **** made, *** *******.” **** process **** ***** ********* chain ** ******* *****.

** ********* **** *****, the ************ *** * better ******* **** **** can ***** **** **** steps ** **** ******* knowledgeable ***** *** ****** do *** ******.

***** *** **** ***** where ** ******** ****** electronically ****** *********** *** the ****** “**** ***’* take -- *** **** reasons *** *** *** reasons -- *** **** no *** ******** ** and ** *** ***** at ** *** *** years,” ** ****. "** that ****, *** ******** is ******* ***********, *** you *** **** ** contend **** * ****** claiming **** *** ********* (or ****) ******** ********."
The ***** ** *** ********* ************ ************ ******* ** sometimes ****** **-****, ** corporate *******, ** *** cloud ** ** ******** companies. ** ***** ** be ***** *** *** possession, ******* ** ******* of ******* ********, *** it’s ********* ** **** company *** ******** *** procedures ** **** ******* after ** ********, ****** says.

“********* ** ** *** security ********** ** ********* it ** ********** **** learns ** ** ******** first, *** *** **** does *** ****** ***** what *** ***** **** is *****, *** *** footage **** ****, *********** or *******, ***** *********** are *** ******** **** each *****. ********** *** know ***** * ******* and *** ******** ********** or ******* *****’*," ** said.

** *** **** ********** *. ****** ******** Medical ******,*** ********* **** * letter ****** *** ****** to **** ** ** the *****, *** *** video *** ***** ********* to *** **** ********** department. *** ***** *** overwritten. *** ***** "******* plaintiff’s ******­**** ****** ** the ****** ** ********** defen­dant **** *********** ******** at *****."

**** ********* *** ****, it’s ********* **** **** keep ******* ******* ******** concerning ****** **** *** or **** **** **** about. **** *** ********* or ******* ***** *** electronically ****** *********** ** sold, *** ******* ***** control ** *** ********, and **** ** * potential ******* ** ****.

Just ******* ******* ***’* ******* *****’* **** *********"If the video surveillance footage is one of multiple avenues of evidence to establish a legal position, then the likelihood of sanctions being awarded is decreased and the severity of a potential sanction decreases,” Berman said.

** *** ************ *. *** *** Country ****, *** ********* *** able ** ***** ***** was ************* *********, *** still *** ****** ******** to ***** *** **** so *** **** ******** was "** ******* ********* charge ** ***** ** trial ******* [***] ********* with ******* ** *** unavail­able *********," ****** ***** in * ******* ** the **** [**** ** longer *********].

** ********, ** *** surveillance ******* *** *** key **** **** ***** prove *** ****, ********* increase. ********* **** *******, I ***** ****** **** would ****** ** ***** footage *** *** **** evidence ** * **** and **** *** *** store “****” *** *******. He ******** ** **** court ** ***** ** say *** ****** *** was ******* ** ******** and **** ** *** testify ** **** ********.

"*** ***** ** *** only ******** **** *** person ** ****, *** there *** ** ***** witnesses,” ** ****. Having ******* ****** *** ** *** ** ** **** *****

************* ****** ** ***** of *** ******** ** video ************ *******. *** original **** ** *********, but **** ********* ** court, ** *** **** prove **** ****.

“** *** **** ******* evidence **** *****, *** can ***** **** ** so *** *** **** easily ******* * *********, you *** **** ** down, ******* **, *** show ******* **********. *** beauty ** ****** ******* evidence ** **** *** can *** ** ** advance **** ****. ** is **** **** **** you **** ** ***** tape, *** *** **** it ** ** ****** to *** *** ** the ********** *****,” ** said.

Comments (5)

So, you're in trouble if video evidence exists and you allow it to be destroyed. What if you don't have a clear policy on the length of time you retain video for? Also, I presume nothing happens if you're notified that you should be saving that video after the video has been erased, correct?

No there could still be penalties applied by the court. Even if an organization receives notification after it has been erased, if the organization knew there was evidence there, they could be found negligent. It would be up to a judge to decide to what extent they were negligent though. The policy doesn't matter much if the organization knew it had video, but let it get erased.

Storing video footage can amount to a ton of disk space use. I assume that keeping six months worth of footage would be sufficient, but the questions is, where do you draw the line? I have seen instances where software during installation, when not setup properly, can and will overwrite video footage. I have also had to on several occasions re-install software to reset threshholds for video allocation storage. If threshholds are not setup properly with some video cameras on the initail install, video allocation will overflow to other drives causing huge space issues with the CPU C-Drive, which can cause crashes and video recording to stop.

Creating a storage policy and making sure all steps are followed during the software and allocation steps of the software install are very crucial to the success of the video surveliance. It is a shame to to have something happen and not have video footage when needed due to sloppy software setup and an insuffiecient back up plan.

Rob, my read from this interview is not that one needs to store video forever to protect themselves but that they need to be proactive in exporting video for known events that may lead to litigation. It would seem harder to argue that if an event was only 'discovered' 4 months later, that a user would be responsible for not having video available then.

If I understand this, Berman recomends having someone like an integrator pull the video. What I didn't read is...to what exposure the integrator is then exposed. I can easily see where an integrator is then dragged into a court case and becomes a potential defendant due to no ill intent simply by trying to service the customer. Do I have this all wrong?

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports on Legal

Wyze Fires Back at JCI - Your Patents Are Invalid, Pay All Of Our Costs on Nov 18, 2019
Goliath JCI targeted startup Wyze this summer alleging the fast-growing consumer startup was violating a slew of JCI's patents. Now, Wyze has...
Hikvision CEO And Vice-Chair Under PRC Government Investigation on Nov 14, 2019
In a surprising and globally covered move, Hikvision CEO Hu Yangzhong and Vice-Chairman Gong Hongjia are being investigated by China's securities...
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...
RaySharp Revealed - Major China OEM For Western Consumer Video Surveillance on Jul 02, 2019
RaySharp is mostly unknown, even among people in the video surveillance industry, though it is a major supplier of OEM surveillance equipment such...
The Scheme Hikvision and China Importers Use To Avoid Tariffs on Jun 17, 2019
Hikvision and numerous China importers are avoiding 25% tariffs by including an SD card slot in their IP cameras to claim they are 'digital still...
Nortek and SDS Fight Over Failed Settlement on Jun 05, 2019
Distributor SDS said they reached a deal with Nortek but Nortek says no settlement was reached and the suit is still on. In this post, based on...
NJ Law Requires Apprenticeship For Public Works Integrators on May 24, 2019
Few integrators do a formal apprenticeship program. However, now a NJ law is requiring any integrator on public works projects (such as state...
ADT's Top Dealer "The Defenders" Sued 20+ Times on May 07, 2019
ADT's largest authorized dealer, The Defenders, has been sued more than 20 times since 2012, IPVM has verified through analyzing legal...
Dahua and Hikvision Products Illegally Sold To US Government GSA on May 06, 2019
Dahua and Hikvision products are being widely and illegally sold to the US government GSA. The sellers are falsely claiming these China products to...
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...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Axis "Best Of The Best" 4K Camera Tested (Q1798-LE) on Nov 21, 2019
Axis has released their "best of the best" Q1798-LE bullet camera, touting "4K without compromise" with a large Micro 4/3" image sensor, custom...
Glass Doors and Access Control Tutorial on Nov 21, 2019
One of the biggest access challenges are locking and securing glass doors. Unlike wood or steel doors that can be modified to work with...
Avigilon H4 Intercom Tested on Nov 20, 2019
Avigilon is well-known for video surveillance and access, but how well does the company's intercom work? We purchased and tested Avigilon's H4...
The Cowardly, Greedy "Leaders" of Video Surveillance - SIA on Nov 19, 2019
The video surveillance industry suffers from cowardly, greedy 'leaders' focused on maximizing easy money while undermining public trust. The...
Hikvision Dual Lens Face Recognition Camera Tested on Nov 19, 2019
Hikvision's Dual Lens Facial Recognition camera, claims that it "adopts advanced deep learning algorithm and powerful GPU to realize instant face...
Top Manufacturers Gaining and Losing 2019 on Nov 18, 2019
2019 has been an explosive year for video surveillance, with the world's two largest manufacturers, Dahua and Hikvision, being sanctioned for human...
Hidden Camera Detectors Tested on Nov 18, 2019
Hidden cameras are a growing problem as cameras become smaller, cheaper and easier to access. However, some companies claim to be able to detect...
Wyze Fires Back at JCI - Your Patents Are Invalid, Pay All Of Our Costs on Nov 18, 2019
Goliath JCI targeted startup Wyze this summer alleging the fast-growing consumer startup was violating a slew of JCI's patents. Now, Wyze has...
ADT Stock Surges - "Leading The Commercial Space" on Nov 15, 2019
Don't call it comeback... but maybe call it a commercial provider. ADT, whose stock dropped by as much as 2/3rds since IPOing in 2018, has now...