foolmenot.comBig
brother or safety city?
Battle Creek Mayor Mark Behnke has talked several times in recent months about installing as many as 10 video surveillance cameras around the city to help deter crime. The debate over the effectiveness, legality and potential troubles of public surveillance programs have been debated for decades — since Congress passed the first major electronic surveillance law, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control And Safe Streets Act of 1968 — and while Behnke said he is convinced the cameras could help lower crime rates around his city, some people aren't sold on the idea.
Jeremy Andrews, 30, lives on Wabash Avenue. Although he said his neighborhood has its share of crime, he's not ready to have it all recorded. Part of Andrews' opposition to the cameras is based on their presumed effectiveness. "I think all they will do is displace crime, not deter it," he said. "Criminals are smart enough to avoid the cameras." Andrews also said he is concerned about abuse of power by officials monitoring the surveillance system, and the potential violation of residents' privacy and rights under the Fourth Amendment, which addresses searches and seizures.
"I have a concern with the training for people who would be monitoring the surveillance cameras. I think they need to have a higher level of knowledge about Constitutional rights," he said. "I'm from the camp that believes I have a reasonable expectation of privacy while I'm walking down the street. I shouldn't have to continually prove my innocence on camera." "I think it's very big brother-ish and Orwellian." Andrews said he believes an increased police presence in neighborhoods would be more effective than video cameras. "Cameras aren't building relationships with people in neighborhoods, listening to people's concerns and getting to the root causes of problems," he said.
Behnke, on the other hand, said he believes strongly in the use of video cameras to prevent crime. "You cannot argue about the deterrent to crime the cameras would be," he said. "Those that are involved in crime don't like to be video taped." Behnke said the system he envisions would use 10 cameras recording 24 hours a day, seven days a week in various locations around the city. The video wouldn't be monitored constantly, he said. Instead, it would be recorded by a computer and stored for up to 90 days. If there is portion of video needed for a police investigation, it can be pulled from the archive until no longer needed, and all the remaining video would be erased.
Battle Creek police officials said they aren't opposed to using cameras but there is a concern about what the public would expect from the department if cameras were installed. Sgt. Mark Pierce said that while more officers could improve safety in the city, in his opinion, the cameras also could be helpful. "We're not trying to be Big Brother. We're just trying to keep the city safe," he said. "We could use more manpower down here to help develop a rapport with citizens, but we can't be everywhere at once."
The cost of this new eye-in-the-sky policing system? "It's going to be just shy of a $100,000 to get everything going," Behnke said. "It's not cheap, but no one ever said protecting the people was going to be cheap." While the on-going costs of a Battle Creek program are unknown, Behnke said he's willing to invest in the surveillance technology before police officers in a year when he and other city commissioners are looking to cut more than $1 million from the city's budget. "It's going to be tough. We allocated $100,000 last year for the exploration of public safety officers and we never used that money," he said. "It's now been proven that cameras are more effective deterrent because they're there 24 hours a day.
"We want to continue to build relationships through the hard work of our police officers in our neighborhoods, but it's been shown we can't be everywhere all the time. Cameras can be there." The cameras are intended as a crime deterrent and not a replacement for police officers, Behnke said, and neighborhoods will have to make a request to get one. The bottom line for Behnke is public safety.
"The responsibility I have to provide a safe community and streets and sidewalks that are safe for the people of Battle Creek. As a public servant, I think that's very important," he said. "The fact of the matter is I think this is a tool, it's technology that's out there today and Battle Creek should be taking every opportunity available to bring it here." No formal proposal is being entertained by Battle Creek city commissioners, but Behnke said he wants at least an open discussion of the idea. "If the community doesn't want it, fine, I can accept that. If the commission can't support it, I can accept that, too," he said. "But I believe based on the success in other cities that cameras will help deter crime and make our communities and neighborhoods safer."
Behnke, along with other Battle Creek officials and proponents of a surveillance system here, visited Lansing earlier this year to talk with officials there about the new public video surveillance system. Ward 1 Commissioner Chris Simmons said he supports the idea of a city public surveillance system as long as the program has strict procedures and guidelines. "If city staff were to misuse them then I would insist on termination and criminal prosecution," he said. "Once the constitutional questions are sufficiently addressed for me I would be willing to support using cameras." One of the commissioners who visited Lansing with Behnke, Simmons said he was impressed with that city's system and the potential such a system has for Battle Creek.
"I think we could be similarly successful in our high crime neighborhoods deterring drug dealing and prostitution," he said. Ward 3 Commissioner Sherry Sofia said she shares the concerns of residents, such as Andrews, about privacy and individual rights. Sofia also visited Lansing but, she said, she was disappointed to walk away with several questions.
"How were resident concerns addressed? Have they discovered problems that they didn't anticipate? What has been their experience with the cameras?" she said. "I am not opposed to the use of surveillance cameras providing that concerns can be addressed and that an appropriate funding mechanism can be devised that will not jeopardize established programs."
At-large Commissioner Ryan Hersha said Behnke proposed video surveillance program "appears to be a feel-good, look-good response to real problems that require real solutions." "If this Commission wants to get serious about fighting crime, it should support neighborhood requests for things like community-oriented foot patrols — not give people false hope with political gimmicks," he said. "Among my serious concerns is that this very politically-driven commission is looking for ways to score points by slashing essential services, and that the camera idea is just one more way of providing them with political cover as they do so, at the expense of true safety and quality of life in our neighborhoods."
Randy Hannan, deputy chief of staff for Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, said the city currently is operating six cameras, although five of those only recently have been activated, and five more are expected to begin operation this summer. Hannan said the cameras cost about $25,000 to buy and install, but Lansing is leasing cameras to save some of that cost. Similar to Behnke's idea, Lansing's cameras are passively monitored by trained police staff and are recording 24/7.
The same Fourth Amendment and privacy questions raised in Battle Creek have been raised in Lansing, Hannan said, and the city has chosen to address them with technology. "It's our position there's not a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're in a public place," he said. "We have the ability to block out privacy zones and blackout any private areas in view of the camera, and those cannot be altered by any of the monitoring officers." Those "privacy zones" might include windows in homes, apartments or businesses, fenced in yards or any other areas people might have a reasonable expectation of privacy, Hannan said.
As for effectiveness, Hannan said Lansing's had one camera operating since last fall, and the city's made 10 arrests based on evidence from the camera. "I think you have to go beyond just talking about crime prevention and talk about the number of criminals off the street," he said. "The cameras can be very helpful from an evidentiary standpoint." "As far as we're concerned it's a tried and true technology," Hannan said. "It's not going to solve crime in Lansing and it's not intended to. It's meant to be another tool in our police department's tool box." The city of Rockford, Ill., is in the process of implementing a public surveillance camera program.
"We view this as an extra set of eyes on the street, a way for us to be viewing an area or several areas on a continuous basis," said Police Chief Lori Sweeney. "(It's) one more tool for the police officers in our fight against crime (and to) deter crime." Sweeney said her officers will be able to link to the video cameras from their patrol vehicles, looking at areas before arrival or from a safe distance, if necessary. Video also might be used to identify suspects, Sweeney said, or detect suspicious activity before crimes can be committed. "These were some of the reasons that geared us towards selecting surveillance cameras as a tool," she said.
Nick Schirripa can be reached at 966-0692 or nschirrip@battlecr.gannett.com.