Do any members live in an area where the PD or Sheriff's Office have a volunteer database of cam owners? A local department in my area just made a database where cam owners can submit their name and address. The idea is cam owners can provide footage for cops when a crime is committed in the area or the cam or nearby. If somebody has a cam(s) they can voluntarily submit the info, and voluntarily assist the cops if needed.
Local police department deploys security cam volunteer database
- Thread starter trauts14
- Start date
cainrand
Getting the hang of it
Never heard of that but the police here have asked for footage from a couple of my cams, because they also see the road, in efforts to establish time lines when specific vehicles were passing through. One was for a murder, the other a string of burglaries in the area.
Small town here - police know where just about every cam is and will ask for information if they think it might be recorded.
Small town here - police know where just about every cam is and will ask for information if they think it might be recorded.
Fastb
Known around here
Do you record audio?
If so, have the police ever discussed the laws re recording audio? (they're stricter than video)
If so, have the police ever discussed the laws re recording audio? (they're stricter than video)
I have not volunteered for the project. Out of curiosity, how might audio recording laws effect people who have cams?
cainrand
Getting the hang of it
I do not record audio.
I don't know the exact wording of the law but it is illegal to record conversations that you are not a part of. Likewise, it is illegal to record video of an area where people have an expectation of privacy.
edit: Actually, I should reword that, "it is basically illegal to install a camera in an area where there is an expectation of privacy"
I don't know the exact wording of the law but it is illegal to record conversations that you are not a part of. Likewise, it is illegal to record video of an area where people have an expectation of privacy.
edit: Actually, I should reword that, "it is basically illegal to install a camera in an area where there is an expectation of privacy"
whoslooking
IPCT Contributor
Yes, here is a sample registration for those that are curious:
LVMPD > Community Programs > Vegas SafeCam > Register Your Camera
As for audio recording, it is legal in most places as long as there is not an expectation of privacy. E.g. Security cameras around your house are fine, but using an infrared laser mic pointed at a neighbors window to hear internal conversations would definitely be a violation of their privacy rights. The same is true of video. The Supreme Court used the same rationale to prohibit warrantless thermal camera scans by police looking for marijuana grow houses.
LVMPD > Community Programs > Vegas SafeCam > Register Your Camera
As for audio recording, it is legal in most places as long as there is not an expectation of privacy. E.g. Security cameras around your house are fine, but using an infrared laser mic pointed at a neighbors window to hear internal conversations would definitely be a violation of their privacy rights. The same is true of video. The Supreme Court used the same rationale to prohibit warrantless thermal camera scans by police looking for marijuana grow houses.
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,891
- 21,407
That is simply not correct...there are separate statues that govern audio recording..
True, but the key element is an expectation of privacy. People often misconstrue a two party audio statute to apply to residential camera systems. Trespassers on your property do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras around your house are a far cry from hidden cameras or microphones in say a hotel room, airbnb rental or dressing room.
Take a look a this state by state breakdown of audio laws. Let me know if you see something that might be applicable to residential security systems and we can do a deeper dive by pulling the statute or case law.
http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/RECORDING.pdf
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,891
- 21,407
There folks who come within range of your cameras that are not trespassers, including guests....or even a delivery person on a cell phone...once your record those audio of those folks you are in violation of the law..
True, but we circle back to the key element. Does a delivery person, guest or anyone else talking loud enough to be heard from your home have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
The only cases I am familiar with involve police informants with recording devices, hidden spy cams/microphones and telephone wiretaps.
Can you point to a single conviction involving a residential security system? If yes, I would love to review the case.
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,891
- 21,407
Yes he does...these camera mics are very sensitive...I'm not saying there have been convictions..my point is that it's unlawful and my affect your ability to use the footage for example on a civil suit without exposing yourself to the party filing a criminal complaint..
Fastb
Known around here
I have external powered mics, and I agree with Fenderman, the mics are very sensitive. I can hear what people are saying as they approach my walk and front door. I hear crickets, bird chirps, rain falling, etc.
I've taken the path of obtaining "implied consent", which is the legal requirement in my city. So I have a sign on the foot of my driveway that states audio and video recording is in place on my property. Anyone who proceeds past the sign has provided "implied consent".
When researching the situation, I found potential liability exists for me in both civil and criminal courts. Even if someone trespasses, they have "rights". Analogy: if someone climbs over my fence, climbs up a ladder I left leaning against the house, and then falls, I have liability exposure. Or if I set a bear trap in my garage to stop burglars, I have exposure.
I didn't find past legal judgements in my city that covered homeowner security audio recording. I'm not sure how common lawsuits or criminal charges really are, practically speaking. So a simple sign, planted right next to my alarm company's "This property is covered by xyz Alarm" sign, I figured I'm covered.
Lastly, the audio is recorded on my NVR. If I were to ever download footage to turn over to authorities, I'd strip the audio. Also, my NVR has the capacity to store 6 days of recordings. If a subpoena arrived, the footage would already be overwritten by then. Only my downloaded video-only recording would remain.
This thread raised the prospect of registering a homeowner's system with the police. I wondered if this would inadvertently let the police learn audio recording was in use, somehow. Would "registering" let the cat out of the bag, and result in "exposure"?
Audio might be helpful to solve a crime, even if that audio wasn't admissible in court. The police gather lots of info to solve crimes, and don't use all of it in court (eg: confidential informants). So maybe the police could view footage in my house, (audio & video), and maybe look the other way regarding audio recording, in the interest solving a more serious crime than improper recording. I'm describing "thin ice" for sure.
Bottom line: You can see why I asked about audio recording details in my reply to @cainrand and @Kawboy12R regarding a cam volunteer database.
Now that I've stirred the pot a bit more, I'll step back a few feet. I expect some to point out I mangled some of the finer legal distinctions...
Fastb
I've taken the path of obtaining "implied consent", which is the legal requirement in my city. So I have a sign on the foot of my driveway that states audio and video recording is in place on my property. Anyone who proceeds past the sign has provided "implied consent".
When researching the situation, I found potential liability exists for me in both civil and criminal courts. Even if someone trespasses, they have "rights". Analogy: if someone climbs over my fence, climbs up a ladder I left leaning against the house, and then falls, I have liability exposure. Or if I set a bear trap in my garage to stop burglars, I have exposure.
I didn't find past legal judgements in my city that covered homeowner security audio recording. I'm not sure how common lawsuits or criminal charges really are, practically speaking. So a simple sign, planted right next to my alarm company's "This property is covered by xyz Alarm" sign, I figured I'm covered.
Lastly, the audio is recorded on my NVR. If I were to ever download footage to turn over to authorities, I'd strip the audio. Also, my NVR has the capacity to store 6 days of recordings. If a subpoena arrived, the footage would already be overwritten by then. Only my downloaded video-only recording would remain.
This thread raised the prospect of registering a homeowner's system with the police. I wondered if this would inadvertently let the police learn audio recording was in use, somehow. Would "registering" let the cat out of the bag, and result in "exposure"?
Audio might be helpful to solve a crime, even if that audio wasn't admissible in court. The police gather lots of info to solve crimes, and don't use all of it in court (eg: confidential informants). So maybe the police could view footage in my house, (audio & video), and maybe look the other way regarding audio recording, in the interest solving a more serious crime than improper recording. I'm describing "thin ice" for sure.
Bottom line: You can see why I asked about audio recording details in my reply to @cainrand and @Kawboy12R regarding a cam volunteer database.
Now that I've stirred the pot a bit more, I'll step back a few feet. I expect some to point out I mangled some of the finer legal distinctions...
Fastb
Last edited:
In Washington, DC the city will rebate the first $500 of the cost of outdoor security cameras if the police can access the video in the event of a crime.
Mayor Bowser Launches Private Security Camera Program as Part of Safer, Stronger DC Initiative | mayormb
Mayor Bowser Launches Private Security Camera Program as Part of Safer, Stronger DC Initiative | mayormb