By David A. Fahrenthold, The Washington Post
Last month, a gang of young auto thieves was marauding through the Benning Ridge neighborhood of Southeast Washington, tearing up and down residential streets, then crashing the cars and disappearing into nearby public housing. Terrified homeowners knew exactly what they wanted: a police surveillance camera.
If D.C. police put a zooming, night-vision-equipped eye on the streets of Benning Ridge, the residents were certain the thieves would go away. But for now, that is not an option. Although the District has one of the most sophisticated police camera systems in the nation, the surveillance is focused on downtown and commercial areas in Northwest. The closest camera to Benning Ridge is five miles away, watching the plazas near Union Station.
That could change this year, as the D.C. Council considers a pilot program to mount police cameras in residential neighborhoods. Instead of watching for terrorists or unruly demonstrators, these cameras would look for the common crimes, such as drug dealing, vandalism and auto theft, that bedevil neighborhoods.
Many city residents say they share the optimism of those in Benning Ridge, and believe that cameras could help restore order to their neighborhoods when police patrols are stretched thin. But despite their high-tech potential, the track record for cameras is mixed.
Some police departments have tried using surveillance systems but given up because they cost too much and get varied results. Other departments, including Baltimore’s, have credited cameras with helping to cut crime when used in a targeted way. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said cameras could be useful but he cautioned residents against expecting too much.
Cameras already are widely used for various purposes in the District. D.C. police have 14 cameras in place. The U.S. Park Police force has cameras trained on the Mall. U.S. Capitol Police have cameras on Capitol Hill. The city has 39 cameras that take photographs of motorists running red lights and five mobile cameras that snap pictures of speeders. The D.C. government also uses video cameras to monitor traffic at key intersections.
No police departments in the Washington region use video surveillance to look for neighborhood crime; city officials in Richmond recently approved spending $375,000 to purchase as many as 30 such cameras for high-crime areas.
The pleas for cameras in Benning Ridge persisted even after police arrested seven people in the car thefts. Residents say they want to stop tire-slashing and window-breaking. In Northeast Washington’s Lincoln Heights neighborhood, homeowners say they want a camera on a street where drug dealers run their business like a lemonade stand.
Other residents want cameras to deter thefts and car break-ins.
“There aren’t enough officers,” said Kathy Smith, raising the prospect of putting cameras along busy Wisconsin Avenue NW in the Friendship Heights area.
Kathy Chamberlain, who lives in the Hillcrest area, said a camera might help police catch people who dump cars and tires off Texas Avenue SE and prevent crimes near a neighborhood recreation center.
“For crying out loud, we need one,” she said. “If we had double the number of police that we have now, they still couldn’t be everywhere at every time.”
Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, said neighborhood cameras are attractive to many police departments, which are guarding against street crime and the threat of terrorism simultaneously. He said cameras can be “a force multiplier.”
City officials have said that the current cameras cost $15,000 each to purchase and install. That’s compared with the $39,644 starting salary for a rookie officer, plus tens of thousands of dollars for training.
D.C. police cameras are turned on only during large demonstrations and times of heightened security. The cameras have zoom capabilities, and some also use night-vision technology. The department has more than 20 such cameras in storage, and officials say they probably would be used in any neighborhood surveillance.
When the D.C. police cameras are on, they are watched by officers in a high-tech command center at police headquarters. The cameras record images to a computer hard drive that can be checked later. The recordings are kept for 10 business days, or longer if needed for evidence. The command center also would monitor cameras posted in neighborhoods.
The D.C. Council first discussed using neighborhood cameras in the fall and considered a bill that would allow police to set up pilot programs in two residential areas for a year. The debate became heated, with some members saying they worried that government employees would use the cameras to play Big Brother -- or worse, peeping Tom.
The discussion probably will resume this year. At least two council members, Kevin P. Chavous (D-Ward 7) and Sandy Allen (D-Ward 8), said they plan to oppose the idea.
“I’m not sure the Metropolitan Police Department is sophisticated enough to use them for the real criminals,” Allen said.
The American Civil Liberties Union has argued against neighborhood cameras, citing privacy concerns. The ACLU and other activist groups also have raised objections about the current D.C. police cameras, which were first activated the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Criminal justice specialists, meanwhile, say cameras are by no means a cure-all.
University of Florida law professor Christopher Slobogin, who has studied the issue, said criminals can shoot out cameras or commit crimes out of view of the devices. Police cannot always respond quickly enough to catch suspects, he said.
Some cities -- including Detroit, Miami and Oakland -- discontinued neighborhood camera programs because they were “not cost-effective,” Slobogin said.
Then there is the tedium factor: Most of the time, nothing is happening for officers to watch.
Experts say the next generation of equipment will take boredom out of the equation by having computers keep track of the action, instead of police officers. Equipment sold by one Italian company watches for movement on video screens and can be programmed to spot someone leaving a suspicious package or a burglar going from car to car in a parking garage, the company says.
Some police officials say the cameras are useful -- whether or not they are monitored.
At the Tacoma, Wash., police department -- which has been doing neighborhood surveillance for about 10 years -- the cameras broadcast images to a station house break room, and usually no one is watching. As long as criminals think they’re being watched, Tacoma police say, the cameras have a deterrent effect.
In Baltimore, too, police say the cameras have curbed crime. Officers there use permanent cameras near the Inner Harbor and downtown and mobile cameras to look for street crime on the city’s east side. John Pignataro, Baltimore’s chief of information technology, said that he also supervised anti-crime cameras with the New York City police and that in both places, officers were able to watch drug transactions on camera, then send police to make arrests.
On Baltimore’s east side, the mobile cameras are positioned according to crime patterns, and police reported a 30 percent decrease in violent crime in the neighborhoods where cameras were used.
During last year’s debate in Washington, Ramsey told the D.C. Council that the police department’s existing cameras had provided “limited anecdotal evidence” that they could stop street crime.
The evidence is limited to one anecdote: During the 2001 NBA All-Star Game, before the 14 current cameras were operating, police hired a contractor to set up cameras around MCI Center. One camera showed a man breaking into cars, and officers arrested him. This is the only street-crime arrest that D.C. police officials credit to cameras -- so far.
“Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations,” Ramsey said last week. “It’s going to help us, [but] it’s not going to be something that’s going to eliminate all crime.”