By Jeff Morganteen
Connecticut Post
STAMFORD, Conn. — It took nearly 18 months, but city lawmakers last week approved a manual that sets guidelines and limitations on public surveillance cameras police and city officials plan to install throughout the city.
The procedural manual went before the Board of Representatives last week and legislators passed the 24-page document with a 28-6 vote. The manual spent 18 months in the public safety committee, where it underwent a lengthy and at times contentious editing and drafting process. A small number of city representatives opposed the installation of cameras, citing possible abuses and privacy concerns, and others accused them of trying to hold up approval of the manual.
In 2007, city legislators approved an ordinance that allowed the installation of the surveillance cameras and required them to create a procedural manual before cameras could be used for anything other than traffic monitoring.
The manual calls for the creation of a Camera Review Committee that will approve the placement of public surveillance cameras. Only cameras meant for temporary or emergency surveillance can be placed without approval from the committee, the manual says. It will be composed of the mayor, the public safety director, the president of the Board of Representatives and two members of the public, who will be appointed by the mayor.
William Callion, the director of public safety, health and welfare, said no funds were budgeted for public surveillance cameras this year. He said the city will pursue grants to fund the installation of the cameras. City officials put aside $150,000 toward the cameras in 2007 but the money was reallocated because the manual was only approved last week. Before funding is secured, the city must first form the camera review committee, he said.
“This gives us an opportunity to operate like every other modern police department in the world,” Callion said.
In addition to aiding police investigations and monitoring public events, the cameras should help combat illegal dumping and other quality-of-life problems, Callion said. The city will test the cameras before deciding where to set them up permanently, Callion said.
City Rep. Philip Berns, D-16, one of the leaders of the opposition to the cameras, said the cameras still do not address concerns about a lack of community policing. He said the manual allows police to use the cameras to glean information on large gatherings for crowd control purposes, and he disagrees with their use to observe free-speech events such as political rallies or protests.
Berns said the manual does allay his main concern about the cameras. It makes detection of potential abuses possible because certain cameras feeds can be monitored live on the Internet for anyone to watch, he said.
“It has more checks and balances than quite possibly any other ordinance elsewhere,” Berns said. “Problem No. 1 is who watches the watchers?”
Stamford Police Capt. Richard Conklin, head of criminal investigations at the Stamford Police Department, said police already use footage from surveillance cameras in private businesses and those cameras have led to arrests. Video footage is a reliable form of evidence that can be enlarged and sharpened so police can identify suspects and license plate numbers, he said.
“They give you real-time photographs and evidence,” Conklin said.
“Eyewitness testimony can sometimes be inaccurate because people are in a high-stress situation. When you get images from a security camera, it’s the real deal.”
In Norwalk, police installed cameras several years ago and without the strict guidelines Stamford created. The use of public surveillance cameras in cities such as Norwalk is only restricted by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the public a reasonable expectation of privacy. Stamford’s camera manual prohibits cameras from peeking into private homes or vehicles.
Norwalk Police Chief Harry Rilling said his department keeps six surveillance cameras in public places such as Calf Pasture Beach and Veteran’s Park. He would not disclose other locations, but municipal meeting records in 2007 indicate the department asked that cameras be placed in South Norwalk. “It gives us more eyes in more places and we’ve developed some pretty good information from the cameras,” Rilling said.
Copyright 2009 MediaNews Group, Inc.