Installment of Surveillance Cameras in Public Places - Essay Example

Name of Student : Name of Instructor: Name of Subject : Date : Topic: Given the recent threats to internal security in the United States, should the government install surveillance cameras in public gathering places? 1. Introduction: This paper seeks to analyze and discuss the question: “Given the recent threats to internal security in the United States, should the government install surveillance cameras in public gathering places?” This paper maintains that installation of surveillance cameras in public gathering areas have proven benefits and their formal adoption by United States may be favorably acted upon but there should be some mechanisms to prevent possible violations to privacy of people which could cause the violation of the US Constitution. 2. Analysis and Discussion: Working on our thesis, it is the proper to look first at the benefits of the installing cameras in public gathering areas. 2.1. The benefits of the surveillance equipment or cameras in public gatherings places. What could be benefits of these surveillance cameras? From the title, the installations to public gathering place of these cameras are to address the problems of security particularly on given recent threats to internal security in the United States. Nieto conducted an examination on the various uses of video surveillance and other visual technology by public and private entities in the area of preventing and discouraging crime. The examination included law enforcement practices, the conditions which may warrant public video surveillance, the associated legal and constitutional implications, and whether the technology has been effective in preventing crime. He found the sufficient evidence to support his claim that the cameras did prevent and discourage crime by citing the experiences of US and non-US countries.1 The use of surveillance cameras in various places may no longer be new to many. One can observe its use in department stores, in parking areas and in many places where the obvious purpose is to promote security. The past two decades could provide cases where various entities businesses, commercial and residential associations and even individuals have seen the benefits of video surveillance technology as a means to protect their rights to privacy and rights to property against intrusion and meddling by other and other forms of crime. Nieto cited the increasing reliance during the last decade, by law enforcement agencies in Great Britain, France, Monaco, Spain and other countries on the use of Close Circuit Television (CCTV) surveillance to enhance public security. He cited a survey result on an increasing number of U.S. municipalities (mostly outside California) to have begun using CCTV public video surveillance as a law enforcement tool to monitor public areas, schools, and residential districts.2 What is evident is that the use of surveillance videos has been practiced inside and outside the US. What then could be the problems that would hold putting the cameras in public gathering places? Before answering to this question, there is basis to know what a CCTV is and how it will operate in the next section. 2.1.1 CCTV, it functions and its uses. CCTV video surveillance systems essentially take the function of policeman or a security guard roaming or patrolling different areas for the purpose of preventing crimes. They are claimed by Nieto to either passively record or play back video at certain intervals, be actively monitored by security personnel, or use a combination of these methods. Hence, Nieto added that the law enforcement personnel actively monitor most U.S. municipal-operated systems, although volunteers and private security are also involved in some projects and the school-based CCTV surveillance systems which employ active, passive, and combined monitoring methods, depending on the financial resources and number and type of personnel available.3 The above speaks of the how of the surveillance cameras and the benefits they provide in terms of security. Given the benefits, a thinking mind would ask: “What could be the problems, then?” The main objections to use of CCTV center on privacy issues, possible intrusions of First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution and certain laws. 2.2 What are the possible problems and how to overcome or solve the same? Like any other issues, there are two sides of the coin. Those who see the advantages of the cameras would find it easy to agree. However, there are critics who argue that public video surveillance may violate the with the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. This paper will now try to analyze deeper to look for possible options to the problem. But there is wisdom in bringing out the some of the details of the legal issues. Most legal scholars opined that the continuous video surveillance of public areas does not present significant legal obstacles. This is however to be taken as legal opinion. Legal opinions have limited effects since there is a requirement for court ruling or court decision to be called a precedent and be made part of the US jurisprudence4 for future actions. Based on the analysis made by legal scholars it is believed that the use of video surveillance may be taken to represent a valid use of the state's police power in the absence of a court ruling interpreting possible violations of the First and Fourth Amendment. Scott Sher supported the view that continuous video surveillance is analogous to a mechanical police officer and hence there is no intrusion upon an individual's privacy, since it just records events occurring in public space for which individuals do not have reasonable expectations of privacy.5 2.2.1. The cameras to be installed should be the silent-video surveillance with no audio capabilities. Video cameras will not record sound and hence it may not be covered under Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 19866, which limits the ability of law enforcement to execute wiretaps, where the police is required to obtain warrants prior to secretly intercepting some communications. Silent video surveillance may not violate the the said Act since a U.S. Senate report on the Act said: “If law enforcement officials were to install their own cameras and create their own CCTV picture of a meeting, the capturing of the video image would not be an interception under the statute because there would be no interception of the contents of an electronic communication."7 The camera in this paper will be without audio capabilities hence, it is submitted Title I of the law will not be violated. 2.2.3 What are the possible Fourth Amendment Implications? The U.S. Supreme Court in Katz vs. United States8, had the chance to define the modern meaning "search and seizure" law as used in under the Fourth Amendment. The Court in said case ruled that what a person knowingly and voluntarily exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, On the other hand, what one seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. In the separate case of California vs. Ciraolo9, the court held that generally, a person walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police. The gist of the Supreme Court decisions as mentioned above centers on the decision of an individual to protect his own privacy. If said person exposes himself even on his home or office to public, he waives his privacy but has the right to be private even in a public place. So that how could now be a person keep his privacy if cameras will be installed in public gathering areas as defended in this paper? Notice that what was mentioned in the decided case mentioned as public gathering areas are public sidewalk and Public Park, prompting the answer the question: Are public gathering areas limited to mentioned areas? The Supreme Court in United States vs. Knotts10 had a chance to expand the definition of public gathering areas to include public road. The court emphatically illustrated the waiver of one’s privacy saying: “A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [an individual] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.”11 In so enacting a law that would allow surveillance cameras, could it used inside a public comfort room? If the answer is yes, is there no longer any possibility for people to maintain privacy in public places? Assuming the cameras will just be silent and would not record audio or verbal communications among people, would there be no violations? It is submitted the public comfort rooms although called public could not be allowed to have surveillance cameras since that would be depriving people to keep things private in public places. A case that could be compared by analogy is in the case of an employer wanting to install cameras to monitor performance of its employees. The work of Lund12, mentioned the fact the AFL-CIO objects to monitoring because it “invades workers’ privacy, erodes, their sense of dignity and frustrated their efforts to do high quality work by a single-minded emphasis on speed and other purely quantitative measurements. By analogy when the workers rights are seen in broader context, people need to have their privacy to maintain their identity and uniqueness. Since the objective of installing cameras as posited in this paper is to address internal security threats, it should not be taken that what people do in secret are necessarily bad. Many goods are better kept secret before their time come. The state itself in promoting secrecy for its survival punishes espionage which is a way of violating its secret. Hence any proposition to violate right to privacy of people to promote internal security must be placed in the proper balance since any unnecessary intrusion by indiscriminately placing public cameras to different public areas may be outweighing the intended benefits. It is important to state also that to prevent any violation here of privacy, the best thing to do would be to announce to the public that a camera is installed and the people will be warned of such facts and they could make their choices. This is will be consistent with the doctrine of plain view as explained below. 2.2.4 What could be the exceptions to Fourth Amendment prohibitions? One exception that may be invoked is the principle of plain view. The Court, in the case of Dow Chemical Co. vs. United States, 13 discussed principle of plain view rule and open field doctrine in relation to Fourth Amendment issues. The court held in said case that if a person does something illegal in plain view (meaning one that is seen by people), an arresting or searching officer of the law would not need a warrant to search that person to find the incriminating evidence, since the evidence itself is in the view of the officer. It is just like a case of a crime committed in the presence of a police officers. In such case no application of warrant is necessary since the officer can affect the warrant right there in the place of violation. The court decisions will not be applying the Fourth Amendment since plain view doctrine is an exception and need not be protected against unreasonable search and seizures. The principle of plain view is further supported with a court decision, although unpublished, in the case of United States vs. Sherman14, where the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that individuals videotaped in public view have no reasonable expectations of privacy, and could not challenge the government's use of videotape at trial as violating the Fourth Amendment. 2.2.5 How have courts adjudicated on issues related cameras in public places and the Fourth Amendment? As of this writing, there is no evidence to cite cases that would adjudicate cases of use of surveillance in public areas under the Fourth Amendment. It is but logical therefore to infer that any camera that should be installed pursuant to this paper should not go beyond the current doctrine in plain view. As stated earlier, to put audio capabilities to the camera would be a different thing since that may violate the law on wire-tapping and it is believed that if a video camera monitored by police has an infrared filtering device with the capability to view activities that a reasonable person might expect to not be visible from public view, Fourth Amendment concerns might arise.”15 2.2.6 What other constructional or legal issue could be a problem? Another great objection to the use of public video is the possibility of a "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights. If a 1972 case would be used as ground, the Court in the case of Laird vs. Tatum 16 noted the requirement proof of actual mental anguish or distress to be caused by surveillance before a First Amendment violation could be invoked. On the other hand, a 1987 case17 revealed that monitoring performed by government by the use of video surveillance could be one of the most mentally disconcerting forms minding people’s right to privacy. This is not to underestimate the court’s statement in a case of Cuevas-Sanchez18; where the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court noted that "this type of surveillance provokes an immediate negative visceral reaction: indiscriminate video surveillance raises the specter of the Owellian State."19 As could be inferred from above digest of cases the strength of court’s position as to possible intrusion of privacy on the use of surveillance cameras would have been made clear if the US Supreme Court have made a more definitive ruling on the matter prohibiting the same. It is the objective assessment of this paper that the courts statement of the above cases do not sound like reflecting the position of the US Supreme Court, which will have a final say on any law that may be proposed for the purpose of putting cameras in public places. 2.2.7 Would majority of people value rather lose their privacy even in public places in order to be more secure? People’s perception of sense of security changes with the times. Who would need public surveillance cameras if there is no connection between internal security and loss of privacy of people As stated earlier, the use of surveillance cameras in public gathering places do have effects on reducing crime. The assurance of being secured may outweigh the disadvantage of partially losing some of people’s privacy. The issue could perhaps be partially answered by a survey on how people feel on the issues. See Appendix A which indicated that more people agree to have the public camera and they believe that they would be more secure. 3. Conclusion: Given recent threats to internal security in the United States, the government has many good reasons to install surveillance cameras in public gathering places. Using cameras was proven to be effective not only in the United Kingdom but also in other countries. Although the US system of government is different from UK, which is known to have not Bill of Rights, the possibility of violating the First and the Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution is remote considering that the use was upheld in other jurisdictions like in UK and France. Since it is being made in the name of national security there could be little to object to if people want it as proven in survey cited. Between the right to privacy of some and the right to safety and security of many, it is submitted that the court will sustain the validly of any law that would allow the installation of cameras. As a way of preventing charge of violation of privacy, however, some conditions must be settled. One is the proper definition of ‘public gathering place’ in any law that will be enacted to that effect and the other is the government action make proper announce that in such public gathering places, there are CCTV or other form of surveillance equipment that could monitor people. 4. Appendices Appendix A- Chart I, as adopted from the work of Nieto < http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/crb97-005.html#partnerships > 5. Works and Cases cited: Austin, J. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, B. Franklin. New York. Publication Year: 1970, 126 By Marcus Nieto, Public Video Surveillance: Is It An Effective Crime Prevention Tool?, June 1997 {www document} URL http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/crb97-005.html#partnerships, Accessed October, 19, 2006 California vs. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213-14 (1986) Courts have never sustained a First Amendment claim when law enforcement makes use of undercover agents in public areas. See. Jennifer Mulhern Granholm, "Video Surveillance on Public Streets: The Constitutionality of Invisable Citizen Searches," University of Detroit Law Review, Vol. 64 note 20 at p.708. Cuevas-Sanchez, 821, F 2nd 50-51; see also USA vs. Torres, 751 F. 2nd 875, 877 (7th Cir. 1984). Dow Chemical Co. vs. United States, 106 S. Ct. 1819 (1986) Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 198618 U.S.C. Section 2510 Katz vs. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Laird vs. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972). Nieto, M. Public Video Surveillance: Is It An Effective Crime Prevention Tool?, June 1997 {www document} URL http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/crb97-005.html#partnerships, Accessed October, 19, 2006 S. Rep. No. 541, 99th Congress. 2nd Session. 16-17. Scott Sher, Public Law Research Institute, "Continuous Video Surveillance and Its Legal Consequences," University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, Ca, November, 1996. United States vs. Knotts 368 U.S. 276, 281-82 (1983) USA vs. Cuevas-Sanchez, 821 F. 2nd 248, 50-51 (5th Cir. 1987); Ricks vs. State, 537 A. 2nd 612 (Md. 1988). USA vs. Sherman, 990 F. 2nd 1265 (9th Cir. 1993), 990 F.2d at 1265 (internal quotations omitted) (citing United States vs. Taketa, 923 F. 2d 665, 677) (9th Cir. 1991) Read More