Committee Hearing, March 9, 2006

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, March 9, 2006 1:10 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILL 060092 - An ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Article VIII, Chapter 5 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters," by adding a... RESOLUTION 060101 - Resolution proposing an amendment to Article VIII, Chapter 5 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters," by adding a new section calling on the City... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. City Council Committee on Law and Government is now in session to hear testimony on Bill No. 060092 and Resolution No. 7 060101. We have a quorum present with Councilmembers Clarke, who has been assigned by the Council President to the Law and Government Committee, Councilmember Kelly, Councilmember Nutter, and I believe Councilmember Rizzo is on his way. Bill No. 060092 is an ordinance 16 providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Article 19 VIII, Chapter 5 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters," by adding a new section calling on the City to fight crime and violence through the use of video surveillance, which shall be implemented in a manner that protects 3 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 civil liberties and legitimate privacy interests; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Also, Resolution No. 060101, resolution proposing an amendment to Article VIII, Chapter 5 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters," by adding a new section calling on the City to fight crime and violence through the use of video surveillance, which shall be implemented in a manner that protects civil liberties and legitimate privacy interests. Councilmember Clarke, do you have a comment to make?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee and members in the audience, 4 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 essentially today we're looking to pass this resolution and ordinance to place a referendum on the ballot. If I can give you a little background. Earlier last year we had talked about the possibility of having video surveillance in some of our high-crime areas and some of our commercial corridors to support the Police effort in keeping safe and reasonable corridors in neighborhoods. We understand the sensitive nature of this subject matter, so what we did is, we went to some locations, went to Baltimore and we talked to some people from some of the other municipalities about how they implemented their systems, what level of citizen input they had, and it was clear to us that early on we should be proactive in engaging citizens in the process, if in fact we do implement systems within our communities. Preliminarily, we had overwhelming support for some sort of 5 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 surveillance in neighborhoods to help support fighting high crime, but there were questions and concerns raised about some of the civil liberties aspect of this particular proposal. So we made a decision, and hopefully with the support of this Council, that we will place on the May ballot a referendum that will be non-binding. And I want to emphasize, non-binding. It will not authorize, it will not mandate that the City of Philadelphia implement these systems. It is simply an attempt to gauge the concern or the support of citizens to get a sense of how they feel about us implementing this. So I want to make that clear, that based on this referendum, we will not mandate the City of Philadelphia Police to do this, but I thought it was prudent, given the sensitive nature of this, to give the citizens an opportunity to speak about what they think, whether 6 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 or not this should happen in the City. So, Mr. Chairman, we will have substantive testimony. I encourage the debate. I've had some preliminary conversations with some people who have expressed some concerns. I hope today we'll be able to allay those fears as we proceed with this process.

Thank you, Councilmember Clarke. In light of Councilmember Clarke's comments, it also occurs to me that we are under surveillance most of the day, whether we walk into a bank or walk into an airport or any public building just about today, including City Hall, which is now being retrofitted with surveillance cameras. We're on television right now probably. So while I understand the concerns of civil libertarians, and they are legitimate concerns and should be fleshed out and debated, we live in a society, technological society, today 7 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 that basically we're under -- the opportunity to have our picture taken any time exists today. So with that in mind, I'd like to call the first witness, which is Commissioner Sylvester Johnson and anyone else that's with him. Please approach the table and offer your testimony. I've been seeing a lot of you, Commissioner. Not that I mind. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I'm not complaining, though. I'm glad to be here.

Please identify yourself for the record. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, Philadelphia Police Commissioner. Good afternoon, Councilman Clarke and other members of the Committee of Law and Government. I am Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson. I'm here to comment on the proposed use of surveillance cameras in public places to 8 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 reduce crime. The Philadelphia Police Department is excited about the potential that surveillance cameras may have in law enforcement, but has not officially researched the use of surveillance cameras in Philadelphia. While it is true that other jurisdictions have implemented such technology, the long-term results are still unclear. And for this reason, the Police Department cannot, without more research, support or object to using surveillance cameras in public places. While surveillance cameras have received a great deal of attention recently, it is still unclear whether cameras alone are truly impeding crime and public safety. For example, other jurisdictions that have employed surveillance cameras have done so in conjunction with other simultaneous police initiatives. Thus, the surveillance cameras themselves may not 9 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 be the solution proponents are suggesting, but rather a tool in overall crime-fighting strategy. Also, there are some inherent flaws in the existing technology that sets apart using surveillance cameras in public domain versus the private sector. Namely, the surveillance cameras technology is fixed in nature. While this works well when protecting private property concerns, it can be difficult when trying to police large geographical areas such as Philadelphia. Basically, the cameras can't be readily moved to address changing crime patterns or locations. This is the very heart of the Compstat process and Operation Safer Streets. Equally disturbing is the sketchy evidence which appears to indicate that fixed surveillance cameras are responsible for displacing crime. We strive to reduce crime, not merely push it to other areas. 10 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 On the other hand, there are obvious benefits that we have all seen from surveillance cameras. The identification of otherwise unknown criminals and the impact a picture can have upon a jury are, without question, strong support for camera use. Regardless of costs or benefits, good or bad, the issue of privacy in the public domain must also be considered. There are strong arguments for and against the use of such technology in public places. While it may be constitutional, it is an infringement. Whether it is acceptable infringement in Philadelphia is not all that certain. This is also an issue that should be debated before the City should make any commitment. For these reasons, the Police Department is unable to currently commit to implementing surveillance cameras throughout Philadelphia since there is insufficient evidence to prove that they 11 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 do in fact reduce crime and promote public safety. Also, until the public policy issues are confirmed, the Police Department cannot commit to this technology. However, like all other law enforcement agencies across the country, the Philadelphia Police Department is eager to see if this new technology will help us fight crime. Towards this objective, we look forward to further researching the effectiveness of surveillance cameras in public places. This concludes my testimony, but I want to say also that I appreciate Councilman Clarke and this Committee bringing it to Philadelphia, and I am very, very open-minded, and I am not totally objected to using cameras on a limited basis just in certain areas. So as far as the Philadelphia Police Department is concerned and I am concerned, anything that we can do to reduce crime here in the City of Philadelphia and to reduce the violence, 12 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 we're willing to do.

Thank you, Commissioner. Councilmember Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, recently, maybe a year and a half, two years ago, we had a series of assaults in Fairmount Park, I think maybe two rapes, assaults on women, and I believe that the Philadelphia Police Department implemented some sort of surveillance systems. I think they were mobile. Can you tell me about that? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Deputy Commissioner Gaittens. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GAITTENS: Good morning. Jack Gaittens, Deputy Commissioner of Administration and Technology. Yeah. My predecessor, Charlie Brennan, he told me about the implementation, what happened back then. 13 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Three cameras were purchased by Public Property, and Deputy Commissioner Brennan got a grant and worked together with IBM to develop the software and provide the support services for monitoring those cameras. Two of the cameras were placed on Martin Luther King Drive and the third camera was placed behind the Art Museum in the parking lot area. And the idea was, these were supposed to be smart cameras that would use software technology that would recognize any kind of movement that was out of the ordinary and would sound some kind of an alert so that whoever was watching the monitor would be able to pick up on that. The bottom line, a thumbnail description that Charlie Brennan gave me was that it didn't exactly work the way that they thought it would.

From a technology standpoint? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GAITTENS: It was supposed to be that -- it was 14 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 designed to find different like furtive movements. And one of the things that they did was, they had people run past the cameras, as you would see normal joggers, and then they staged a mugging, and the camera did not alert when there was a mugging, but sometimes if a jogger veered off the path a little bit, the camera would alert. So he said it did not meet the expectations. Now, admittedly, that was a year and a half or so ago.

Did we get our money back? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GAITTENS: No, sir, we did not. It was grant funded. The cameras are still in place out there. They are not hooked up. There is no more service agreement with anybody. We are willing to look at any other technology that's out there now. I'm sure it's come a long way in the last 15 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 year and a half. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: One of the other things, I understand that you brought Baltimore and Chicago up here, and I talked to the Chicago Chief last year, who thought very, very highly of the cameras. And we have bought a real good lunch for Baltimore and Chicago here in my office after these hearings are concerned to discuss these issues with both these people. I mean, they're the experts at this point because they're the actually ones who are using surveillance cameras, and we'd like to really sit down and talk to them.

Commissioner, when the City of Philadelphia a couple of years ago implemented Operation Safe Streets -- COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

-- we essentially in a number of areas placed 16 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 police officers on every corner. Would you say that the level of crime was diminished to almost record lows during that time period? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Well, we identified 300 open-air drug corners in the City of Philadelphia and we put 600 police officers on stationary corners May 1st of 2002. May 1st of 2002 or the year 2002 we had the lowest homicide rate that we had in years, and the crime went 13 down. But as we changed, the drug 14 dealers changed. So we kept changing. 15 Unfortunately, sometimes with the cameras 16 and with our people, we're fixed posts, 17 but the criminals keep moving. 18 But we totally and completely disrupted the drug traffic trade, where a buyer or seller couldn't do anything because they didn't know where to go or what to do.

So would you agree that because those police officers were on the corners and 17 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 essentially they were surveilling the locations themselves, the drug dealers felt that it was probably not the best place to be? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That's correct. Matter of fact, I was up at a rehab place yesterday and talking to some of the people that are recovered addicts, and they were mentioning 2002 where they were saying they couldn't even get drugs. One time DEA could get drugs in the City in a matter of almost seconds, and during 2002, they sent some people out to buy drugs. It took them hours to find a location to buy drugs.

Would you also agree that the cost associated with that level of deployment on a long-term basis was not sustainable? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

So if you had an opportunity to have some sort of surveillance, be it mobile, fixed, 18 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 whatever, to some degree -- obviously clearly a camera system can't replace a police officer, and I don't want to in any way suggest that, but if, at a minimum, that camera system had the ability to surveil that area and have a police officer, say, in a sector car somewhere similar to the systems that they have in Baltimore, and I don't want to give their testimony, and that police officer had the ability to monitor that corner using a laptop computer, it would enhance his ability to monitor a larger area? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yes, sir, it definitely would.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner, are you aware of what SEPTA does? Are most or some of their platforms on the subways and transit stops, are they surveilled by cameras? 19 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I believe they are, but I'm not positive about that.

I believe they all, especially on the subway systems, are definitely --

Also, do the major institutions in the City like University of Pennsylvania, Drexel and Temple University also utilize fixed cameras or mobile cameras to help with surveillance? Are you aware? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

It just seems to be a general trend that allows for eyes and ears to be spread further, considering the personnel problems that we have in trying to get the coverage that we need, that it just spreads out the ability, and also puts in the mind of the criminal the fact that they may be recorded as they're committing the crime. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I agree 20 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 with you, and talking to the Police Chief in Chicago, he felt as though it was good for court purposes, because they actually use the videotapes in court. And I say again, we're willing to accept that in a pilot program and see exactly how they work here in the City of Philadelphia.

Have you also considered the use of cameras, in-dash cameras or in-grille cameras for police automobiles as they do with a number of State Police forces throughout the country to both monitor the activities of the police by providing a visual record of whether or not a complaint is in fact an accurate complaint or whether the officer acted properly in the car stop? Have we ever considered the use of those, and could that potentially reduce our liability when it comes to complaints against police or provide a better training mechanism for improving police work?

I'll just comment. 21 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Basically, the law has changed rather recently the fact that we're allowed to even use the audio portion of those cameras. So it's relatively a new thing in Pennsylvania. There's a lot of restrictions in the code that authorizes the use of these cameras because it's basically an exception to the Wire Tap Act. To do so, the cameras have to be fixed mounted, the lights have to be flashing. We're not exactly sure the best suited use for those cameras in Philadelphia. They're really best suited for highway stops. A lot of the incidents our officers in the district attend to or handle aren't really done at the car. So those cameras would be of no 20 help, and plus the lights wouldn't be on. But, yes, they obviously have a benefit. The benefit is obvious for highway type of stops, but not necessarily for the overall City type of policing. 22 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092

You had a question relative -- I'll get right to you, but you had a question relative to this particular --

Yes. Who would be --

I'm sorry. Fran, could you identify yourself for the stenographer?

I'm sorry. Francis Healy. I'm with the Police Commissioner's office.

Thank you. I'm sorry, Councilman.

Mr. Healy, I just want to know, who would be the person or department that would authorize the use of those cameras?

Well, ultimately the Police Commissioner makes all decisions in the Police Department. There's a lot of cost involved, and I believe there may be --

So it would 23 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 be the City of Philadelphia, in other words? It would be the Police Commissioner or come from the Police Department of Philadelphia to authorize it?

Correct, after we would review everything to see whether or not it's feasible to use it in Philadelphia, finances and everything else.

We wouldn't need any state authority or anything like that?

Not at this point in time. The state law has been passed. The biggest problem to these cameras in the past was, Pennsylvania was a two-party consent, whereas if you wanted to tape someone, you needed both parties' consent. The fact was on these car stops, the individual -- they're not being consented to being audiotaped. That was an exception --

So this 24 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 would be an agreement between the City Solicitor's office and the Police Department?

No. The law has been changed to amend that. So that now on traffic stops, you can tape. You have to reasonably notify the person immediately that they're being taped, and there's other requirements. It's very specific, but there is an exemption now in Pennsylvania as a whole. The law has been changed.

It has been? Okay. Thank you.

So we could use the cameras if we got them tomorrow. We could use them.

Councilman Rizzo.

That was the question basically I wanted to ask, because you see agencies throughout the United States that use it, and the immediate reaction is, Well, we don't 25 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 want to do that. But many police officers have been -- accusations against police officers. And also, our Expressway Unit, when they would stop a DUI, I mean, what better tape for court is a person that stumbles out of their vehicle. And I know that there's some hesitancy by police officers, but from what I've heard, those cameras have really been very, very helpful, the on-dash-mounted cameras, that automatically activate when the lights go on.

Correct.

And I think that's something that we should really try, especially if we retain the expressway patrol here in the City of Philadelphia. I think anything that will help our officers. And I think when accusations are made against police, that there's nothing better than an audio and also a video of the conduct of the person that's making that accusation. 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: For years, we've used pole cameras, and we still use pole cameras for high-crime areas and for areas that had a lot of drug dealing in it. So, I mean, it's nothing that we haven't done before. We haven't done it on this scale, but we have used pole cameras that have been very, very successful and very, very helpful.

Just to finish, the question that I asked you I want to ask again for the purpose of this hearing, is that right now if you wanted to put cameras out in various neighborhoods, no laws here at Council would need to be made, that you could tomorrow install a camera, and from what I'm hearing the lieutenant say, is that now you could possibly even record gunshots, you could record screams without --

Councilman, let me just clarify. The audio portion is only 27 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 specifically carved out for those cameras fixly mounted in a police car. So we would not be able to audio surveil these cameras. Only video.

Lieutenant, we were told that a gunshot would be okay to record, screams, as long as you weren't detecting conversation, personal conversations like a conversation we're having right now.

Right.

But if it were gunshots or a scream, that would be very, very appropriate.

It may well be, but I'm not sure how the camera would distinguish a conversation versus a scream. And what we're doing, we'd be actually violating the Wire Tap Act.

A scream --

Don't show us.

Ricky does that, not me. 28 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 You got that.

Yeah, I got it.

The scream would obviously or a gunshot would be a whole different scenario.

If there's technology that would differentiate the two, yeah, but legally I would be afraid that things would be taken --

I don't think a camera with a microphone mounted on a pole from 60 feet away, even with the best technology, could detect two people standing on a corner having a conversation. I mean, I don't think so. I know the FBI is very sophisticated, but --

Well, it can. That's the problem.

But I think the cameras in the cars might be a good way to go.

Absolutely. 29 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 There's a definite benefit to those cameras.

I think in general there's an element of all of us who don't like the idea of our privacy being infringed upon, but when you get to a point in the technological age where you can't use an ATM machine without someone taking your picture, you might as well try to use the positive benefits of it to fight crime and to keep people safe. I mean, I certainly don't like the fact that people can pull out a phone and take my picture whenever they want to, but they can. We get to a point where the technology is just what it is, and if you don't take advantage of it for the benefits, not only for the infringement of your privacy but for the benefits of your safety, I think you're probably missing the boat.

If I could just add on. We're not against the cameras. What 30 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 we need to do is find out best practices, which are the best ones to use that have already dealt with some of the problems that we see, and if we can overcome those hurdles, there's no objections as well.

Councilman Kelly.

I just wanted to thank the Commissioner for his testimony today and especially keeping your mind open for anything that we can use, anything to really cut down on the amount of crime in the City, and I'm very, very anxious to hear from the experts from Chicago and Baltimore, because they're the ones that can really give us some information of how effective cameras can be to do just that. Again, I just want to thank you. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: We will be here to listen to their testimony.

Thank you very much. Thanks for your testimony. 31 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

We've been asked to call former President Judge Massiah-Jackson, who has another appointment and needs to get out of here. We thank her for coming. Good afternoon, Your Honor. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Good afternoon.

Please identify yourself for the record. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: My name is Frederica Massiah-Jackson. I submitted copies of my testimony, and I do want to thank the Committee for taking me out of turn. I do appreciate that, so that I can get back to court. Thank you for this opportunity to comment about the proposal to amend the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. The proposal would permit the use of video surveillance for the stated purpose to increase public safety in a manner that 32 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 protects civil liberties and legitimate private interests. I am here today in my individual capacity and not as a representative of the First Judicial District. Our Judicial Canons permit a judge to appear at a public hearing before a legislative body on matters concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. In my mind, as a person who was born and raised in North Philadelphia and where my family home remains in Councilman Clarke's district, there is no 16 greater concern for the law or for justice than a proposal which would permit indiscriminate monitoring of legal and innocent activity in a community. The relative benefits in making our streets safer must not be bought at a price of shedding personal autonomy and independence or by invading the lives of people who are not suspected of wrongdoing. 33 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Accordingly, while the widespread use of street surveillance by law enforcement may at some point be permitted by this proposed Charter change, safeguards must be set in place, which will minimize unauthorized intrusions into the lives of our citizens. In that manner, this City government will accomplish the law enforcement goals, which are to increase safety in the streets, without excessively stripping away the key components of our American society, which was founded on principles of personal autonomy, privacy and independence. The American Bar Association has defined video surveillance as follows: The use of a lawfully positioned camera as a means of viewing or recording activities other than those occurring within the sight or immediate vicinity of a law enforcement official or an agent thereof who is aware of such use. 34 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 In 1998, the American Bar Association's House of Delegates approved Standards for Criminal Justice - Electronic Surveillance, Section B, which is Technologically Assisted Physical Surveillance. These ABA standards were drafted by a task force composed of judges, lawyers, law enforcement officials and privacy experts in a series of meetings from 1995 through 1997. And, Council, I've attached a copy of the ABA standards for your consideration. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. The ABA standards and the commentary provide guidelines on the need for surveillance, the need for regulation, factors relevant to regulating use of surveillance, implementation, rule-making and decision-making, accountability of government officials, written guidance to law enforcement officers. These standards were drafted as 35 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 a means to ensure that surveillance decisions are based on all relevant considerations and information. So I encourage City Council and the City Administration to use the ABA standards as a threshold for the minimum response to this Charter change proposal. The first priority of our City government must be to deter crime and criminal activity. And cameras cannot be effective deterrents if their presence is not made known. The implementation of a video surveillance program includes providing notice to the community and to those who are subject to being watched and recorded. The City must also ensure that it avoids discriminatory surveillance. Next, durational limits should be established in order to terminate surveillance when the legitimate law enforcement objectives are achieved.

Protocols must be written for storage of recordings, dissemination of tapes and 36 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 recordings, and the eventual destruction of the tapes. And, most significantly, there must be accountability by the law enforcement departments and others, for reassurance that administrative rules have been followed. This strategy which you're proposing of technological preventive policing by video cameras will be considered intrusive and intimidating by some. Others will deem that it is urgently necessary. Some will label this a psychology of fear. Others will endorse this as a comprehensive response to urban terrorism. So I encourage this City Council Committee to take a leadership role not limited to simply submitting the referendum to the voters. Your legislative oversight should extend to adopting regulations which strike a balance between liberty and security for all of the citizens of Philadelphia. I'd like to thank Councilman 37 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Clarke and to the entire Committee, Councilman Kenney, for the invitation to present these comments.

Thank you very much for your insights, Your Honor, and one of the things in my mind at least, and I'm sure shared by the Committee, is, I believe Councilmember Clarke's motives on the referendum was to get kind of the approval of the citizens for us to proceed to establish all the things that you've talked about in your testimony without doing it first, kind of getting their permission to at least explore that area, and then to come up with the leadership necessary to craft legislation and policies that make sense. I think kind of getting their approval first was I think important. I think Councilmember Clarke believed that that was important, to do that first, so that we could move ahead and get a program that makes sense. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, I 38 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 appreciate it, and I have great confidence in the leadership of this body in looking at the American Bar Association standards as guidelines, and I certainly appreciate Councilman Clarke's ideas about the referendum with the City.

Thank you, Your Honor. Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your Honor, I just want to thank you so much for not only your testimony today but our conversation earlier about those very pertinent issues. I agree with Councilman Kenney. In fact, if we proceed, these standards should be a part of the process, along with citizen input. One of the things that I don't like is that -- and this may, to some degree, create some of the confusion -- is in order for us to get a 39 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 referendum, albeit non-binding, we have to do a Charter amendment, and I think that has raised some concerns among some of the citizens, because once you talk about changing the Charter, it's a sense of permanency, but, unfortunately, that's the only way we can actually get something on the ballot. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: I wasn't really clear why that happened.

I really don't like that, but I wasn't around when they wrote the Charter.

It's kind of our only vehicle. We don't have referenda as California would do or other states.

Exactly.

Any questions for the Judge? (No response.)

I'd just like to take the opportunity also to acknowledge the presence of Charles 40 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Bowser, one of our prominent attorneys in Philadelphia. We appreciate you being here today. It's nice to see you, as always. Thank you. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Thank you.

Thank you, Your Honor. Kristen Mahoney, Chief of Police, Technical Services, Baltimore. Also, we'd like to ask the Baltimore community members that are here with the Chief to please approach the table. We know you have a train to catch. We appreciate you taking the time to come up to Philadelphia. Good afternoon. CHIEF MAHONEY: Good afternoon. I'm Kristen Mahoney. I'm the Chief of Technical Services for the Baltimore Police Department, and all of the camera projects in the City fall under my division. And I put together a little 41 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 PowerPoint slide presentation in your materials. I'm just going to run through some of the basic elements. I can tell you about some specifics about what the cameras can do and what they can't do. We kind of have like our Ten Commandments of cameras that we've developed after going to London and Jersey City and to Chicago, the grandfather of the camera location in our country, and then I'm going to let the community members tell you what the cameras really do. But what our cameras can do is that they -- we have several types of cameras, and we deploy cameras based on the crime need in the neighborhood. So we have cameras like you've seen that Chicago is going to talk about, the flashing blue light cameras that are kind of a cop-in-a-box camera that they talk about. And we also have a camera network in five of our high-crime neighborhoods, and those cameras are wireless. They 42 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 feed to a main line and they go to the Police District where they're monitored 24/7 by a combination of retired police officers and community members. And then we have a downtown surveillance center that handles most of our critical infrastructure, our courthouses, our rail, light rail, the Convention Center, all of those types of things. And based on the community's need is how we apply the camera technology. But we do have some rules for any camera technology we apply, and, that is, all of our cameras have to pan, tilt and zoom. They have to be able to pan 360 degrees. They have to work at night as well as they work during the day, and they have to record to a hard drive for evidentiary purposes. And as the Judge mentioned, we have adopted those types of evidentiary standards. Our POD cameras tape for five days. Our hard drive cameras tape for 30 days. And the officers have procedures 43 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 in place that they know to acquire disks and enter them into evidence and take them to court. We bought all of our state's attorneys, courthouses, computers so that they can play the evidence in court, because we just didn't want to have any obstacles. Cameras are deployed to support a district's crime-fighting strategy. So you're not allowed to get a camera as a District Commander unless you put a crime-fighting strategy in place that supports that camera, because cameras can't do it by themselves. They need smart people behind them. They only enhance what police officers can do. And I'll tell you a little story about that where police officers will say to me, because I ride with them all the time to find out how these cameras are working, and they'll say, I've cleared this corner 30 times this week and every time I turn around, I come back around the corner and these kids are 44 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 still there, and I wish I had eyes in the back of my head. And the cameras give officers the eyes in the back of their head, because what the cameras do is, the officer leaves and says, Look, somebody got shot here last night, I know it's a target for retaliation, you guys are in danger if you continue to hang out in front of this liquor store, you need to move along, you need to stop drinking a beer and urinating in public, you need to move along, and if I come back here, we're going to have to ratchet up the enforcement.

And then the officer gets on the radio and calls back to the retired police officer at the district and says, I just cleared Smith and Chase, keep an eye on it and let me know if they come back, because I got to go take some burglary calls and I got to go deal with some people who got their cars stolen. And so that makes it like we have 50 more police officers right there, and when those kids come back on the 45 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 corner and disobey that request by the officer and begin to engage in illegal activity again, the officer like falls out of the sky on them. They're like, What happened? I thought you were gone. I thought it was shift change. So it really helps us provide community members with some seamless coverage. Our cameras are networked so we can see them any place at Headquarters, downtown or at the Police Districts. And, also when we're reviewing things with community members or with our retired officers and we think we saw something but we're not sure, or a call comes out for a gunshot but we weren't looking at that particular camera at the time, the technology enables us to go back, just like you guys have with cable or Tivo. You can go back and check what you missed and see. And that helps us out a lot, because you obviously can't watch 250 cameras at all times, but you 46 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 can go back to various times. And how that's helped us in the past is, I know at 23rd and Cokesbury people love to dump, and we have caught dumpers there over and over and over again. And I know and I tell the monitors, you can't watch 23rd and Cokesbury all the time, but when you come to work and you see that there's been trash there, play back the tape and tell me when it happened, and then they can start identifying trends. Are these general contractors that are doing the dumbing? Are these people in the neighborhood that are doing the dumping? What's the story? And so that helps us piece together dumping investigations. It's also helped us piece together graffiti people in downtown Baltimore, who, for some reason, love to tag our bus stops, no matter how hard we try to keep them clean. What we try and do is place cameras in our most violent neighborhoods 47 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 to support the police in making our neighborhoods safer. And Monument Street, which is right beside the Hopkins Hospital in East Baltimore, we've placed cameras there, and they're networked 7 back to the Southeast Police District. 8 And since they've been up, since May, 9 we've seen a 17 percent reduction in 10 violent crime in that area. 11 In the Greenmount area where 12 Ms. Mary is from, she'll tell you all 13 about what it's like there. We have 32 14 cameras there, and since they've been 15 placed, we have a 42 percent reduction in 16 violent crime. 17 Now, this violent crime 18 reduction is not just where the cameras 19 can see. We don't cheat that way. We 20 actually include the buffer zone. So we 21 look at the area outside where a camera 22 could be to see if the crime is actually 23 being pushed there. 24 We also are going to be starting to pull narcotics calls for 48 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 service to ensure that the narcotics calls are going down. Because if we're not getting the results we need, that's because the Police Commanders are not deploying properly to pick up that displacement and reduce those calls. The final neighborhood camera project that we have that's complete is where Mark's area is, is Park Heights, North and South. Park Heights North is probably one of the highest concentration of Orthodox Jewish communities on the east coast, and for that reason, we were able to get some Homeland Security funding to secure that area with the grant with cameras that link into our Park Heights South community, which is one of our highest crime neighborhoods. So we've kind of tied those two communities together.

Those cameras go to the Northwest Police District, 38 cameras, and since they've been up, we've had a 19 percent violent crime reduction. 49 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 And then the last place that's done is the Central District, which is our arts and tourism area, and we've had a 34 percent violent crime reduction since that area went up. And that's where the Councilman came and saw that area, and Councilman Rizzo saw it as well. North Avenue just came up, 35 cameras operational. I don't have any statistics for you on their effect, but I can tell you Baltimore Sun Newspaper reporter or salesperson was selling newspapers in the media strip and got robbed and beat up pretty badly, and we caught it up on camera and we were able to solve that crime, among many others. We've solved a murder. We've solved several shootings. We've been able to place witnesses at crimes who have said, I wasn't at that crime. We've been able to tell the Fire Department whether a fire is really there or not, how big the fire looks, because we get there before 50 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 anybody does. And our final area is the Tri-District. We're going to have 5 cameras up there. The Tri-District is 6 one of our most difficult areas because, 7 as it's named, it's where three Police 8 Districts come together, so everybody 9 says, It's not my responsibility. If we 10 put cameras there, the cameras don't know 11 district boundaries, so we're able to 12 just get rid of that district boundary 13 area problem. 14 And then I showed you a picture 15 of our POD, which Chicago is going to 16 talk to you about. And I think that's 17 it. I'm going to let Mary and Mark. 18

Thank you 19 for your testimony. 20 Ma'am, could you please 21 identify yourself for the record for the 22 stenographer. 23

My name is Mary 24 Harvin. I'm the East Midway Barclay 25 Community Safety Program Coordinator. 51 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 I want to start by thanking Councilman Clarke for the opportunity, and Chief Mahoney, for the opportunity to speak to you today. I want to tell you a little bit about the East Midway Barclay area. There is a corridor in East Midway Barclay called Greenmount Avenue. A little history is that Greenmount Avenue runs from north to south. It was a very thriving community until 1968 when the riots hit and Greenmount Avenue burned. It was never quite the same after that. Then there was a lot of flight from the area to the suburbs, which left a lot of vacant properties, and also businesses left. So you had a lot of vacant commercial property. There were many homeowners, long-term homeowners, in the area that didn't leave because they couldn't leave, and so they kind of just hung on to the community. And so what we wanted to do was to give these residents hope, and the 52 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 cameras have made a difference in the community along the Greenmount Avenue corridor. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Cameras help create safe communities. There is a marked decrease in crime and activity along the corridors where the cameras are located. They not only deter crime, but catch criminals and aid in prosecuting them. They also save lives. Cameras improve quality of life for residents, and citizens feel safer. As a result, there will be many new homeowners and new businesses in the area. If people don't feel safe after making an investment in the community, they will not stay. There is not enough funding to place a police officer on every corner. Cameras are not intended to replace current policing techniques, but to enhance them. They are not meant to replace police officers, but to assist 53 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 them. Feet are not swift enough, nor cars fast enough for police officers to do what the cameras do. The cameras are placed in strategic places referred to as hot zones. These areas are areas where crime is persistent despite police crackdowns. We want criminals to know that they're being watched. Cameras are visible with long-range vision capabilities. They never get weary, they never get sleepy, and they never change shifts. There have been no complaints from the residents where we live or to catch buses in the East Midway Barclay area because of the cameras. If cameras will prevent those that I love and care about from being mugged, robbed, murdered or all of the above, then I'm grateful for the cameras. The cameras are used as part of an overall strategy as a tool in the solving of crime. Recently, in Baltimore a child was missing after being left with 54 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 a babysitter. The child was later spotted on camera in Baltimore's Downtown Shopping District. It was then known from the camera that the child was alive and well. The child was later reunited with its mother a short time later. Cameras enhance the public safety, deter crime, reduce the fear of crime, and identify suspects in criminal activities. The cameras monitor street and sidewalk activity and public places. There must be good technology software, adequate training and supervision for those who monitor and maintain the cameras, and let me add sustainable funding, to keep the cameras once you have them. The safer you make the community, the better it is for everyone. Cameras have made a big difference, and here are the crime stats, and I've attached those to the second sheet I believe that you were given, but I believe Commissioner Mahoney has already mentioned that, so I won't go 55 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 into that. But thank you very much for hearing me at this time.

Thank you very much for your testimony and for taking the time to come to Philadelphia to let us hear you. Could you please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

My name is Mark Hughes and I'm a community organizer in my community. Members of the Law and Government Committee, I thank Councilman Clarke for inviting me to appear before the Committee to offer my testimony. My name is Mark Hughes and I am a community organizer for a project called C-SAFE. C-SAFE is a project that is focused on bringing communities and governmental agencies together. A goal of C-SAFE is to reduce crime and the rate of recidivism of the ex-offenders who return to the community. As a C-SAFE community 56 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 organizer who lives in and serves the Park Heights community of Northwestern Baltimore City, I have had many discussions with residents of my community on the issue of crime. Late in 2004, I became aware of the proposal to put the surveillance cameras in some of the City's communities after reading a newspaper article. My first reaction was one of support. I knew the battles that we had and continue to have with the criminal element in our community. I called Chief Mahoney about the cameras and offered my opinion to her. Honestly, I think that my support for the proposal may have surprised her a bit, based upon our conversation. I spoke with other leaders in my community and found most of them to be just as supportive of the cameras as I. It has now been about a year since the cameras were installed, and there is widespread agreement that the cameras have been effective. I have seen 57 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 loitering, drug activity, illegal dumping, prostitution, you name it, I've seen all of this sharply curtailed in the areas where the cameras were installed. My community has now begun to examine strategies that will bring attention to neighborhoods that are in close proximity to the cameras. Some of these neighborhoods have noticed an increase in noticeable criminal activity. I am now working with the leaders in those neighborhoods to address that activity. If we are able to give people a sense of security in their communities, it will go a long way in the effort to revitalizing our cities. Obviously cameras by themselves will not totally eliminate crime. Let me be clear on that. Cameras by themselves will not totally eliminate crime. However, by gaining the community's trust and employing effective crime-fighting strategies along with the cameras, crime 58 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 has been on the decrease in my community. Additionally, the people's perception in my community is that crime is decreasing, and that is just as important to me. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I actually just wanted to thank them for coming up. Thank you for hosting a very, very impressive meeting down in Baltimore. There was a couple of quick questions I wanted to ask you as a result of some conversations that I've had with people. The tapes or the disks, how long are they kept by the Police Department? CHIEF MAHONEY: The hard drive is kept for 28 days. Then it's taped 59 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 over. But the actual DVDs, we haven't gotten rid of any yet. We don't really have a policy on how long, but I'll tell you this: You've got to have a crime to make a DVD, to make a recording. There's no sense in making a recording of 8 hours of nothing. So what happens is, an 9 officer has to initiate or a prosecutor 10 or a defense attorney has to initiate a 11 request for a DVD, and if it's within the 12 28 days, then we'll be able to supply the 13 DVD. 14

In the 15 event that someone is involved in a civil 16 case and they would like to subpoena the 17 records of a recording that was done by 18 the Baltimore Police, do they have that 19 capability? 20 CHIEF MAHONEY: Yes. We handle 21 that just like the way a defense attorney 22 would handle requesting a 9-1-1 tape. 23 There's a fee associated with it and we 24 make them the tape.

Is that 60 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 something that you're required to do? CHIEF MAHONEY: Yes. If they subpoena it, then we'll handle it just like we handle the 9-1-1 tapes, and I think it's like $80 or something.

Is that any level, of, say, like a divorce case? CHIEF MAHONEY: Yeah. Anything that has a court order saying to --

I'm not married, but you never know, right? CHIEF MAHONEY: Obviously if there's a court order, we're going to comply with that. If a prosecutor has a discovery request or otherwise, we're going to comply with that.

That was a concern some people raised. Folks walking down the street with the person that they probably shouldn't be walking down the street with. Okay. Thank you.

Councilman Rizzo. 61 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 CHIEF MAHONEY: I'm sorry. We're not going to just do it for sake like that. I mean, there has to be --

I understand, but if somehow someone said, you know, I wonder if -- CHIEF MAHONEY: Yeah.

Just before I get to my question, I just want to follow up on that thought. Federal government, FBI and other federal agencies, they don't need a subpoena; they can just come and look? CHIEF MAHONEY: No, no, no. We just give them to the prosecutor.

Well, I'm just talking about FBI or DEA, those agencies -- CHIEF MAHONEY: Yes.

-- can just voluntarily come in? CHIEF MAHONEY: They can come in.

In reference 62 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 to the corridors -- and thank you for coming again, all of you -- is it fair to say that people that know where the cameras are in the corridor will choose that path to go from Point A to Point B because they feel a little more secure knowing that there's a camera there?

Yeah, surprisingly so. I know I can speak for my community, Park Heights Avenue. The name was probably synonymous with crime in my community, and now because the cameras have been monitoring these locations, it's actually one of the safer avenues in the community, strangely enough. And it's actually -- some of the side streets are probably less safe than this Park Heights Avenue because of the cameras and the activity. Now people are returning to the strip to shop. So, yeah, it has had that effect.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman 63 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Kelly.

Yes. Thank you. Chief Mahoney, I just want to ask you something about -- are most of these cameras in commercial corridors or most of them are in residential areas, or are they split evenly? CHIEF MAHONEY: The PODs are in residential areas, for the most part. The crime corridors, Park Heights and Greenmount, there will be cameras that go straight down that main corridor, but then as the maps would show, they're wireless, so they can spring off two or three blocks east or west either way and pick up the displacement and pick up the neighborhood crime as well. And as I mentioned, the District Commanders have to have a deployment strategy in place to come in behind that so that the phenomenon that they're experiencing in Park Heights is limited. We don't want people to say 64 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 that the side streets now become a little bit more dangerous. So what we'll do is, we'll deploy people there, and we also are constantly deploying large stadium lights in alleyways and side streets to light them up so people do feel safe when we can't put in a camera.

You mention in your testimony there was a 34 percent reduction, I believe, in a commercial district. CHIEF MAHONEY: Yes.

What would you say the overall reduction of crime has been for the total area? CHIEF MAHONEY: I have it. I'd have to add it up for you, but, I mean, it would definitely be in the mid 20's.

A ballpark figure. CHIEF MAHONEY: Mid 20's reduction. And that's violent crime. I'm not keeping track of cars.

Well, you've 65 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 been very helpful to this Committee and I want to thank you again, all the members on the panel. CHIEF MAHONEY: Well, best of luck to Philadelphia.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a question relative to the request for the placement. Are they done by the Police Commanders in the district? CHIEF MAHONEY: It's a combination. The Police Commanders -- we actually were getting so many requests for cameras that we had to put in a service call in our 3-1-1 system so that -- citizens were like, How do I get a camera in my neighborhood. So we factor in they'll call 3-1-1 and we'll enter that. We also wanted to say, How do I get a camera out of my neighborhood, because we don't put cameras where people 66 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 don't want them. And we haven't gotten any of those calls. We got one call because of the blue lights flashing. They said it made their house look like a disco. So we moved the camera. We're like, That's cool. Can we move it over here? And they were like, That's fine. So we moved it. But we've gotten about 300 requests for cameras. The strategy is, it's a bottom-driven strategy. It's the police officers and the community members pushing it up to the District Commander, getting together with the Chief of Detectors and the head of organized crime and some Council people and some Mayors sometimes get involved in the discussion.

Really?

Thank God you didn't use red lights. CHIEF MAHONEY: And then the crime statistics play in. And then we 67 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 just kind of figure out where we're going to -- we got to get a bang for our buck, so I'm not going to put them in places where there's no crime.

Is there a formal petition process where the community -- like, for example, we have permit parking in Philadelphia where 51 percent of the people in the permit parking area need to agree to do it. Is there a formalized petition? CHIEF MAHONEY: No. 14

Just complaints come to the district or come through like the officials to the Commander and the Commanders -- now, is there an analysis of the crime stats in that particular area that determined whether or not it's justified? CHIEF MAHONEY: Yes. That's all part of the package that has to come through, and they have to decide. And that's the value of the PODs, is that the PODs can move. So we can put the POD 68 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 where we have a serial rapist. It goes up there for four, five days. The community is feeling a little better about coming out, going to work, whatever. We catch the serial rapist and then we can move that POD to a witness intimidation place where a family is being threatened about a case. So the PODs are really valuable for that.

Do you have a Compstat program? CHIEF MAHONEY: Yes.

And the Compstat analysis is done as a result of or is incorporated in the result of the camera placements? CHIEF MAHONEY: They view the cameras at Compstat. They'll pull camera footage up at Compstat and ask about, What's going on right here, you told me this corner is clear, it's never looked better. It looks horrible. They have statistics they've got to explain at Compstat. 69 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Every district has a District Commander and a Deputy Major. The Deputy Major is the second in control. Our Police Commissioner said that every Deputy Major in the department is responsible for the cameras in his or her district. So that makes it very easy for me. I have one point of contact in each district. When the stats aren't coming through -- because I actually run the Compstat program for the department. So when the stats aren't right -- one stat that we look at a lot is the number of evidence collections, how many DVDs they've asked for, because I'm like, What are you doing? I haven't had any requests for any evidence. Does that mean you haven't made any good cases? So we have all sorts of different benchmarks that we look at.

So in addition to safety issues and the community feeling better about their neighborhood, it's a management tool for 70 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Commanders and Police? CHIEF MAHONEY: It's at Compstat, and our Mayor holds a thing every Tuesday called Police Stat, where he brings the Police Commanders in with all of the City agency heads to fight crime City-wide, and the Mayor pulls up the cameras at his office and asks us about dumping and sanitation problems and...

Okay. If I could ask the members of the community whether or not they initially heard any element of complaint relative to privacy invasion or the placement of cameras in particular neighborhoods based on racial composition or anything like that. Was there any kind of civil rights complaints that you heard from your own neighbors and residents in the community initially? They may have gotten over it and now are happen with it, but on the initial onset, were there any issues like that that were raised? 71 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092

There were none from our community. The only people that complained were people that were doing illegal things anyway. They felt like their rights were being violated.

From my community, initially, no. Over time there has been some. I've kept a dialogue of some of the people that have those issues. But they were more -- they were not so much racial or geographic. They talked about economics, their complaints. And there's still some complaints that say, Okay, well, we don't just want to concentrate these in some of more economically depressed areas, that we need to have this as a City-wide strategy and not just focus on this one area.

How old is the program? CHIEF MAHONEY: We launched it on May 13th, 2005.

And both from an administrative standpoint and 72 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 from a service standpoint, would you characterize it as a success overall? CHIEF MAHONEY: We cannot keep up with the requests for the cameras.

How about the community people?

Yes.

Yes. CHIEF MAHONEY: The one thing that I would add is, just be open with it. Let people come in, see the cameras, people have questions. Let them -- I mean, we have nothing to hide, and if you want to come and help us monitor cameras, we need all the help we can get.

Any other questions? (No response.)

Thank you very much for coming in. Have a safe trip home. Andrew Velasquez and Dean Tsilikas. Good afternoon. Please 73 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 identify yourself for the record.

Andrew Velasquez, Executive Director, Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications.

Dean Tsilikas, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs for the Office of Emergency Management and Communications.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Mr. Chairman, Councilman Clarke, members of the Philadelphia City Council, thank you for extending the invitation for me, on behalf of the City of Chicago, to testify today at this Committee hearing on Philadelphia's proposed video surveillance legislation. I appear before you today to share with you the City of Chicago's successes in both increasing public safety as well as improving the quality of life of its residents through our extensive video 74 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 surveillance network. As Executive Director for the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications, I am responsible for approximately five core missions. One is 9-1-1 operations, I oversee homeland security for the City of Chicago emergency management, traffic management, as well as the City of Chicago's unified camera surveillance network. So I have been charged with the important task of realizing Mayor Richard M. Daley's vision for a City-wide video surveillance network. The Mayor's overall objective in expanding and integrating Chicago surveillance capabilities has always been to make Chicago as safe as any large city can be for its residents and neighborhood communities, as well as protecting our critical infrastructure. I would like to take this opportunity and express with you over the next few minutes just some of Chicago's 75 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 initiatives as it relates to our unified camera surveillance network, and then entertain any questions that you may have. But as the Chief testified before me about their camera surveillance network, we began our program, which is called Operation Disruption, in 2003 in Chicago. So the Chicago Police Department at that time launched a very innovative strategy to place high-tech camera units in neighborhoods to reduce narcotics activity by disrupting illegal narcotics operations, which are the lifeblood of any street gang operation. Through a combination of good police work, innovative strategies, innovative surveillance technology and community involvement, Operation Disruption has made our neighborhoods safer. Operation Disruption uses high-tech cameras, which are mounted on light poles, to create a visible deterrent in communities that have 76 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 experienced a high incidence of violent crime. Every unit is equipped with a highly reflective bullet-proof shield with blue flashing lights with the Chicago Police Department logo and 360-degree pan/tilt/zoom digital camera capabilities. Smart technology, such as gunshot detection technology, is integrated in approximately of our POD 12 surveillance cameras. They are currently 13 being piloted. 14 We have seen some of the 15 successes with the use of our gunshot 16 detection technology that has been built 17 into this, and, in fact, many of you are 18 aware of how this technology works, but 19 if a gunshot goes off that's within the 20 vicinity of a camera that is equipped 21 with gunshot detection, that particular 22 camera will send a signal to the 23 individual that's responsible for 24 monitoring the cameras in our unified 25 command post, as well as the camera will 77 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 then move in the direction of the gunshot. That's a built-in mathematical algorithm with acoustic sensors. So at that point in time, then the person that's watching that particular camera can send the appropriate resources by immediately dispatching those resources to the incident.

Can I just ask you a question relative to that point?

Sure.

Are the cameras also equipped to send some type of communication to the 9-1-1 system directly or does an operator -- I understand that the signal goes to the operator to hit Camera 4 because there's a gunshot notification, but simultaneously is there any contact with 9-1-1 directly from the camera or from the computer?

Well, right now the answer to that question is no. 78 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 However, we are piloting that particular technology, and so we will be one of the first cities to integrate our camera surveillance network into our computer-aided dispatching system. So the way that that particular process works is, if there is a call for service that comes in within the vicinity of the camera, what happens is, there's a triangulation effect that occurs and then a signal is sent to that particular camera and the actual live video feed of that camera will then be shown at the actual dispatcher's console on one of their monitoring screens.

The 9-1-1 center?

In the 9-1-1 center. So we have that as a pilot right now in our command post where we actually monitor cameras. We don't have it in our 9-1-1 center just yet because, obviously, we refining that technology.

Is it 79 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 envisioned that the triangulated signal will go to the call-taker at the 9-1-1 center or the dispatcher?

It will go to the call-taker.

Who would refer the information.

Who would refer the information to the dispatcher.

For example, and I'm sure it's the same in your city, that when a citizen calls 9-1-1 and says shot fired at a particular location, the priority of that call jumps to the top.

Absolutely.

So I'm envisioning as the technology gets better, that the camera will act as a citizen making a telephone call directly to the 9-1-1 center and to the person monitoring the --

Correct.

And how far 80 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 out is that?

We anticipate the last quarter of this year to have that technology implemented to our center.

All right. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

That's okay. Here's what's really good about that. There's so much value to that, even from both an intelligence-gathering perspective as well as an officer safety perspective, because now you can provide that officer with additional information about the incident and area and what they may be getting themselves into. And so just to talk a little bit about the wireless capabilities. Using its wireless communication capability, the camera sends a flash message, as we talked about earlier, back to both the command room at the Chicago Police Department as well as our Operations Center at the Office of 81 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Emergency Management and Communications. And so that's essentially how that works when gunshot technology goes off. But cameras are also placed in areas based on crime analysis, much like what they're doing right now in Baltimore. It's based on crime analysis data and intelligence generated through the Chicago Police Department's, what we call, our Deployment Operations Center, otherwise known as the DOC. The DOC, in addition to its role as the counter terrorism unit, analyzes crime data and makes conclusions on camera placement after a detailed statistical analysis of crime problems in a particular area has been conducted. It is important to understand that Operation Disruption is but one strategy in the overall effort to reduce violent crime by going after members of well-organized criminal street gangs that use violence to support narcotic sales. Operation Disruption cameras, otherwise 82 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 known as our PODs, enhance a multi-layered violence reduction approach to communities most affected by gang and drug violence. I think what is important to note here is the fact that the cameras in Chicago have become so popular, much like the testimony before me, we cannot keep up with the demand for cameras in Chicago now. In fact, our Aldermen have received numerous requests for cameras, and so because of that, we have instituted what we call our Aldermanic POD Camera Program. And so just very briefly to touch on that --

I can imagine.

-- the constituencies of these particular districts or wards have now been asking their Aldermen if they can have additional cameras in their particular neighborhoods. And so the Aldermen have been requesting local funds to purchase 83 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 cameras where they would have input as to where the placement of those cameras would be. So I thought that that would be very important to note. We are also employing a very aggressive approach as it relates to private businesses and their particular camera surveillance networks. We are partnering with private businesses and the industry to access existing private camera networks that cover public access areas around critical infrastructure. And so what we're doing is, we're working with these private businesses in the Central Business District of Chicago, as well as the financial sector, conducting surveys and analysis of their existing camera networks to see if they're compatible with ours. And so if we have compatibility, we can integrate their particular systems into ours. And, again, we're not saying that we're going to monitor their particular cameras 24 hours a day, but what we're doing is that 84 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 if there was an emergency or an impending threat, we can tap into those particular networks. I wanted to talk a little bit about one of the core disciplines that I have in my office and how cameras have served as a benefit to that, and that's our Traffic Management Authority. In 2004, the Traffic Management Authority was created and placed under the auspices of my office. A careful review of best practices in traffic management from other cities such as Atlanta, Houston and Los Angeles demonstrated that the key to increased public safety and efficiency in managing traffic movement in a large metropolitan city is centralizing traffic control. Modern centralized traffic command enhances the prompt and effective mobilization of resources, allows the simultaneous tracking of multiple events, provides instant access to information sources, and results in the timely 85 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 communication of this information to the general public. The strategic blending, if you will, of conventional traffic management strategies; e.g., traffic control aides, with the use of modern technology was methodically tailored to meet the logistical needs of Chicago. Monitoring traffic movement from the Office of Emergency Management and Communications' Operation Center through an extensive real-time traffic camera network, Chicago can achieve proactive analysis of traffic, efficient utilization of traffic management resources and centralized accountability. I think it's important to note here that what we've done is, we've recognized the importance of blending the synergies of traffic management and emergency management, and so where you have good emergency management, you have good traffic management. But what's central to the success of that strategy has been our camera surveillance network. 86 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 So I just wanted to talk briefly about that, because in light of the hurricanes that we witnessed with both Katrina and Rita, we saw the importance of having effective traffic control, especially from an egress perspective out of the City. And so what we have done is, we have added cameras on main arterial streets in the City of Chicago to monitor traffic conditions, but what we have also done is, we've synchronized our traffic signals. So that way, in the event that there was a large-scale incident or an emergency in the City of Chicago that required, let's say, for instance, an evacuation of a portion of the City, we would have the ability to immediately, by the push of a button, synchronize all of the signals while simultaneously monitoring and viewing that particular egress out of the City.

You have that now?

No. What we're 87 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 doing is, we're interconnecting those signals right now.

So at some point in time, you're going to be able to control the length of red lights, green lights on major thoroughfares based on information provided by monitoring?

That's correct.

That's pretty cool. And that doesn't necessarily have to be an emergency situation. I mean, that can be a rush hour situation, traffic accident, fire, rerouting of traffic. I mean, it would certainly make life easier here on certain occasions.

Exactly. And what's key to point out here is that those are multi-use. Those cameras are multi-use. So if you wanted to use them for investigative purposes or whatever the case may be, we can use them for that and just -- Chicago is home to a very large red light camera enforcement 88 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 project. So we currently have approximately 30 cameras at intersections throughout the City of Chicago. By the end of 2006, it's our goal to have 60. But much like the purpose is to reduce the amount of red light running, we have also been able to utilize the video from those particular cameras to assist with investigations, to assist with hit-and-runs and different things like that that have been requested by the Chicago Police Department. And so all of those cameras play a significant role, significant value in the overall public safety strategies of the City of Chicago. OEMC is currently in the process of piloting, as I mentioned, adaptive traffic signal technology, and so through the use of traffic sensors and cameras, the traffic signal will adapt to the length of green time according to the volume of traffic detected. Another OEMC traffic initiative 89 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 for improved traffic control will seek to interconnect, as I mentioned earlier, all traffic signals throughout the City, providing for remote command from a central location. The advantages of such capabilities in an emergency situation are not far from reality for the residents of Chicago. I want to talk a little bit about what we call our Operation Virtual Shield Project. Our Operation Virtual Shield Project, in essence, will tie together approximately 1,000 miles of fiber that we currently have that is disparate throughout the City of Chicago, and the whole idea here is to create what we call a one solid homeland security or one solid fiber typology that would allow us to not only add as many cameras as we need to add to strategic placements throughout the City for crime-fighting purposes, for homeland security purposes, for monitoring criminal behavior, as well as monitoring critical infrastructure, 90 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 but it will also give us the ability to realize our traffic management initiatives, as well as some of our initiatives as it relates to bio and chem sensor technology that we also want to have strategically placed throughout the City. So I wanted to talk a little bit about that. In the wake of September 11th and the most recent attacks on Madrid and London's mass transit systems, surveillance technology has proven to be a critical component in augmenting emergency response capabilities, as well as assisting in the recovery and investigative efforts. The most impressive example of OEMC's ongoing efforts to secure Chicago is Operation Virtual Shield, a comprehensive plan to develop, implement and maintain an extensive City-wide fiberoptic network and expandable video surveillance system. The vision for this fiberoptic backbone and corresponding surveillance system is 91 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 to create a virtual shield, if you will, providing total homeland security, public safety and traffic management coverage in the City of Chicago. Over the past decade and a half, the City of Chicago has laid hundreds of miles of fiber throughout the City. However, much of the fiber remains dispersed and fragmented, limiting its potential. Operation Virtual Shield will serve to unify the City's fiberoptic infrastructure, laying the foundation for a comprehensive surveillance grid. The surveillance network will provide situational awareness, as well as facilitate the deployment of City services in response to emergency situations.

As a result of this fiberoptic infrastructure, surveillance technology will be linked to the OEMC through a fault-tolerant, self-healing network that will enable emergency management personnel to view real-time or recorded video images, monitor 92 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 biochemical sensors and traffic control signals throughout the City of Chicago. The Operations Center will serve as a strategic information portal, receiving, analyzing and disseminating this critical intelligence. This initiative is part of the comprehensive plan for the Operations Center that not only improves the delivery of City services, but also significantly expands the City's homeland security efforts on a local and national level. The Operations Center uses state-of-the-art technology to monitor the camera matrix. Through video analysis, these technologies will enable the Operations Center staff to simultaneously identify suspicious and unusual behavior in order to potentially prevent crime incidents before they occur. I wanted to add here, we were talking a little bit about the importance 93 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 of intelligent software, and through our Operation Virtual Shield network, we will be able to implement some intelligent software that will allow us to monitor locations, let's say, for instance, restricted areas or restricted parking lot. These particular types of smart technology, smart cameras will monitor erratic behavior, erratic patterns, which will also send a signal to the individuals that are monitoring the cameras to say there's somebody that's in the restricted area. Or let's say, for instance, you have a vehicle that is parked after hours in a restricted area in the Central Business District, let's say by City Hall. The camera will automatically zoom in, focus on that vehicle and send an alert to the dispatcher, so that way, they can dispatch resources to monitor that vehicle or to see if there's any suspicious activity going on there. So that's important to note here. And so I 94 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 am talking about the importance of specialized software as something that we are really, really trying to achieve as part of this network. Additionally, the network will allow the Operations Center to access other department and sister agency camera networks, at the Chicago Police Department and Fire Departments, the Chicago Department of Transportation, Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago Housing Authority, Chicago Park District the Chicago public schools. And here's the idea here: The idea here is to have one integrated surveillance camera network. Right now you have many departments that have their own camera surveillance networks. And so the idea is to bring together all of these networks. So if the Chicago public schools have networks, we want to tie them into our network. If the Chicago Park District has networks, we want to tie them into our networks, because 95 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 that's what gives us the very robust, unified camera surveillance network. And so that's key, because the importance of laying this fiber will allow you to realize that goal. And what makes Chicago unique is the fact that we're going to monitor all these cameras from one unified command post, and that's very important. And so not only from the command post, but then the ability for the Police Districts in Chicago, they'll also have that particular ability, to monitor those cameras that are in their respective districts. And so let's say, for instance, if there's a CTAL platform that's in the vicinity of a district, they'll be able to tap in to those cameras that are in the platforms. And so the whole idea is to allow the public safety agencies to have access to all these cameras, so that way, they can certainly execute on their particular public safety initiatives or their Police Department goals.

96 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 I would like to just briefly conclude my remarks by emphasizing the key role that video surveillance has played in increasing public safety and improving the overall quality of life for the residents of Chicago. Through Operation Disruption and the use of cameras in neighborhoods, communities that were once taken over by gangs and drug lords have now been rightfully returned to the residents. Through the extension and integration of Chicago's video surveillance network, our homeland security strategies and efforts have been enhanced, adding an additional layer of protection for all those that live and visit our great city. Finally, the use of cameras is more efficiently managing traffic movement in the City of Chicago and has enhanced our ability to manage emergency incidents. I cannot stress enough the importance that video surveillance has 97 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 been and has played in Chicago, and it is one of many tools that the City of Chicago has at its disposal to ensure that the safety and security of Chicago residents are realized. Cameras are not a panacea, and I wanted to make that very clear. They're not a panacea, but they are an additional tool in the City's arsenal to combat crime and to augment our existing homeland security strategies and emergency management strategies and initiatives, and their usefulness in proving success should not be overlooked. One of the greatest testimonials that we've had about our camera networks in neighborhoods has been the residents. The residents have praised the camera networks. They have talked about how they have regained their streets once again. They can go out now and they feel much safer, and they're not necessarily intimidated by the actual cameras that are encased with a 98 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 cop-in-the-box with the blue lights. It's very interesting, because you think that often times you hear criminal justice professionals talk about the displacement effect and if you put a camera on this corner, your drug dealers are just going to go down to the other block and sell drugs, but we haven't seen that issue in Chicago, because the Chicago Police Department employs additional strategies to address the displacement effect. So the key in the success to a successful camera surveillance strategy is how you employ that strategy. Much like the gentleman from the community said, if you just have cameras up and they're just there on a pole, you're not going to garner much success. You may have some deterrent value, but the key is how you employ your strategies to utilize your camera surveillance network. You have to be innovative, you have to be strategic, and 99 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 you have to have the right methods in place, so that way, you can ensure that you're executing on whatever mission you may have, whether it's a sting operation that you have in a neighborhood or any other type of counter terrorism-related type of initiative that you have going on. The key to the success of your camera surveillance network is how you employ that, how you deploy your cameras. And like I mentioned earlier, we don't just deploy them at random. We have crime analysis that's conducted. We looked at calls for service that come into the 9-1-1 center. We go to community meetings. We have what's called the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy, CAPS. And so community residents will come to the CAPS meetings and complain about particular crime in their neighborhoods. That information will be delivered back to the Chicago Police Department, who will then conduct an analysis of the crime in that area to 100 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 see if a camera is actually warranted. So that's how the cameras are actually placed. And they also move, and so once we've realized and garnered some great success in a particular area, then we can take that camera POD and move it to another location that experienced a high incidence of crime in a particular area.

And so that's how we -- that's why we call the program Operation Disruption. It's not designed necessarily to effect arrests more so than it is to disrupt criminal activity. And have we effected arrests? Yes, we have, but, again, the intent of the program is to disrupt criminal activity, and we have done that quite well. I just wanted to take this opportunity to commend the Philadelphia City Council on its efforts to explore the numerous benefits video surveillance has offered Chicago, and stands to offer the residents of Philadelphia. Addressing the Committee has been both an 101 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 honor and a pleasure, and I thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you very much. I'm impressed and a bit jealous. You guys are like CTU. I mean, the direction that you're going in, I mean, you start out from crime-fighting opportunities and enhancement of crime-fighting into traffic control and emergency management and counter terrorism activities. I mean, it really is a very impressive system. Let me just ask you. How long have you been at it? When did it first start with the cop-in-the-box cameras, and even though what explained the progressive evolution of the program, what year did it start in?

It started in 2003. We rolled out 20 POD cameras.

What have you spent to date, if you can give me kind of a ballpark figure, in equipment and -- the other question I have for you, 102 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 who actually does the installation of the cameras, the movement of the cameras from one location to another? Is it the Police Department, your department or Department of Public Property?

It's my department, and what we do is, we work hand in hand with the Chicago Police Department. In fact, there's a unit that's detailed to my office. We call it Information and Strategic Services. They're all Chicago police officers, and these individuals work hand in hand with my line crews. My line crews are responsible for laying the fiber, as well as they're responsible for the actual installation of the POD cameras and the movement of the POD cameras, as well as the retrieval of video. It's very similar to Baltimore. In fact, they use the same vendor that we use for our POD cameras. And so, again, if there's an incident within a particular area, whether detectives or police personnel 103 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 want that video, we will go ahead and retrieve that particular video.

How many employees in your department?

In my department I have approximately 800 employees.

Eight hundred people that you're responsible for, but some people are detailed from Police Department or from various City agencies?

Just from the Police Department right now. We just have a unit that's detailed there.

Now, your people do all the technical work?

Yeah. A lot of our success has been in-house development.

So you don't use like a vendor, like a Verizon or a Comcast or something, to lay cable or to lay fiber or to install or take 104 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 down things? They're all your employees and they're all employees of the City of Chicago?

Yeah. What we do is, when we're going to install a camera, it's a combination of our Chicago Police personnel, my people who lay the fiber, and then the actual vendor who supplies the cameras.

But they're the people supplying the camera; you're not using a separate installation?

No. 15

So they're all City employees?

Right.

What's your current budget for your department?

My current -- I just reached a hundred million.

That's impressive. What's the budget of Chicago; do you know? I'm holding you on the spot. I'm just curious as to what 105 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 general percentage of your department is the budget as reflects the budget of the entire City. And I wouldn't expect you to know off the top of your head.

Yeah, I don't know off the top of my head, but I can get you that number.

So you're about a hundred million dollars and 800 employees?

Yeah.

What is your overall budget for the roll-out of the integration of the initial cameras and then the consolidation of all of the things that you talked about in your testimony? And how many years is that over? Is it a five-year plan?

It's difficult for me to quantify because a lot of what we did was, we leveraged existing technology. And, again, in essence, the POD camera program virtually pays for itself. It's almost a cost-neutral 106 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 program, because the POD cameras are purchased through acid forfeiture funds. So, in essence, as we seize drug houses and different things of that nature, the money that's found, all of those different things are used to pay for the actual program itself.

Does the county provide any money or the state provide any money or Homeland Security?

Homeland Security has assisted with some of our camera surveillance strategy.

But no 16 state funding or county funding?

No; no state or county.

Councilman Nutter.

Thank you.

I'm sorry. Let the record show that Councilwoman Miller is in attendance.

Thank you 107 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 again for your testimony. It's quite enlightening. I had a somewhat similar question with regard to the funding side of this. How are you paying for all this?

How am I paying for all of it? Well, again, I mean, much like I mentioned earlier before, what we're doing is, we've had many different camera surveillance networks already existing in the City. So, for instance, the CTA was able to purchase cameras, our Chicago Transit Authority. They were able to purchase cameras through grants. And so all of these different agencies that had been able to purchase cameras, what we're doing now, our goal, is to integrate those cameras into one seamless network. And so what I can tell you is that we have -- the cost savings is going to be significant for us because we're not starting from scratch. You have camera surveillance networks that are 108 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 existing. So the idea now is just to build the infrastructure to tie in these cameras, to connect those cameras. I can tell you what a POD camera costs.

Who is paying for all this integration?

It's a combination of Homeland Security grant dollars. It's a combination of corporate funding. It's a combination of dollars that are used, grant funding from other sister agencies that we have in the City of Chicago. So it's a combination of all those different funding sources.

Tell me quickly what's the greatest level of resistance that you've received with regard to whether it was the separate networks, integrated networks? I'm on your website every now and then from time to time. You just somewhere within the past year, I think, you had a pretty significant roll-out of an additional 109 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 number of cameras, somewhere in the last, what, six, eight months maybe?

Yes.

I mean, what are people saying?

People are saying, It's taking you too long to roll them out, we want more. And that's with all sincerity. I mean, we can't keep up with the demand. And as I mentioned earlier, and, Councilman, I don't believe you were here as part of this testimony, but it has gotten to the point where we are creating the Aldermanic POD program because the constituencies --

We'll have one of those, too.

-- in different districts in Chicago, different wards, the constituency, they're so interested in the cameras that the Aldermen have said, How can we begin the process of purchasing cameras ourselves, so that way, we could have some input in terms of 110 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 where they're placed. Because the initial intent of the program was narcotics activity. It was narcotics driven. And so now they're interested in cameras at schools, they're interested in cameras at school stops, they're interested in cameras at park districts, different things like that. So it's amazing how the program has evolved into what it is today, when we first started off with just POD 13 cameras in 2003 and the network that we 14 currently have today. 15

Any other 16 beyond the "what took you so long" kind 17 of complaint? 18

I would say 19 that much like many of the other cities 20 I'm sure that experienced that had video surveillance networks when they were getting ready to launch it, it was the whole idea of Big Brother. I think there was some initial skepticism, but that has long since passed, and now the 111 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 communities are welcoming the cameras. And, again, they become so popular that everybody wants one now.

How do you deal with issues of for the moment -- and Councilman Clarke was very clear with his opening statement, that we're not putting a system in place or committing to put a system in place, but we're trying to get some reaction from the public. But if we were in a different hearing about a system, you get concerns with regard to profiling people, cameras trailing people, they've been picked out by some person that's in control of the camera, other inappropriate use of the technology to seemingly spy on people, all of those kinds of issues. How do you deal with multi-story buildings? I've heard of some situations -- like I said, the Councilman was sharing with me -- you only go kind of first floor of a building and then above that, you're not looking. 112 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 I mean, all of those kinds of issues, the real particulars and technical details.

Right. Well, first and foremost, all the cameras are in the public way. That's first and foremost. The individuals that are trained to --

How high up are they usually? Is there a standard height where the cameras are placed? How high up are they?

Essentially as high as the actual -- as high as we can get them on the actual pole itself, the street pole. So that way, there's what we call a direct line of sight to a tower so we could have a wireless feedback to our actual center. So it varies. It all depends on the line of sight issue that we have in our particular City. But I will tell you, going back to the actual monitoring issue, all of the individuals that currently monitor cameras are retired police officers. 113 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 They have all been trained on First and Fourth Amendment rights. Everything that they monitor is recorded. And so if there was any sort of allegation or impropriety in relation to monitoring, someone says, Hey, I believe that someone was peering into my window or something along those lines, we can immediately pull that day and launch an investigation. And if it is determined that someone did engage in some sort of impropriety, then that person would be disciplined accordingly. But to date, we have not had any such complaints.

Do people who are monitoring the cameras, are they also in manual control of the camera? They can put it at any 360 direction, zoom in, zoom out?

That's correct. One thing that I wanted to highlight is that our camera surveillance network is part of an overall command post. In other words, it's just not a room that's 114 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 situated for camera-viewing only. Our command post is comprised of our homeland security group, our unified camera surveillance network, our public works dispatch operation. And so we have a number of different individuals that sit in this particular room that are actually performing different functions, but the whole idea of the command post is that total situation of awareness. And so you've got individuals sort of like that -- it's almost as if they sort of like police themselves, so to speak, because they're all in this room doing their respective functions and roles.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, first I'd like to thank you all for coming on such short 115 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 notice. I'm looking forward to possibly going to Chicago to see how the systems operate. I know the Police Commissioner and his staff have indicated the need to come look at some of the systems out there, and we may be tagging along. One quick question. On the systems that triangulate towards the gunshot, have you gotten substantial false readings on that in terms of other sounds?

Initially, when we started the program -- and, again, you have to understand that this technology is still maturing, but initially, there were some false positive reads. But what I can tell you, though, is, we had continued to refine that technology, and to date, every gunshot that has gone off that sends a signal to our center has been an actual bona fide gunshot. The issue then of the actual camera veering or directing itself toward the direction of the gunshot itself is an area that 116 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 we're still refining. But the good thing is is that you have an actual POD camera watcher there, and so when the signal does go off and an address does pop up that is within the vicinity of the gunshot, the actual person who is monitoring can immediately tap into that camera and start looking for offenders or anything that is consistent with the gunshot going off.

So they can differentiate between a fire cracker, something like that?

Yeah. We've gotten -- like I said, initially, we were experiencing some false positives initially, but, again, with the vendor, we've gone out there and we continue to refine it, working on the acoustics and different things of that nature, and we have been able to get a pretty good read now in relation to gunshots. Don't get me wrong. Are there occasions where we may have a few false 117 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 positives? Yes. But, again, it's new technology, it's maturing technology, and certainly we're hopeful that we will have technology that we totally refine that will not result in many false positives.

Thank you.

Councilman Rizzo.

Thank you. Again, thank you for your testimony today. I've learned a lot. What would you suggest we do here to start a program? Would you suggest that we first identify those private systems that we have at University of Pennsylvania, Temple, the private systems? And I think something that I think that we underutilize here, we have a network of cameras that PennDOT, I believe, our Department of Transportation, feeds to the various media outlets, showing the traffic conditions at various places throughout the state, and I would hope that we could 118 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 bring that technology in. And I think that maybe our first step is to start to identify what we have, because I don't think we really know what we have. Would you suggest that that's something that we do?

Yeah. I can tell you what I did. I brought in all of the City of Chicago sister agencies. I brought in all, with a separate meeting, brought in all the private businesses. But the first goal was to find out what did we have. I needed to find out what do we have by way of camera surveillance networks, what did the CTA have, what did Metra have, what did the Chicago public schools have. It was amazing to find out that the Chicago public schools had between six and ten cameras in all of their high schools. So the idea was to conduct an analysis to find out exactly what did everybody have, first and foremost, and then from that point, try to determine 119 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 what type of platform these particular cameras reside on and how can we make those particular platforms compatible with the current platform that we have so we can start tapping in those particular camera networks.

A perfect example is, and I'll end, that recently we had a tragedy here, a terrible crime. One of our federal buildings, the United States Postal Service, I believe it was, had a camera that was monitoring the exterior of the building and a woman was murdered. She was actually shot to death on the sidewalk, and as a result of good work on our Police Department's part, they immediately started to gather all of the video that may have been available to them. They got that. They started to review it, and there you go, one of the cameras that was at the federal level, I believe, captured the crime, the murder, and an arrest was able to be made. So there's a perfect example of 120 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 needing to know what you have. But the Police Department was very good in immediately going out and asking every business, I believe, within blocks of where the crime was committed, Please -- am I right, Commissioner -- don't erase, hold, save your video, and, bingo, they got a hit with the -- was it the federal government? The United States Postal Service had it, and it was just incredible that it was responsible for solving a crime right here in Philadelphia.

You raise a good point there. We had a situation where one of our businesses, our corporate businesses, was monitoring their particular camera networks and they were concerned about an individual. They had been surveilling their particular business. And so they contacted us to see if we had any cameras in the area, and which we did, and the reason why they were able to contact us is because we've 121 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 established relationships with all of the security directors in our financial districts, in our central business districts, because it's important that everybody knows, like you said, everybody knows exactly what everybody else has by way of surveillance technology. And so that's what's been integral to our success, is the fact that we've partnered with private sector agencies, our sister agencies, with the hopeful intention of bringing together all of these networks to have one solid and one unified camera surveillance network.

Well, thank you, and that's good advice.

Thank you. Councilperson Miller.

Hi. Thank you. I, too, want to thank you for coming in. I have a couple questions regarding Operation Disruption. I know 122 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 you said you started in 2003 with cameras, correct?

Yes. 5

How many 6 do you have now? 7

100. 8

And 9 they're basically out in the community? 10

That's correct. 11

When we 12 went to Baltimore to see their system 13 there last June, they talked about -- and 14 our interest is to enhance public safety 15 and use these cameras as a deterrent to 16 crime. 17 They showed us a picture of the 18 use of a camera and it was a fight that 19 occurred after some function and all 20 these people were fighting, and one of 21 the things we realized was that the 22 camera was good because it had the 23 picture right there and you could see who 24 was participating, but the identification 25 becomes a problem. So how are you using 123 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 the cameras and the identification to apprehend a person that has been involved in a particular incident?

Well, the actual intent of the Operation Disruption program was not for effecting arrests. The idea behind the program was to disrupt criminal activity. However, it's been a significant force multiplier, if you will, in that there have been incidents where we have been able to record video and to pull that video that could be used for evidentiary purposes. And so to that end, it has been helpful in identifying offenders that have committed certain crimes. We are not specifically engaged in monitoring the cameras for the purpose of effecting arrests unless it's a specific sort of operation, a sting operation. Then the actual Police Districts will utilize those cameras to effect arrests. But the actual program itself 124 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 is designed to disrupt criminal activity. It's designed to deter criminal activity. It's designed to deter would-be drug dealers from drug dealing on a particular corner. And so that's the actual intent of the program. But where it can be utilized to provide video for evidentiary purposes, we do do that and we do provide that video to the prosecution and to the Police Department.

And do you have signs posted that tells people there's a camera there?

No, because it's very visual. I mean, you can't miss it. It's a huge box that has a blue light that flashes and it has a large Police Department logo on there, Chicago Police Department logo. So it's very visual. So it's not hard to miss.

And do you have a problem --

But if I could add one thing. But we do warn 125 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 individuals regarding our red light camera enforcement project that there is a red light camera posted at certain intersections. So we do that with our red light cameras.

We have that, too, here where we have the red light cameras. There is a sign that tells people you're entering a red light camera-controlled area or something like that.

Correct.

So these cameras aren't easy to vandalize? Someone couldn't just take a stone or brick or whatever?

They're in bullet-proof casing.

All right. Good. Are you using them in any way -- for example, when you talk about the Alderman camera program, one of the ways I'd also like to see them used in my 126 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 area -- and Philadelphia has a problem with dumping, and we'd like to stop some of this illegal dumping of tires and trash and furniture all over, and we always talk about putting up a camera so that we can get a picture of --

We have what we call our fly dumping cameras, and so those are operated by the Department of Streets and Sanitation and they put those particular cameras up. Those cameras are very inconspicuous, and so the idea is to catch those individuals that would be fly dumping or engaging in graffiti.

Right. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

I assume your Aldermanic camera program is to maintain support and funding for the program that keeps Councilmembers, Aldermen, engaged and making sure that this thing continues forward. I assume it's more also a political tool that's used to keep the support coming for it. 127 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092

It's also --

Please identify yourself.

Dean Tsilikas, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. I'm sorry. It's meeting a demand. The demand, much like the Baltimore Police Department stated, comes from the bottom up. It is the people. It is the residents of the City of Chicago that are asking for this help, that are asking for these cameras, that are asking for this protection. And we're doing exactly that. We are helping the Aldermen, the elected officials, meet the demand of their constituents. It is not an order coming from the top down, but one that's coming straight from the people.

It's nice to have happy Aldermen, too.

I can see it being a very big success for you gentlemen here in this city as well. 128 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092

One technical question and then one administrative question. The issue of the ability to identify people for prosecution purposes with the video, are we moving towards the technology that will allow existing mug shots to be compared with video pictures and camera pictures similar to a fingerprint where certain points --

You're talking about the facial recognition technology. At this point in time for Chicago, that's merely exploratory.

Who do you work for? Who is your boss? The Police Commissioner or the Mayor?

I work directly for the Mayor.

How is he?

He's a great guy. He's very passionate.

Tough in a good way, though. 129 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092

Well, yeah, but he's very passionate about safety and security for the City of Chicago, and he really, really recognizes the importance of video surveillance technology for the City.

Thank you very much. It's been very informative. Thank you.

My pleasure. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman?

I'm sorry. Councilmember Brown. I didn't see you there.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I also, too, want to say thank you for your testimony, and if you already addressed this issue, I can read it later in the transcript. With regards to the schools 130 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 around the City, as a part of the development of your strategy, was the location of schools where you have high crime a factor in the placement of those cameras at all?

In some instances, yes, but I think the Chicago public school system itself just wanted to be very proactive, and so what they started to do was, they started building in their own camera surveillance networks. And so they're pretty much equally disbursed around the City of Chicago. And so the idea now is to -- what we're trying to do is to develop and create the infrastructure to integrate their camera surveillance systems into our unified camera surveillance command post.

That was going to be my next question, is there any link between the two.

Yeah. We're in the process of building that link right 131 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 now.

I see. Do you know if because of cameras around schools there has indeed been a reduction in student violence?

You know, I would have to actually try to get that data from the Chicago Police Department. I can't say firsthand that I have that information, but what I can tell you is that in the neighborhoods where we've had cameras, we've seen a reduction of calls for service coming in in those particular areas that were once plagued by drug dealers and gang activity. We've seen a reduction in calls for service.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Curtis Jones. 132 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Curtis Jones, Jr. I am the President and CEO of the Philadelphia Commercial Development Corporation, PCDC.

Please proceed.

I am pleased to offer testimony in support of the proposed Ordinance No. 060092 and prospective Resolution No. 060101. These proposed legislative actions, in my opinion, offer an effective, low-cost, efficient tool in the unrelenting fight against crime in our commercial corridors. We are pleased to know that this proposal, this legislative action, has incorporated thoughts on civil liberties and legitimate privacy interest. Also seated at the table with me are Mr. Aqil Sabur, who is my 133 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Vice-President for Microenterprise Development, and Mr. Steve Horton, who is my Vice-President for Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization. As a background, during the past 32 years, PCDC has arranged financing for in excess of $266 million in financing to 2,500 businesses in the City of Philadelphia. The last decade has seen a record growth in PCDC's loan volume. We provide various types of funding, ranging from micro financing to contractors assistance, to professional firms, franchises and venture capital. Many of the firms that receive assistance were small or disadvantaged neighborhood-based businesses that have created or retained jobs in low and moderate-income neighborhoods. Among our many business development activities conducted by PCDC on behalf of businesses, we manage 44 commercial corridors in the City of Philadelphia located throughout the City. 134 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 These corridors include places like Point Breeze, 9th Street, 52nd Street, 60th Street, Baltimore Avenue, Lancaster Avenue, Germantown and Chelten, Frankford Avenue, Kensington and Allegheny, Cecil B. Moore, Girard Avenue, just to name a few. These corridors generate $774 million in revenues to the City of Philadelphia and create thousands of jobs in the neighborhoods. Individuals who run these urban businesses in the area daily face the threat of violence against their person and property. Murder, robbery, assault and vandalism are additional risks of owning and operating a business in the City of Philadelphia. These hazards reflect in higher insurance premiums to properties, workmen's compensation rates are increased, and cost of security is skyrocketing. While critics of your proposed legislation point out the possible invasion and erosion of personal privacy, 135 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 they fail to take into account the human cost to lives and families shattered by violence and financial costs pursuant to victims' rights through the criminal justice system. I am saddened to report to this Committee that loss of life has affected members of our business associations and our portfolio financially. There are dozens that have died since 1993, but we want to point out just seven of them. In January 1993, Stacy and Russell Krass died on Frankford Avenue because of an intruder, snatch-and-grab, stole a rack of suits. Mr. Krass chased him and he was shot to death as a result. In 2003, January, Michael Robinson in your district, Councilman Clarke, at 12th and Girard lost his life. He was a manager of a Rite Aid. In October 2004, Harold Wexler at a check-cashing place on Ogontz Avenue in Councilwoman Tasco's district lost his life in saving the life of one of his 136 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 employees. In November 2004, Mr. Ki-Young Hong at Betty Brite Cleaners on Bryn Mawr Avenue lost his life in a robbery attempt. This is in Councilman Nutter's district. Benjamin Reid of Wall Street International, just recently was married, lost his life and left a widow in an attempt to open his business, his catering hall, on 52nd Street. Ronald Coleman of the Munchie Shop on North 22nd Street lost his life on a commercial corridor due to a robbery attempt. In December 2005, Ms. Traore of the Men's Urban Wear on Broad Street and Susquehanna, also in your district, lost their lives on a commercial corridor due to a robbery attempt.

Now, I'm aware and I've read George Orwell's 1984, and it scared me when I was a high school student reading it about Big Brother intruding in our 137 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 lives, but Mr. Orwell could not have predicted 9-1-1 and could not have predicted the high increased rate of violence in our commercial corridors in the streets of the City of Philadelphia. Post 9/11 technology-based security cameras strategically placed have two distinct features. They can objectively record a crime in progress and provide eyewitness identification that is virtually indisputable. S. Department of Justice and PennDOT to place surveillance cameras in commercial corridors within newly constructed bus shelters as a total part of our commercial corridor treatment. Seniors, young people, customers shopping in neighborhoods can congregate, relax with a sense of comfort, and can work, live and play within our commercial corridors based on this technological advancement. 138 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 The Police Department is helping, and they're trying to work. We don't believe at all that these cameras will ever replace a beat cop, but just like when they go out after roll call, they strap on a utility belt that has a firearm and some handcuffs, but also we want as a part of their belt to be the use of technology, so that in real-time and in real response time, they can be assisted in apprehending criminals. So I would like to turn the Committee's attention to a couple of boards that we've done in anticipation of this. And, again, once we realized that Councilman Clarke and this body was looking into this, we want to be a full cooperating partner with whatever the City of Philadelphia and this Council does. We're looking at a demonstration project in and around West Philadelphia, because that's where the money came from, Congressman Fattah and 139 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 his district, but also parts of North Philadelphia will be included and Germantown Avenue will be included.

Thank you.

But we have enough to do those areas, by the way.

When did you start?

We're looking at, because of the SEPTA construction, to take advantage of that and to look at that area and place cameras in and around Market Street from 46th to 63rd Street. We're looking at also doing some interesting things like bus shelters. We've gotten a grant to do that. If you noticed, when the republicans came here for their convention, in honor of them, we put up those customized bus shelters. We feel at PCDC that neighborhoods deserve bus shelters that reflect the culture in neighborhoods. So we've gotten a grant 140 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 to also assist in that regard. Why don't we go to the next one. We took a corner. It happens to be 60th Street, but it could be Germantown and Chelten. It could be anywhere. It could be Broad and Cecil B. Moore, Councilman. But what we're looking at here is a customized bus shelter there that we're going to take local artists and get renderings of their depiction of what represents the neighborhood. We're also in the case, and the reason why we're here today, is incorporating cameras. Now, we're looking at cameras that are in areas that have high-crime incidents. We're also looking in areas that would be dubbed as hot zones. Another feature here is that we're using the Mayor's initiative on WiFi to allow the use of technology there. So it's important for us to 141 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 believe that in the use of also some storefront rebate money to beautify these areas where we've done that on Cecil B. Moore Avenue and other places to beautify the area, but we're also incorporating security in that. I cited to you just several instances where merchants have lost their lives. We hope to work with the City of Philadelphia to get smart cameras involved in that. We have money to do demonstrations in various parts of the City and hope to work with you on how that should be dealt with, not violating anyone's civil liberties, but also being a helpful tool on the tool belt of our law enforcement arm to help deter crime. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you for waiting around, too. We appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. William Ewing, please. I'm sorry, Mr. Ewing. Hold on 142 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 just a second. Councilman Clarke.

Mr. Jones, I just want to thank you for your presentation and thank you for all the work that you've done in our commercial corridors, and I'm sure that the Congressman in Phase and Phase will be rolling out a proposal in both Germantown and North Philadelphia.

You can count on it.

Just one suggestion. I don't know if it's being done now or not, and I think it's based on the testimony from the gentlemen from Chicago. Is there coordination going on with the Police Department and with SEPTA so that at some point in time, if we ever get to the Chicago model where the integration needs to take place, that the equipment is the right equipment and the software is the right software?

We've established 143 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 a task force that includes members of City Council, that includes the Police Department, that includes members of Weed and Seed, Town Watch and others just to get input as we go along.

That part, I understand that. I'm talking about the technical people that can make sure that whatever equipment and software is provided by the Congressman Fattah grant at some point in time can talk to the Police Department's equipment, which can talk to SEPTA's equipment. So as long as we're not going in different -- we're going in the same goal, but not in different directions with equipment and software.

In fact, what we've done is, we want to piggyback purchase off of whatever the City buys so that all of this technology works together.

Great. Thank you. 144 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Mr. Ewing, please. Mr. Ewing, I'm sorry for how long you've had to wait, and I appreciate your patience. Sometimes with technical hearings like this we have to get all the kind of technical information on the record, and I do appreciate your patience. So thank you, and please identify yourself for the record.

Yes. Thank you, Councilman Kenney. My name is Bill 13 Ewing. I'm testifying on behalf of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. I'm a member of the Board of the Greater Philadelphia Chapter of the ACLU. Like all residents of Philadelphia, the members of the ACLU are concerned about crime and are interested in seeing our government pursue meaningful actions that will make this City a safer place. However, we believe that there are many questions that have been left unanswered in the public discussion of video cameras, and we think 145 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 those questions should be addressed before any steps are taken to move forward with widespread installation of video surveillance cameras in Philadelphia and in fact before the question is put before the public in a referendum. Among those questions are the following: First, who will decide where those cameras will be placed; second, in what manner will the cameras be employed; third, is this the most cost-effective way to reduce crime in our City; and, fourth, what safeguards will be put in place to make sure that the cameras are not misused. We do not believe it's appropriate to present the issue of video surveillance cameras to the people of Philadelphia without answering those questions first. As a preliminary matter, I would like you to note that even now as we sit here today the District Attorney 146 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 can file a motion with the Court of Common Pleas seeking approval for the installation of a video camera at a specific location if she believes that there's a factual basis for installing it. Of course, that means that the District Attorney must demonstrate to a judge that there's a basis for suspecting that the camera will record criminal activity, and there are limitations on how long the camera may remain in place. Now, I was listening, as I know you were, with great attention to the testimony of the Commissioner and the neighborhood residents from Baltimore, and it seemed to me that the places where they described cameras having an effect because of the past crime history were probably places where cameras could have been installed without a broad-scale law, but basically based on the history, based on that, they could have been gotten with a warrant. And the same with Councilwoman Miller's concern, which I 147 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 share, concerning dumping. If you have a place that's a known dump that people often dump trash, I think you could probably get a warrant to install a camera there and we wouldn't need to have a law that sort of generally says you can have cameras hither and yon. I'm concerned and we're concerned about the kind of places cameras might be placed and about the basis on which the decision might be made. For instance, I can imagine that a camera might be installed outside an abortion clinic, and whether you're going there to have an abortion or to consult about an abortion or whether you're there in a peaceful protest, you might not want your presence to be recorded on camera for posterity and you're conducting a perfectly legitimate activity, or outside a bar that caters to gay and lesbian customers.

I just wanted to interrupt you for a second, 148 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 because I believe that probably outside places like Planned Parenthood and other types of organizations that do counseling and procedures, there probably is surveillance there already for their own protection. I think, as a matter of fact, Planned Parenthood, if I recall, at 12th and Locust I believe have cameras on their wall now to protect themselves from people who don't agree with their mission. Similar to many taverns and bars in Center City. I believe Woody's has their own surveillance cameras outside to protect -- and that's a gay establishment -- has cameras outside of their own choice to protect their customers and their staff.

Well, that's fine. It's the difference between a private individual doing it for their private use and then putting it in the public sphere, where if Planned Parenthood puts out cameras, that the people that are coming there for service as patients don't have 149 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 to worry about their picture being put out to some other people.

I understand, but I just want to make sure from my understanding, there are a number of establishments like that that have their own by choice.

Right. But our Constitution makes a big difference between whether private individuals do something or the government does it.

It's still a camera taking your picture one way or the other.

Oh, absolutely, but --

The same end result.

-- the question is where the picture is going to go, and that's the risk, it seems to me, here.

I understand.

In all likelihood, 150 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 some residents will want cameras on their blocks, while others will strongly oppose them. Who then will make the decision to place cameras in certain locations and not in others? Will surveillance be imposed on all citizens equally or will some neighborhoods be more watched than others? Rather than feeling safer, the people in the most monitored communities may feel that they're being especially targeted. And cameras cannot serve their purpose if their presence is widely resented. Therefore, consistent with the principles of the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the ACLU believes that there must be judicial review of any decision regarding installation of a video camera. Our courts should be overseeing the decision-making of the Police Commissioner and District Attorney to make sure that cameras are being 151 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 placed according to well-defined objective criteria. And I noticed that Judge Massiah-Jackson testified regarding standards that the American Bar Association has adopted for placement of cameras. I don't know whether they include that criterion or not, frankly, but if we were to adopt and ask the people to vote on a specific set of criteria, that seems to me a more meaningful kind of referendum than the kind of referendum that says generally would you like video surveillance cameras, provided that all civil liberties are protected, where people really have trouble knowing what they're voting on. And the danger is -- I mean, the whole idea behind the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to limit the discretion of government administrators and to provide for a separation of powers and resolution that basically says, Well, is it okay to do 152 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 this general kind of thing and trust us it will be done right. It's something that's scary to the ACLU. We believe that individuals with homes or workplaces near camera sites should have an opportunity to challenge them. For a citizen whose movements will be unavoidably and consistently monitored by the police, a public meeting to discuss cameras is insufficient redress. Only providing the right to a hearing before a judge who reviews the application of the criteria and any objections from the resident strikes a proper balance between public safety concerns and the individual's interest in preventing discriminatory or arbitrary surveillance. The City must determine -- and we heard differently from Baltimore and Chicago -- what law enforcement objectives these cameras are to serve. Chicago puts up cameras with big flashing lights to deter crime. They had no 153 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 statistics on whether it actually worked. They basically said, Well, lots of people want them, but they didn't have any showing that the crime had been reduced. Baltimore had very impressive statistics of reduction of crime, but that's not the way theirs works at all. So there's a long way, it sounds to me, and I appreciate that you all members of the Council are exploring this issue, but there's a long way before it can get to be a concrete proposal. And it's our view that it should not be put to the voters for a general opinion before a concrete proposal is formulated to put before them.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Ewing, for coming in. I'm sorry for the long wait. Currently, based on the information that we've been able to get 154 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 on systems that have been implemented across the country, to our knowledge, there's not been a single municipality that has had the level of citizens' participation that we are requesting at this point. All of those municipalities made a decision administratively based on their authority that was given to them by the Constitution as it relates to privacy rights on public thoroughfares to simply implement systems without any public participation. I didn't think that that was appropriate personally and a number of other Councilmembers didn't think that was appropriate. So we started down this process of first looking at some of the other municipalities and then coming up with what we think may be a reasonable process that can have citizens' buy-in, which is why we're requesting a referendum as opposed to essentially letting the Police Department or the District Attorney go get a judge, who I 155 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 may not know, any of the citizens don't know, only have to face the citizens every ten years when they come up for retention. So, personally, I'd rather have the citizens make that determination as to whether or not there should be any video surveillance in neighborhoods and not some anonymous judge. Second of all, this is not a binding ordinance, as I said earlier. It is simply gauging the sentiments of citizens. I believe, and I don't have a commitment from the Police Department or anyone else, that based on this process that includes the citizens early on in the process, if in fact the City agrees to move ahead on the implementation of the system, that there will be substantial citizens' participation and also participation from Council and other elected officials in formulating policies that make some sense. I agreed 100 percent with Judge 156 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Massiah-Jackson's concerns and some of her recommendations as it relates to the ABA, and I think if we in fact do roll this out, that we probably should look at adopting some of those issues. What I didn't want to do is to proceed with the latter and not have a sense of what the citizens think, because if the citizens determine that overwhelmingly they don't want to have these video systems, then I don't think we should proceed. So I thought it would be more appropriate to gauge the sentiments of our citizens. Then if in fact there's something that they support, then we start talking about putting together standards, including citizens, in a full and meaningful way. So that's kind of why we took this process, as opposed to going to the Police Commissioner and asking him to get a judge to authorize a video system at a particular corner.

Well, I appreciate that, Councilman Clarke. I think it 157 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 would have been a more meaningful background for the citizens if Council had heard from Hoboken, which abandoned their system after five years when they only produced two arrests, or Miami Beach, which dismantled its system, or Detroit, which also disbanded a program, to find out why they disbanded it and whether Baltimore is -- I mean, it's only been in existence for a limited period of time in both Baltimore and Chicago. My concern is that this resolution is so general that basically says, Do you want us to fight crime and protect civil liberties. I mean, it's hard to vote against this referendum if you put it on the ballot, because it's so general that nobody really knows what they're voting for. I don't think it really gives much of a mandate, frankly.

Okay. You're entitled to your opinion, but I do think that we built into the question the fact that people do have some concerns 158 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 about civil liberties. That's why we referenced it in the language. And we do want to fight crime as a result of our ability to implement systems. So I don't know how much clearer I could be.

All of us want to fight crime and all of us want to protect civil liberties. I don't doubt that.

Well, sir, if in fact the City proceeds, I'm sure there will be very specific, detailed standards of both in terms of implementation and in placement, but to put that in a referendum without having any background information or any input from citizens, I just don't think it's appropriate.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you.

I won't dispute that.

Thank you very much. Thanks for your testimony. 159 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Mr. Holloway and Dara Tye. Hi. Thanks for waiting. A similar apology to you.

No problem.

It's just such a long hearing with so many technical witnesses that we wind up going longer, but thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself.

My name is Dara Tye and I'm speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors for Rittenhouse Row. Rittenhouse Row is a non-profit destination marketing association. We represent 200 businesses in the Rittenhouse Square area, including restaurants, shops, salons, hotels, galleries, banks and more in the area between the Avenue of the Arts and 22nd Street from Market to Pine. Our goal is to attract people to the destination for shopping, dining, living and visiting. We wish to express our concern about the recent wave of robberies and 160 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 assaults in our area. We are deeply concerned for the safety of our businesses, our residents and our visitors. We feel that the proposed surveillance system will be tremendously helpful in curtailing the occurrence of crime and then solving crimes that do occur. We wish to applaud Councilman Clarke for his initiative in protecting the area, and 100 percent support the idea. Thank you for the opportunity to express these concerns.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions for this witness? (No response.)

Thank you for coming in.

Thank you.

Judith Robinson, please. 161 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Again, my apologies for the wait. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

My name is Judith Robinson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the issue of video surveillance. I heard so many good things today about cameras reducing crime or all the positives, and that's a good thing. As the resolution has been worded, I don't think any one of us can say no to it, because we're all interested in reducing crime, except the criminals, for sure. But my concerns are that there was so much focus on these cameras that I did not see the same focus on prevention of crime. For instance, this hearing was 162 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 changed from the Public Safety Committee, and when I was here for the Public Safety Committee, most of the members of the Committee were not even here for the hearings. I see that you all are. So that makes me a little concerned that you're focused on the cameras, but you are not focused -- I think it's only one person, one member of this Committee, that also was a member of the Public Safety Committee, but I do see some members of the Public Safety Committee here. When that was changed, I didn't see that same focus, all day staying here. So I just want to make sure that we're not focusing so much on cameras, which we know it's not a panacea, and that we focus less on prevention. For instance, the Commissioner asked for $100 million to have five years of new recruits. He only got 10 million in overtime. What I heard today is that all 163 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 these things should work together. I don't think that a camera can take the place of a beat cop. In addition, I would be concerned about the cost. Cameras can't take the place of a good witness protection plan, with dollars behind it. So I just hope that we don't put a lot of money into cameras, not look at the long-term effect, and take away money from other areas that can also help to prevent crime. I am very much concerned about safety, too, as a business owner that will be on one of those commercial corridors. I would be using cameras, but I think it's a big difference between a public use of cameras and the government use. I am concerned, and I am glad that the ACLU was here today, because I am somewhat concerned about the long-term effects of government use of cameras. But if they can reduce violent crime, as what I heard today, then I would be for 164 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 them. But let's make sure that we put all the other areas in place, too, before we rush to spend a substantial amount on cameras and then only to find out five years down the road, or whatever, that we wasted our money. So let's walk slowly down this road. Let's get as much information as possible. Let's not look at only the pros and not the cons. And thank you very much. I hope it all works.

Thank you. I just want to make sure you understand from a technical standpoint the reason why this resolution and bill are being considered in the Law and Government Committee, is that we have a legal requirement to do this through this Committee to get it on the ballot. So it's really a technical ballot issue that requires the Law and Government Committee to actually put it out of Committee and put it on the floor. So I understand your issues 165 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 relative to when Commissioner Johnson testified the other day relative to the deployment and money and all the other things, but this is more kind of a technical committee that's needed to put these things on the ballot.

Right. I understand that, because I did inquire after I saw that it was moved. I like studying City Council.

I know you're here a lot.

So I did study and find out --

We wish every citizen was engaged as you are into the issues.

I always try to encourage them to be. You all have a contract with WHAT to make sure the citizens get information out. Let's make sure that's really working effectively for the taxpayers. 166 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. If there's no other witnesses, we're going to conclude the public hearing and move into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for the purpose of offering various amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have two amendments, one to the bill and one to the resolution, and essentially these amendments change the language on the question that would be placed on the ballot, and the other, per the request of the Law Department, we wanted to clarify the issue with respect to the City's mandate to implement video systems, and the language essentially now says that the City shall consider and that there is not a mandate. 167 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 So at this time, I would like to offer an amendment to Bill No. 060092.

Is there a second? (Duly seconded.)

First of all, for the record, the amendments have been circulated to the members of the Committee and to the stenographer and they are in the permanent record. There's a motion and a second to approve the amendments, technical amendments, to Bill No. 060092. All in favor? (Aye.)

Anyone opposed? (No response.)

Bill No. 21 060092 is amended. We will report it out of the Committee accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke on a motion for the amended bill. 168 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I propose that Bill No. 060092 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and second. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No. 060092 as amended is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for the purpose of offering an amendment to Resolution No. 25 060101. 169 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to Resolution 060101. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

The amendment passes to Resolution 060101. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on the amended resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I move the Resolution 17 060101 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

Resolution 170 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 No. 060101 as amended is reported out of this Committee favorably. That completes the business of the Law and Government Committee. Thank you very much for your attendance. (Committee on Law and Government adjourned at 3:35 p.m.) - - - 171 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on March 9, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)