COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY and PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, April 14, 2005 2:30 p.m. - - - - RESOLUTION 05087 - Resolution authorizing the Joint Committees on Public Safety and Public Property to hold hearings to determine the benefits and feasibility of employing video surveillance cameras in efforts to reduce crime and promote safety in the City of Philadelphia. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE, Chair COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS - - - - 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 I N D E X RESOLUTION 050087 PAGE CHARLES BRENNAN, Police.............. FRANK PUNZO, Public Property......... 33 CHARLES TURNER, Red Light Camera..... 42 LARRY FRANKEL, ACLU.................. 52 ANTHONY MURPHY, Town Watch........... 82 JAY WILEY............................ 84 MARK HARRELL, Men United............. 87 3 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087
Good afternoon. We'll be starting now. This is the joint Committee Public Safety and Public Property and Public Works of the City of Philadelphia. Today, we will have a hearing on Resolution 7 No. 050087. I would like to say for the record that Councilman Rizzo is present, Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller. I understand Councilwoman Miller would like to have an opening statement and I will subsequently follow with my own.
Good afternoon. We're here this afternoon to discuss this important resolution. I think Philadelphia has to start thinking out of the box and be a little bit creative and figure out new ways we can deter crimes and negative activities in neighborhoods. I believe that video cameras or video surveillance is a method that we can use to deter crime wherever it is. And I know that myself and some other people up in the northwest part of town have been thinking about the idea of video surveillance for quite sometime, and we even 4 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 have a state representative that is willing to finance the cost of some of the video surveillance. So we're here this afternoon to receive testimony. And I'm willing and I know that other members of the Committee are willing to do whatever it is to deter crime in this neighborhood, because certainly this impacts the quality of life in many, many neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia. It may not be all neighborhoods, but I know it's in neighborhoods that I serve. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilwoman. I would like to say personally as the Councilperson who sponsored this particular resolution, I have not made up my mind as it relates to full-blown implementation, but I thought it was appropriate to have a public hearing to allow individuals to express their views on this particular issue. Hopefully, if we agree to proceed with the possible full-blown implementation, we will do it in a way that 5 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 will allow the public at large to have levels of input that will create a consensus as it relates to this particular issue. Additionally, I clearly understand although throughout the City of Philadelphia there's a substantial amount of video surveillance as we speak essentially done by private industry -- every time you go to an ATM, it takes your picture. Every time you go by a Wawa, it takes your picture. But there are certain realities that when government gets involved in video surveillance, sometimes individuals have some level of concern, and I understand the implications as it relates to that. But I think that it is appropriate, given the level of crime that we've experienced in some of our neighborhoods that we look at taking a proactive approach. Not using video surveillance as it relates to investigations, but using it to deter crime. It has been proven, as you will hear testimony as we proceed in other municipalities this has proven to be an effective crime-fighting mechanism. 6 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 So today, we anticipate hearing information both in support, possibly in opposition and probably somewhere in the middle, but all of the information that we get today will be forwarded to the other Members of Council and for further deliberation. So at this time I'd like to ask the Clerk to please read the title of the resolution.
Resolution 050087, a resolution authorizing the Joint Committees on Public Safety and Public Property to hold hearings to determine the benefits and feasibility of employing video surveillance cameras in efforts to reduce crime and promote safety in the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you. We would like to call our first witness from the Philadelphia Police Department Deputy Commissioner Charles Brennan, Deputy Commissioner for Science and Technology.
Good afternoon, Councilman. 7 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087
My name is Charles Brennan. I'm a deputy police commissioner with the Philadelphia Police Department. Commissioner Johnson asked me to appear for him. He's outside the country now on business. He asked me to testify for him today. The Police Department is largely supportive of cameras with certain reservations. As you know, images of cameras have been used for many years to help us solve crimes. You see those on a daily basis. Probably the ones you tend to see the most are the ones from bank robberies because every time you go into a bank, we take a picture. If we have a bank robbery, that person's picture appears in on TV the next day. But although most of those cameras that we use are in private hands, we are seeing more and more government-type cameras deployed in the City. For example, there are cameras outside the new prison facility at Seventh and Arch. They've been used to help solve crimes. The police 8 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 radio has access to 92 cameras which are filming activity along the highways which go through the Philadelphia, 76, 676 and 95, and we use those cameras routinely. Police radio can actually dial into them if there's any kind of incident on any of those highways and we can alert the emergency medical responders before they get there as to what's occurring, so those cameras have been very helpful. Also, the universities and hospitals employ both inside and outside cameras. The School District employs cameras. As part of our COMSTAT process, we have been documenting the locations of all privately-owned cameras in Center City, and we actually law those cameras in a map over the crime every week and we see if the cameras can actually pick up something. So far we've documented 84 cameras in Center City. And actually, that's only part of what we know is there. So Commissioner Johnson believes that we should take a very cautious approach to this issue. We should see what other 9 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 cities have done and make our decisions once we examine such issues as citizen satisfaction, privacy concerns, crime displacement and crime control. And you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer.
Deputy, thank you for your testimony. Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. Commissioner, I was out of the room, and one of the curiosity questions I had, do cities that do this from your knowledge or if we did it here or if the Chair could answer the question, where is the monitoring center because having a videotape of crime in progress and looking at it three hours later isn't really helpful. I mean, are there centers? Would it be in the 911 center where people would be just sitting there? Or is there some type of technology that -- I heard yesterday at gunfire the cameras will come towards it. Does it absolutely require somebody sitting there and looking at a 10 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 monitor? Or is there an alarm that goes off if there's some activity that the camera sees and determines that this could be a problem?
I'm glad you asked me that question, because I didn't refer to some of my testimony because I thought it would come up. The Police Department has -- we sort of put our toe in the water with cameras. We've deployed three cameras in the park. And the reason we put the cameras there was largely mis-reported by the press, so I would like to take this opportunity to sort of tell you why those cameras are there. Nevertheless, even though it was mis-reported, it was kind of interested to see the reaction of the citizens as to the cameras out there. We got a grant from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency to test certain technologies about cameras, one of which relates to directly to the question you just asked me, Councilman. There are two technologies which we are testing in the park. One is to be able to control those cameras and pass video across the air waves wirelessly. 11 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 One of the big problems with cameras is the wires. You're stuck wherever you put them. And once you put them in a place and they're wired, they're very difficult to move. So we wanted to experiment, could we put cameras out there and we're using a Verizon technology high speed wireless service that transmits the pictures without wires. That's a big deal. We wanted to see if this was feasible and it would work, not so much from a surveillance perspective, but a perspective of an emergency management situation. For example, suppose we had an emergency on the Parkway. It would be nice to be able to take a camera out there and pump that video back to the emergency operation center so that the Managing Director, without going to the scene, could actually see what's going on at that location and to be able to take another camera and put it somewhere else and do the same thing, so we're not hindered by the wires. That was the first technology that we wanted to see if it would work. The second one sort of relates more 12 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 to your question, Councilman. I don't believe it makes sense anymore to have someone sit in front of a bank of screens. You may remember the City actually went that way one time. We had a large closed circuit television system, which I believe by the time the Rendell administration took over was largely not functional. I think most of the cameras had broken down. A lot of research has indicated that if you put people watching banks of cameras, IBM who is our vendor in this project told us that some studies indicate that the person gets bored within 45 seconds. I can understand that. So the other piece of technology we're exploring is called the smart camera technology, the melding of camera technology with software. Can the camera tell us when something is wrong? Now, it sounds kind of funny, but we actually are going to experiment with this in the park to see if the camera can tell us if something is the going wrong. Now, for example, we want to see if the camera that we have behind the Art Museum can alert us if 13 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 someone is breaking into a car. Now, how do we distinguish between you going to your car and someone breaking in your car? And that's sort of the problem. So we're trying to work with IBM to figure out how we can program the cameras to let us see when you're just doing something different than getting out of your car. They have a couple ideas they want to explore. The cameras on West River Drive that are along a jogging path, they'll be easier to experiment with because what we want to do with those cameras, we want the camera to alert us if someone leaves the path. The jogging path, I was watching this morning, people go up and down on bikes and they jog. But sort of the reason we chose that is that despite the attacks that we had there last year, people are just jogging and they're jogging at night.
The last woman who was attached, the man who attached her left the path and he just laid for her. And when she was coming down the path, he yanked her off the path and down toward the riverbank. If 14 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 the camera works as we think it will, we should get an alert in that situation. And the important thing is that no one will have to watch the camera. The last thing is that -- when we use the word reactive, to be able to catch someone who does a crime with a camera, reactive always has a negative connotation, like it's bad to reactive. But actually, if you think of it, if we catch a guy who commits a crime with a camera, we in fact have prevented that person from committing a whole lot of other crimes. We sort of know that. So we think the camera technology can be used for many things. And the cameras in the park are not there for surveillance; they're there to experiment with. I couldn't have asked a weather question myself.
No. We're not permitted under the law. There are clear exceptions to audio in cameras. State Police have an exception when they stop a car. And 15 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 if we had video recorders within our police cars, we could take audio of the drivers that we stop, but that's the only clear exception to the law. There is no audio in the cameras.
Commissioner, let me just back up now. With these smart cameras, when the camera technology would say that there's something going on other than the norm, does the monitor come on? When something -- let's say the West River Drive camera. A person leaves. Explain what happens then.
When you look at the cameras, they're divided into grids. And each camera shows on a separate grid. And the computer could either flash at your or beep at you when it sees something it doesn't like.
Yes. Now, what the cameras are also doing on the drives is they are recording in little snip-its when it sees movement now. We can go back in the past and look at the snip-its from yesterday or the day 16 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 before and we're saving those a couple days. So really if the camera PC beeped and you didn't see it right away, you could back up and see what the problem was and see if it was a false positive or something that we should take action about.
Councilman, actually, some of the information that was forwarded to us from the Baltimore Police Department talks about the feed into a main bank. As an example, in the Baltimore Harbor area there's a comprehensive port camera system and it feeds the images from the mouth of the harbor in the inner harbor back to police department where they have high threat areas and they're apparently monitored 24/7. I think, Councilman, you may want travel with us. It probably would be prudent for a number of us who are interested in this to take a trip to Baltimore, simply a train ride or a vehicle ride if you all trust my driving away 17 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 from the City of Philadelphia to try to go down and get a sense of what that would look like physically and how that operates. We've actually been invited down by the Police Commissioner to do that.
I'd like to see that. What made me think of this is the fact that I think we all know the terrible incident that occurred in Atlanta when the monitors were in place where the sheriff deputy was killed and the judge, where they had it all on tape, but like you said, Commissioner, that the people weren't paying attention to the monitor. They were distracted. They left the room. And if that hadn't been the case, they possibly could have seen that deputy being taken over, gun taken away, and possibly a response. But that didn't happen. But it's good to hear that this smart technology is the way to go. Let's do it, Councilman. I'm ready.
Can I ask Mr. Punzo from Public Property -- you might as well come up and join us. We'll do the, 18 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 quote/unquote, government panel as we talk about this issue. Deputy, you indicated earlier in your testimony that there was the level of caution as it relates to the support for this issue and you talked about certain privacy rights. Can you kind of elaborate on that? I know former Commissioner Timoney was, to some degree, actually adamantly opposed to the placement of video surveillance in Center City. I actually had some of the residents from center City who were interested in having video surveillance around the Rittenhouse Square area. And when we met with then Police Commissioner Timoney, he was opposed for that particular reason, he talked about individuals having a right to be in the park, Rittenhouse Square, without being surveilled. Could you kind of elaborate on that?
I had similar discussions with Commissioner Timoney. He wasn't opposed to some degree; he was opposed to every degree. He did not want surveillance cameras. His concerns were privacy. And what 19 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 the law says, Councilman, is that you have no 3 right to privacy in a public place. One of the problems with the deployment of cameras in residential neighborhoods is even though some of them can look on public places, there's a feature called pan, tilt, and zoom. You can move in, you can move the camera up and down, you can zoom in and zoom out. It is possible to move some of the cameras where you can look into a private place. There's where you get into a problem. One of the reasons we chose the park is basically there's no private areas there, there's no homes or anything, so we thought we'd avoid that controversy, at least for our limited experiment, which will probably stay up hopefully through the summer. But I think that that's a big concern. I made a reference to when our cameras project in the park came out and it was viewed as a surveillance project, I listened to the news, KWY, I listened to the other radio shows, and generally it seemed to me that the reaction was positive among the citizens. In other 20 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 words, any right to privacy they thought they had, they were willing to give up if they felt that they were safer, especially those on Fairmount Park. So the right to privacy in a public place, you don't have a right to privacy, but I think that you really have to look at how you deploy those cameras so they cannot be moved to look at someone in a private spot. And that's the problem I think that any large scale deployment of these would have to address.
Currently, to your knowledge, the private cameras, the fixed cameras on private locations, banks, retail locations, are they all fixed cameras or do they have the ability to move and possibly zoom into adjacent properties?
Most of the ones that we deal with and we go to for evidence reasons are usually fixed. For example, like in a Wawa, they're usually fixed. There's no one moving those around. Or in a bank they're usually fixed. The problem with a lot of the 21 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 technology that we get involved with in a private world for evidence purposes is that cameras are taping on a VCR type tape which has been used by the time we get it like a thousand times. And for the purposes of our catching the bad guy, they're no good at all because you can't see anything. So that's one of the things, the technology that we're employing in the park is digital technology. We're recording on a hard disk essentially, so you get a much sharper picture. You don't have to worry about that tape issue. But most of the cameras we see are fixed.
Well, you really has as much capacity as disks that you have. And I also found out that in places like the universities who use cameras is they have very clearcut policies on how those cameras are to be used and what they're to be used for and to make sure that they are not used where they could swivel into a private residence. And it looks like they follow those policies very 22 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 closely. They have committees set up to watch how they're used. But I was, quite frankly, surprised at how many outdoor cameras are at Penn and Temple and Drexel. I mean, they have loads of them.
I would assume they have loads of cameras out there on those campuses because they want to make it safe. If people think there's a camera, then it all of a sudden becomes a perception of safe. I know that this morning, because of this hearing being publicized, on my way in I actually heard from someone that there's a drug corner, a pretty hot drug corner in the neighborhood where the guys already think there are cameras up there. So it does have -- it can deter crime. One of the other points I wanted to bring up is that many people also have cameras in their homes now. Of course, we all see on the various news stores about people recording nannies and baby-sitters, but people also have 23 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 cameras set up to monitor what's going on surrounding their home. So surveillance cameras, and people hide them, look at all the employees that get caught doing the wrong things because of a surveillance camera in a restaurant or whatnot, so this absolutely just seems like the way people are going. And now with cell phones that can take your picture, it seems like taking a picture is the thing to do now, at least this year. Everybody seems to be wanted to take a picture somewhere or another. So when you think about drug corners, I guess someone would just figure, well, we'll just move to another corner, if you publicize, of course, where the cameras are. And prior to the hearing starting, we were having a discussion about the cameras in Baltimore. I watched that TV series called "The Wire." Did you ever see that?
Well, I think other people in here have watched it because 24 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 they laughed. You guys know what I'm talking about. And "The Wire" was just about the drug dealing that was happening in the City of Baltimore. And when it opens, it shows that the surveillance cameras have been broken by the drug dealers and their partners. People are using it. I think that it's probably a worthwhile effort. We need to do whatever -- I remember a few years ago there was a community group in Germantown had actually put some video cameras up on some telephone poles to try and catch dumpers. So there's all kind of ways. And one of the things we've also talked about using and how to use it is to catch short dumpers, because a lot of these problem just go on and on and on, and nobody ever sees who's doing the dumping. All we know is that the trash appears. So there's a variety of ways that I think cameras would be useful.
One of the concerns that the Commissioner has and we all have and why we want to look at this very cautiously is that the one criticism that I read over and 25 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 over about the camera technology is that it tends to displace crime to other areas. You may say that's fine as long as it's not in my area that you're placing it did into. So we're kind of concerned about that. That is one of the things -- and Commissioner Johnson had mentioned this a few times, that what keeps coming up to us as a city to look at is not Baltimore, but Chicago. Chicago has spent a lot of money, and I believe from the articles that I read they're employing more of the smart camera technology, not the cameras that I think everybody is watching. He's made a couple comments -- I read his comments in the press that he wanted to send somebody out there and really look at that and see what's going on to make sure that we just don't push crime away from one area into another; because if we do that, what are we solving?
One of the things I hope we don't do, I hope we don't reinvent the wheel here that we spend a lot of time -- 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 I love that fact that you're testing; that's good. But I think that should be limited because this is not new. This is something that, as you mentioned, there's a lot of other places doing it. As an example -- and I don't know this to be accurate, but I understand that there is a location in Montgomery County where there are three or four banks on an intersection on 202 that mounted on the street lights are surveillance cameras because these banks were constantly being robbed. And now if there is an event, they immediately go to the video. I don't think it's like on line, but they're monitoring those intersections and they're so deployed where they can actually see the vehicle, see the license number. I think it's tied in with the holdup alarms in the banks. They have a holdup alarm, the cameras activate, any vehicle leaving that scene must be captured on video. So there's a lot of areas doing this. And I think in the middle of an intersection on 202, from what I understand -- again, I don't know this is absolute. I was just told by a person that 27 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 this type of technology is utilized in Montgomery County. I think that's the location. But there's a perfect example tied to an alert of a crime, cameras are activated, information gather, police immediately. Doesn't help in the immediate apprehension, but it's in the investigative part of the crime.
Well, some of the PennDOT cameras are on 202. And we can get access to them. Surprisingly, when PennDOT gave us access to these 92 cameras, they must have just given us access to their whole system. So we can get access 202, 422, the Blue Route cameras, we can get access to those as well as the highways that run through the City. So we can actually see 202 and dial into those cameras. And actually, the images are pretty good on the cameras. We can't move them around, but the cameras are fixed so that you could get a good view of the highway. And I know we actually have that camera set up right next to J band in police radio. So if anything happens on the highway J just dials 28 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 in and they actually have told emergency responders, "Here's what you're going to run into when you get to the location." So they've been pretty handy on the highways.
Terrific. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman. Let the record reflect that Councilman Ramos has joined us. One last question if there are no 14 other questions from Members of the Committee for you, Commissioner, and then I'm going to ask Mr. Punzo to give his testimony. I had an earlier discussion actually earlier today with one of the leaders in the City of Philadelphia to talk about -- to get their position on this particular issue. And they actually talked about the ability to use videotape for issues other than violent crime. Let me tell you an example. The person says, "Well, it might be good to have it on the streets of City of Philadelphia in the event 29 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 that there's a lawsuit because somebody tripped over a sidewalk and sued either the City or some other owner of a property and therefore the insurance company could subpoena the records from the Police Department to use in their lawsuit." Is that something that could possibly happen? Would the Police Department be required to turn over that information on a civil case?
We are subpoenaed civilly occasionally. It's rare, though, because usually by the time the civil case hits most of our records are gone. A lot of our records we hold for a finite period of time and we destroyed them. So although we are subpoenaed in civil cases, most of the time it's for traffic accidents and things like that. We would hold the record longer. So that would be unlikely. But we are deploying now in our department and actually in the City images of the City that were taken via airplane, pretty good images. You get a real clear section of everywhere in the City of Philadelphia. That's being deployed 30 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 through not only the Police Department, but almost every major city agency has got access to this photography. And if you haven't seen it, Councilman, it is quite remarkable. It's called pictometry.
Well, they took some new images in 2004 which are even sharper. And you can get right up to a business or a home, you can see it from four different views as well as directly overhead. We're deploying it for public safety reasons, but I'm sure there's a lot of other reasons you can deploy that, maybe some of which relate to what you just mentioned.
Could you get me possibly from the lawyer or the City Solicitor who's representing the Police Department about the ability for an individual or a company to subpoena records on a civil case such as the one I referenced, because I would be a little concerned about that, being able to use information that was intended for purposes of 31 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 violent crime to use it in a case that most citizens have no --
We are subpoenaed for it. As a matter of fact, the City subpoenaed and we do -- really the only time the City usually fights those is if we are part of the lawsuit. Like we had an incident -- I guess it was about a year ago. There was an incident in a movie theater in Northeast Philadelphia in which someone come out of movie theater and he was beaten up. So he sued the movie theater because he thought that they should have provided him better security. The City of Philadelphia was not part of the lawsuit. We were subpoenaed for records about all the crime within that area so that the lawyer could prove that it was unsafe and the theater owner should have known it. That kind of stuff we sort of get all the time, and we do supply those records subsequent to a subpoena and usually they pay a fee and the 32 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 fee relates to our labor in getting those records together.
Well, since it's our business, most of it is crime, although some of it is auto accident records, things like that that we keep. But a lot of the things that we get subpoenaed for civilly relate to crime, and the City usually doesn't really care as long as they are not part of the lawsuit.
That reminds me, Commissioner. You might want to have the attorneys start working with the Parking Authority because I'm confident that now that red light cameras -- the first April 18th, the second Red Lion and the Boulevard is constructed. And I asked the question, if law enforcement came to the Parking Authority and asked for any information if there was a serious crime to be able to interrogate the 33 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 red light camera system to see if the vehicle that they may be looking form may have -- a person committing crimes sometimes goes through red lights, and that data could be in one of those red light cameras systems. So I think somebody should start now to find out what the state enabling legislation, our local legislation will allow you to do in the event that there was a significant crime in the area of red light camera installation to possibly interrogate those cameras to see if there would be any information that could be helpful in an investigation.
That's a good point. I'll have our attorneys look into that.
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Deputy. Deputy, can you kind of hang around if you can? Mr. Punzo, state your name for the record.
Councilman Clarke, Members of the Committee, I'm Frank Punzo, 34 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 Communications Superintendent for the Department of Public Property Communications. It's a pleasure today to appear before the Committee to testify on the trial of the video surveillance cameras out in the Fairmount Park area. I think most of the topics have been touched on through your questioning, but just a couple I think bear really discussing. One, the project was funded through a grant received by the Police Department with some small amount of funds from the Department of Public Property to get it up. Some of the things that we learned through this in terms of placement of the poles, even without going to the other cities, which I think is a good idea, placing them in the park obviously presents other problems. You have to make them aesthetically pleasing, you just can't have them flopped out there so that people will notice them. That was a real challenge. Obviously to place them there close to an electrical source which you have to have as well as testing, as Commissioner Brennan 35 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 stated, the wireless transmission of those cameras and really the transmission back to the Police Department or wherever the ultimate residing place these cameras are going to be watched. With the software that's being tested, without that ability to alarm, we'd just have somebody sitting there all day watching cameras that maybe nothing that is going on. So we did want to trial all three things. The transmission, the placement of the poles, as well as the actual viewing of the video. The trial has been, to this point, very successful in the sense that cameras reacted very well. They have night vision so that we can see at night. They do have the pan, tilt, zoom, but because they are in Fairmount Park, we have limited areas where they can view. But it does give us added viewing of the particular area. Two are on the West River Drive. One is behind the Art Museum. And obviously, they're well travelled areas both for joggers as well as behind the Art Museum, as the Commissioner stated, for 36 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 crimes that are committed as far as cars being broken into, et cetera. So I think the technology was a joint effort, again, as the Commissioner stated, between IBM, Verizon Wireless, ourselves, Mayor's Office of Information Services to get this up and operational. As he said, it is working well as a trail. It's three cameras. We look at it and say what needs to be improved to make it better before we would have any type of full deployment. So if you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Punzo. Mr. Punzo, using a multiplier as it relates to cost associated to wireless versus wired, because that is a concern given our fiscal situation. We actually have a gentleman from one of the companies that provide the service and he may be able to give a little more specific information. Is it like times, times as much to do wired various wireless or vice versa? Talk to me 37 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 about the cost of the technology.
I wouldn't hazard a guess of 3 times. It could be easily that much. It will depend on the placement of the camera, obviously, as to how hard it is to get the wiring three. The advantage that the wireless provides is that you have a modem right there within the pole if it gets the same power as does the camera from a power source. So the only wiring you really need is the actual electrical wire since the modem and the camera are controlled wirelessly. So it does cuts down substantially. Again, it is really dependent on where it is. If we're on the side of a building that has easy access to wires, it probably would be equal to. However, if it's out in the park where it is today, it would be to times probably more expensive.
Talk to me about the cost of equipment. I'm a techno-phobe essentially, but I do know a little bit about some things. A computer, if you get a 38 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 traditional PC, you need to have a hookup to your phone line versus you having a laptop may have or more abilities and maybe able to use the wireless situation, but the laptop and the wireless equipment actually cost more. Is it the same thing as relates to the equipment costs for the wireless versus the traditional cameras? Would the initial cash outlay by the City be more if it we chose to go to wireless versus the traditional camera system?
Again, that is to be determined through this trial. But certainly on wireless you would have a subscription cost that would be there on a monthly basis. So that would add to the cost. The cost of modem is probably pretty much the same whether it's in a hard wired PC or in a laptop. And the cameras would pretty much be the same, I would say. So really, it comes down to the subscription of whatever that subscription cost would be, and I think that's where the wired would probably save you because it could be connected into a wired Internet service which is actually how this transmission is 39 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 taking place. You can view it over the Internet.
Mr. Punzo, let's say that the majority of these cameras would be in our neighborhoods. And there are PECO wires on the ole which solves your energy source. Let's say that on the particular installation -- and having some background in that, I know how law enforcement disguises those cameras. Would the fact that Comcast Cable, let's say that's the franchise area, would their facilities on the pole be a source to bring the pictures back to our facility? In order words, could we utilize -- rather than go wireless, could the Comcast facilities provide us a path to bring the pictures back to our center?
I believe the Comcast facilities could be used, certainly, if they are there, as well as I think on street lights today or to many of the stop lights there are fiber connections the Street Department has 40 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 put in, and that may be capable of being utilized. So, yes, I think there are several ways to get that signal back.
So wireless is okay in areas -- we all see around the City now some of the universities have the solar phones that are around the campuses. But if we want to equip the community, the neighborhoods especially, there's really no 11 need to be wireless with all the different ways to get the signal back to a particular location.
I would agree wholeheartedly. If it's in a neighborhood where you have access to those, whether it be Comcast, Urban, you name it, cable or to other means of transmission, you would not have to use the wireless, yes.
Just to finish up my thought, I know we have an aviation unit. They have cameras in the helicopters also. If there is a major incident going on in the City, that helicopter has the ability to send pictures back to the Police headquarters; is 41 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 that right?
That is correct, yes. Typically it sends it to the command post. Like the Army/Navy Game, Eagles playoff games, we use it quite a bit. And the police use it.
And I've seen demonstrations at multi-alarm fires where the helicopter has hovered and very valuable information going back to the fire commanders, special in the integrity of a building where that helicopter is just hovered there and send pictures back to the command center where the commanders see more over the TV screen than they can actually see through the roof of the building to see exactly where the hot spots are. So there's a lot of technology out there if we use it correctly.
Absolutely. I think you reference the gas main explosion that took place last year. Part of the use was that camera was able to pick up, because it has infrared capability, the hot spots on the building so we could put more water on it from the Fire Department's perspective. So it did 42 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 work well.
How do you feel not being here talking about police radio?
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions of this witness from Members of the Committee? (No response.)
There being none thank you very much. I'd like to call our next witness Mr. Charles Turner from the Mulville Company.
Good afternoon, Councilman. Thanks for inviting me to come over today.
Good afternoon. Now, are you the Mulville Company or are you also the Philadelphia Red Light Camera Company.
I'm with Mulville. Currently I'm implementation manager for the Red Light Camera Program.
Thank you. 43 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 Please state your name for the record.
Charles Turner. I'm currently the implementation manager for the Red Light Camera Program here in the City of Philadelphia. Thanks for inviting us out. Hello to all the other councilmen, particularly Councilman Rizzo who we work with very closely.
I have a little testimony. We have a product that's basically an enhancement to the existing Red Light Camera Program. We spoke, you and I or me and your assistant spoke about it over the phone. It's called Access Live, and what it would do is basically what's already been described here today, provide video coverage for the intersections where you currently have red light cameras. Right now you have one program that's already active at Grant. The next one will be up at Red Lion, and then there will be seven more locations. 44 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 This particular piece of equipment can be tied in the Red Light Camera Program and run only during the red lights or run all the time. And it would run into the same time infrastructure and cost structuring as was just described by the police officer here. The reason being -- I know you wanted a hard number, but there is no hard number at this time because a lot of different variables come into play when you talk about video surveillance type of equipment. As we already discussed, it is there communication wiring already at the infrastructure and a lot of the intersections there already is. Where will the electrical access come from? How do you really want to apply your coverage? Like Councilman Rizzo said and I've experienced from the seven years that I've been in the photo enforcement business, having someone there actually watching the video, you know, what mechanism do you want to put in place to use it for a crime prevention type of scenario? Also, in my previous work, I came 45 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 from Baltimore City, I would tell you that definitely it would be to the advantage to the City Council to go and visit that command center. It is very state-of-the-art. The photo enforcement programs that I ran in the state of Maryland, I think a total of major 8 crimes were helped to be resolved just with 9 the use of the still photos, so imagine what 10 adding the video capability to the photo already existing and building photo enforcement scenario would do for the City of Philadelphia. It has a great application in many, many cases. Those still pictures in that particular instance were the determining factor in at least five of those cases. One was a rape abduction, the rest were drive-by shootings, others were drug-related activities.
How did that work? You say still camera pictures. Was it like repetitive pictures?
Nine times out of ten -- particularly, your program is new. In the end I guess it will potentially be across 46 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 the whole City. Nine times out of ten, say for a bank robbery or any type of crime, a person's going to use main thoroughfares. Statistically, your camera applications for photo enforcement are going to be on your main thoroughfares, so you add the additional capability of the video as well as your still shot, that's additional documentation. If someone's going to commit a crime like a bank robbery, I don't think they're going to stop for the red light. One thing that it gives you, it gives you additional information as to the trajectory that they used coming in potentially to commit the crime and the direction they took going away from the crime, which is additional information in many of the instances it helps the police department in reviewing the documentation find out exactly what direction to go in to actually search for these individuals, particularly as they headed toward major highways. Also, in Washington, D.C., some of the data that was gathered in Baltimore and 47 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 across the region was significant in helping to pin down. Again, we ran into that after the fact, reactionary scenario, but it help piece together some of the documentation that was needed to capture the sniper shooter that was in that region. So it's got a lot of applications.
When you were in Baltimore, did you work directly with the program that implements the --
Yeah, I was the project manager in Maryland before I changed companies and came here to manage your program here in Philadelphia.
No, only with the photo enforcement. The video is relatively new. My new company, Mulville dose have that video application. Where I've seen that it's been significant in the R&D because that's the point where we're at right now, it shows the continuation and the follow-through in any type of crime scenario. The still shots give 48 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 you shots in specific time. The video gives you a full stream of activity.
When you were in Baltimore as it relates to the implementation, were you there during the implementation?
I was wondering about the process as it relates to community input.
Can I speak just from historical background in relation to photo enforcement. I would recommend to the Council to continue with these type of meetings. It are paramount in building the case necessary for the citizen acceptance. All the surveys I've been involved in in the realm of photo enforcement and basically using the cameras in red light enforcement and stop light enforcement in this particular instance, I've got 75 to 80 percent positive response from 49 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 the citizens. The thing, though, that has made it significant and what I hope to bring here and many are bringing here to the City of Philadelphia is that you always have all your cards on the table. You want a do well-developed, well-planned and well-executed program. You lodge the papers and television stations to put out the program as you start to do your implementation, why you're doing it, what you hope to receive from it, and the most important thing, the City be fantastic with as far as what are the results. We're starting to get the results from red light program. The first installations have been up three months. What are the results? And then you'll have 100 percent buy-in. Nine times out of ten, particularly any quality of life program, when people see their quality of life improvement, you get a halo effect across the whole city. If red light video move to another area, you want to strategically layout your video camera program, because I have seen historic a halo effect across City of Baltimore as well as the 50 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 whole state of Maryland as far as red light was concerned.
We you know pilot program now, it's well over 6,000 people have been sent warning notices during this pilot program. And many of them probably are so convinced they went through the red light, they're sending the money in and they don't have to.
We got a payment on a warning ticket already. So you're getting a lot of buy-in. We're getting telephone calls into the customer service center, and a lot of people are saying, "I did it. I can't believe the picture is this good." I think one advantage you find with the system that we're using, even with the combination of not just in your photo enforcement intersections, the combination of not just the application or the addition of video, because right now that's not a part of the program, when you add the two together, 51 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 the still picture gives us the ability -- because I heard someone talk about, "Well, the picture wasn't of high quality." We give you a high quality wet film picture. We can give you even a higher quality digital film picture, and we can snap that license plate. And that's the idea. That gives your identification.
Yes, we did, with a nice love letter with a definition of warning.
Well, you know, you want folks to understand. The citizens buy into a lot of things, and what I want to teach them is to read the document because if they read the document it will provide them all the information that they need.
Thank you. Any questions, members of the Committee? Mr. Turner, thank you very much. 52 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087
Don't hesitate to call us again. We are in the business of photo enforcement and its various application. Thank you.
Thank you so much. I'd like to call Mr. Larry Frankel. Good afternoon, sir. Please read your name for the record.
My name is Larry Frankel. I am the legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. Good afternoon, Councilman Clarke, Councilman Rizzo, Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Ramos. It's my pleasure to be here today to discuss some of our concerns about the installation of video surveillance cameras on Philadelphia streets. Before I go any further, I must publicly thank Rafael Cunif (ph), a law student at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who really provided me with a tremendous assistance in preparing testimony today. 53 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 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 the City a safer place. However, we believe that there are many questions that the public discussion of video cameras have left unanswered. There's been some further discussion today, but I don't know that they answered fully any of those questions and that those issues that are raised need to be addressed before full-blown implementation because those issues will come back to haunt you if they're not answered. Briefly, the questions fall in the category of, first, who decides where the cameras will be placed? Secondly, in what manner will the cameras employed? There's been some discussion of that already. Third, is it the most cost effective way of reducing crime in the City? And fourth, what safeguards will be put in place to make sure that these cameras are not misused. Also, I would like to note as a 54 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 preliminary matter, because the District Attorney was here the other day on budget hearing and talked about this, she already has the authority to go in court to have a video camera installed. Now, they have to go to court, present some evidence to justify the installation of a camera, but that can be done and is being done. And as we heard already, there are various cameras already in public places. I guess what we're talking about here today is a much a greater expansion of the number of cameras in place being monitored without necessarily having to court to get that.
Let me interrupt your testimony because I'm glad you brought that up. Earlier, if you didn't understand what I was saying, I did reference the fact that right now law enforcement has the authorization to place surveillance both hard wired, unwired video surveillance in neighborhoods. What I'm hoping to attempt to do today, along with members of this Committee and members of this Council, if in fact we 55 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 proceed with a full-flown attempt, it will create a strategy that will allow the participation of the citizens and its elected officials. I would -- frankly speaking, personally, I would not like to see full-blown implementation of a video surveillance program in the City of Philadelphia without having the participation of the elected officials and the citizens. So I guess I'm in a preemptive way trying to get ahead of that potential expansion to make sure that people are a part of that process.
And I heard your opening statement, and I applaud you for wanting to have the discussion now before we go further.
" So I very much commend you for having a public 56 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 hearing. That will, I think, both provide you with further understanding of the variety of opinions and also help you think about some of the issues that you've already discussed: Are you going to have them constantly monitored or are you going to use this smart technology? Who has access and for what uses those tapes can be put? So I strongly commend you for having the hearing. I also would take this opportunity to remind -- although Councilman Ramos you were not a member of the Council at that time, but about two years ago -- and I'm not so sure Councilman Rizzo you voted for the resolution, but City Council did pass a resolution with regard to the USA Patriot Act expressing the sentiments of the citizens of this City that you have to strike an appropriate balance between safety, security, and privacy and people's sense of civil liberties and living in a free society. I think this is a continuation of a discussion on those very concepts. With those out of the way, let me 57 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 address some of those concerns and hopefully amplify the discussion. As I'm sure all of you understand, not every law abiding citizen in Philadelphia is comfortable having the watchful eye of the government on them while they walk on the streets or enter their homes. Although there may be as a very technical legal matter no right to privacy in a public place, I still believe that many people think they have a right to go around on the streets if they're not doing anything wrong without having surveillance of them. I think that's what Commissioner Timoney was expressing when he expressed his sentiments a number of years ago. In all likelihood, you will go into neighborhoods where some residents will very much want cameras on their block while others will strongly oppose them. Who will then make the decision whether the cameras will be there and at what locations within those neighborhoods? Will the surveillance cameras be imposed on all citizens equally or will some neighborhoods be more watched over than 58 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 other neighborhoods and on what basis will that decision be made? Rather than feel safer, some people in the most monitored communities may feel like they are being especially targeted. Cameras can not serve their purpose if their presence is resented or deemed to be some kind of profiling of a population. Therefore, consistent with the principles of both the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and it's equivalent provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, the ACLU believes that there must be judicial review of the decision regarding the installation of a video camera. Our courts should be overseeing the decision-making of the Police Commissioner and District Attorney to make sure that the cameras are being placed according to well-defined, objective criteria. It doesn't have to be a full-blown hearing but have somebody say you are applying the criteria you've developed in an appropriate manner and not doing this for some other motive or basis. 59 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 Most importantly, we believe that the individuals living near camera sites must have an opportunity to go somewhere and say, "We don't want them," and be heard and at least have a determination made that this decision was properly made. For a citizen whose movements will be unavoidably and consistently monitored by the Police, a public meeting only takes you so far. Some people would be reluctant to speak out in a public meeting, feeling that they may be targeted by their neighbors as being "Then you must be a criminal then because you don't want this," when in essence they just believe that in a free society this isn't proper.
Providing a right to a hearing for some kind of neutral body to review the application, the criteria, and any objections from the residents, we believe will strike an appropriate balance between public safety concerns and the individual's interest in preventing discriminatory or arbitrary surveillance. The City must also determine what 60 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 law enforcement objectives these cameras serve. Are they designed to prevent crimes or only record them for later review? I think that's a discussion you've been having. I will say I'm doing this off the top of my head, but I think I can say that the notion of a smart technology that is reacting to specific incidents so that maybe you can get somebody there in a timely manner certainly seems to be more appropriately than this constant monitoring where you have somebody falling asleep or being bored, plus the liability issues that may raise because somebody was supposed to monitoring and they failed to monitor it properly. Talk about a lawsuit waiting to happen, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. I don't think you could successfully build immunity from being sued if you have an expectation that something's being monitored and it isn't properly being monitored. Are you going to have designations that the cameras are in operation, or is it going to be more covert? I don't know that 61 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 I've heard a specific discussion in the pros and cons of those various items. If you're trying to deter crime, is it more effectively deterred if there's a sign warning people that a camera is in operation, or do you want people to just wonder whether a camera is in operation? But then if you have a sign saying a camera is in operation, someone can determine the radius to which that camera can actually record activities and step right outside that area to commit the crime. I don't have answers to those questions, but I think those are some of the questions that need to be asked. With the smart technology, you still need to have somebody available to respond when the computer flashes or beeper goes off or whatever. It probably needs to be both a visual and an audio signal to make sure it gets responded to. And if cameras are supposed to help save lives in a medical emergency or victims of crime, they must be monitored. This means that people will have to be employed for that specific purpose. And 62 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 we think that then you have to determine whether that's going to be members of the police, is it going to be a private company you hire, or is it going to be civilians? Those decisions have to be made. We think in all likelihood it should be trained police officers who understand the provisions of the fourth amendment, who understand what is criminal activity and what is not criminal activity. So that if you've got to smart technology and it triggers off that somebody went off the jogging trail, well if it's somebody who went off the jogging trail because they heard a bird and they went to go see it, they would recognize that's not criminal activity as opposed to someone who may be doing else. So we may need in fact to use trained police officers who understand what is a crime and what is not a crime or what is suspicious activity to warrant further intervention. I don't think you really do want to contract that out to a private entity because they're's not trained in necessarily the same way. 63 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 My testimony -- I'm not going to read it all -- does contain some information that there some dispute as to how effective these cameras have been. Maybe things have gotten better with smarter technology and better use, but there are some studies that have shown that displacement issue does occur, that once people realize the cameras are here, some of those criminals would go somewhere else.
I tried to listen, and I heard what Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller said about getting a call about these guys are in drug hot spots and they think the cameras are there already. Well, then why are they still at the spots? I mean, are they going to stay there if the cameras are there or are they going to try to get where there isn't a camera? There is some indication from other locations around the world where cameras have been used that, yes, in a near term you see a drop-off of crime, but in the long term it starts rising again. And we know of several cities that tried using monitoring systems 64 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 like this and have abandoned them. Then there's the question of will they be open to abuse. There have been recorded instances where the video cameras have been used for improper purposes. There was an article within the last few years in the New York Times about the extensiveness of the surveillance system in Britain, and there was a discovery that one instance the tapes were sold up and turned up in some video store somewhere as part of somebody's production to raise money for themselves. In another instance they found the operators knew how to train the cameras on what they considered particularly good-looking women and use the cameras leer at them and ogle them. And we need protection to make sure the cameras are not used in those instances. Another issue is how long the digital disks are going to be kept. If they don't show any activity, are they going to be destroyed? How much hours? If they do show activity, how long is that going to be maintained? I think the Council needs to 65 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 address those issues before you can go much further because those raise significant questions both for prosecution of criminal actions, but to go back to the question you raised, Councilman Clarke, if I as a lawyer know that you're storing this information and I think it might help me in a civil lawsuit, you know I'm going to ask for it, you know I'm going to go after it. But if the government is actually getting this information, I don't know that they can really prevent a lawyer from trying to use it in a case, and it can be a trip-and-fall case, it could be a divorce case, it could be all sorts of cases, worker compensation to prove somebody actually is able to go back to work even though they're not. You have to address those issues. If you don't address them, the court will. The lawyers will find a way -- being lawyer, I can say this. Lawyers will find a way to get into court to try and get those materials. One final thought that occurred to me as a listened to you. I know Councilman Rizzo remembers that we were on the opposite 66 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 side on the red light camera issue. I'll tell you what's troubling that I heard here today, which we feared would happen. And that is the notion of function creep. You put the cameras in for one purpose. You tell the public you're putting them in for one purpose. And then within so many years all of a sudden they've been doing something else and something else and something further. We need to be more honest with the public. If we say the cameras are there to catch people going through red lights, that's what the cameras are there for. And don't just assume because there's a camera there we should be able to use it for other purposes. I think that builds distrust among the public. And I'm not implying that anybody here is doing it, but we know that there are people who will want to -- say there's a camera, let's use it for something else, let's use it for something else. And I think there has to be a pretty solid process.
And I'm not so sure, given the kind legislation that went through, that you might not have to go back to Harrisburg as 67 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 well as do more here in City Council to use those cameras for any other purposes, given how the legislation was written and what they said the pictures that could be taken were. I do think we have to be careful all the time that as technology grows people will want to use it for more and more functions, and then all of a sudden what started out as a program that people generally agreed upon later on they found it's gone beyond what they thought they'd agreed to. I will conclude my testimony. And if any of you want to ask me questions, through barbs, disagree with me, I can handle it.
Actually, I have a couple of questions, but I get a sense that Councilman Rizzo wants to respond to your last reference to the red light cameras.
First of all, I always appreciate your reasonable disagreement that we have, but I think more than often we agree upon a lot of things. I don't think Mr. Turner was suggesting that we were going to 68 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 use the red light cameras. I think what he was saying and how I understand it is that they have an add-on package to the existing infrastructure that is -- let's say at Grant and the Boulevard, they have a red light camera operation. Let's say they wanted to do video surveillance at that location. There would be additional equipment required. I don't think the suggestion was that red light cameras would become a surveillance device in the City of Philadelphia. And I think also that I think we all realize that law enforcement can subpoena the Parking Authority to see a photograph if they believe that there was a kidnapping and the person went through the intersection at a high rate of speed and they used the proper court procedures. And I mentioned to Deputy Brennan that I think we should be prepared to have that relationship developed in the event that there would be a need to see. We all know that there was a homicide that was solved by a camera on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I believe they identified the body victim in the back of a 69 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 pick-up truck. So I think you're as concerned as public safety as I am, but I just want wanted to make sure that I didn't say something that made you believe or someone else said something that we could automatically swing the cameras around and start looking up somebody's back alley. That is not the case.
And I'm sorry if that's the impression I get. The point I wanted to make, we were told when the red light cameras were being put in, it was to capture it on cameras. If there's additional technology that's going to be added to that, then a whole legislative should be gone through because that's not what those cameras are represented to be.
And that's why we're here today. But I just want to make it real clear that the existing installations are not capable -- they're fixed, they're wet film. They don't have the ability to move. They're stationary. What I think was suggested that if there were, let's say, a 70 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 camera location in an area that had an issue with crime, that another package could be added if it was legal to do so. So I just wanted to make sure we were on the same with that.
We're on the same with that. I think you might want to have the lawyers from the Parking Authority or the City Solicitor take a good look about whether those pictures can be used for anything else. I'm not so sure they can, given my recollection of how the legislation is written. And that's just as an aside.
But law enforcement, like anything, if law enforcement has a subpoena and comes to the Parking Authority and say, "We would like to see the pictures that were taken between midnight and a.m. in the morning" and the Court authorizes that, I can't imagine there wouldn't be that cooperate there.
There might be that cooperation, but the criminal defense attorney would be committing malpractice if he didn't 71 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 file a motion to suppress that.
Thank you, Councilman. Mr. Frankel, I actually agree with a substantial amount of what you testified to today. There are a couple of issues that I would like to talk to you about. And I'm going to move because I know some people have been waiting here for a long time, so I'd like to get the community people on. One of the things that you talked about is to have some sort of judicial review as it relates to implementation of the program. Frankly speaking, I'm a little concerned about that process, having been an elected official for a little bit of time but been involved in this process for sometime, I understand that at the end of the day as it relates to ultimate responsibility of what we do in government pretty much lies on the elected official's lap. Too often, as being a ward leader, I've been involved in situations where we support judges for various seats, be 72 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 it Common Pleas, Municipal Court, and prior to their election they're nice and friendly, Mr. Community, Mrs. Community, doing the things in a neighborhood, and as soon as they get elected, when you walk down the hallways, you'd be lucky if they speak to you, because the reality is that the record of non-retention is probably less than 1 percent. So I'm a little concerned about putting in the hands of an individual although may have been elected at one point in time will never have to face the citizens as it relates to their responsibility to what ultimately happens. I would like to see a process that includes the people who are responsible for funding a program, responsible to the citizens because every four years or two years, depending on the level of your particular political seat, have to respond to the citizens and the citizens have an opportunity to respond. So I'm a little concern about having a judicial process be the only process that is involved in implementation of this bill.
I appreciate and I 73 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 understand, I believe, your perspective. I think we also have to consider whether we give the Police Commissioner or the District Attorney unreviewable discretion about where these cameras are to be placed. I think we have to have a process of some kind that make sure that the criteria are developed for deciding where cameras will be, particularly given the problems in residential neighborhoods where there is the potential for them being placed in a way that could go into someone's home or where there's conflict in the neighborhood about whether there should be a camera or which part of the neighborhood the cameras should be in. Therefore, I'm suggesting the judicial branch because it's the one that came to mind. But I think that there has to be somebody, some entity, some way so that if you find that at the end of the day that this is all being targeted because the ward leader decided where it would be and he got to the Police Commissioner rather than maybe what the safety standards called for, that there can be some determination that this 74 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 is really being done in the interest of public safety and not some other interest.
Mr. Frankel, you know as well as I do that law enforcement installs surveillance cameras in the public all the time. You know the Federal Bureau of Investigation puts cameras in locations where not just criminals are videoed, that people walk by.
Oh, they really do that. You said something that was very interesting to me; that your colleague in Chicago had no public meetings, no public outcry.
I didn't say there was no public outcry, I said there was no public hearing.
Well, I think if there were public outcry, you would have maybe 75 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 mentioned that.
I did not ask him the question. Most people seemed to have accepted the cameras, I will agree with that. But there is a significant minority. And he also said to me, you'll find tomorrow, the day after your hearing, you're going to get phone calls from a whole lot of people you never here from who say, "You know, I've never agreed with the ACLU before, but on this issue I agree.
But I can tell you this, that there are a lot of surveillance cameras that law enforcement have out in the public to photograph people that they have an interest in. And many people, any of us, could walk through the lens of that camera that it's not intended for. And I can't imagine you or your organization any objection with that.
If we found that that system was being abused, we would have objections. I think what we're talking about, here, frankly, Councilman Rizzo, is if we're 76 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 going to go for a much wider use by the City of Philadelphia of these cameras, what parameters we want on it. I think a lot of us think that sometimes the FBI goes too far, and I wouldn't necessarily want to build a system that is based on what they've done in the past.
I think we all agree with you that there's got to be, and that's why we're doing what we're doing day.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? Councilman Ramos.
Thank you, Councilman Clarke. Mr. Frankel you referenced two incidents, I believe, in New York City of where the cameras were used to do things that were improper. I believe you mentioned that a tape showed up in some store, maybe a Blockbuster or one of those type of stores, and there was another instance. Do you think that that's a sign of the imperfection of the system, or do you think that it's a sign that 77 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 this is a bad idea and a bad system?
I think that it's just a matter human fallibility. Where someone can make a buck, they're going to try and make a buck and some people abuse things. I think you keep that in mind in designing your system, knowing that those kinds of human traits exist. I don't think it's inherently tied in any one system.
So you think that because it is an imperfect system or do you think it's just a bad idea to do the things in crime-fighting in this manner?
I don't think say that it's an imperfect system. I say you want to proceed with use of video cameras that thinking about the kind of problems that have occurred elsewhere can give you insights on to how building a system that will be a better balance between the safety needs and the other kinds of concerns that we've raised today. 78 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 You can put together a system, and it's inevitable, we see it all the country now. We see problems in various places all over the country. And hopefully the City will learn from what's been good in other places and what hasn't worked in other places in putting a system together.
I tend to agree with you and Councilman Clarke that this process that the Councilman and Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Clarke, has undertaken is very valuable so we can answer some of those very good questions that you have brought up today. But when you took a look at the report from London put out that there were these two instances, I would, as a good analyst take a look at that entire report. This is what I would do. I'm not saying that you did this or implying it in any manner. If I was to take a look at the whole report and see that although there were these two bad incidents that did in fact bring about X amount of arrests of people that were doing 79 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 the wrong things, it brought out these other information that led to a reduction of crime; that in that picture I would tend to say, "Well, we need work and make this a better system, the results outweighed the setbacks." Would you be okay that when we continued to proceed and make this as less intrusive of people's right that you would be okay with a system that had very positive results and understand that these systems are imperfect, that it probably lend itself to things that would happen that we probably didn't think of?
I would hope that we can continue to discuss ways to make a system be as sensitive to the privacy concerns. They may not rights, the civil rights concerns the efficacy concerns as possible. And one further note in the sheet that was up there. Chicago, which is getting a lot of publicity, is not only because of the use of the cameras according at least to the sheet here, it's also putting more officers on the street is certainly important. The 80 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 cameras themselves do not solve the problem.
I would prefer that we not have cameras because I would prefer to think I still live in a free country where I'm allowed, even if isn't a, quote/unquote, constitutional right to go to the park without a camera on me, I would prefer to still live in a free country. But I also understand that there is a great deal of sentiment and they're already a lot of cameras. I think it was a Councilwoman Miller that said there are lot of people taking pictures all the time. There is a diminished sense of privacy, unfortunately. Some people don't cherish it as much as others. My ideal world, we wouldn't have those cameras. But I also understand that we have some already and there is a demand for further. And so I would hope that as we proceed we think about the kinds of questions that I raise today and try and design a system that is as compatible with safety and with people's concerns about living in a free 81 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 society.
You presented us with some very good questions. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman. Mr. Frankel, you have testimony that you want to submit for the record?
I want to thank you for your testimony and look forward to working with you. Right now for our last panel, and I want to thank you for your patience, we'd like to bring up representatives from the community, individuals from Town Watch. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Harrell from Men United. Please come up. Why don't all the community people who are interested in testifying please come up and we'll get you up in a panel. 82 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 Thank you. Will you please read your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Anthony Murphy. I'm the executive director of Town Watch Integrated Services. I'm here today in support of a system to be developed and deployed in of the communities of Philadelphia to begin to address through technology some of the violence that takes place in our community. As an example, Town Watch itself has provided Town Watch groups throughout the City of Philadelphia with digital cameras, and they've used it to take pictures of graffiti on walls and try to address that. They've used those cameras to take picture of short dumping, so it's also been helpful there. I also realize that we want to protect our rights of the citizen and also maintain a level of privacy, and I think that's important. And I also applaud you, sir, for this action today beginning the hearings early on before any decision is reach and also your own reservations I think are prudent in this 83 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 matter. What I also want us to look at here is that the City of Philadelphia, as well as other usual cities, we face a growing level of unconcern and lack of value for life. And if we can use technology in the appropriate manner that it can help to save a life I think is worth beginning to look into and also begin to utilize it. It's not just about writing tickets anymore. It's not just about whether we're going to look in somebody's window and try to do that. I think we have the means and the ability to address technology so it doesn't do that. I think we have enough good-minded leaderships and good-minded citizens to handle things in an appropriate manner. And the hearings will, of course, do that. I'm sure that there will be voices that sounded inappropriately, but sitting to my left is a gentleman who in his own communities established a camera, working with the Police Department in his area as well as with PECO in his community, and he used the 84 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 camera which also didn't prevent a homicide but helped to address a homicide in his community, and that's Jay Wiley from Top Cat Town Watch. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Why don't you all give your testimony and opening statements, and then we'll open it up for questions.
My name is Jay Wiley from Top Cat Town Watch. I'm on the 3000 block of Gransback in the Kensington area. And a couple years ago we had a guy come up the street and blow somebody's head off with a gun. There was so much blood, it was just running down the street. The man was running down my street right past my house, wasn't aware that he was being watched by a camera. Right away I called 911. The police were there in seconds. I mean, there was lieutenants, homicide and all. I had gave the tape to the police in helping to catch this criminal for what he did on our block. And in the past couple years some of 85 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 my neighbors on my block have been calling 911 using prank calls that my cameras need come down and they don't want them there. They know we're the Town Watch on the block. They have called about my sensor light being outside. It's not on anybody's house. The cameras are looking up and down. I got these cameras from Radio Shack, you know, not to invade people's privacy, but to keep my block safe because too many criminals feel they have more rights than us. And for quality of life issue, I'd rather see my block safe and quiet. A lot of may neighbors on the street don't want us there, want us to move, don't want the cameras there because we're making a difference. I'm keeping my block safe. And I feel through the neighborhood the drug dealers who are around us know who we are. They know not to come on Gransback Street because the cameras will catch you. You better watch what you do on Gransback Street. It is taking your picture. And if a crime was ever committed, I will turn it into a police. But I don't use 86 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 my cameras for anything but catching crime and keeping my block safe. And, you know, the way I feel, the police can't be everywhere, but these cameras can be there all the time. And run these tapes hours around the clock. So 7 they're not rusty, they're not old. I change 8 them every day. And I do this with my own 9 money, nothing from the City. I do this to 10 try and make it better in neighborhood because 11 I don't want criminals around. And I also 12 have my wife here today. 13 There's incidents where there's 14 people walking up and down with guns. Like 15 right now on my block somebody's trying to 16 sell 45 for 20 bucks. The neighbors are 17 trying to get rid of a gun because a couple 18 weeks ago there was a fight that broke out. 19 They had a bunch of guns. But I didn't have 20 it on record at the time, so I didn't get a 21 chance to call the police on it. But this is 22 one of the things. I mean, too many shootings 23 around me. 24 And one of the streets around the corner from me, there's drug dealers there 87 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 shooting guns, selling drugs 24/7. I feel that I agree with these cameras in the City of Philadelphia to make quality of life better and people know that they can be safe.
Good afternoon Councilman Clarke, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Ramos. My name is Mark Harrell, I'm director of Men United for a Better Philadelphia. And as an organization, we are serious about the safety concerns of the communities in Philadelphia and the residents. I was asked to come here on behalf of the co-chairs of Men United and the membership to basically give our views about the surveillance and just some facts of the justification for the video surveillance system and security. Based on available research, it is far from clear how the proliferation of video cameras through public spaces would have any real impact on crime. In fact, in England where there have been so 88 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 many public cameras, upwards of 150,000 -- they've stop keeping count -- the incidence of violent crime has risen since the network was installed. Furthermore, even though this resolution points out the successes of cities like New York, Baltimore, Chicago, other cities such as in Oakland, California, officials considered video surveillance for three years and rejected it. The Police Chief Joseph Sanders stated that his department had hoped to be among the pioneers in the field video camera surveillance but also ultimately found that there was no conclusive way to establish that the presence of video surveillance resulted in the prevention of reduction of crime in that City. Community residents are concerned that tourists, opposition politicians, racial and ethnic minorities, peaceful dissidents and other people could have every move cataloged or tracked. And this system of cameras could be used to monitor peaceful protests and the movement of innocent people throughout the 89 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 City. This information could then be miss handled and used to either blackmail, intimidate or bully people who are exercising their freedom of speech, freedom to peaceful assembly or just go about their daily lives. Surveillance cameras have been known to in some cases undermine civil liberties such as the right to congregate in public places and all places under suspicion when surveillance cameras record our movements. People who would join in our marches, rallies and motorcades to support a cause might do so if they are being videotaped. Along with the concerns about the invasion of privacy and erosion of civil rights, there is a lot of research that bolsters the case against the use of the surveillance cameras. Research has shown that because of this, many cities in the United States have dismantled surveillance cameras and reduced their use, not to mention the fact that these surveillance systems are also susceptible to abuse and misuse. They are also those who are 90 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 concerned whether camera surveillance funds could be better spent to hire additional police officers and training them to work cooperative with the public they serve. In Philadelphia, we know that these cameras are going to target high-crime areas. According to the current stats available from the Philadelphia Police Department, most of the reporting shootings, homicides and highway robberies are being committed in areas of the City that are predominately inhabited by African-Americans. This means that most of the cameras will probably be posted in African-American communities. And because of this, we believe there should be community input on how these cameras will be monitored to alleviate any question of prejudice or racial discrimination. In closing, we believe that if this type of surveillance is going to make a marked difference in the perpetration of crime in our communities, then we fully support it.
But we submit to you that all necessary research should be conducted in full detail prior to 91 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 its deployment as it relates to the fiscal responsibility, community involvement, and personal privacy guarantees and overall effectiveness. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Thank you, all of you. Any questions? Councilman Ramos.
I just want to apologize to Mr. Anthony Murphy for not being able to keep the appointment we today. I got kind of backed up on meetings. But as you well know, I'm a big supporter of Town Watch. I'd like to see Town Watch expanded. I think that we may need to reevaluate what we have been doing. I know that you've been involved in that process now for a couple of years to see if in fact what works, what doesn't work, what can get more of our people involved. I know that's one of the big challenges that you face, we all face, that for some reason volunteerism in Philadelphia has gown down at least in this one particular area of Town Watch and community concern. I think that we 92 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 have to take a look at other ways to get people involved and involve some more attractive stuff in our programs so that they will feel as though they have a say, they have a vested interest in this. And Town Watch is very much needed, whether we go what cameras or not. I understand the arguments that have been presented here this afternoon. But without a doubt, that young man other there on Gransback Street, he's got a world that he's got to live in, and that world seems to be that he's fighting a fight. He might be fighting that fight just about by himself and his wife and maybe just a handful of other people. It seems if one person was apprehended, if one life was saved because he went got himself a Radio Shack camera, I think people that are law abiding people are very grateful for that. I understand the arguments that Mr. Frankel has made and the gentleman here concerning civil liberties and the intrusion of privacy to citizens. But this is work that needs to be done. I'm glad that Councilman 93 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 Clarke is taking the leadership in providing this forum so we can find out what's the best way to be able to use these cameras, if in fact, and how we're going to use them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman. I'd like to first commend all of you for the wonderful work you've done. I've worked with a couple of you, and I want to commend for the work you do both in and out of the streets through the cameras, with the vigils the corners. Please continue the good work. As we a proceed on this issue, we will ask for your continued involvement, and hopefully we can formulate something get a consensus on something that will help us continue to fight crime in our neighborhoods. So I want to thank you for your patience and thank you for participation today. Is there anyone else to testify on this resolution? Any other questions by Members of 94 04/14/05 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RESOLUTION 050087 the Committee? If none, this concludes the public hearing by the Joint Committee on Public Property and Public Works and Public Safety. Thank you all very much with your participation. I look forward to working with you. (Council adjourned at 4:05 p.m.) - - - - 95 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, April 14, 2005, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC SAFETY and PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR