February 6, 2012
*************
PRESS RELEASE
Dennis Stern, Esq., joins Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC, Garden City, NY lawfirm.
Managing Partner Ken Kirschenbaum announced that the firm is very pleased to have Dennis join them. Dennis, who will be "of counsel" to the firm, will concentrate his practice on transactional services, including alarm company acquisitions and sales, evaluations and other business matters. Dennis has extensive experience in the alarm industry, both in legal and management matters. Some of his former positions include General Counsel for National Guardian, VP of Business Development for ADT and General Counsel and VP of Cambridge Security, for whom he was instrumental in the acquisition of SecurityLink from Ameritech by Cambridge, later sold to ADT, as well as HMS Security to Stanley Works. Dennis will be working closely with Jennifer Kirschenbaum, Esq., in the firms Alarm Transactional Department. For a detailed bio see https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/bio13.htm. Contact Dennis Stern, Esq at
(516) 747-6700, ext. 323, or (203) 536-9957 or by email at DStern@kirschenbaumesq.com
************
Question
************
Ken
I am an installer and have a question. One of my customers wants me to install a camera system in her 85 year old fathers home without him knowing. She has stated that he has young women soliciting him in his home and is trying to protect him and his assets.
Can I do this?
Thanks in advance,
T.R.J.
*************
Answer
*************
You can't do it. Get the father to agree and then you can install the CCTV. If the daughter becomes the father's conservator or guardian then maybe, but I am not so sure even a parent could invade a child's privacy like that.
*************
Question
*************
Hi Ken,
Love your very informative newsletter; it's a priceless contribution to the industry. We have a request for a hidden camera and microphone for a police station interrogation room. Since this is a separate room, not in the public area, the police station would like to have an on off switch at the entrance to the room to trigger recording on and off. We are in Maine and as long as one party is aware of audio recording it is ok but we are just not certain about this one. Obvious reasoning is if the camera is seen, an individual under questioning can totally change how they would respond knowing they are being recorded. Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room, I would think not seeing a lot have two way glass and the like?
Thank You,
Chuck
*************
Answer
*************
I would say there is no expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room. Of course if someone is left there with their attorney and had a priviledged communication it could not be listened to, mechanically intercepted or recorded, and I am sure the police would know that. Police are usually exempt from the audio laws, though subject to laws requiring cause and warrants. Since its going into a police station I guess you won't have to worry about being arrested.
*************
Question on audio
*************
Ken,
Excellent points on the recording of audio microphones in your recent blog. Question, what about use of audio when not recorded for internal purposes? We recently had a client install a camera in the lobby along with a microphone (that is not recorded) the microphone is used to listen into the lobby and the receptionist. Is there an issue with expectation of privacy for the employee? One could use their own imagination as to a private conversation that is discreetly overheard via the use of the microphone! Are there any legal obligations to notify the employee(s) that they are being listened to? The camera is overt, the microphone is not.
Paul
***************
Answer
**************
When it comes to audio it's not just recording that's prohibited. Mechanical interception is also prohibited. You can't install audio in a lobby of a public building.
*************
Question
************
Ken,
I was thinking about this the other day. What liability is there if any for the installing company by installing cameras disguised as smoke detectors as far as possibly giving someone the impression that there is a working smoke detector where there isn't? Also, Would there be liability on the homeowner's side to a future purchaser of the property if they failed to remove the cameras or failed to explain that they were in fact not a fire detection device?
I'm sure you could come up with better examples than I can but I'll try:
1) A homeowner sells the home with the cameras in place but does not explain that they are not fire detection devices. It just so happens that they do not have any real smoke detectors in place but the purchaser and home inspector/real estate agent all assume that they are indeed smoke detectors. Who would be responsible for a loss?
2) The smoke detector cameras are installed in a commercial space which does not have smoke detectors. A customer or employee sees them and assumes they are protected from fire web in fact they are not and they are injured as a result. They claim that they would not have remained in the building if they weren't "tricked" into thinking there was fire protection present.
3) We are told by AHJ's and codes that "if it looks like fire protection equipment it must function like fire protection equipment"... Would we have an issue here as well?
These liability questions are purely from a fire stand point... Not from a A/V recording law point of view.
Thanks again,
Rich from Central New York
**************
Answer
*************
You answered your own question by number 3 above. It's not lawful in New York and probably lots of other places to install a device that looks like fire detection, smoke detector, that isn't a smoke detector. You subject yourself to both civil and criminal prosecution.
*************
Sonitrol response
*************
Ken
I have to disagree with the negative comments towards Sonitrol.
I have been with Sonitrol for 20 years and in the alarm business for 35 years I to was once stuck selling the me too products motion sensor and photo beams. Then I saw the light Audio is the best means of detection Sonitrol has the highest apprehension rate and the lowest false alarm rate.
The statement that Sonitrol has countless numbers of law suits is just not true.
In fact Sonitrol is the only company with a $5000.00 performance guarantee and a NO false alarm guarantee. Yes we will pay false alarm fines if caused by our system. How many of the me too motion peddlers will stand up and do that?
The Sonitrol's dealer network is the best and brightest group of hard working men and women who stand in front of the product and put our money on the line each and every day.
No matter how far technology advances there are there is nothing that will compare with human intervention to insure that our customers get a good night's sleep and that the police are not chasing shadows and have more time to deal with real events not false alarms.
All who down play verification prior to dispatch do not have the best interest of the end user and the police in mind.
My desire is for the rest of the alarm companies to continue to disregard verified alarms as that only makes our piece of the pie bigger every day.
Sonitrol was verifying alarms before verifying alarms became the law
Kyle D Chadwick
Sonitrol Security Systems of Central New Jersey Inc.
****************
More on video
**************
Ken,
I am not complaining, I am stating the reality that as an industry we are still selling standard detection systems and they work just fine while delivering great value for the consumer.
What I am saying is this, who do you think got the attention of government officials to consider amending laws to require audio or video verification? It was the manufacturers and Sonitrol working to gain a government mandated business advantage! When Sonitrol and a couple of manufacturers began lobbying Legislators and Police Chiefs they where thinking only of themselves not the reality of over burdened responding agencies. Smaller, lesser known manufacturers wanted to build more and become the next Honeywell, DSC, Napco, DMP, etc etc, and Sonitrol wanted to do more installations resulting in more monitoring contracts. Hey it's the American way and I like it, but call it what it is. It's just a different approach, which should not result with throwing the baby out with the bath water.
A an industry, I hope we are willing to defend the quality installations that we have done, work as designed and are not false alarm contributors. I am not against technology, education or increased business opportunities, but there is a simple reason why there are 30+ million installed and monitored systems in service today. It is because we have made them affordable! Now some will say required additional equipment is a sales opportunity, yes for the existing customers, but I rather not forget about the larger untapped market of properties that still have nothing.
Bart A. Didden
President
U.S.A. Central Station Alarm Corp.
Port Chester, NY
Milford, CT
St. Paul, MN