QUESTION:

Ken,

I much appreciate your articles/white papers.

I have a couple questions concerning CCTV camera systems: One of our large developer is reluctant to install cameras because he believes it increases his liability.

Our experience is a camera system decreases liability since the owner is taking steps to provide a secure facility.

But if the system is not monitored live does this give the occupant a false since of security?

Have you ever heard where an owner is liable for cameras that are not monitored live or does not have full coverage of parking areas?

Another question:

Does an owner legally have to post signs stating area has surveillance cameras and/or is being recorded?

If so where should these signs be posted?

We have many customers with only covert cameras. There intention is to catch persons and do not want to post such signs.

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Ray Shepherd

President

Facility Automation, Inc.

12323 South Choctaw Drive

Baton Rouge, LA 70815

*******************************

ANSWER:

    The issue of camera installation continues to plague property owners and security dealers because there is so little precedent to rely upon.  There are some principals of law that can be applied, however.  One is that property owners do owe their tenants and others lawfully on the property some degree of reasonable protection.  The level of duty has many variables.

    A landlord of a residential property has a duty to provide reasonable security when the property is known to be in a high crime area and that tenants are likely to be at risk. Also, there are laws that affect the landlord's duty to provide some level of protection, such as front door locks and intercom systems.  Of course fire protection is another level of security generally required.

    Video surveillance however is rarely required by law.  One that does come to mind is ATM facilities in New York City, which I believe must have CCTV coverage.  But property owners are not required to install and supervise CCTV.  More often than not CCTV is installed by property owners as a measure to reduce property damage or to record the damage for possible police investigation after the fact.

    Some property complexes do have CCTV with on site guard monitoring and certainly the presence of CCTV does raise the question of liability.  One who assumes a duty is then required to perform that duty in a reasonable manner.  Thus, creating a sense of security by installing cameras or taking other security measures designed to instill a sense of safety, will create a duty to provide that reasonable measure of protection.  Dummy cameras would be about as effective as dummy guards [I am talking about the inanimate stuffed ones].  Property owners would be wise to make it clear what cameras or other security is designed to detect. Signs just as conspicuous as the cameras would be a good start.  A notice to commercial tenants that cameras have been installed but are not supervised and are for the owners property protection would be a good idea.  In my office complex for example I see that the owner has installed cameras in the lobby of the buildings and outside the buildings viewing the parking lots.  The cameras are visible.  I have never been notified why they were installed or whether they are manned.  This landlord could certainly avoid some issue, at least with the tenants, if it sent around a notice regarding the limitations of the cameras.

    Another example that comes to mind is a landlord who installs cameras in a laundry room in a residential building.  Especially if the landlord has a financial interest in the use of the washing machines, which they usually do, advising tenants of the true use and limitations of the cameras would be important if there were an incident. 

   The public's perception of CCTV coverage or for that matter guard coverage is probably not accurate with reality.  Rarely is CCTV manned and more often than not guards are instructed not to get involved in an incident other than to communicate with the police to report an incident.  This is not to suggest that there are not buildings where CCTV is covered live and guards are armed and  prepared to intervene.  A reasonable person on the premises should be able to figure out what kind of security exists on the premises, and an owner creating a false sense of security should expect to be held responsible, not necessarily for the entire injury or loss, but contributing to it by the injured party not taking other security measures because of the false sense of security.

    Audio recording is something that has received much legislative attention, and most states have laws dealing with audio interception.  I have most of the state laws on my web site at http://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/avstatutes.htm [click.icptrack.com].  I don't think most of these statutes address the question of whether you can record those unlawfully on your premises, but my guess is that you can.  So, once an alarm has been activated recording devices can probably be used to listen into the intruders.  This would not be considered, in my opinion, an unauthorized interception of audio communication.  You should however check your state law, and I would also be careful not to record audio unless the recordings were of those unlawfully on the property.  It would probably be a good idea to have signs posted regarding the recording devices or a warning emitted by the alarm activation that audio recording is activated.