TRI In The News

Rutherford Balks At Public Cameras

An Albemarle County civil rights organization on Monday went on record against the idea of placing surveillance cameras on Charlottesville's Downtown Mall, calling it an invasion of privacy and possible violation of the First Amendment.

The Rutherford Institute sent a letter to Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris opposing the idea and included a memorandum that provided proposed guidelines and restrictions on use of and access to surveillance equipment.
The institute has been involved in Constitutional rights fights on behalf of prisoners and school prayer, among other concerns. It said the cameras could have a chilling effect on people "exercising their cherished First Amendment rights." The institute urged the City Council to "carefully evaluate whether a video surveillance system is truly the best way to boost business and deter crime on the Downtown Mall."

The idea of placing cameras on the mall resurfaced at a recent meeting of stakeholders. The concept, first floated in 2007 and turned down by the City Council, was among 60 mulled at the meeting, said Bob Stroh, vice-president of the Downtown Business Association.
The merchants association, Stroh said, supports the cameras but is not pushing a plan.
"We had a lot of ideas going around at the meeting. I don't think [cameras] had any more support or less support than many of the other ideas," he said. "We think it's a great idea and one we support -- like the Meadow-creek Parkway -- but we're not interested in fighting that fight."
John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute and author of the letter and memo, said the Supreme Court "has ruled that there is a right to privacy, even in a public place."

"Imagining a camera trained on the free speech monument downtown is pretty scary: There's a lot of free speech that goes on there," he said. "Some of it is pretty bad speech, but it's free and cameras would inhibit that speech."
Whitehead said that, should cameras be placed, strict access controls and procedures should be put in place.
"Cameras record everything. They record people coming out of a psychologist's office and other places, and we don't want a permanent record available for review of someone coming from an [Alcoholics Anonymous] meeting," Whitehead said. "If you're not being watched, you're not a suspect. If you are being watched, you feel like a suspect. You alter your behavior, even if you're doing nothing wrong."

City officials say they are not seriously considering the cameras at this point and that there is no apparent support on the council for the devices.
"I agreed [with the Rutherford Institute] when the idea first came up and I agree with it now," Norris said. "My position hasn't changed. I think we'd get better bang for our buck in providing safety through better policing, better lighting and more people living downtown."
Norris noted that, since 2007, only one council position has opened.
"It's not on the council's radar," he said. "When it came up a few years ago, there was no interest on the council's part. I don't believe there is interest now."

The Charlottesville Police Department brought up the idea in 2007 after several assaults on and around the mall. The proposal was for 30 cameras in multiple locations. They would have recorded only images, not sound.
According to crime data kept by the police department, there were 96 serious crimes such as homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft or arson on the mall in 2007. The total for the city was 2,180. That year, the number of aggravated assaults on the mall stood at eight.
Norris said the city already uses mobile camera equipment for areas where there are crime issues.
"I'm not opposed to placing temporary surveillance in areas that have had reported crime problems," he said. "My concern is with fixed public surveillance equipment in an area like downtown where we really don't have that large of a crime issue."

Despite the apparent lack of support for cameras, Whitehead said he deemed it important to speak out because such technology is creeping into everyday life.
"Technology is moving so quickly that it is speeding by the Constitution. There are some police departments that are using drone [aircraft] for surveillance and some of those can be equipped with sound cannons," he said. "We need to be sure that, if we adopt new technologies, we put in place procedures and guidelines to control their use to protect our freedoms."

https://www.rutherford.org/pdf/2010/4-26-10_NORRIS_SURVEILLANCE_LTR.pdf