Surveillance System - Policy

Started by JH6 • 7 replies • 1727 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

JH6 (Virginia)
Posts: 30

Posted:

I've found insight here before, so I thought I'd reach out again to see if anyone had any resources that might help us. Does anyone have a policy for proper use of a video surveillance system that they'd be willing to share?

By way of background, we recently upgraded our surveillance system, and use it very infrequently (5 times a year seems pretty typical). A resident--not owner--wanted access to a very large amount of footage (3 days worth of uninterrupted footage) in order to identify the time and perpetrator of an alleged crime. This got us thinking that we might want a policy for appropriate use of the system to reconcile residents' reasonable privacy concerns while permitting access to management and/or Board members when necessary. We consulted the association's lawyer to see if they had any policies written on which we could piggyback, and they said mo but that they would be happy to write us a new policy. My conversations with the lawyer seem to indicate that understanding the process for reviewing footage, technical capacity, and technical limitations of surveillance are somewhat of outside of the firm's comfort zone, and I'd rather not educate the firm on the association's dime.

If anyone had any text with guidance on who has access, under what conditions, how footage would be appropriately stored, etc., I'd be grateful for a redacted sample. Or if anyone has any suggestions on how to get this without investing a ton of effort (because really, how often do we use this policy?), I'd be grateful for the suggestion. Thanks!

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Here is what I would ask.

Was the camera pointed in the direction or vicinity of where an alleged crime took place. Was there a police report filed. If so, I would tell the individual, that if a report was file have the authority request the footage or access to it in writing.

The information is available, but through proper channels.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

If the cameras are recording public areas then a criminal has no expectation of privacy.

My experience has been that in many jurisdictions the response from the police to property crimes is, "Fill out this report so we can bury it in our file cabinet. We will dig it out if someone ever walks in our front door and confesses."

I do not understand why you would spend the members' funds on a surveillance system that is supposedly for their protection and then deny them access.

One compromise you could implement is to hire a security service, paid for by the member, to review the footage along with the member to ensure that there is no sinister motive in looking at the recordings.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

While not to play lawyer, as I understand it any copy of a surveillance tape might well take a court order. This comes from an experience of my son's car being hit and run in a store parking lot while he was shopping in the store. He asked to see the surveillance tape and was told the above. He turned it over to his insurance company.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnC46 on 04/21/2016 2:48 PM
While not to play lawyer, as I understand it any copy of a surveillance tape might well take a court order. This comes from an experience of my son's car being hit and run in a store parking lot while he was shopping in the store. He asked to see the surveillance tape and was told the above. He turned it over to his insurance company.

I don't think there is too much law as to who may or may not view security footage shot by a private company. They could have chosen to allow your son to view the recording but, instead, pulled the old court order thing. Since the recording is private property it is within the store's discretion as to who views it and who does not. Just as it is within your son's discretion to shop elsewhere in the future.

JH6 (Virginia)
Posts: 30

Posted:

If they had a police report, I don't think anyone would have objected to helping get them access. But they didn't have a police report, and they also wanted personal copies of three days worth of footage. Nobody felt comfortable offering that kind of access.

Fundamentally, the fact is that some members may have motives for using the surveillance system for purposes other than security--tracking ex's, girlfriends, boyfriends, neighbors with whom they're feuding, etc. It's really not in the association's interest to facilitate those uses. It's not really criminals' privacy that concerns us, it's members' privacy.

The other problem with requiring a police report (suggested by another poster) is that often people are not sure a crime has been committed; for example, packages go missing occasionally. 9 times out of 10, the post office just doesn't bother to deliver it or misdelivers it--it shows up a week or two later when another building's concierge drops it off. But a delivery guy did walk off with packages one day. In this case, the footage is a prerequisite for a police report. In other cases, we simply want to investigate a resident's complaint about a violation, which will almost certainly not rise to a criminal matter.

The hope is to have a policy that allows residents expedited access to footage in the case of a crime or management and/or Board members in the case of a violation, but that does something to safeguard residents' lives from unnecessary and unwelcome intrusion.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

I agree with others.

Have the policy specify that any footage requested by proper authority will be turned over if available.
Define proper authority as police or court order

BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002

Posted:

JH6 Va ; Sounds like the surveillancing decision left some oversights that hiring a policy may not cost disproportionately. It's not reinventing the wheel, and maybe you can shop at other lawfirms.

I wonder if the Board - and possibly owners if this was introduced with an owners vote - had a contemplation that someone other than law enforcement & authorized management/Board could use common resources to platform private fishing for sin or worse ?

Imagine someone hearing from a nosy neighbour not on the Board : "I noticed that your spouse's girlfriend dropped by daily while you were on vacation ..." or worse . . ?

You may find that some states encourage upfront a policy adopted that includes whether sound is also captured, guidelines for managing video surveillance recordings, including security, use, disclosure, and retention; procedures for the secure disposal of video surveillance recordings; a process to follow if there is unauthorized disclosure of images; procedures for individuals to access personal information captured and challenge any suspected failure to comply with the policy; sanctions for the organization’s employees and contractors for failing to adhere to the policy;and the individual accountable for privacy compliance and who can answer any questions about the surveillance . . .

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here