Recent attacks show need for video cameras in downtown parking garages
The sexual assault of a woman in the elevator of the Liberty Square parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor begs the question why the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has not placed video cameras in the city parking areas. The Ann Arbor Police Department has urged this over the years.
Video cameras in the carports and other parking areas could have prevented many crimes and solved countless others. Why not place video cameras in parking areas?
We live in a free society and no one wants “Big Brother” staring over our shoulder every moment -- unless of course your name is Kardashian, Snooki or you are getting paid to have your privacy invaded.
However, for the rest of us, why would anyone complain about video surveillance placing an extra blanket of security over ourselves and valuables while we are paying $1.20 an hour for the privilege of parking downtown?
RELATED COVERAGE
More stories on recent attacks on women in Ann Arbor:
- Ann Arbor police believe 1 or 2 men are responsible for 6 recent attacks on women
- Updates from press conference on assaults against women in Ann Arbor
- U-M student sexually assaulted in 6th recent attack in Ann Arbor
- More than 200 tips received in investigation into five recent attacks on women in Ann Arbor
- Ann Arbor mayor says investigation into 5 recent attacks on women is high priority
- Ann Arbor police urge vigilance after rape on Monday morning and two weekend attacks
Big signs announcing video surveillance of the area would deter most criminals who could read. Suspects caught committing crimes based on video evidence could inform their less literate colleagues in jail and once back out on the street. Word of mouth would pass that the carports and parking areas are not places to commit crimes because, “ Dude, seriously there are cameras everywhere!”
For those dumb enough or desperate enough to commit crimes in the videotaped areas, the video record would aid the police in identifying and locking up these criminals. When criminals are locked up those “engines of crime” (a term favored by former Ann Arbor Police Chief Dan Oates) can not victimize us.
Think about why we use parking areas. We drive in, we park our vehicles, we open our doors too far and ding the door of car next to us (at least some of you have as my car doors bear the scars), we lock our car and we walk out of the lot. With video cameras we would walk out with at least some sense of safety and security. We return to our car, we are more careful opening our door so we do not ding Rich’s door, we drive to the booth to pay for the parking space we used, the gate opens and we drive out. That is how most of us use parking lots.
Having walked a beat downtown I know parking lots are used for other purposes that might be curtailed with video surveillance. Drinking, drug use, and sex (get a room) would be curtailed in parking areas. Guaranteed the stairwells and corners of the carports would smell a little fresher and be less urine stained if cameras were installed there.
It seems that anyone intelligent enough to legally operate an automobile would be able to read big signs in the carports and parking areas announcing “UNMONITORED VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IN THE AREA.” Having read that most of us could deduce no one would call 911 for us, or protect us every second in the carport, but should there be trouble a video account would be available after the fact.
Another argument against having video surveillance is the expense of digital storage space needed on computers to capture and maintain images from all the cameras. Fortunately the computers would not have to store images indefinitely, because if incidents occurred they would be reported—and images could be mined and copied onto other mediums in at least a week or two.
If cameras and storage are too costly to have on each floor, nook and cranny, why not at least have cameras at each entrance, exit and on the stairwells and elevators? While the cameras are being mounted make sure they capture images of license plates coming in and more importantly leaving the parking area. Many cases downtown would have been solved or more easily solved if cameras had recorded license plates on cars using the parking lots.
It is unfortunate that a woman was attacked in the Liberty Square elevator, but why not do all we can to prevent this from happening again? I am glad that the DDA had Republic Parking increase patrols from, “people who walk through and sweep through several times a day.” That is comforting, but I would feel much safer with video surveillance and big signs announcing it. Come on DDA get a clue and get some video cameras in our parking areas!
Lock it up, don’t leave it unattended, be aware and watch out for your neighbors.
Rich Kinsey is a retired Ann Arbor police detective sergeant who now blogs about crime and safety for AnnArbor.com. He also serves as the Crime Stoppers coordinator for Washtenaw County.
Comments
Fred Posner
Sat, Jul 30, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
Wrong again. Cameras rarely prevent crime. Instead, they are used to help solve crime. The Ann Arbor Police has a history of keeping away from the garages. There's no deterrent, because even when there is a car crash, Ann Arbor police won't respond. Personal experience. You can need help in a Garage, and Ann Arbor police tell you to go to the station. This is not something cameras will help with. This is something that proactive, officer on the street can work on. What did NYC do to stop problems in crowded areas? They put cops on the street. They tried cameras. They tried cars. Cops on the street is the best solution.
aawolve
Fri, Jul 29, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.
I'm in favor of cameras, provided there is money left over to encourage immigration of the homeless, and for the fountain.
Mike
Fri, Jul 29, 2011 : 1:39 a.m.
Thank God Kinsley is retired. Who needs fascists like this pretending to help us when all they want is just more power and control. The only video camera that needs to be installed is the one that would sit atop my concealed carry.
psaume23
Fri, Jul 29, 2011 : 12:39 a.m.
If you have nothing to hide, then the cameras can only help you by aiding the police to investigate crimes like the serial attacks. They should be all over town, on elevators, in alleyways, and on streets, to augment policing resources.
Sallyxyz
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 8:31 p.m.
It's irresponsible not to have surveillance cameras in all city parking structures and other dark places where cars are parked (public lots, etc). Of course, it's only after several individuals are assaulted that the discussion gets any serious attention. How many more people will be crime victims before the cameras are installed? As far as "big brother" issues, all large big box stores have cameras in their parking lots, and inside their stores. Most malls and large department stores have surveillance cameras running all the time. It does deter theft and if anything happens in the parking lot of one of these stores, at least there is camera footage to review. When was the last time someone was assaulted in the Target parking lot at night? In London, cameras are used on the subway trains in the cars and on the platforms. It is a major deterrent to crimes in those areas and people feel safer riding public transportation because of it. It's only the criminals and potential criminals that don't want cameras to document their illicit behaviors.
Mike
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.
I've seen a bunch of comments about this (these) terrorist(s) assaulting women in our community. Many of the commentators are saying additional police / security procedures wouldn't prevent these crimes. There is some truth to that to a point. But it sure would be easier to solve the initial crimes with more manpower to address the problem. Video is great evidence. The sooner caught, the fewer crimes they can commit.
FredMax
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 3:41 p.m.
How about a compromise for the conspiracy nuts; having a "non-surveillance section" of the parking structure? But seriously, there seems to be some conventional wisdom on annarbor.com that "research shows that surveillance cameras don't work". This belief is completely false; research does not show this. Strangely, the same opponents also claim that cameras invade privacy. These two statements would intuitively seem to be mutually exclusive. As one who formerly spent many years working for a video surveilance OEM, I'll state without ambiguity that surveillance cameras have a very high ROI due to solving crime and curbing liability payout. If you dont want to take my word for it, take afew minutes to research the growth in surveillance sales to the private sector over the last few years. Lets weigh paying a few thousands dollars in annual cost for purchasing/maintaining as system that guards against multi-million dollar legal liabilities, as well as the issue at hand; e.g. the cost in human suffering that we have already incurred.
Michelle
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 3:06 p.m.
I haven't seen a map of where these attacks have taken place. Could you publish one? Thanks.
racerx
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 3:04 p.m.
No Kinsey, I'm not getting paid to have my privacy invaded, so you answered your own question. And recording of license plate numbers for what reason? Just so the police to have this information? Sorry, but we're not Britian. You seem as though your a Republican. What ever happen to personal liberty?, and too much government. Where do you want a camera's next? In our bedrooms? Oh well...they could be committing a crime lets' take a look just to see if they are or not, it'll be up to us, the self righteous police to determine this or not! Give me a break.
Peter Eckstein
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 2:23 p.m.
Good column. I would be happy to have everything I do in a parking structure videotaped if that would prevent one assault--or, even more likely, it would enable police to identify the assailant and arrest the person before he (or she) commits more crimes. I believe in rights of privacy, but I don't have it when I walk down the street, and I don't need it when I'm in a public parking structure.
Ron Granger
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
So with bridges and roads crumbling, how much more in taxes are you willing to pay for those cameras? How much should we pay people to sit around and watch them? How long do you want to pay to archive the footage? How much are you willing to pay in taxes to satisfy the requests for video footage? The person who loses a wallet or purse and wants footage to see where they dropped it. The person who thinks someone door'd their car. Etc. "There's a wet spot over here. And I think it smells. Hey, it's still warm! Call 911 and ask them to check the video footage. Someone may have uninated! Maybe the cops can still catch them!" Maybe we could put billboards up all over town, and send images of wanted "suspects".
1bit
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.
If you are in an open public space, where there is no expectation of privacy, anyone can take a picture of you legally. I don't want police keeping a database of everyone, but Mr. Kinsey is right that it would act as a local deterrent. The problem, of course, is that the crime would then be done elsewhere where there is no camera watching. So then do we put cameras everywhere? Obviously not, because crime will never be completely eradicated. So, like many things, one can look at the scope of the problem, the cost of implementation, the efficacy of the deterrent and then calculate a return on investment. We can certainly choose to lock ourselves in our homes, put up bars, video cameras and bulletproof glass to make ourselves more safe but ultimately caging ourselves does not make us more free. It is the balance between freedom and safety that we need to decide upon together.
just a voice
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
The author of this article completely fails to address the issue of privacy that many commenters seem concerned with. Not a surprise that A2 people feel this way, and from past articles an indication of this authors lack of sight into how people feel, as to convince them we must discuss the idea a video surveillance. That being said, I recently saw a video online of police abuse. These videos are very common these days, and it's thanks to video surveillance. They are not being used to spy on us as much as to find out what really happened. Plus, all the potheads should know you can't be convicted of smoking pot from video, unless they have proof its pot. So don't fear the cops showing up saying 'we have video of you smoking pot in the parking structure'.
Milton Shift
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 2:42 p.m.
Yes, but they can use it to justify an investigation followed by a raid, then bust them with the material itself.
Ron Granger
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 1:18 p.m.
"For those dumb enough or desperate enough to commit crimes in the videotaped areas" --- Most criminals commit crimes in areas not covered by cameras. Or they simply cover their face when passing the cameras. They shield their activity so the camera proves nothing. You want to put good cameras in? They'll steal them. "Drinking, drug use, and sex (get a room) would be curtailed in parking areas. Guaranteed the stairwells and corners of the carports would smell a little fresher and be less urine stained if cameras were installed there." This is completely out of touch. A camera isn't going to stop a drunk from urinating. Camera coverage would be limited at best, while still being expensive. You can't cover every corner. You can't put a camera between every car. The police aren't going to spend resources trying to find "serial urinators", or drunks. Cameras do one thing very well - they enrich the pockets of the people who sell them. The federal government - while strapped for tax dollars - is going into debt giving "homeland security" grants to make our country a surveilance state. That's where the really disgusting urination is - urinating away billions of borrowed dollars on security theatre, to enrich those in that industry. Often the sellers of security tech are former law enforcement. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
MjC
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 12:32 p.m.
No one supports video cameras for fear of losing personal freedoms until, of course, a crime happens to them. Remember that creep who kidnapped and murdered a young girl on her way home from a friend's house... he was caught because a video camera taped him taking her just outside a car wash where the camera was installed. He'd probably still be out there if not for that one camera catching him in the act! I don't see any problem with having video cameras installed in the parking structures. I support it!
A2K
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 12:31 p.m.
It's a camera in a GARAGE, not in your living room! *take off the tinfoil hats puhlease!* Safety aside, perhaps it will catch some of the drunks/reprobates/average citizens who like to urinate in the stairwells and elevators...that's REALLY pleasant for the rest of us. *eye roll*
johnnya2
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 12:31 p.m.
Anybody who thinks doing these kinds of thing sin the name of safety, really do not deserve safety. It is easy to stop crime. Of course you have to get rid off that whole constitution thing that screws things up. I know Rich is such an upstanding police officer (I mean he recounts other officers pointing guns at people and not arresting them for it) that he would never use video cameras in the wrong way, but I can think of others who might. Here is an idea for better safety. DO NOT GO ALONE IN A PARKING GARAGE. Let people know where you are. Be prepared for a possible attack.
Bob Bethune
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
The video camera syndrome works like this: We put up video cameras. The cameras catch grainy footage of a crime in progress. Nobody knows who the star of the grainy footage is. The crime goes unsolved. Police presence in areas likely to be targeted would be very useful. Cameras, unless they are actively monitored with rapid response available, don't help.
Milton Shift
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 9:06 a.m.
I think we need more cameras in our police vans, in case any officers aim loaded guns at civilians for fun again.
NoSUVforMe
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 4:28 a.m.
There are many personal freedoms that are at risk. I tend to worry more about male political ideologues forcing their view on women, people that aren't religious, or people that aren't white. Oh, I forgot about people who want to be happy with their choice for a partner. Cameras in public places do not bother me. It is when ideologues want to IMPOSE their ideology on me that I worry. Shouldn't we be worried about Republicans and dishonest morality?
Davidian
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
I feel sorry for people that always see the race card in every discussion.
godsbreath64
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 3:53 a.m.
*Shocker alert* A police detective wants the taxpayers to do his job for him.
Mr. Ed
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
It takes a community to solve crime. We are in this together so lets work together to make our community safe.
SW40
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 1:30 a.m.
Wow, Big brother, Nuremberg, Police State, this is absolutely ridiculous and its fear mongering of the worst kind. Many public universities, shopping centers, private businesses, parking garages, government offices, sporting venues etc... have surveillance cameras and many of them with better technology then our local law enforcement. I will agree that surveillance cameras aren't much of a deterrent but they are absolutely the best tool for catching a criminal's image and providing vital information to law enforcement. Sometimes it's an image of the suspect vehicle or a piece of discarded clothing that provides DNA evidence, to simply say "no" to cameras is short sighted and irresponsible. No one is talking about putting a camera in your house or vehicle, a parking structure is open to the public and as such the government or private business can place surveillance cameras in the area for any reason. Perhaps we should ask the victims of this sort of heinous crime if they are ok with surveillance cameras, something tells me any tool to help capture this monster(s) is encouraged. Ideology is for the class room and debate team, in the real world people are tasked with tracking down evil people and I for one would give them every tool available to do so. But hey it wasn't you who was raped or your sister, mother, wife, daughter; because had it been you'd be singing a different song.
theodynus
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 12:17 a.m.
One camera is fine. Two cameras are fine. But where does it stop? The technology today is expensive, but what happens when cameras and wireless networks are so cheap that we can have 500 or a 1000 cameras around town? Then we add in facial recognition (not so different from what iPhoto or Facebook use today). All of a sudden you're putting almost unlimited surveillance power in the hands of the State. Now the city has a database showing everywhere every face has shown up, with a time stamp and the ability to figure out who was with you. It knows who your friends and relatives are, what cars they drive, where you eat, etc. Of course it's tied in to other state databases, so now it can get your name off your driver's license, your criminal record, your property tax info, your credit score and more. None of this is a stretch of the imagination. 20 years ago it would have sounded crazy but governments are *already* doing these things. If this doesn't at least strike you as a technological circumvention of some of the basic principles behind the Bill of Rights, you're a fool. The Founders did not intend for the State to have the ability to track our every move outside of the house. And yeah, some people are going to get mugged, raped and murdered because we err on the side of protecting our civil rights and not becoming a police state. That's always the case. I'm sure cops would love to do away with habeus corpus and the 4th and 5th amendment. It'd make crime fighting so much easier if they could break into your house and force a confession!
1bit
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
Do we have a right to not have our picture taken when there is no expectation of privacy (i.e. we are not at home, or in a restroom, etc)?
Chimay
Wed, Jul 27, 2011 : 11:36 p.m.
Research has shown that surveillance cameras don't deter crime. Plus, they can be abused. Remember back in 2001, when the Free Press discovered that members of Michigan law enforcement were using a video database to stalk women, track estranged partners, and threaten motorists after traffic altercations?
nickcarraweigh
Wed, Jul 27, 2011 : 11:34 p.m.
I'm just like Rich. I am for good and against evil. Like so much of what Rich writes, when he isn't busy pointing loaded pistols at civilians looking at two-way mirrors, this is drivel poised at the top of the same slippery slope that led to Nuremberg.
1bit
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 1:21 p.m.
Wow - got to Godwin's law by the second post. Nice. FYI - there were no video surveillance cameras in Germany before, during or after the holocaust. George Orwell didn't write 1984 until 1948. So no need for the bombastic allusion. I'm not for the video camera thing everywhere either, but let's stick to arguments that work.
Milton Shift
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 9:08 a.m.
I'm sure that's right, Steve.
Steve Pepple
Thu, Jul 28, 2011 : 2:33 a.m.
I think a bit of clarification is due here: Rich Kinsey was not the officer who pointed the gun at the civilian through the two-way mirror - Kinsey merely recounted the incident in a previous column about police surveillance duty.
xmo
Wed, Jul 27, 2011 : 11:14 p.m.
First it starts with camera's for our safety then, it escalates until we have camera's everywhere. If you don't think this will happen, Look at the seat belt law, it started has a law to protect us not you get a ticket if you are not buckled in! Look at Smoking, first it was banned in a section of a place now you cannot smoke indoors at a business, government building or on the U of M Campus indoor or outdoors! If the owners want to put up camera's great but please don't start the cycle of forcing businesses to put camera's up because it will end with Big Brother!