Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br /> Mr. Lynch expressed concern that the 30 day retention policy would be onerous <br />for storage. Mr. Lynch asked about the retention policy for videos held as evidence. He <br />said that almost precludes having high definition cameras, and he would hate to limit the <br />kind of cameras based on the retention requirement. He suggested looking at cameras <br />that erase the recordings automatically after three days. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said he can review the retention policy for videos used as evidence. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said that at the moment he is not supportive of moving forward with <br />the security cameras. He said the reality is that they would be used to investigate rather <br />than prevent crime. He said he likes the requirement that documentation would be <br />required for access to the recordings. He asked if the log for those reviewing the <br />recordings would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said the log would not be subject to FOIA if used as part of an <br />ongoing investigation. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said the log could be used to see how often the recordings are being <br />accessed, and would make it clear that only those allowed to have access do. <br /> <br /> Mr. Taliaferro asked Chief Longo if, as a long time law enforcement officer, he <br />thinks the security cameras will make a difference, and Chief Longo said yes. Mr. <br />Taliaferro said that is all he needs to hear. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said he originally was going to support the cameras. He said he has <br />given the matter a lot of thought and said if he had to choose between $300,000 for <br />cameras or for more police, he would use it for more police. He said he appreciates the <br />work on the proposal and if Council moves forward with the cameras, he would like to <br />see the proposal tightened after reviewing the feedback from the Rutherford Institute. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he would support moving forward with the cameras if they are <br />autonomous, and the recordings are not brought back for storage. He said their value as a <br />deterrent is questionable, and thinks their value is forensic. He said that with the cameras <br />being autonomous they can be used for forensic evidence with the concern addressed <br />about who views the recordings. He said high definition cameras need a lot of space for <br />data, and he is concerned about the cost of bringing the recordings back to a central <br />location. He said he does not think we can affordably have a 30 day retention policy. <br /> <br /> Mr. Dave Chapman, Commonwealth’s Attorney, said that deterrence is both <br />general and specific. He said the ability to solve crimes and arrest people is a specific <br />deterrent. He said Council should not dismiss the cameras’ deterrent ability, which he <br />said can have significant effect. He said it is appropriate for Council to have concerns, <br />but he said the key is having appropriate safeguards. He noted that the University of <br />Virginia has used security cameras for twenty years. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris asked if the police have a right to obtain the recordings from private <br />cameras if a crime occurs. <br /> <br /> Chief Longo said that has never been a problem, but he noted that most of the <br />private cameras are inside buildings. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said one alternative would be enhancing private systems, and he asked <br />if that would be viable. <br /> <br /> Chief Longo said it would be an alternative, but he does not know how viable it <br />would be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said that would be a much less expensive option. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hamilton said the question is can we dictate the policy for an expanded <br />private system. <br /> <br /> <br />