Drain on our resources if they stayed open until 4 00. A. M. It a study was done in the norwegian studies and this determined there was more crime. You know in las vegas they stay open 24 hours a day and they found more drunk driving arrest at 6 00 in the morning. Its no second that we are going to be rereplenished. In the the next months there are a couple officers leaving the department. Its something that we are open to down the road. Thats the beauty, we sit down and craft conditions and we look at it from a communitys standpoint. At this point it wouldnt be favorable to the Police Department. Thank you very much. Does anyone else want to comment before i go on to the next question . Okay. Keeping in mind our dependence on media and the recent boston bombing and our reverence to privacy can you talk about cameras outside of buildings. I would like to start with supervisor campos. Thank you very much. I dont think that anyone disagrees that we want to do everything we can to make su
Instead of the city bearing the cost. I think the city should have cameras. There are places where that is useful. Having cameras near registers can save many dollars. If you believe your clientele is potentially violent on damaging in terms of graffiti cost, you can have many reasons to have cameras. If a business wants to install their cameras and use them, they should bear that cost. If footage exist that Law Enforcement wants access to, there is a process that allows the Law Enforcement access to that. So, if a business wants to install cameras, absolutely they should bear the cost, but having Law Enforcement require cameras, that cost should not be passed onto the business. I have very mixed feelings about cameras but i tend to lean to what berry is talking about. We seem to be karening willie and nilly to this camera side. We are crossing the line now between reasonable, Video Surveillance in public being a reasonable part of the policing or Police Action and you get into the unr
Infringement of the 4th amendment. Let me read you one of these conditions so you can see what im talking about. I have probably seen 20 of these in the last few years. If you have a conditional license and pretty much everybody does in San Francisco, you can petition the abc to give you a license and in that petition they have give you the conditions. But this one says the petitioner shall utilize electronic equipment to record inside and outside of the premises and must be kept for 30 days and made available for the Police Department. That is pretty big brother and i will tell you why. I think berry is right. If there is some reason to have that surveillance, it should be made available. If you dont want to give it up, then a judge can get it from you. However, my job is to save my clients money and do the right thing for my clients. I tell everyone of my clients get Video Surveillance because in the last couple of years i have seen one client save a quarter Million Dollars with an u
Make sure that when you are taking steps to respond to a tragedy like that one, that you are also not over stepping the line where you are actually undermining civil liberties. I think that one of the unfortunate things about policy being made out of a tragic incident is that history shows you that a lot of that turns out to be bad policy and so, i personally dont have a problem and would like to see that there is availability of the kind of footage that we had in boston, we know the cameras in that case did save lives and prevented another incident from happening. I do think we have to be careful in how that information is used by the police. I have had this conversation with greg, he is mindful of that and understand that you want to have rules so that if there is a need for the footage, you know that they can go to court and request it and that can happen very quickly so there is no time lapse between an incident and when something takes place. In terms of the general view of the ar
However, my job is to save my clients money and do the right thing for my clients. I tell everyone of my clients get Video Surveillance because in the last couple of years i have seen one client save a quarter Million Dollars with an ugly lawsuit. He can prove from the video when the person walked in the club and they were staggering when they came in and when they came out and they were beat up god knows where. They were able to prove it with the video. On new years day, my client had the best sophisticated surveillance and there had been a homicide down the street on new years day and this Video Surveillance was able to go outside, isolate a camera and zoom in on that person that walked in the liquor establishment and pretty much finger a murder and that murderer is off the street. There is really good reason to have video if you have a place, but where i draw the line is this part about whether its to be kept for 30 days and made available to the police on demand, wrong. Thats a lit