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 little over the line on the big brother and i think you have to have a situation where they voluntarily give it up or get a search warranty from the judge. This is a time for the police to respond. I am going to the take responsibility for crafting that language and it was
Businesses should bear the cost or not bear the cost of cameras 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 reasonabl
You that having Late Night Service would certainly contribute to Public Safety. I know my business stays open often until 4 a. M. We have a trickle out of patrons as opposed to many of businesses have a dumping of patrons. My patrons dont all dump out and have interaction and conflict unlike other businesses. I think thats a very good point. Mr. Rene . I was involved the first time we tried this 4 a. M. Legislation in sacramento whether it was mothers against drunk driving and our patrol showed up with crying mothers. But forget world class cities, its kind of embarrassing when indianapolis and memphis and milwaukee and 25 largest cities in america have 4 a. M. Legislation to allow service and the data and the sciences out there, seattle spent a lot of money doing a big study about whether or not they should pass a 4 a. M. Legislation and what happened was driving fatalities go down and a lot of alcohol problems go down. There is a lot of positive stuff that comes out of this an i also
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 unreasonable police infringement of
Contribute to Public Safety. I know my business stays open often until 4 a. M. We have a trickle out of patrons as opposed to many of businesses have a dumping of patrons. My patrons dont all dump out and have interaction and conflict unlike other businesses. I think thats a very good point. Mr. Rene . I was involved the first time we tried this 4 a. M. Legislation in sacramento whether it was mothers against drunk driving and our patrol showed up with crying mothers. But forget world class cities, its kind of embarrassing when indianapolis and memphis and milwaukee and 25 largest cities in america have 4 a. M. Legislation to allow service and the data and the sciences out there, seattle spent a lot of money doing a big study about whether or not they should pass a 4 a. M. Legislation and what happened was driving fatalities go down and a lot of alcohol problems go down. There is a lot of positive stuff that comes out of this an i also owned a nightclub in the 80s in south of market. A