Cameras watch, nudge thugs: More eyes in the sky may come to a neighborhood near you

Cincinnati Enquirer
Sep. 25, 2005

Residents love them for the way they protect their streets. Cops say they help push dope dealers away.

Crime-spotting cameras have been used since June in four Cincinnati neighborhoods, drawing rave reviews from residents and giving police a new tool to make arrests.

Now, Cincinnati City Council is considering buying 117 more to start putting 16 more neighborhoods on video.

"The technology is just so good," said Lt. Col. James Whalen, who was District 1 commander when cameras went up in Over-the-Rhine during the summer. "The pictures are very, very clear. You can count the pieces of crack in somebody's hand. You can see the denomination of money.

"It lets us stick our nose in the criminal business without being as obvious about it."

Cincinnati is part of a growing trend, with cities all over the country buying in.

CityWatcher.com, the Walnut Hills vendor that started with one camera in that neighborhood two years ago, also has pilot projects in Toledo and East St. Louis. The company will pitch the product next week in Cleveland.

Chicago police use cameras throughout the city, including watching the notoriously dangerous Cabrini Green housing complex.

Locally, crime cameras remain mostly an urban thing.

Lincoln Heights and Lockland got some as part of a federal anti-crime grant program. Cameras hang along the Purple People Bridge from Cincinnati to Newport. Officers have used them to spot assaults, and security officers at Newport on the Levee can watch them, too.

But Cincinnati needs more citizen volunteers to watch and call police when they see something. At the same time, police want to control access as much as possible - to make sure criminals don't end up watching, too. So volunteers must pass background checks.

Access control also means volunteers can watch camera feeds only on 30 computer screens in the "war room'' at Citywatcher.com or at a police training facility.

Talks continue to make things more convenient for volunteers, possibly by putting computers in community centers. . Kathy Atkinson, who watches cameras in Walnut Hills, logs on three or four times a week to check business districts along McMillan, Gilbert and Lincoln avenues, where residents hope pushing away crime will draw tenants back to vacant storefronts.

"I've seen alleged drug dealing going down in certain locations,'' she said. "I've observed crap games. I've watched some ladies doing solicitation."

City Council's Law & Public Safety Committee approved the camera expansion plan Tuesday.

The plan must go to the full council for approval - with a price tag attached after the city negotiates a contract with CityWatcher.com. The cameras currently in use cost about $5,000 each. Neighborhood associations pay monthly upkeep of $49 to $99 per camera.

Police don't have a lot of statistics yet, because the cameras have been up just three months.

During June and July, arrests on Green Street in Over-the-Rhine doubled from 35 to 70, mostly related to drugs.

Jim Bodmer of College Hill was convinced of the cameras' value within minutes. The neighborhood activist took a training class to learn how to use the cameras and when to call police. In his class were several officers who also were learning by monitoring one of 10 cameras in East Walnut Hills.

"We were just watching this guy dealing drugs,'' said Bodmer, who testified in support of the cameras last week before council's Law & Public Safety Committee. "One of the officers called on his radio, and then we watched while the guy got arrested."

College Hill residents applied for money through the city's Safe and Clean Neighborhood Fund to get six cameras, which are focused on the main drag, Hamilton Avenue. They asked for the cameras not because crime is out of hand there, but to try to make sure it doesn't get that way.

Getting requests from neighborhoods and relying on citizen volunteers helps reduce "Big Brother" concerns that many people raise about the influx of crime cameras, police and Citywatcher.com officials say. In other cities, "most are government-owned and don't involve citizens,'' said Sean Darks, CEO of CityWatcher.com. "That's what makes the city of Cincinnati's unique.''

Mayor Charlie Luken is among those who still aren't sold on the cameras. In June, he vetoed a council-approved plan to use cameras to catch speeders and red-light runners. He said he opposed the plan because City Council was using them to balance the budget, but he also expressed privacy concerns.

"If (the proposal to buy 117 more cameras) overreaches, I would consider vetoing it," Luken said. "But I don't know enough about it at this point in time. One day, every time we walk outside - every move we make - will be recorded. But I'm not looking forward to it.''

Councilman David Pepper, who is running for mayor, came up with the idea of the neighborhood fund that pays for cameras. An independent committee decides which proposals to recommend for money.

Pepper, also chairman of the city's Law & Public Safety Committee, believes the cameras offer the best chance the city has at chasing away drug dealers.

"What you're doing is, you're concentrating on certain drug-dealing hot spots and you're pushing it off the streets,'' he said. "Think of the amount of time it would take to get undercover officers in all these hot spots - you couldn't do it.''

His opponent in the mayoral race, state Sen. Mark Mallory, has questioned the way the fund money is doled out, calling it selective. He also says he hasn't seen enough information about whether the cameras really make a difference.

"It could be one of those things that gives people the sense that there's another set of eyes around, and that might chase crime away,'' he said. "It's like police substations or a restaurant that puts a police hat on the coat rack so you never know if there's an officer in the back.''

When Darks' company pitched its cameras two years ago, Cincinnati police were skeptical. The city had crime cameras before, but they cost more than $20,000 each, compared with about $5,000 now. The older cameras also were harder to maintain and move. And, worse, no one regularly watched them. The devices were hard-wired to each police district, where they played at the front desk but weren't necessarily monitored.

At the time, police commanders said the cameras did nothing more than push crime around, rather than reduce it. Some still feel that way.

"Do the bad guys figure it out at some point and move out of camera range?" Whalen said. "Sure. That just makes sense."

With more cameras in use, dealers often walk out of one camera's range and right into another's, he said. Also, moving around isn't always as easy for the drug dealers as it may sound.

Sometimes, avoiding a camera pushes a would-be dealer into a competitor's turf. Sometimes the areas not covered by cameras aren't as good for business.

Police also have found that the cameras do help them make arrests. Unlike a vague tip about suspicious activity, the cameras can provide images clear enough to justify stopping a person.

If the tip says, " 'There's three guys standing on the corner,' we can't really use that," Whalen said. "But (if the camera shows), 'There's a guy in blue gym shoes, and he's got it in his back pocket,' that's probable cause that we can act on.''

After resisting early camera installations, the police department has endorsed adding 117 more. So far, more than 150 officers and 40 residents are trained to use them.

Police also are studying other ways to use the cameras. For example, some officers will be equipped next year with laptops that allow them to monitor the cameras via the Internet.

"So you could sit in your cruiser around the corner from a hot spot," said Officer Eric Franz, who coordinates citizen-involvement programs for the department. "They can't see you, but you can still see them with the camera. And when you see something, you can roll up fast.''