Criminal Conviction with BI

[MartyO]

Has anyone gotten a criminal conviction with video and images off of BI system?

 

[MartyO]

Interesting.

 

[welwynman]

Sorry to reply late but just saw this thread.
Have 6 Foscam and 1 Axis cameras around a building to cover building perimeter, kid's playground and a sports field. Had two incidents: one where a kid kicked a ball at one camera and pointed it skyward (idiot didn't realise he was being filmed by two other cameras) and another where two kids sprayed obscene grafitti on a piece of play equipment. Footage from both incidents extracted, edited and given to police together with identifiable stills. Police commented that the quality was better than they usually get from shops and filling stations. IDs made and miscreants interviewed and when confronted by stills and clips, confessed. Sadly, being only just teenagers police did not want to pin a criminal record on them so they were cautioned and let off. No doubt they will be back and we'll catch them again - next time we'll press for stronger action by police. Still, the system and our management process worked and the evidence would have stood up I feel in court. Hope this is helpful.

 

[badmop]

I've had trespass arrests and other things from my cameras, but that was just on a standard standalone DVR. Curious the questioning about BI?
Just curious how many run BI and have issues, or if it's acceptable in convicting?

 

[fenderman]

I've had trespass arrests and other things from my cameras, but that was just on a standard standalone DVR. Curious the questioning about BI?
Just curious how many run BI and have issues, or if it's acceptable in convicting?

Its just as acceptable as any other recording device. Martyo just uses BI.

 

[welwynman]

I think the root issue may be one of evidential provenance, allied to the legal situation in the country concerned and the degree of understanding that those in the court have. For example, it is pretty straightforward to explain how a recording is made from a camera (or cameras) to a DVR which (for the purposes of a non-technical jury, judge and legal teams) may be likened to a domestic video recorder. In the old days of VHS tapes, CCTV was recorded onto these and when retrieved for evidence was "bagged and tagged" and every inspection, copy made, edit etc, logged so that when you finally got to court there was no chance of any smart lawyer claiming that the tape had been forged or modified. With BI, running on a PC, often with the use of remote management, one method of operation would be to skim through the recordings remotely, download the clip of interest, edit to the bit you really want, print off some stills and export the clip as an .avi for easy presentation in court (assuming the court has discovered PCs - sadly not that common in the UK). The issue is that a lot of work has been done on the original and if a sensible log has not been kept, the same smart lawyer will raise tales of "we've all seen what you can do with Photoshop" and the like. Thus for a successful conviction using footage from BI, I would always advise that a thorough log is kept of every step, and preferrably witnessed. Explaining to a court how editing and any other manipulation such as contrast stretching is getting towards the expert witness level and so my preference would be for a clear still image that can be used to ID a perpetrator as the easiest way. Others with experience of BI in court may care to comment. I expect the same would be true of any PC-based software, not just BI.

 

[fenderman]

I think the root issue may be one of evidential provenance, allied to the legal situation in the country concerned and the degree of understanding that those in the court have. For example, it is pretty straightforward to explain how a recording is made from a camera (or cameras) to a DVR which (for the purposes of a non-technical jury, judge and legal teams) may be likened to a domestic video recorder. In the old days of VHS tapes, CCTV was recorded onto these and when retrieved for evidence was "bagged and tagged" and every inspection, copy made, edit etc, logged so that when you finally got to court there was no chance of any smart lawyer claiming that the tape had been forged or modified. With BI, running on a PC, often with the use of remote management, one method of operation would be to skim through the recordings remotely, download the clip of interest, edit to the bit you really want, print off some stills and export the clip as an .avi for easy presentation in court (assuming the court has discovered PCs - sadly not that common in the UK). The issue is that a lot of work has been done on the original and if a sensible log has not been kept, the same smart lawyer will raise tales of "we've all seen what you can do with Photoshop" and the like. Thus for a successful conviction using footage from BI, I would always advise that a thorough log is kept of every step, and preferrably witnessed. Explaining to a court how editing and any other manipulation such as contrast stretching is getting towards the expert witness level and so my preference would be for a clear still image that can be used to ID a perpetrator as the easiest way. Others with experience of BI in court may care to comment. I expect the same would be true of any PC-based software, not just BI.

The same exact argument could be made with vhs and standalone dvrs...the footage can easily be edited....if there is an allegation of editing then both sides will need experts..