Prosecutable images

[C7 in CA 0]

Is there a general guideline for prosecutable images? Rules of thumb?

 

What are the minimum lighting levels, resolution, composition (angle/distance from subject)? The camera is basically an eyewitness right? How good does a video have to be to convince a jury?

 

The reason I ask is because of all these lousy clips you see on the evening news of convenience store robberies. It always starts off, "Police are looking for this man..." And the quality of the video makes it extremely unlikely you could actually convict someone because the video might look like the guy.

 

Any tips?

[rory 0]

good question.

 

or those COPS video clips ... can you say tape..

 

Unfirtunately here there is no such thing, video is not admissible in court. However the police will use it to capture and apprehend.

 

as for your side, may depend on the judge on duty themselves.

[C7 in CA 0]

I'm pretty sure they can use video here. Every cop car I see has a dash mounted camera. And I frequently hear about people willing to plead guilty after seeing the video evidence against them. I doubt their lawyer would go for that in most cases if the video was inadmissible. But I could be wrong?

[qman 0]

Damm rory, where did you get that from?

 

Yeah you could use video, only that it has to be watermarked, or digitally marked for protection against tampering.

[rory 0]

i said not here in the bahamas ... in the US its probably up to the judge as to whether the quality is good enough ..

[C7 in CA 0]

Damm rory, where did you get that from?

 

Yeah you could use video, only that it has to be watermarked, or digitally marked for protection against tampering.

 

So are you talking about a time stamp, or something more specific?

[qman 0]

For example, both GEO and Witness use a bmp to "watermark" the video, is like the nuew hundred dollar bill, which if you look at it at an angle, and look at it's right side, you'll see fraklins face "watermarked" into the bill.

 

same principle

[C7 in CA 0]

ok. Thanks for the info.

[rory 0]

I thought all DVRs use that? At least the well known brands do anyway ...n ot that it helps me here though ..

[VST_Man 1]

Video Insight also uses watermark.........

[eganson 0]

U.S. here... Watermarking being a great failsafe, prosecution can still be successful using what most of us would consider inferior video & imagery. Same can also aquit, if that's what the evidence supports. Remember 'Rodney King'? Camcorder... federal convictions.. The biggest question in this? 'How does the judge or jury perceive the evidence? Watermarking is great insurance (plan that in), but I wouldn't let the lack of it stop me from persuing or defending a case in court.

I sucessfully defended myself against a 'defective equipment' charge for a cracked windshield (very minor, too) by scanning several Polaroid photos into a document quoting some state law; the judge saw the pictures and said "case dismissed"

From what I can tell of our courts here, logic, truth & reality all appear fair game. I personally watched a Wa state patrol trooper admit under oath that she "modified her notes, more than once, excess of 6 months after the fact."

Asked by the defense "Why; when you admit that memory is unreliable, Why...?" Her reply was "Because the prosecutor needed more evidence."

Get this.. a jury of 6, and 4 still wanted to convict. I interjected logic, a rookie state trooper lost the case of her first arrest, due to her admission of falsifying evidence.

Choose watermarked, given the choice... but a good picture is worth more I would guess. When entering OUR courts, take a wild guess what can happen!

[rory 0]

yeah, here we have some of the worst courts (and lawyers (and judges)) in the world! Oh to live in the first world

[bryan1656 0]

"ID quality" video for court purposes would mean that anyone could look at the video and then look at the person and recognize the person on the video as the person they are looking at.

 

This is different than perhaps a shot where people who already know the person might recognize them in the shot, but anyone who didn't know them would be able to ID them from the video.

 

The above comments that truly ID quality video in surveillance CCTV is rare. Even if people change their tapes, often the image is not well lit, not properly focused, not properly framed, etc. etc.

 

Generally speaking... the higher the resolution the better. This means that 480 lines of black and white is actually preferrable to 420 lines of color. Just because it looks better to eyes accustomed to television does not mean that it is a better picture. Resolution becomes critical when you need to do things like have video forensics try to do frame averaging to get a tag number of a clerk who was kidnapped at gunpoint. Perhaps one color camera on the lot would be good to get color descriptions... but things like the point of sale, doorways, etc. need the better reolution *and* the better low light abilities that you find with b/w cams.

 

For FOV, 10' wide is a good rule of thumb to allow a properly lit scene with a well focused camera that is properly installed and has sufficient resolution.

 

All of this is for nothing, though, if they don't change their tapes. A really good picture is worthless if the tape doesn't have any particles left on it.

 

Video admissibility will vary between jurisdictions and the differing rules of evidence and case law. "watermarking" is not *usually* neccessary in most places as it is actually the testimony of the witness that gets the tape into evidence...

 

Q: "Ms. Clerk, is this an accurate depiction of the events that happened to you on blobbidy blah?"

A: "Yes, it is."

 

However, admissibility of video and photographic evidence will varry from place to place... local rules of evidence and case law will be the best authority on this matter.

 

LE investigators should be familiar with how to safeguard, process, copy, and store video evidence in analog and digital formats. If they are not, then they can consult with their local prosecutors and/or state crime labs, or other agencies.

 

I recommend that local investigators keep with them quality video tapes to present to business owners to replace the tapes that they take possession of as evidence. Actually... it wouldn't hurt to give them a whole dozen to encourage them not to overuse thier tapes.

 

HTH

[CraigVM62 0]

My install expierence is pretty much limited to residential applications and small businesses. Still I have been pulled into court 3 times because of footage captured on video from systems my company installed. One for a store burglary where the suspect was seen reaching behind a counter grabbing items while his buddy had the store attendant in the back of the store asking for assistance getting an item down off a top shelf. His Lawyer claimed the video must have been created on a computer to frame his client. I had to testify that (1) I had installed a system in the store prior to the crime. (2) that the camera angle would coinside with where I had installed a camera. Then lastly, if the video would appear to be from a system such as I had installed. The judge almost laughed at the loose straws the defendants attorney was grabbing for. One other was for a worker who claimed an injury and stated his Dr. requested he should be on "Light Duty" for several months. Video caught him playing basketball in the company wearhouse after hours with a few co-workers / friends. Something he could not possibly do if his injuries were anything like he claimed to be suffereing from. He was fired but tried to sue the employer. He claimed in court that the footage was from months prior to his injury and the images time / date stamp was changed. I had to testify that I was called to come in and help the business owner view the recorded material as he was afraid he would mess it up and accidently erase it and could varify the date and time was correct. All nickle and dime stuff. I can only imagine the fun that those of you whom install huge commercial systems get to hear about and deal with.

[qman 0]

ha, I got called to a murder trial once..........

 

Good client too, a lady that owned several grocery stores got shot while closing one of her places, and the perp tried to say that he was somewhere else at the time, and that the video that shows him doing the deed was altered. The police where knocking on my door at 3am, because they could'nt figure out how to play back the video.

 

That was not fun.

[rory 0]

same here, a stabbing murder on camera at a local nightclub, owner was away i was out drinking at 4am one friday night, got called on my cell and had to shoot down to the night club (from another nightclub!) to play the video for the police. SPent the next afternoon downloading a couple hours of video (over the internet) from 13 cameras then burning them all to CD and dropped off to the police that evening. Owner was away and door was locked up to the office so had to do it all over the internet ...

 

Was never used in court in the end, but was used to apprehend the individual, police and laws down here are different anyway, police say you do it, you did it!

Though the judge saw it not in court, and said they couldnt prove it was the same guy, even though it was plain and clear, but most of our judges down here are dummies anyway ..

 

rory