At least 40 percent of arrests made in Baltimore during a recent six-month period that directly involved a city surveillance camera did not result in prosecution, according to the State?s Attorney?s office.
In fact, the impact of the city?s cameras in catching criminals seems limited to quality-of-life charges, rather than major or violent crime, a spokeswoman there said.
“The allegations that the police are drawing from these images are not conclusive to the prosecutors,” said spokeswoman Margaret Burns. “When we have to say we can?t pursue [a case] it raises the question of why the arrest was made in the first place.”
But the police department vigorously defended the usefulness of roughly 275 surveillance cameras citywide, saying they?re invaluable in tracking, investigating and fighting crime from the minor to the violent ? even if the footage doesn?t end up in court. “We have received well over 500 requests for cameras in various neighborhoods,” said Kristen Mahoney, the department?s chief of technical services.
Of 394 reports of arrests in which the cameras were referenced, 112 resulted in people released without being charged, according to the State?s Attorney?s office. Another 46 cases were later dropped. Sixty-one resulted in convictions.
But the cameras have had a strong, practical effect deterring crime and a much broader and earlier use in investigations, police officials said.
“It?s a complete force-multiplier,” Mahoney said, explaining that where the department can?t afford to put an officer in front of every reported drug house, for example, the cameras ? which have required a roughly $8 million investment ? allow them to watch drug activity and build evidence in the case. Then, she said, an officer can take over.
“They?ve helped us locate missing children downtown that got separated from their parents,” she said.
They?ve shown officers what house a murder suspect ran into after a crime, and can place a witness near a crime scene even if they said theyweren?t there, she said ? none of which would necessarily lead a prosecutor to introduce the tape as evidence in trial, she said, but all of which was useful, nonetheless.
But when the footage would be useful at trial, it?s often too grainy to clearly identify a defendant, rendering it useless in front of a judge or jury, Burns said. Prosecutors also have found the video segments they wanted were already taped over, she said, or that the camera wasn?t working at the crucial moment.
“Is it better to have millions and millions of dollars of pole cameras … [or] would you rather have a real person in your community?” Burns said.
