They?ve become an almost ubiquitous symbol of “the other” Baltimore ? the blue-light surveillance cameras intended to deter crime on the streets of the city?s toughest neighborhoods.
But the Baltimore City State?s Attorney?s Office says new data they?ve compiled raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the close to 300 pole cameras posted around Baltimore.
The large majority of incidents caught by the cameras are drug crimes, not violent felonies; and arrests generated by the cameras are less likely to result in charges than normal police arrests, according to the first full-year of data about the program.
“This program is costing millions and millions of dollars,” said Margaret Burns, a spokeswoman for Baltimore City State?s Attorney Patricia Jessamy. “When the citizens invest in a public safety initiative, they want to see results.”
Baltimore police officers arrested 1,979 people between Dec. 17, 2005, and Dec. 31, based on video from the pole cameras. But 30 percent of those cases ? 599 ? didn?t have enough admittable evidenceto result in a charge.
That?s higher than the police department?s total 2006 rate of arrests that do not result in charges, which is 21 percent.
Of the 929 surveillance camera cases actually adjudicated in 2006, 43 percent ? 399 ? resulted in guilty verdicts.
“Do these prosecutorial results support millions of dollars in tax expenditures?” Burns asked. “There will have to be public debate about this.”
But Baltimore police say there?s another ? perhaps more important reason ? for the cameras: Deterrence.
“Residents love them and so do front-line prosecutors,” said Baltimore police spokesman Matt Jablow, who cites a 16 percent decrease in crime in the areas with surveillance cameras. “The whole gamut of crimes have been solved by these cameras and countless other crimes have not taken place because of these cameras. Can you put a price tag on that? We don?t think so.”
The cameras cost $10 million to install with $3 million coming to the police department?s general fund and the other $7 million paid for between federal homeland security funds and seized money from drug dealers, Jablow said.
Former Baltimore Police Commissioner Ed Norris, who headed up New York City?s installation of cameras in Harlem in the late 1990s, said he believes they are a good idea.
“I think they?re effective and they?ve been proven effective in cities around the country,” he said. “Even if they?re only getting 400 convictions a year, that?s still 400 more than they would get without the cameras.”
At a glance
The State?s Attorney?s Office?s Pole Cameras report shows that the most prominent charge garnered by the cameras are for drug crimes.
In all, the cameras caught 609 drug offenses; 24 charges of trespassing; 21 for illegal cigarettes; 16 for assaults; 12 thefts; seven weapons violations; five eachfor robberies and burglaries; and three for littering. There was one attempted murder, which prosecutors placed on an inactive court docket.
Source: Baltimore City State?s Attorney?s Office
