Legal Implications of Video Surveillance on Transit Systems (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6II. TRANSIT AGENCIES’ USE OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE A. Purposes of Video Surveillance Transit agencies responding to the survey identi- fied the purposes that their video surveillance systems are intended to serve. 1. To Assist Transit Customers, to Deter and/or Apprehend Fare-Evaders, and to Deter Other Crimes Fifty-one transit agencies (70.83%) reported that one of the purposes for having video surveillance is to assist customers.34 Fifty transit agencies (69.44%) said that they use video surveillance to apprehend fare- evaders.35 Sixty-seven agencies (93.06%) use video surveillance to deter crimes other than fare evasion.36 2. To Investigate Accidents or Alleged Injuries and to Defend Against Tort , Claims Sixty-nine transit agencies (95.83%) use video surveillance to investigate accidents. No transit agency said that it did not.37 Sixty-nine transit agen- cies (95.83%) use video surveillance to investigate alleged injuries.38 Sixty-five transit agencies (90.28%) use video surveillance to defend against tort claims.39 3. To Defend Against Fraudulent Claims and to Deter or Prevent Vandalism and Other Property Damage or Theft Sixty-nine transit agencies (95.83%) use video surveillance to defend against fraudulent crimes; no transit agency said that it did not.40 Sixty-seven transit agencies (93.06%) employ video surveillance to deter or prevent vandalism or other property damage.41 4. To Defend Against Terrorism Fifty-four transit agencies (75%) use video surveillance to defend against terrorism, whereas thirteen agencies (18.06%) reported that defending against terrorism is not one of the reasons for their video surveillance system.42 5. Other Purposes of Video Surveillance As summarized in Appendix C, some transit agen- cies reported other uses of video surveillance. For example, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority uses video surveillance of single-person train operation.43 Some transit agencies’ websites also iden- tify their reasons for conducting video surveillance.44 B. Transit Agencies’ Policies Applicable to Video Surveillance Forty transit agencies (55.56%) have a policy that applies to the use of video surveillance; however, twenty-nine agencies (40.28%) said that they do not have a policy.45 Appendix C summarizes some of the transit agencies’ policies on the use of video surveil- lance. Appendix E includes a copy of the policies that transit agencies provided. C. Notice of Video Surveillance Fifty-nine transit agencies (81.94%) give notice to the public of the presence of video surveillance in any of the agency’s facilities and/or on any of its buses or trains.46 For example, the Ann Arbor 34 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to ques- tion 4(a). Seventeen agencies (23.61%) stated customer assistance is not one of their purposes for conducting video surveillance. Four transit agencies (5.56%) did not respond to the question. 35 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to ques- tion 4(b). Eighteen agencies (25%) said that they do not use video surveillance for that purpose. Four transit agen- cies (5.56%) did not respond to the question. 36 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to ques- tion 4(c). Two transit agencies (2.78%) said that they do not use video surveillance to deter crime. Three transit agencies (4.17%) did not respond to the question. 37 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to ques- tion 4(e). Three transit agencies (4.17%) did not respond. 38 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to question 4(f). Three transit agencies (4.17%) said that they do not. 39 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to ques- tion 4(g). Three transit agencies (4.17%) reported that they do not. Four transit agencies (5.56%) did not respond to the question. 40 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to ques- tion 4(d). One transit agency (1.39%) said that it does not. Three transit agencies (4.17%) said that they do not. 41 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to question 4(h). One transit agency (1.39%) said that it did not. Four transit agencies (5.56%) did not respond to the question. 42 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to question 4(i). Five agencies (6.94%) did not respond to the question. 43 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to question 4. 44 See Butler Transit Authority, Video Surveillance/ Camera Maintenance Policy, hereinafter referred to as “Butler Video Surveillance Policy,” at 1, http://www. butlertransitauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ Audio-and-Video-Surveillance-Policy.pdf (last accessed Aug. 22, 2017); Greater Portland Transit District, Policy Governing Purpose and Use of Visual and Audio on Board Surveillance Cameras, hereinafter referred to as “Greater Portland Transit District Surveillance Camera Policy,” http:/ /gpmetrobus.net/index.php/inside-metro3/ surveillance-cameras (last accessed Aug. 22, 2017); and Sun Tran, Safety & Security, About Sun Tran, http://www. suntran.com/about_safety.php (last accessed Aug. 22, 2017). 45 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to question 5. Three agencies (4.17%) did not respond to the question. 46 See Appendix C, transit agencies’ responses to question 16. Nine agencies (12.50%) reported that they do not pro- vide notice to the public. Four agencies (5.56%) did not respond to the question.