Police officials call new West Willow security cameras 'an effective tool'
Ypsilanti Township and Washtenaw County Sheriff Department officials say they are pleased with initial results of a pilot program in which five security cameras were mounted in public areas throughout the West Willow neighborhood.
One neighborhood leader also says the neighborhood association has heard informally from multiple sources that the cameras have acted as a deterrent and pushed illegal activities out of West Willow and into other neighborhoods.
In April, the Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees unanimously approved paying $30,000 for the program out of the township's police fund. The cameras were installed and operable in July.
New West Willow Neighborhood Association President Angela Barbash said some residents told members of the group that some of the illegal activity was pushed to other neighborhoods once word of the cameras got out. Barbash said discussing what kind of illegal activity had moved would only be speculation.
“Informally, what we’ve heard is that it is discouraging illegal activity,” she said. “However, it’s pushing that activity into other communities and neighborhoods, so that’s a concern for us and our friends and neighbors who live in those neighborhoods.”
Mike Radzik, the director of police services for Ypsilanti Township, said he couldn’t confirm that the cameras were driving criminals out of the neighborhood, but he said they were in place primarily to serve as an investigative tool.
Sheriff’s Department Lt. Jim Anuszkiewicz said the agency is using the cameras to identify “a number of different situations that come into view,” but declined to offer specifics because the information in sensitive.
The cameras haven’t directly led to any arrests, Anuszkiewicz said, but he called them an effective tool and said it was “just a matter of time before they lead to a solved crime.”
Violent crimes and break-ins were reported to be down earlier in the summer, though there is no evidence that the decline is linked to the cameras' presence. The Sheriff's Department launched a multifaceted campaign to address crime issues in West Willow over the summer months.
Radzik said he expects the Sheriff's Department will provide a report "concerning the value of the system for investigative purposes" by the end of the year. The board will then have an opportunity to review the report and decide the future of the pilot program.
Radzik said the cameras are fixed in place in five locations, cannot zoom, only record public places and do not face any homes. The cameras are wireless, transmit images via cellular service and are attached to DTE Energy-owned utility poles. The camera and its supporting metal pole can be moved and reattached to a different utility pole if necessary.
Radzik said the township would move the cameras if the Sheriff’s Department found they would be more effective or there was a demonstrated need for them in other areas.
The cameras start recording still images upon detecting motion in an area and transmit full color images back to a central computer. The images are selectively downloaded by the Sheriff's Department for investigative purposes. Images not downloaded are over-written by the device every four to five days, depending on the volume of activity, Radzik said.
The cameras don’t provide a live stream and no one regularly monitors the recordings. Instead, police could preview and download the images from a local computer at the police station as needed, Radzik said. Multiple deputies are trained in using the equipment.
Officials previously said West Willow was selected for the pilot because of its high concentration of crime and because it is “defined and contained." The triangular-shaped neighborhood has five entrances and is bordered by I-94 to the west and south; the I-94 service drive to north and west and Wiard Road to the east.
Radzik said he hasn’t heard concerns about privacy issues since the cameras were installed.
Barbash said residents have expressed overwhelming support among for the cameras, but said the neighborhood association is interested in seeing a formalized policy covering their use.
A drafty policy is under review and will likely be adopted soon, Radzik said.
Comments
Angela Barbash
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 3:23 a.m.
We actually didn't request them, Ypsilanti Township officials made the offer. While the cameras might, maybe, possibly help solve a crime one day, I think everyone agrees that our little fledgling neighborhood association that currently owns all of $876 could move $30k far in the right direction. But, that's not the offer that was made. They might be deterring the crime, but more likely it's a combination of forces. When you're in the spot we're in, you don't wait around and beta test one thing at a time. You throw the kitchen sink at it... and the dishwasher.
anti-thug
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 12:46 a.m.
THey should stream this on local T.V for entrainment ,then maybe people will relate with creators of west will like they do with scar-face. Then maybe people wouldn't judge.
Thomas
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
This is not even remotely the same as 1984. The cameras in this neighborhood were not put there by the government for the government. The residents in the neighborhood requested them. You people love to forget that part and start blaming Big Brother. Big Brother didn't give a crap about West Willow. It was the residents that requested the cameras. And there is no evidence that crime has shifted to other neighborhoods. It's just a prevailing theory. One that they are aware of, instead of ignoring, in case it is true. But most criminals like a comfortable area, and most of them are teenagers who need a reason to grow out of it. I'm willing to bet not a very high percentage of what had been going on in West Willow has moved anywhere. Congrats neighborhood!!
whatsupwithMI
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:02 a.m.
While I am in favor of the cameras (and any other deterrent)- how can you tell the criminals apart in the dark?
FredMax
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 8:36 p.m.
e.g. night vision camera for $40 on Amazon, read the product description to answer your quesion: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Infrared-YY_F25A530-Waterproof-Illumination-Nightvision/dp/B0014NMB72" rel='nofollow'>http://www.amazon.com/Infrared-YY_F25A530-Waterproof-Illumination-Nightvision/dp/B0014NMB72</a>
ChunkyPastaSauce
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 12:18 a.m.
I dont get how they are concluding the cameras are doing anything since they are also running a community improvement program in the area at the same time as testing the cameras. Community improvement programs have be previously shown to work while cameras have not. Yet they conclude it's the cameras? Further,interesting the evidence in favor for the cameras is "informally", word of mouth, nothing yet but"just a matter of time" CCTV has previously been shown not to significantly reduce crime because they do not change the overall environment of the community. Crime intense areas are strongly associated with a disconnected community (local neighbors don't know each other and members dont have a relation with the police). $30,000 would be way more than enough to setup a good neighborhood watch programs with a police coop.. which has actually been shown to work because a good program does change the local environment in-addition to reporting potential problems. Also neighborhood watch programs can also stop a crime while it is happening.. a CCTV cant (cctvs wont call the police).
ChunkyPastaSauce
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 2:03 a.m.
">>See DOI: 10.1080 I've seen it. Public housing reductions score "low" in the quoted study; a crime decrease of 7%. Say a high crime neighborhood has 20 shootings a year." You are being disingenuous as it is quite clear that there is no detectable decrease in the US or Canada; it talks about this several times. Either that or you did not read it and only read the abstract. ">> acoustic based (gun shot) but thats not cctv. ...and tied into a Video sytem gives you what? Instant video response to a monitoring station." That is true. You would have to blanket an area with cctvs to be effective at catching anyone though because the odds of a gun shot happening near a camera are low if the cctvs are sparse. "Say a high crime neighborhood has 20 shootings a year. For $30K, we just eliminated almost two per year. A good ROI not even counting reduction in human suffering." 20 shootings is an extremely high number. Further it's unlikely it would eliminate anything since most violent firearm situations are impulsive crimes (cctv studies have been done on this). "1) Vehicle loiter detection; someone at a monitoring station gets an alert and instant video when a vehicle is moving slowly through the neighborhood at very late hours. 2) Human loiter detection; similar to above Both of the above are typical situations occuring during neighborhood crime, and have few false alarms because most non-criminals are inactive during these hours." All of these systems I am aware of require a structured environment. Could you point me to one meant for public streets and not just for parking lots, buildings etc.
FredMax
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.
>>See DOI: 10.1080 I've seen it. Public housing reductions score "low" in the quoted study; a crime decrease of 7%. Say a high crime neighborhood has 20 shootings a year. For $30K, we just eliminated almost two per year. A good ROI not even counting reduction in human suffering. >> acoustic based (gun shot) but thats not cctv. ...and tied into a Video sytem gives you what? Instant video response to a monitoring station. I'll give you two specific to the situation, you can Google video analytics to see alot of more general stuff: 1) Vehicle loiter detection; someone at a monitoring station gets an alert and instant video when a vehicle is moving slowly through the neighborhood at very late hours. 2) Human loiter detection; similar to above Both of the above are typical situations occuring during neighborhood crime, and have few false alarms because most non-criminals are inactive during these hours.
ChunkyPastaSauce
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 4:41 a.m.
"You are badly misinformed. The Video Surveillance market enjoying rapid growth, even in this economy, because it is a very cost effective means of security and asset protection. Feel free to try Google to confirm that." Nope. Although CCTV is effective in a lot of situations it turns out CCTV is ineffective in public residential areas (especially outside of UK) and has an little to possibly insignificant effect on crime in res. See DOI: 10.1080/07418820802506206 Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: An Updated Systematic. which is a meta study which takes 90+ cctv studies. "actually they can, there are many product offerings that provide algorithmic event detection to assist in monitoring large site installs." None I'm aware of outside of plate identification (ex expired), traffic issues(ex speeding, crashes), and possibly facial recognition (ex warrants). The only system I am aware of is acoustic based (gun shot) but thats not cctv. Maybe you can direct me to one that is in use that can detect crime (like stabbing theft drug deal etc) in public non controlled space as I would be interested.
FredMax
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:04 a.m.
"CCTV has previously been shown not to significantly reduce crime because they do not change the overall environment of the community. " You are badly misinformed. The Video Surveillance market enjoying rapid growth, even in this economy, because it is a very cost effective means of security and asset protection. Feel free to try Google to confirm that. "(cctvs wont call the police)" Actually they can, there are many product offerings that provide algorithmic event detection to assist in monitoring large site installs. But the main point is that you are probably lucky if there are people actually spending their time sitting around watching cameras just to see what you are doing.
KeepingItReal
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 8:08 p.m.
One of the problems with using surveillance camera in one area is that it "pushes" crime into other areas of the community. Pretty soon, that area will then want cameras and before you know it, the entire community will be under surveillance. Its too bad the parental and community control has deteriorated so bad. However, shades of George Orwell.
RJA
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.
This is (great news) to my ears!!
John
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 6:35 p.m.
never forget big brother is watching you
racerx
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 6:09 p.m.
Yup. There it is. Pushed the crime from one neighborhood, into another! Oh yeah, this is an effective tool!
Roadman
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
Right. Why not just create "decoy" cameras that do not function but look like operable cameras and - in theory at least - the drug dealers, prostitutes, and other street criminals will flee elsewhere to ply their trade as they will not risk that the camera may be real. Kinda like General Rommel did with tank decoys in North Africa - fooled alot of British Tommys.
SW40
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 5:37 p.m.
Now if we can just get some camera's in south Ypsilanti, Downtown Ann Arbor and a few other hot beds for criminal activity. Hey Roadman, 1984 is a piece of fiction. Perhaps since a lot of people read Harry Potter novels we will all be riding around on broomsticks and castin spells. what a joke.
Roadman
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.
The ECHELON program was no fiction - apparently its okay for the feds to eavesdrop and record every citizen everywhere - and the feds did not tell everybody ahead of time that it would be employed. ECHELON = Orwellian Big Brother; this is a cheaper and cruder local version.
Roadman
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 5:09 p.m.
George Orwell is undoubtedly looking down upon West Willow and smiling that "1984" is finally taking shape in 2011. This is one step toward a totalitarian state. This akin to a "local version" of the ECHELON program implemented by the National Security Agency that U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs-Taylor found was unconstitutional, but later validated by a sympathetic Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. What happens if the cameras catch legal but embarrassing conduct such as an unfaithful spouse in action or an elected official engaged in otherwise inappropriate behavior. Does that mean the vidoetape is saved for posterity fo future "use" against the person taped? Strict policies need to be established at the local and county level to prevent abuses. And by the way - what is a "drafty policy" that is referred to in the last sentence of the article.
Roadman
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.
@djm12652: Judge Diggs-Taylor was an appointee of President Jimmy Carter and took part in the Selma-to-Montgomery march with Martin Luther King, Jr. - certainly someone with annoying "anti-conservative" credentials.
djm12652
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 6:26 p.m.
Roadman...you're concern over non-violent or victimless behavior is difficult for me to understand...if there are cameras out recording in public, my best advice to those you have concern for is simple...don't cheat on your spouse and if you are an elected official, [as well as anyone in life] live an honorable lifestyle and this would be a non issue. I am recorded at work the whole time I'm there and have no qualms about what "might" show up....why? because I know I have integrity, and I am accountable for my actions...And of course Anna-Diggs Taylor would side with any possible or suspected miscreants, liberal as liberal gets.