Law firm claims Richmond Heights violating civil rights with recent camera ordinance

Apr. 12—The Institute of Justice, a public interest law firm based out of Arlington, Virginia, has sent a notice to the City of Richmond Heights claiming that the recently passed video surveillance ordinance requiring businesses to install and allow immediate access to police-approved camera systems without a warrant, is unconstitutional.

The firm said it constitutes a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and it is now seeking business owners or apartment residents who feel that these ordinances are in violation of their civil and constitutional rights.

"Today, the Institute of Justice sent a letter to city leaders in Richmond Heights, calling on them to repeal a pair of Orwellian ordinances that require all business and apartment complexes to install surveillance cameras at their own expense and turn over video footage to police regardless of whether police have a warrant," the news release stated. "These ordinances are a gross violation of Americans' civil liberties..."

The video surveillance ordinance states that all businesses install police-approved camera systems that record, and or live stream directly to the police, the faces of everyone entering and leaving the premises.

Surveillance of the parking lots and the outside of businesses is also required, which is similar to a mandate the city passed in 2021 requiring apartment buildings to have video surveillance. Footage, if not available to live stream to police, would be required to be immediately accessible to police if a crime is reported by an employee or if a crime is suspected.

Institute of Justice Attorney Jared McCain said that his firm views these ordinances as amounting to police surveillance without indication that the cameras would prevent crimes to begin with.

"I think the question we get a lot of the time is 'isn't stopping crime and stopping people on video tape important?' and I think as I've seen in some of these stories in Richmond Heights most of these businesses already have security cameras, they just might not be up to the same quality that is required by the ordinance," McClain said. "If there is evidence of a crime, the police can always get a warrant, that was always an option for them.

"By taking out the neutral magistrate — the check on police authority in that process — it just opens up the system for abuse."

McClain says that these types of ordinances that require police departments to have access to video footage have been seen elsewhere, including in DeKalb County, Georgia, where the Institute of Justice sent a similar letter to commissioners. He said that the gas station owners that his firm interviewed did not see a reduction in police response time.

He said that there was little evidence to show that the cameras had an impact on crime, but since the city requires the businesses to pay for the cameras, there was little incentive for cities to study the impact of installing them.

"We had some that had their own private security guards at the gas stations (in DeKalb County), but they still had to install these cameras just to have police show up after the fact," McClain said. "I think these types of laws make it look like politicians are doing something, and it's at the expense of people's civil liberties and I'm not sure they are accomplishing very much, but the cost benefit analysis is in favor of doing it because it costs the city or county zero dollars."

He said that even if someone is not committing a crime that they will be effectively watched by the police. He said that if people feel uncomfortable, they might change how they live, effectively changing the community and their relationship with the city.

"Let's say you live at an apartment complex, and you are hanging outside," McClain said. "All of your activities are being recorded at all times subject to the police showing up and demanding footage, then it seems like they are pushing people inside.

"I think there are some tough Fourth Amendment questions for whether the government itself can just blanket the city in cameras," he added. "But then to top it off that they aren't even taking ownership of it and forcing other people to flip the bill, it allows them to look like they are tough on crime without actually spending any money and without any indication that this is doing anything to reduce crime."

When asked if the city had seen the letter sent by the Institute of Justice, Richmond Heights Mayor Kim Thomas said at the April 9 City Council meeting that she had not but that there were no plans to repeal the ordinance, and that Police Chief Calvin Williams "has his reasons for having the ordinance."

City Council also recently passed an additional ordinance where the police can declare a property to be a "nuisance property" if three or more nuisance violations accrues within 12 months.

"The city may abate the nuisance by responding to the activity using administrative and law enforcement actions, and the itemized costs of such abatement shall be invoiced to the owner and tenant," the ordinance states.

The ordinance continues to say that if the fees are not paid, a lien would be upon the property, with the fees based on the salary of the police.

"Costs of abatement shall be assessed based upon the hourly wage of the police officer or officers involved in the abatement of the nuisance activity and any other administrative personnel, plus 75 percent, multiplied by the number of hours required to abate the nuisance, along with any legal fees associated therewith." the ordinance states.