If residents in Seymour’s parks feel like they are being watched in the near future, they might be right.
The Board of Selectmen Tuesday approved a bid waiver for OMNI Data, LLC out of Woodbridge to install cameras to monitor Main Street and Seymour parks.
The cameras will be monitored from the dispatcher room at the Seymour Police Department.
The cameras were something sought by Police Chief Michael Metzler in response to two bank robberies in the area and a vandalism streak.
Metzler did have to alleviate some fears that monitoring people, especially in the parks, could be viewed as an invasion of privacy.
“I’m going to have a lot of time on my hands to be at the parks,” said First Selectman Robert Koskelowski. “I want to make sure I’m not being monitored all the time.”
His concerns aren’t just for himself.
“I feel like if I am playing with my grandchildren up at French Park I don’t want people watching them,” said Koskelowski.
Despite his concerns, Koskelowski was in favor of the cameras and the bid waiver.
Metzler said the only constitutional issue with the cameras on public property would involve microphones. No one is permitted to record a conversation without the knowledge of those being recorded.
Without sound recording abilities the cameras are perfectly legal and not by definition an invasion of privacy.
The cameras and incorporated monitoring system, including a 42-inch split screen panel at the police department, will be funded by a $30,000 law enforcement block grant and another $10,000 from the town.
While there was more than one bidder for the project, the others weren’t viewed as reasonable in lieu of the requirements. OMNI Data agreed to install the cameras for the $40,000 set aside. With the bid waiver, installation can begin immediately.
“I would like to see it all finished by February,” said Metzler.
OMNI Data has installed similar systems in other Connecticut communities, including Milford, according to Metzler.
Once the system is installed and running, there are some plans to allow local businesses to tie into the system. While the specifics still have to be ironed out, Klarides Village was one location mentioned as showing interest.
However some members of the board bristled at the notion under concern for town liability if a monitored business were to be robbed. Town Counsel George Temple acknowledged that the concerns weren’t unreasonable.
“I could envision lawsuits,” he told the board. “If a business gets broken into and the camera is off, and then they claim they are reliant on you.”
Metzler said any policy involving the cameras at private businesses will be written in such a way as to make sure the business owner knows the police are not providing 24-hour surveillance nor are they responsible to do such.
The cameras will simply be a tool to help identify criminals and, if a dispatcher happens to see something awkward while doing normal reviews of all the cameras, help provide a more rapid response. The notion of liability is therefore largely misunderstood according to Metzler.
“If we see something, we’ll respond to it,” said Metzler.
There will not, however, be someone dedicated to watching all of the cameras, public or private. Nor will the police department be hiring a new position to monitor them.
In the parks, some of the cameras may be equipped with motion sensors and night-vision. A system may be in place to alert the dispatcher if a dormant camera suddenly switches on due to motion. In the future, it may be possible to patch a live feed from the camera into an officer’s squad car so he or she can review while enroute to the situation.
“The system itself is going to be designed for expansion,” said Metzler.
One of the areas needing review will be how long the recordings are kept on file. Metzler tossed out an estimate of one month, but said they would have to really look and see what was reasonable while taking storage space under consideration. The files will be stored digitally.
Temple noted that especially where businesses that might become litigious are concerned, they might need to hold the data for significantly longer.
Despite assurances against invasion of privacy and liability concerns, there was one thing Metzler couldn’t promise against: vandalism to the cameras themselves. While designed to be sturdy, they aren’t impervious.
“If someone wants to take a shot at one,” he said, “Well, of course, that will damage it.”
