1. HIGH PLAINS READER | October 18, 2012 | HPR1.COM6
By Brittany Negaard
Staff Writer
If you've been walking down NP Avenue
recently, you may have noticed a new addi-
tion downtown: Police Surveillance Cameras.
On August 21, three cameras installed by
the Fargo Police Department began recording
activity on the Block of NP Avenue between
Broadway and Roberts Street.
When Sgt. Jeffrey Skuza first announced his
idea for adding cameras to downtown Fargo
last March, he was met with a mix of praise
and criticism. The F-M Freedom Fighters
(fmfreedomfighters.com) is one community
group that has been actively opposing the use
of cameras, citing an invasion of privacy.
Despite privacy concerns, the FPD still
believes this is an important tool in stopping
crime. Skuza is the District Commander for
North Fargo, putting the downtown area is his
jurisdiction. The cameras are a response to a
100 percent plus increase in crime over the
last year in the downtown area, according to
Skuza.
Skuza wanted to get approval from the
downtown community before any cameras
went up. While initially no businesses were
ready for the cameras to go in, at the end of
the summer, business owners on NP Avenue
approached Skuza about the possibility of
cameras.
The business owners felt surveillance would
help deter some of the crime that Skuza says
has nearly doubled in the last year. Crimes of
concern include vandalism, thefts, and graffiti.
“We've had a big theft increase,” says Skuza.
To get a better picture of why this has
become such an issue for debate among the
community, both in and out of downtown
Fargo, HPR sat down with Sgt. Skuza as well
as Anthony Gehrig, who is running for Fargo
City Commissioner and has been outspoken
about his disapproval of the cameras.
The FPD cites the need for cameras down-
town based on crime increases in the last year,
namely in the downtown area.
“We've had over 100 percent increase in
criminal mischief this year downtown. It's just
out of hand,” reports Skuza.
Gehrig disagrees that crime is the real rea-
soning behind the cameras.
“I dispute that there is a “crime wave”
downtown given the FPD’s own statistics from
2007-2011 … Crime has steadily decreased on
“Beat 11” which encompasses downtown. In
fact, 2011 was as low as crime has been in five
years and the first news article about down-
town surveillance was published in March of
2012, crime was still low. The only conclusion
I can come to is that these cameras have little
to do with crime,” Gehrig says.
While there is some dispute over whether
crime has truly increased downtown, Skuza
believes that the cameras themselves are a
deterrent for potential crimes being committed.
Skuza says crime has decreased from being at
a 130 percent increase to a 40 percent increase
since the cameras have received publicity.
Gehrig would counter that argument and
draw a simple comparison to situations where
cameras do not seem to prevent crime.
Consider Stop-N-Go stores, which have been
hit by numerous burglaries in the last year in
Fargo. Gehrig says cameras do little to stop
crime.
“Now speaking to the effectiveness of the
cameras, if cameras outside of stores prevented
or solved crimes, why haven’t downtown own-
ers already put these cameras up? ... Everyone
knows that Stop-N-Go has cameras. Why
haven’t their cameras stopped crime? The
answer is simple -- cameras in many cases
don’t stop criminals from committing crimes,”
Gehrig says.
While the police cameras are Sgt. Skuza and
the FPD's idea, he doesn't want the community
to think he's put these cameras up for no rea-
son, without support of any of the area busi-
ness owners. For Skuza, installing cameras
must meet two criteria: first, they must be
located in an area where they can legitimately
prevent crime, and second, there must be a
public interest in having cameras. That public
interest came in the form of business owners
coming to him to ask for help to prevent crime
on NP Avenue. Only one business requested
that their windows on the surveillance cameras
be blacked out on recorded footage, that busi-
ness was Fort Knox.
Yet some believe it is not the community's
responsibility to pay for surveillance for local
businesses.
“If I want surveillance at my house or busi-
ness, I have to pay for it. This is nothing more
than a subsidy, and it sets what I think is a
dangerous precedence,” Gehrig says.
The cost for installation of the three cameras
was about $10,000 according to Skuza. These
cameras have a number of advanced features in
their ability to detect what could be crime. One
camera is stationary, and the other two can
zoom in on activity on the block. One zoom
camera watches eastward from the corner of
Roberts and NP, the other, westward from the
corner of Broadway and NP. The cameras are
programmed to detect motion, and can high-
light when it occurs to be viewed later.
The cameras also use infrared technology
and facial recognition software to make catch-
ing crimes even easier. While this surveillance
system is better than your run-of-the-mill cam-
era, it still does not replace officers altogether.
“It's still not as good as having a police offi-
cer sitting there,” says Skuza.
Besides the cameras being installed, Skuza
says the FPD has scheduled more officer
patrols at night, when the crime problem
seems to be happening the most.
The camera's software has times of elevated
crime activity highlighted on the footage to
make it easier for an officer to go back and
look for any suspicious behavior. But no one is
watching the camera's 24/7. The footage is
mainly used as a reference to any crimes being
reported, and the hard-drive storage for the
cameras can only keep footage for about ten
days after it was filmed. This should leave
enough time for someone to report a crime
happening, and allow for the police department
to check the footage.
Gehrig sees this as an invasion on civil liber-
ties.
“The Fourth Amendment tells me that I
can’t be under surveillance from the govern-
ment without a warrant. Now if a private busi-
ness owner wants to put cameras inside or out-
side of his property, that is perfectly acceptable
and prudent. However, the city does not have
that authority,” says Gehrig.
Skuza says the downtown community
shouldn't worry about feeling like they are
being watched unnecessarily.
“Anyone who works or lives downtown can
come in ... I will take them them through and
show them first hand how it works,” says
Skuza of the surveillance system.
It will take some time to really determine if
these cameras are a deterrent to crime in the
downtown area, but Skuza says they have
worked in other communities. He spoke with
law enforcement in Minneapolis, Houston and
Chicago who had similar systems.
Their response to surveillance systems has
been positive.
“It has really suppressed crime,” says Skuza.
Gehrig says this has not always been the
case. “Bigger cities around the country have
tried this, making the same claims that the
FPD has made: City run surveillance will stop
crime, will catch criminals if crime does hap-
pen, and will make downtown Fargo safer, but
the data from these cities doesn’t back up
those claims. Studies done by the ACLU in
San Francisco for example have debunked this
theory.”
Skuza has seen studies that report cameras
to not be effective. His response to this count-
er-argument is simple. “It's a tool. It all
depends on how you use it,” says Skuza.
For the the Fargo community, only time will
tell how this system will be used, and whether
or not it is actually effective and worth our tax
dollars. In the meantime, community members
have the ability to voice their opinion on the
issue by contacting their local government, and
voicing their opinion through letters to your
local news publications.
Questions and Comments:
brittany@hpr1.com
The Camera Controversy