NCJ Number
77023
Journal
Police Magazine Volume: 4 Issue: 3 Dated: (May 1981) Pages: 60-64
Date Published
1981
Length
5 pages
Annotation
Beginning with a description of Abscam, the 2-year undercover investigation of bribetaking among U.S. Congressmen, this article describes the growing use of videotape surveillance as an investigatory tool and discusses some civil liberties issues.
Abstract
Although Abscam represented the most spectacular use of videotape in criminal investigations, police have used videotape to record a storefront fencing operation, to record sobriety tests for motorists charged with drunken driving, and to record interrogations to show that confessions were not coerced. So far, this activity has been limited primarily by its costs which can run $14,000 just for the videotape itself. The courts have generally given videotape evidence the same treatment as evidence provided by wiretaps. However, since Abscam, defense attorneys and civil liberties groups have claimed that videotape evidence can be misused by law enforcement and that it raises the specter of 'big brother' surveillance. In most jurisdictions, video surveillance warrants are controlled by Title III of the Federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. However, most video surveillance is conducted without warrants or court orders because the courts have ruled that search warrants are not required in public places, or where the consent of the owner of the establishment is obtained, or where one of the parties to the surveillance consents. Even in these situations, the FBI has adopted policies to guard against abuse. However, Nat Hentoff, a member of the board of directors of the American Civil Liberties Union, has argued that all electronic surveillance is unconstitutional, and in a recent case involving a New York dentist, the dentist's attorney argued that video equipment is not mentioned in the 1968 Federal wiretap statute. Other issues raised by videotaping include the possibility of entrapment, whether it is fair to videotape certain portions of an alleged criminal offense but not others, and the sweeping nature of the surveillance which can involve the names of several 'innocents.' Photographs are included.