Chief Mark Barnett: Hindering Public Investigations, pt. 3, Marina Records, Uncensored

[XLFD]

In part 2 of this series, I intimated that there would be a part three telling about what I was prohibited from saying at the City Council  Meeting on June 25  Marina Records, Censored :  "But that was censored from the meeting, and I was re-censored when I tried to adapt it into a question they had of me about the 'public interest' copies of such records would serve. That uncensored material sounds like the makings of another thread." 

A brief recap if you already read that thread or just glanced through it, or didn't go back to the original thread included there as a link.  I was allowed to come to the Ludington Police Department (LPD) to review marina surveillance cameras showing what happened on the night that Lingyan Zou turned up dead in the northeast section of the marina's water, as per a FOIA request I made.  I was given a stipulation that I could not make any screen shots, print any copies, etc., and when I arrived there, not even make any audio or video recordings of the premises.  I reviewed the two marina based camera's footage for that evening, and both sides acted amicably during that visit to LPD. 

But I appealed the restriction on my not being able to make copies, and went before the City Council to argue the point.  Unfortunately, I belabored some of my early points and ran out of time before I could drop a bombshell, and so just read my summary, which mentioned something about criminal litigation, in my wrap up.   Here is what was left out, pictures, and a brief explanation of the crime.  Uncensored.  [Italics denote what was already read into the record, left for clarification.]

 

I was given no basis of the denial other than Chief Barnett thought it "would undermine the effectiveness of the security system by showing the field of view and perspectives of the system. It would also reveal what is not monitored. The effectiveness of the system is enhanced by the notion that "everything is covered"."

As having prior experience as a security officer, the Chief's argument is specious and not supported by statute or the act. A security system is not meant to be static and reactive, but dynamic and proactive. If he feels dissemination of this information will compromise the effectiveness of it, then change around the system at times. But I got to thinking, why would Chief Barnett be reluctant to even allow a 'screen shot' from these cameras?

One of the two cameras that we reviewed was stationary and pointed at the 'D' and 'E' docks where there was absolutely nothing of interest as regards marina security...

...to observe.    Why was this camera pointed at marina slips, when it could have been pointed at the perimeter of the marina, and thereby have recorded what happened to the young lady who lost her life there?  As it is, the camera is only violating the privacy of those who purchase the marina slips on D and E docks, not recording anything of relevance to security of the marina.

          This view, taken about 6-10 ft. lower than the surveillance camera, shows the vantage of the camera above.

Most of us do not own boats, so consider if you go to a public campsite.  You could expect the campground to have a camera to monitor traffic going into and out of the campground.  But would you be comfortable with 24/7 surveillance of your campsite with everything being recorded while you are staying there-- without your knowledge that you are being recorded?  But that is what's happening at the Ludington Municipal Marina. 

Whoever is docked at the D or E pier is on tape all the time they are there, being recorded at all times, without their knowledge.  I checked this out informally over the weekend.  I asked a couple of people at those slips who didn't know they were on camera, and saw that there was no mention of this intrusion on privacy in the paperwork of the purchase of the slip. 

Michigan has some strict rules to protect the privacy of its citizens.  The Penal Code MCL 750.539d section 1 states that "a person shall not  (a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place. 

The law defines a “Private place” as a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, which one would presume would be a marina slip that they have paid a lot of money for.  The violation of this law is a felony.

Violating the FOIA by not allowing the people the right to make copies of these public records is a civil violation that sets the City up for more litigation when the courts eventually find the refusal as an arbitrary and capricious neglect of their duty.  If you vote to uphold the FOIA Coordinator's decision you will be not only be on record as denying the people the rights under FOIA, but also set the City up for further civil and criminal litigation.

[End of Appeal]

 

Police Chief Barnett should be well aware of this law and its implications.  These images are received by the LPD from all over, downtown, the beach, the marina, and most of the publicly placed cameras are set up so as not to interfere with the enjoyment of a private place.  This fixed camera isn't. 

There is no security purpose for this camera pointed at marina slips, and so, Mayor John Henderson, if you are looking for the 'public interest' angle on this particular FOIA request/appeal (without having to bring up the fact that we could be sure of what would have happened to Lingyan if this camera was pointed 60 degrees counterclockwise from its current angle) you need look no farther than to say that the LPD and the Municipal Marina Board are wasting a $4000 camera for the felonious surveillance and recording of the private lives of boaters who stay at the Municipal Marina instead of for a valid security purpose. 

[Willy]

Good points X. The only thing that would be reasonable to consider is the camera observing potential thieves who may try and enter some of the boats but with all the people coming and going It would be difficult to determine who does or does not belong there.

[XLFD]

Yes, this could record a potential crime on any of these boats, and maybe some boaters might like that aspect of being at that slip because of that.  But if you don't tell even those boaters and their visitors that they are under surveillance and being recorded 24/7 at their expensive slip, you are violating their privacy and the law.  

If the owners of a hotel had hidden cameras in your room, and didn't tell you about it, you would likely be kind of upset when you found out about it, even if they did nab a thieving maid because of it. 

 

[XLFD]

I asked primarily to find out if they were made aware of the cameras trained on them, not to stir them to action; I effectively downplayed the situation.

One had noticed the camera pointed in their general direction, and wasn't necessarily too surprised they were being surveilled continuously.  They basically thanked me for the knowledge, and implied it was no big deal either way.  They were never told about it.

The other I contacted was unaware of the camera and a little more concerned and had planned to meet with the marina manager to ask more about it/complain.  But they were preparing to go out of town and come back again the next weekend (it was Sunday).  So for all I know, the City and Marina may still be unaware of it, until they read about it here on the Torch. 

[AQUAMAN]

I think the COL/LPD can and will say that it's a "public facility", not private, and as such, are exempt from the rule. Had they monitored a private marina with cameras, then we would have a sure infraction. As it stands now, I don't necessarily agree with the cameras there, but it's probably a moot issue, already been there for years, and no one has complained yet, and ruling with an iron fist is first and foremost for Ludville. What I'd like to know is who is reviewing these daily videos, how much time and money is it costing us, and what if any benefits have been derived from such surveillance so far, any?

[XLFD]

But why should public and private facilities be any different?  If you had a surveillance camera in the Michigan State University girl's locker room (a public university) why would it be different from a camera at the same private college's facility?

The only difference I see is that the person responsible will be a public employee/official in this case, whereas it would be a private individual otherwise.  The COL/LPD can call it anything it wants to in order to avoid the penalties-- we have seen that.  But what it is, is... what it is.  Illegal, and in need of correction.

[AQUAMAN]

Ok then X, just to be the devil's advocate, how about the cameras they mount all over on top of stoplights? It's a public road too, but we are all being spyed upon daily with these wherever you go for some years too. Invasion of private rights, probably, but how many care and what are they doing about it of recent? And how did they come to be in the first place if it's illegal? Surely some attorneys saw this long ago, and probably had some court cases on them, so what was that outcome, if any?