Ludington City Government: They See You Poo in Public

[XLFD]

I found a whole lot of surveillance cameras this last week in Ludington public restrooms, fourteen total, twelve hidden.  I would not be surprised if there were more.

 

I went to the Ludington City Hall tonight, August 26, 2013, looking to get the City Hall to quit breaking the law and invading the privacy of our guests and citizens in illegal and illicit public bathroom surveillance.  For having such a quaint notion, I was upbraided by several Ludington public officials, beginning with ZBA/Board of Review member Wallace Cain, continuing with Mayor John Henderson, City Manager John Shay, City Attorney Richard Wilson, and ending with a see/hear/say-no-evil bit by Police Captain Mike Harrie, sitting in for Police Chief Mark Barnett, who was home "watching the movies", if you know what I mean.  The whole amoral bunch will have their ridiculous comments ridiculed when the video from this meeting becomes available (except for Harrie's, whose comments came after the meeting).  Here was the public comment I gave, complete with pictures, and links that are only available here.

 

"Tom Rotta reclining at 137 E Dowland Street. 

 

Tonight I want to discuss criminal law and its implications as regards the continued illegal surveillance of our citizens and our guests in areas where they deserve to have their privacy respected.  It also ties in with my FOIA appeal, which due to an unwritten change of policy in these proceedings, I have not been able to give my side of the appeal at the last few meetings where I have appealed to this body for justice under state FOIA law. 

I humbly ask the city council to re-establish the right to state my case for appeal in FOIA matters, since the City has seemingly proven time and again that they have no interest in transparency by violating the Open Meetings Act and FOIA at will.

 

In the Michigan Penal Code, section 750.539(J) it says:    "A person shall not... Surveil, Photograph, or otherwise capture or record another individual... under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy."   As far as definitions, 'person' can refer to a body corporate, such as the City of Ludington, and "reasonable expectation of privacy" has historically covered bathrooms, even public bathrooms.  When one steps up to a urinal, or one sits on a toilet, he expects to do so with privacy, and should not be able to look up and see a recording camera pointed at his private parts.   This is a felony violation.

 

And this is what happens at the Waterfront Park's men's room.  I set up a ladder and took a picture with my camera placed in front of their illegal surveillance lens and at the same angle and I took this still picture."

"As you can see the toilet and urinal fixtures are plainly visible, as is much of the common areas.  From this angle, the City Government knowingly videotapes a profile of you at the urinal where they can see your 'Johnson'.  Notice you can clearly see the handicap assistance bar around the toilet; that is the same height as most men's private parts. 

But this one camera is not the only illegal camera in the men's room there."

 

"You will notice a vent right above the men's stall where it looks as though a little damage has happened to one of the vertical slats.  A zoom into that particular vent reveals:"

 

[Another view here] "A camera pointing down, discretely recording more bathroom activity.  It is hard to determine where exactly this camera is pointing but its purpose appears to be to record activity where men expect privacy.   But women at the Waterfront Park have 'eyes in the sky too.  They not only have the obvious camera pointing mainly at common areas, they also have a "duct" camera."

 

 

"Here is a faraway shot showing another busted slat in the ventilation."

 

 

"And here is a zoomed shot of the hidden camera in the woman' restroom.  What is the purpose of this hidden camera in the women's restroom pointed down over the stalls?  I can only guess at lewd and lascivious purposes.  But let's take a look at other public restrooms maintained by our City Hall.  Here's the men's room at the North James Plaza:"

 

 

"The break in the ventilation screen is less noticeable, but the camera is obviously there."

 

 

"Once you zoom into the bottom left side, a closer look sees that this hidden camera goes back to the City's locked maintenance room.  The women's side appears to have the same type of well-hidden camera in their duct.

But one could claim that these were put there long ago, by some unknown pervert that once worked for the City.  When we take a look at the new $100,000 men's and women's restrooms in Stearn's north bathrooms, however, we find that someone has put covert cameras in to look at you in your most private moments."

 

 

When you sit down at the first men's stall, you look up and see a hard-wired smoke detector, but this in itself is odd since the original blueprints for this bathroom has the smoke detector's above the stall, and the electrical floor plan...

 

 

"... created for this renovation shows no connection for a hard-wired 'anything' in that area.  But when we take a zoom into this "smoke detector..."

 

 

"... you see some camera lenses pointed at you and your crotch.  You then go to the second stall:"

 

 

"And again see the 'smoke detector'.  But guess what?  It sees you too!"

 

"What an infringement of your privacy!  But seriously, could the City spend money on such things as smoke detector cameras?  Yup, as seen by this receipt here."

 

 

"The first item is a color smoke detector camera purchased in 2000.  And how did I get this document?  A FOIA request for the invoices of the purchase of the Waterfront Park security cameras.  Not too surprisingly, the hidden ventilation cameras were not part of the invoice.  [My time was up at this point, I continue with my prepared statement.] DPW Director and Ludington School Board member Shawn McDonald was the contact for these purchases.

The women's bathroom at Stearn's Park also has a smoke detector camera able to look at each of the stalls there.  Remember, the renovation was done earlier this summer."

 

"This is the first stall's close-up view."

"This is the second stall's close-up view."

 

"And this is the third.  All shots were taken while sitting on the toilets.  Whenever you sit in this restroom, you and your privacy is invaded by one or more people at City Hall, with approval from the highest authority.  And is there a public interest in this privacy invasion?  I'd like to hear it, and I invite the police chief to come with me after the meeting to further look at these cameras and discuss the implications of their placement."

For more photos and analysis (added 8-29 at 7:17 PM):  supplementary-photo-pack-ludington-sees-you-poo-in-public

For an explanation of what those odd devices in Stearn's Park really are, check this out (added 8-30-2013 at 7:45 PM):  some-relief-for-the-understandably-paranoid-folks-in-ludington

[XLFD]

Explain again why the bathrooms in question don't have "cameras in use" signs and utilize hidden cameras.

[Dave]

You are of course missing the part where they CAN see inside the stalls.... so EVEN if your INSIDE a stall, they can still SEE you... that is why this is an issue. If the cameras were just aimed at the common areas (sinks and so forth), I doubt there would be an issue... the fact that the cameras can look into 'private' areas of the restroom though is cause for concern. 

[Jason]

They make money using the video for producing porn and selling it.

This is completely illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest. Expectation of privacy is being violated here. I would stay out of this restroom, and put signs to stay out. also mention that anything people do inside will be video taped and put all over the internet on some twisted city government employee's website. ----

This is how they're making money, porno... I knew it. sickos'..

[Scott]

This is just the beginning of our loss of freedoms and privacy. There are cameras in many back alleyways of Ludington as well ( and have been for over ten years ) and they are not situated in a manner to deter break-ins, vandalism, etc. They are set up to monitor people. Period. If they wanted to stop a large portion of crime they would equip the police with cameras; Googleglass is just one example, and there are cheap and reliable alternatives as well. It would cost at most $500 per officer. Who wouldn't want a neutral observer recording them on such a job? It would provide 100% rock solid evidence, and would protect them from false prosecution, accusations, and much more. Instead they want to pay for High Tech Peeping Toms. Sad.

[XLFD]

Going bathroom is something they aren't supposed to be doing?  How would you feel if a policeman came over to your house to take a video of you on your toilet right after you had that wet burrito platter.  Would you really like the whole world seeing you do this when it gets posted on video? 

 

[XLFD]

Once more facts are gathered, the ACLU may be a good route to go to fight this obvious invasion of privacy.  CA Dick Wilson is well known around these parts for not being very accurate with the law, but being very consistent with the verbiage of deception.

[XLFD]

The City's digging a much deeper hole for themselves according to today's City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews).  They claim the "smoke detector" down at Stearn's north restrooms is a humidity detector/monitor for the fans down there instead of a hidden camera.  Having done extensive searches on 'humidity detectors', 'moisture detectors' and 'humidity monitors', there is nothing that comes close to looking like the above pictures. 

Feel free to search the web and wherever else to validate or invalidate that claim.  Meanwhile, there is a FOIA request I have sent about 18 hours ago requesting the particulars behind these two 'detectors'.

[XLFD]

Here is an article from Oakland (Michigan) University, the alma mater of Ludington City Manager John Shay and Police Chief Mark Barnett which says:  "Twenty-four states, including Michigan, have specific hidden camera laws, according to the site. Many states require a notice or posting that there is surveillance equipment in a specific area.

Upon posting of surveillance notification, those filmed are consenting to the recording. And unauthorized installation or use of hidden cameras is a felony, which is punishable by a $2,000 fine and up to two years in prison in some states, the site reported.

Other unlawful acts of surveillance include what is termed as lewd surveillance or capturing lewd or compromising photographs of a person when he or she is entitled to privacy, such as in store changing rooms or public restrooms. This is a felonious crime and those convicted could face two years in prison, a $2,000 fine or both."

http://www.ounewsbureau.com/?p=848

Oakland University must be really proud of these guys nowadays.  Check out Fox 17 tonight at 10 PM, they should have a piece on this controversy, they were in town earlier today, and contacted me.  I don't know how they plan to go with it, but we have a lot of officials saying it's a great thing to have these cameras here.

[XLFD]

The content of this is getting to a large segment of the internet, we've got over 33,000 page hits just on this article as of this time.  I hope we can keep some of those people interested long enough for when we find out the truth about the Stearn's Park "humidity detectors" over the next week. 

So far, the only news outlet that has bothered to talk to me is FOX 17, and they also came to town, so even though I think they edited out some important stuff there, I see them as a fairer news outlet than one that has just contacted the City Hall, and took their word over mine.  Or even one that just goes by my article alone without doing some vetting over my past work. 

[masonco]

This thread is all over facebook

[Steve H.]

In FL, you would be able to obtain all the video surveillance footage on a public records demand and they would have to give it to you. That would be pretty hilarious putting that on line. Love to see the videos of the public meetings with the "officials" trying to explain this.  

And why is it necessary to hide the cameras? Don't you want the people who you are trying to deter from certain behaviors to stop and know that the cameras are there? The only reason for hiding them is because you are the perverts. 

[XLFD]

The reason City Manager John Shay denied me my FOIA request for unedited video was that he was concerned that there would be an invasion of privacy if they didn't go through and edit the tape themselves.

Hello... the privacy has already been invaded by the 24/7 taping of the urinals and toilets over a period of many years.