Using Video Recorders on Client's Property. Any Problems?

[PM Protection]

Hello,

I am new to the forum so pardon me if this has been asked a million times already :cool: .

I have a few clients’ sites where I want to start video recording criminal behavior, or behavior that could LEAD to crimes. I want to know if this is legal in California on property that I am contracted to protect. I have done it as a *sub contractor* for other larger Corporations to gain PI experience but I am not a licensed PI yet. However, we were doing this subcontracting work as “Security Officers” during Labor Strike Forces and all videos were legal and went to court to try to get injunctions on illegal picketing at that site.

My question is, is this legal for myself or my guards to do without violating anyone’s rights? California is the “sue happy” state and so I want to cover all legal bases. Below are a few scenarios on how the recorders would be used. FYI, I am the licensed , insured and registered owner of the company asking the question and wanting to implement the idea.

Example 1:

I have two armed uniformed guards in a restaurant in California and during the bar rush it can get ugly at times. Racial slurs, threats of violence and mayhem and sometimes even threats to incite a riot. Another common ploy is for customers to claim that their rights were violated (often mentioning discrimination lawsuits even though they are intoxicated and out of control) and when LE comes it’s usually our word against theirs and the suspects are just sent on their way only to return on day shift to complain to Management etc. I am considering putting a hand held video recorder on site for special situations. After the events it is always a we said this, they said that scenario to the client and LE. I know that the video and audio would be an easy way to tell both law enforcement and the client the true story and would really help me in several ways.

Example #2. I am working a shopping center and suspects are on site refusing to leave and breaking windows and doing burn outs in the lot. (I won't even get into local law enforcement response time to not life threatening events during bar rush time during this post but let's just say it's not an option to catch them in the act.) So I am now observing vandalism and trespassing at a minimum and I begin recording it all including people, cars and license plates. I know this would really help me and the client would LOVE it but before I implement the program on certain sites I thought I would research the legalities of it. My common sense says it is fully legal but I want to know if anyone can foresee any problems I might be able to avoid. All of us are fully armed with escalation of force equipment and training if it should come to that and of course safety would always come first!

Thoughts?

[Alaska Security]

FWIW, couple bars I go to do exactly that for every ejection from the bar... buddy of mine was too lit, spilled a drink on the dance floor... here comes the goon squad, 5 bouncers 1 trailing with a videocamera... they had videotaped before they even entered the area, and the subsequent "out the door with you"

Saves money when that drunk takes a dive outside the bar, tries to sue, and you have video showing he didn't have a shiner when he left the bar so he must have gotten it outside the bar...

[NRM_Oz]

$200 US is what I saw a SONY tape based camcorder for sale this week but in reality $200.00 is basically the cost of a lawyer so is petty cash compared to a law suit. Not sure how you go with legalities - as in the posting signs of a video recording system inside the premises.

1 do know of 1 club in Sydney who spent more on CCTV than they did on the lighting systems because of liabilities and insurance claims that were well known from the previous operators. 1 thing is, any video camera is useless if it struggles in low light. I recall my very early days in security taking patrons down fire-stairs as the 1 lift operating could be full of patrons from the restaurant and CCTV was just a dream back then.

[SecTrainer]

Hello,

I am new to the forum so pardon me if this has been asked a million times already :cool: .

I have a few clients’ sites where I want to start video recording criminal behavior, or behavior that could LEAD to crimes. I want to know if this is legal in California on property that I am contracted to protect. I have done it as a *sub contractor* for other larger Corporations to gain PI experience but I am not a licensed PI yet. However, we were doing this subcontracting work as “Security Officers” during Labor Strike Forces and all videos were legal and went to court to try to get injunctions on illegal picketing at that site.

My question is, is this legal for myself or my guards to do without violating anyone’s rights? California is the “sue happy” state and so I want to cover all legal bases. Below are a few scenarios on how the recorders would be used. FYI, I am the licensed , insured and registered owner of the company asking the question and wanting to implement the idea.

Example 1:

I have two armed uniformed guards in a restaurant in California and during the bar rush it can get ugly at times. Racial slurs, threats of violence and mayhem and sometimes even threats to incite a riot. Another common ploy is for customers to claim that their rights were violated (often mentioning discrimination lawsuits even though they are intoxicated and out of control) and when LE comes it’s usually our word against theirs and the suspects are just sent on their way only to return on day shift to complain to Management etc. I am considering putting a hand held video recorder on site for special situations. After the events it is always a we said this, they said that scenario to the client and LE. I know that the video and audio would be an easy way to tell both law enforcement and the client the true story and would really help me in several ways.

Example #2. I am working a shopping center and suspects are on site refusing to leave and breaking windows and doing burn outs in the lot. (I won't even get into local law enforcement response time to not life threatening events during bar rush time during this post but let's just say it's not an option to catch them in the act.) So I am now observing vandalism and trespassing at a minimum and I begin recording it all including people, cars and license plates. I know this would really help me and the client would LOVE it but before I implement the program on certain sites I thought I would research the legalities of it. My common sense says it is fully legal but I want to know if anyone can foresee any problems I might be able to avoid. All of us are fully armed with escalation of force equipment and training if it should come to that and of course safety would always come first!

Thoughts?

Paul - we're not lawyers here, and you're asking about an area of law that is in a high state of flux, i.e. privacy rights. Can a property owner use video technologies on his own property? The broad answer is "Yes, but not without restrictions".

You acknowledge that California is a very litigious environment, and the best way to CYA is to seek legal counsel before, not after, you initiate programs that present any measurable legal risk to your company.

[davis002]

An option to consider is the VIDMiC. If you are within the law and company policy, I suggest looking into it. They run about $700, but how much with that "he said/she said" lawsuit cost you? I plan on ordering one soon...

http://www.qualitywireless.com/VIDMIC.php

[Bill Warnock]

Check with your company's legal department first and hopefully they will check with competent jurisdictional legalists on the proper use and installation of CCTV, placement and wording of required signage. Legalists should also mandate time period recorded material must be maintained and where.
Now comes the real challenge, keeping the system up and running and running well. Ensure all your equipment is buffered by quality power conditioning equipment and have property management conduct electrical grounding and bonding surveys. Don't be surprised if you see their eyes glaze over when you make this request. I stress the latter portion because of singed tail feathers.
Regardless of the temptation, never install dummy cameras. You'll loose more than just tail feathers, it will be the part those feathers are attached to.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[NRM_Oz]

All premises in Sydney, Australia with CCTV must display notices and advise staff at their entrance as well as public entrances - this includes night clubs too. It ensures that people know that as a condition of entry they are going to be filmed SOMEWHERE inside the premises. Not sure about the USA rules and regs but I think if there was a notice posted it would reduce any issues with privacy but again each state, county and town could be different of course.

If I wanted to introduce CCTV into a workplace, I have to give the staff 2 weeks notice (last place I did this we did it on the 2 week shutdown which upset the unions and stopped people stealing the company blind in those 2 weeks off). No covert CCTV is permitted without a Judge's consent and you need a valid reason plus 30 days to conduct your investigation before your permit expires.

[bpdblue]

In California, it is a felony to record someone speaking (their voice) if there is an expectation of privacy, and they don't know they are being recorded.

It is not a violation if you tell them, and they tell you not to record them, but you do anyway. Just make sure you get it on tape that they are being recorded (by you loudly stating they are being recorded), and if they don't say anything, so be it. But if they start takling sometime later again tell them they are being recorded, and if they continue talking, you should state that they are being recorded every minute or so, so hopefully they won't try to say you secretly recorded them.

For your info, this section applies to phone conversations, and face to face meetings.

[PM Protection]

Thank you for all the great answers everyone.

On the first scenario at the restaurant they DO have signage that you are being recorded upon entry (at the only entrance doors) but the cameras are worthless and there isn't *any* audio. Furthermore the *exterior* cameras are, well, worthless at night and that is where I would be mainly using them, on private property I am contracted to protect. So I was simply going to provide my own video camera WITH AUDIO primarily for interior incidents that spill outside but there will be times when trespassers just come on to the site looking for trouble, but never enter. My Post Orders clearly state that I am to patrol the exterior too and the Client has dome cameras on the roofs that are antiquated, again, no audio either there outside. So lets say that a fight breaks out inside the restaurant and we (security follow them out and begin recording them smashing windows while announcing every 15 seconds, " This is being recorded as evidence” , and give the date , time and location. They have left the building, does the signage still apply?

Here is another scenario that will no doubt occur if I implement this. I am on patrol in a clearly marked security vehicle and come across a trespasser on one of the sites I patrol. He is cutting into expensive copper wire to steal it, causing thousands of dollars of damage and I record the entire act while announcing my presence in uniform and after gathering evidence and notifying LE, I commence to go and CA him/her (if safe to do so.) Then turn him over to LE with a CA (Citizen Arrest) Form and the tape of the evidence.

Violation of his rights or…. implied public area and no rights to privacy are implied to the suspect?

To be clear I am not in any way asking for any binding legal advice, I am merely gathering the opinions of seasoned professionals to see if this is worth pursuing with my legal Dept and implementing as policy and will form my own decision.

P.S. Thanks for the link on the VIDMiC.

[NRM_Oz]

Due to our privacy laws we are NOT permitted to record any audio on a CCTV camera but I do know of a friend who began recording his ex's new b/f and did tell him he was being recorded before dropping the camcorder which recorded every thing audio wise and a bit of biffo when the b/f attacked my friend. Being an ex LEO he knew to voice everything as "please don't hit me again" which the camera recorded the followup action to.

Our police (only state) are supposed to be getting the new vests with the recording devices like the UK police use in high risk areas - but I may be dead before it ever happens.

[bpdblue]

Yes, I feel you have a great idea about the camera use, so you should contact your legal dept and find out how they want you to do the set up (any extra signs, ect) prior to any incident, and how to proceed during any incident.

[Bill Warnock]

Yes, I feel you have a great idea about the camera use, so you should contact your legal dept and find out how they want you to do the set up (any extra signs, ect) prior to any incident, and how to proceed during any incident.
bpdblue I continue to be amazed at the lack of coordination between various departments in organizations, large or small. When you delve into the matter you find a darth of information on coordination. Digging deeper you learn of "informal" or "verbal approval" which variably was misunderstood or misinterpreted by the security department. I hammer away with the constant theme: "every legal decision is clearly written easliy understood by the least educated member in the security department." Some legal departments have flat stated they do not issue written opinions on such matters for fear of being wrong or being critized by upper management (leadership.) For this intransigence, I place blame at the feet or door of senior most person in the organization. I hope I'm mature and seasoned enough to understand it is harder to get competent legal personnel that it is to get "competent" security warm bodies.
Enjoy the day and Happy New Year,
Bill

[jer6141]

Just speaking from my companies S.O.P., it is punishable by termination if any personnel uses any recording device without an executive from the company giving permission. This doesnt apply if the contract wants things taped, like having a DVR in a contract provided car or cameras on the property but an individual officer carrying any type of recording device is a huge thing for us.

[SecTrainer]

Check with your company's legal department first and hopefully they will check with competent jurisdictional legalists on the proper use and installation of CCTV, placement and wording of required signage. Legalists should also mandate time period recorded material must be maintained and where.
Now comes the real challenge, keeping the system up and running and running well. Ensure all your equipment is buffered by quality power conditioning equipment and have property management conduct electrical grounding and bonding surveys. Don't be surprised if you see their eyes glaze over when you make this request. I stress the latter portion because of singed tail feathers.
Regardless of the temptation, never install dummy cameras. You'll loose more than just tail feathers, it will be the part those feathers are attached to.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Excellent points, Bill. It cannot be stressed enough that once you DO start recording, you will be expected to be able to PRODUCE recordings if they are subpoenaed in a legal action. It will not satisfy the courts to come back and say "We don't have them". (The CIA is now embroiled in potential criminal liabilities for having destroyed recordings, but it is no better to say you lost them or never archived them, either.)

In other words, you can't just start recording. You will need policies and procedures, as well as the necessary equipment, for capturing and archiving the recordings, including the ability to index, search and retrieve recordings if they should be demanded in a legal action. I would not be surprised if your corporate attorney told you that you would need to save recordings for as long as 5 to 7 years.

With the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley and other similar laws in recent years, all entities that use electronic means to record, communicate, or capture information - whether it's by email, instant messaging, Web forums, video, etc. - are required to archive and, if necessary, produce such information. This is a very big deal in the legal world now, and if you will search the phrase "electronic discovery" on Google you'll see the enormous amount of literature and conversation that is going on about this subject. You'll have no trouble finding 1000-page legal tomes that have been published on electronic discovery - i.e., how the lawyer should advise his corporate client on saving information, and, on the other side, how the laywer should file demands for discovery, how to find what he needs in massive piles of electronic data that the demand will produce, etc. Big, big area of law now.

[N. A. Corbier]

SarbOx scares the hell out of me, and if you're a small business owner, it should scare the hell out of you, too.

I do not know if there is a "small business" exemption from it. I don't believe there is. As SecTrainer said, are you prepared to answer a subpoena for emails? Or your internal forums? Or voice mails?

Related, someone successfully got RAM (Computer Memory) admissible. As in, you need to produce a snapshot of your computer's RAM. In that case, it was against a file sharing group (A torrent site) that tried to get around the reporting requirements by simply never saving anything to disk. So, the RIAA and MPAA's lawyers said, "Fine, we want the data in the RAM!"

Did I mention that electronic discovery scares the hell out of me, simply because of how much crap you have to keep around, in archival quality formats, till the end of time?

[SecTrainer]

SarbOx certainly has made an industry out of data mining and mass storage devices, since even the most simple order to produce emails can yield what would be the paper equivalent of multiple boxcar-loads of messages to be reviewed for relevant content. And, naturally, a whole consulting industry has sprung up around SarbOx compliance.

...and no, there's no small business exemption that I am aware of, although I think there might have been some additional grace period for compliance.

So, there's only one thing you can do now: To CYA, AEF (archive everything forever).

And even archiving is just the beginning. The problem actually goes further than that. First, there are the "backup" files that many applications like Microsoft Word create. It can be very challenging to find some of these as some applications operate in almost "stealth" mode in this regard. You've got the email with the final Word document attachment archived off the mail server, but big whoop. What about the "drafts" and "backups" sitting out on the author's computer?

Second, there are other "temporary" files created by various applications. These may be overwritten at some point, but many are persistent enough to be worrisome and could be relevant to a subpoena. Think "Internet Explorer", for instance. So, if the company publishes an intranet database and I access it via IE to run a query, I now have a potentially discoverable file in my browsing file cache.

Making the whole "temporary/cache/backup file" situation worse is that sometimes this stuff isn't even stored as a "file"...it's sitting around in "slack space", which can be thought of in simple terms as unused space "between" files.

Third, there is the whole "distributed platform" model, where bits of information that might be relevant to a subpoena are scattered around in shared apps on potentially hundreds of computers. Some of these computers might actually be "smartphones", PDAs, etc.

...and then, of course, there are all of the portable devices like memory sticks, pocket drives, etc.

Fourth, got IM? You could be caching messages "by default", or someone you're messaging might be. Is an employee using PM or posting relevant articles on a Web forum like this one? This could all be discoverable.

You'd think there would be some "reasonable limits" to what you might be required to produce, but Nate is right about RAM becoming discoverable recently...and if they can ask you to produce RAM images, they can ask for anything. (Actually, the precursor to the demand for RAM images was the demand to produce ROM BIOS/setup information in cases involving computer forensics.)

The problem is that you get a subpoena asking for "all information pertinent to this inquiry, whether in written or electronic format, that is now in possession of (YourCompany)", it won't be good enough to say "We deleted it (you can't, post SarbOx)...it was overwritten (go directly to jail, do not pass Go)...we overlooked data stored there (tough turkey, Turkey)...or in that format (tell it to the hand)..." etc. If you don't find and produce the requested information, excuses won't cut it. You'll be sleeping with the fishes, legally speaking, and may be liable not only for the SarbOx violation, but for contempt of court with respect to the subpoena.

It's a very messy situation for sure!

[N. A. Corbier]

Wikipedia, that bastion of reliable information, says SarbOx is only applicable to publicly traded companies. One can only hope. :)

[NRM_Oz]

Just curious as to the quality of the audio that is going to be recorded. Whilst most audio recording through camcorders, my event video filming days showed me the power of a shotgun mike with a 30 degree field of recording. If we are talking a night club or anywhere with loud music you have nothing worthwhile unless it is post edited by an audio engineer. I arrested a bloke for theft of a patrons wallet (he did it right in front of me) and had to have them shut the music off so I could tell him he was under arrest.

[SecTrainer]

Wikipedia, that bastion of reliable information, says SarbOx is only applicable to publicly traded companies. One can only hope. :)

Wikipedia is, unfortunately, WRONG (http://www.ceridian.com/myceridian/connection/content/1,4268,14722-64559,00.html); this is a common misunderstanding about SarbOx. The reach of SarbOx extends far beyond the "public company" or even privately-held corporations.

I'll quote here from the link above:

Sarbanes-Oxley expands criminal liability to privately held companies

Do you know that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) does not only apply to publicly traded companies?

....it is a crime for anyone to corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate or hide a record with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. The penalty for this crime includes fines or imprisonment up to 20 years. The same criminal penalties apply to anyone who otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.

Congress may have been motivated by perceived Enron/WorldCom conduct, but they omitted any requirement that this misconduct occur in the corporate context in order to sustain a prosecution.

Another section of SOX provides for the same penalties in any case in which anyone "knowingly" alters or destroys records, or falsifies records, with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter involving departments or agencies of the federal government."

These provisions (especially the word "knowingly") would seem to limit liability to what an individual (or organization) does with information after becoming aware that it might be material to a legal action. Not so. The presumption extends to what an individual "should reasonably know might be material" and even to the deliberate destruction of information that an individual "would reasonably believe" WOULD BE injurious, even if there is no present threat of a legal action at that time.

For instance, while perusing your company's email system archives looking for something, you notice that someone in the company has sent an email to another employee that might constitute evidence of collusion to commit fraud in connection with their positions in the organization. Assume that there is no action on the horizon, and you have not been served with any subpoenas. Can you delete that email "prospectively"? Absolutely not! In other words, you may not destroy anything even IN ANTICIPATION that it might be incriminating if discovered.

According to Federal Sentencing Guidelines, in the scenario above, what might save the organization and its executives if a criminal action should arise later, would be taking corrective or mitigative actions IMMEDIATELY upon the discovery of that email, rather than deleting it. This means, of course, launching your own internal investigation, taking disciplinary action against the employees, making restitution to anyone found to have been defrauded by these employees, reporting the matter to authorities AND cooperating with their investigation of the matter. If you were to do that, the court is not only permitted, but directed, to take that into account in determining the criminal penalty that your organization and its executives might face.

The worst thing you can ever do is to cover something up, or destroy evidence. This has always been so in our legal system, not because of SarbOx. What SarbOx does is to vastly expand the legal reach of the notions of what constitutes "coverup" and "destruction of evidence" in the electronic age, imposing the affirmative obligation to ensure that corporate policies and practices do not even inadvertently result in information being destroyed. And, the presumption exists that electronic storage of large amounts of information for long periods of time is not unreasonably burdensome, so it is no longer acceptable to say "We only keep emails for 30 days, Your Honor."

To CYA, AEF...and if you know or suspect that you have evidence of malfeasance in your possession, whether electronic or otherwise, ACT on it, and REVEAL it. There's just no other way to protect your organization.

[PM Protection]

Hi,

A few more details.

This is a procedure that only I would be performing while on special details, I wouldn't have 30 Mini DV's out in the field in other words.

I would be using Min DV tapes with the highest quality Camcorder (not too impressed with any HDD Recorder yet) and would use my best judgement on whether the scenario was quality video evidence or not prior to recording. I quit doing any type of "nightclub" years ago, can't stand them.

So to bring this up to date.

Signage is paramount.
Back-Up and Archiving is crucial
Verbally announcing the recording (such as the FCC landline rules) might suffice.
My boss can't fire me , he and I are one and the same.
Legal advice is highly suggested
This just might be a good idea?

Great answers, anything else please feel free to add. The audio part is what is concerning me. Threats of death being denied later when LE arrives etc.

Seems a shame that Joe Nobody can use a camcorder and video anything he wants and be at the top of the news for weeks, wreaking havoc upon entire cities and departments while highly qualified people have to seek legal advice and dot all i's and cross all t's just to do a job no one else seems to want to do properly in my city.

[Bill Warnock]

Seems a shame that Joe Nobody can use a camcorder and video anything he wants and be at the top of the news for weeks, wreaking havoc upon entire cities and departments while highly qualified people have to seek legal advice and dot all i's and cross all t's just to do a job no one else seems to want to do properly in my city.


PM Protection, while Joe Nobody can carry on with his or her camcorder, what security does will no doubt be subject to intense scrutiny and may be subject to forensic examination and in-turn criminal or civil sanctions against one or more parties.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[SecTrainer]

This is more just for discussion.

The "Joe Nobody" mentioned by PM not only can record video, but audio as well. You and I? Oh, that's different! Even if we can record video, audio is another matter.

With the caveat regarding legal advice in mind, I am curious, especially in "two-party-consent" states, how anyone can assert a right to "privacy" when it pertains to their audible statements made in public or quasi-public places? How do they have any "reasonable expectation of privacy" (the legal principle on which "consent" is based) in such circumstances?

I come onto your property. I steal something, or in some other way attract the attention of your security officers. When they approach, I threaten to kill them. Just what is my "expectation of privacy" regarding my utterances that would "reasonably" permit me to assert a privilege or to raise a claim of invasion of privacy if my words are recorded without my "prior consent"?

Putting it another way: Both the things I do and things I say in public (both my movements and audible speech) are "behaviors". Why can both types of behavior not be recorded if they take place within a space where there should be NO expectation of privacy?

You and I go to case an upscale jewelry store, planning to rob it next week. The camera picks us up as we enter, and everything we do while we're there. What cannot legally be picked up is the audio. Even if it seems unlikely that we would say anything incriminating in the store, remember that most perps are stupid, careless, amateurish, and/or arrogant. They make mistakes, and some of the mistakes they make have to do with their speech - meaning what they say, where they say it, and who they say it to. So sure, if we're typical criminals we might just make incriminating or suspicious statements while we're scoping the place: "Check the rent-a-cop...no gun" or "Can you see the safe?"...etc. If audible, you'd be interested in such statements but nope, you can't.

Self-serve gas station. Your video picks me up as I exit the passenger side and gas up the car. What you can't be picking up on a mike is what I say to the driver as I get out of the car: "Okay, get ready to split the second I jump back into the car." Knowing you can't hear me, I say this loudly enough to be heard. Maybe it's "just" a gas drive-away, but maybe I'm going to rob you before I jump back into the car. Oh well...it's all good. Gas station clerks are a dime a dozen anyway.

I don't get it, so 'splain it to me, Lucy!

[bpdblue]

SecTrainer, as usual, you make a great point.

Unfortunatly, the way laws are written, and are screwed up even more by court decisions, have often left the suspect with more, or better rights than us average good folk.

Points I refer to are situations in courts are where good people have to defend themselves against the bad guys for using force against being attacked, or burglars suing building owners for falling through the building owners roof skylights while committing a burglary at night.

These are unbelievable situations that should not be allowed to go to court, but do, and the bad guys can win.

So the audio taping of bad guys conspiring to commit burglaries, would seem like a no brainer good thing to do, yet (in California, at least) would be a FELONY to do.

It just does not seem right, but what can you do?

[SecTrainer]

So the audio taping of bad guys conspiring to commit burglaries, would seem like a no brainer good thing to do, yet (in California, at least) would be a FELONY to do.

It just does not seem right, but what can you do?

1. Get real high-def video gear, and...

2. Learn to read lips. :D

I'm inserting a smiley-face, but if you have video and can read the lips of someone saying "We're gonna hit this joint Saturday night", or saying to a security officer "I'm gonna kill you", you would NOT be guilty of a felony. This statement is still speech, and is still being "intercepted" by means of electronic technology...but using video technology it's legal whereas using audio technology it becomes a felony in your state?

Hooboy! This is so TOTALLY weird that now I have to insert a frownie-face. :(

[davis002]

I was thumbing through the latest Streicher's catalog I got in the mail, and I found a new body-worn PVR. It appears to be the size and shape of a pager.

http://www.vievu.com/site/images/photos/welcomimage.png

They make a consumer version and a LE version, but I really don't see much difference between the two (other than some special software with the LE version).

Streicher's is selling the LE version for $699.99

Check out the website for more info... I must say it looks interesting.

http://www.vievu.com/

[gixxer32404]

Anyone ever videotaped drug dealers or other criminal activity on a client's site? Anyone ever done this and given it to local LEO's?? This is as security not as an pi? Any problems doing this? (Florida) anyone know of??

[SecTrainer]

Can't think why there'd be any prohibition against it if it's just video, but you'd better be prepared for the consequences. You might have search warrants executed on your site, be called to testify as to the authenticity and integrity of the recording at trial, have your own DVR seized as evidence (although unlikely), and of course there could be reprisals of a particularly unpleasant kind.

I'm not saying don't do it, but just know what you might be getting into.