Interrogation Equipment

[integrator97]

No, not waterboards. I'm working on an add-on at a PD. They're putting in 4 new interrogation rooms (3 suspect and 1 witness). Anyone have any experience as far as equipment for these? The DVR in particular. We're keeping it seperate from the survellance equipment and network. Other than high quality, any other recommendation on how to do this? I was planning on Vicon Kollectors, probably. But if there's something "specific" out there for this type of application, I'd like to know about it.

Also, I've hear there is something for the walls, some kind of "rubber" paint, to knock down the reflections. It's cinderblock and concrete. You want something easy to clean the barf off of.

[CameraMan]

For ease-of-use alone, I have to reccomend Mace's RT3 series over the Kollector, which is a little more difficult to use. 30FPS at D1 per channel, mouse driven with draw-a-box difital zoom, very nice user interface, USB ports, h.264, and dirt cheap. So simple a trained monkey can use it, very nice picture, and long recording times thanks to the h.264. I have an 8 channel for $1439.95, and that's my retail price.

As for the cameras... something unobtrusive yet vandal proof is my advice, with a plexiglass insert for paint or scrachitti or what have you. The Warrior-5 from Videolarm is a flushmount camera built into a junction box. Very nice, and darn near indestructible.

[Rooney]

For ease-of-use alone, I have to reccomend Mace's RT3 series over the Kollector, which is a little more difficult to use. 30FPS at D1 per channel, mouse driven with draw-a-box difital zoom, very nice user interface, USB ports, h.264, and dirt cheap. So simple a trained monkey can use it, very nice picture, and long recording times thanks to the h.264. I have an 8 channel for $1439.95, and that's my retail price. .[/QUOTE]

Agreed easy to use for the law enforcement people.




As for the cameras... something unobtrusive yet vandal proof is my advice, with a plexiglass insert for paint or scrachitti or what have you. The Warrior-5 from Videolarm is a flushmount camera built into a junction box. Very nice, and darn near indestructible.

While installing systems in federal interrogation rooms we installed vandal proof "wedge" cameras in the corners of the rooms (stainless steel housing with lexan window). The type of cameras will depend on ceiling structure. If the ceiling is a drop ceiling with 2x4 or 2x2 tiles making it vandal resistant is harder to do although they do sell vandal resistant wedge cameras for corners.

These are similar to what we installed

http://products.isc365.com/AVCat/CTL3516/index.cfm?pin_id=3516&mlc_id=3720&prodid=388707

(note: I don't recommend or not recommend any supplier. Link is for informational purposes)

[CameraMan]

I like the flushmount because it's less obviously a camera, less so even than the corner moint cameras. For an interview room, unobtrusive is better, imho, because the camera may have an inhibiting effect on conversation. You want the subject to feel as comfortable as possible in order to get the words flowing as smoothly and as quickly as you can. Remember, the primary purpose of the camera in this case is not security but evidence. Just one mic per room, though, obviously.

Also, I recommend getting at least two cameras (and so 2 camera angles) per interview room. You don't want anything to be hidden off-camera, and you don't want to have to interrupt an interview to say "do that again, but over here so the camera can see you". Also, you don't want some lawyer saying "okay, here's were my client was beaten with rubber hoses, but you can't see it because it's off camera" because juries are stupid and will belive almost anything.

[CAPTAIN KOOLAID]

A old school trick. Paint the walls green hides blood in plain sight.
It use be used in hospitals.

[Rooney]

I like the flushmount because it's less obviously a camera, less so even than the corner moint cameras. For an interview room, unobtrusive is better, imho, because the camera may have an inhibiting effect on conversation. You want the subject to feel as comfortable as possible in order to get the words flowing as smoothly and as quickly as you can. Remember, the primary purpose of the camera in this case is not security but evidence. Just one mic per room, though, obviously.

Also, I recommend getting at least two cameras (and so 2 camera angles) per interview room. You don't want anything to be hidden off-camera, and you don't want to have to interrupt an interview to say "do that again, but over here so the camera can see you". Also, you don't want some lawyer saying "okay, here's were my client was beaten with rubber hoses, but you can't see it because it's off camera" because juries are stupid and will belive almost anything.

I agree with you partially on the hidden "value". Our installations were required to be visible so the subject and thier lawywer (if present) had no questions as too whether there was a camera or not. Also, some jurisdictions require you to notify the person they are being taped and voice recorded. So hiding the camera was not required.

[CameraMan]

Not a bad point, Rooney. I didn't think of that.

Lots of places, informing the subject you are recording should be enough.

[Jedi]

I believe that placing a sign on the door entering the room, stating something to the effect of "Video and Audio Surveillance In Use" should be enough to cover the "right to know", without having to expose your cameras.

[integrator97]

Thanks guys. That was fast, so I expect more input. I plan on using the Ganz ZC line of domes. I've used the Ganz brand since it was Konica, 15 years ago, and for performance and reliability, it's what I like. (Owned by CBC, also known as Chugia Boyecki, owner of Computar). I'm not worried about them being hidden, hell, right now they take a portable video camera in.

I like the idea of 2 cameras. I think they will also, if budget allows. They want to record 24/7 so there is no temptation to shut them off and beat the hell out of somebody, and the question can never come up. Anyone know the legality on that?

[Rooney]

I believe that placing a sign on the door entering the room, stating something to the effect of "Video and Audio Surveillance In Use" should be enough to cover the "right to know", without having to expose your cameras.

That should cover it. The client I had wanted them visible because if a lawyer was in the room with the client (lawyer/client confidentiality) they could turn away from the cameras while speaking. They also had us install a red light (small l.e.d. on a single outlet style blank-off cover) that would be on while audio recording. The cameras were on all the time someone was in the room regardless for safety and security.

[CameraMan]

They want to record 24/7 so there is no temptation to shut them off and beat the hell out of somebody, and the question can never come up. Anyone know the legality on that?

I'm almost positive that in mopst jurisdictions beating the hell out of suspects is at least frowned upon :p

Seriously, I like the idea of a light, along with a cutoff switch inside the interview room for audio. Video should be 24/7, and 30 fps so there's no question of interpretation.

[SIW Editor]

Sanyo Case Information Media Management -- not just recording, but case management for documentation. Sounds applicable for your project.

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/article.jsp?id=10849&siteSection=426

Geoff