Fake security cameras may create liability risk
The Palm Beach Post
By Ryan D. Poliakoff—The Condo Consultant
01 April 2017
Question:
This question is regarding the installation of security cameras around
our condominium’s property. We started talking about installing
additional security cameras last year, and at every board meeting
since. But, no final decisions were made.
All of a sudden, this year we noticed a company installing cameras, and
the owners generally approved of the decision. But, after the
installation was finished, one of our owner’s vehicles was broken into.
When the person went to the office to look at the security cameras to
see if he could determine who broke into his car, he was told that all
of the new cameras were fake, and only one camera on the west side of
the property was real. No one knew about this except for three of the
board members, who are now trying to blame the other two board members
(whom they never include in any of the board decisions or meetings).
What can be done about this? Some of the women in this condominium walk
around at night thinking that it is now safe here, because we have
security cameras, when we actually do not.
Signed, W.C.
Answer:
It’s likely that this decision by the board was well-intentioned — they
presumably believed they were implementing an inexpensive security
boost that would discourage criminals. In fact, fake (or “dummy”)
security cameras are usually not a great idea.
First, the cheap ones are easy to detect, and, even with very good
ones, an experienced criminal who discovers that they are fake will be
emboldened to commit crimes on the property, knowing that the “boots on
the ground” security is likely minimal.
Second, and more important, installing fake security cameras creates a
liability issue. Let’s assume, for example, that a resident or guest
decides to travel outside the building in areas that appear to be
protected by cameras, but he or she is attacked. When they find out
that the cameras are fake, they are going to sue the association
claiming they relied on the cameras, and the appearance of safety they
created, in determining where to walk, and that it was unreasonable for
the association to create a false sense of security — a negligence
claim.
Third, fake cameras do not provide the significant benefit of recording
incidents, both criminal and otherwise, that may allow the association
to prove it acted reasonably, or to demonstrate that a person who
claimed to be injured on the property was not actually injured in the
manner he or she claimed. In our practice, we use security camera
footage in slip and fall incidents, dog bite cases, vandalism. They are
extremely helpful in resolving both serious and minor disputes.
Last, arbitrators have held that the installation of security cameras
constitutes a material alteration that would require membership
approval. So, the board probably did not have the right to proceed with
this project in the first place.
The best course of action at this point may be to remove the dummy
cameras, chalk this up to an error in judgment (we all make such errors
from time to time), and move on with a real camera project if desired,
supported by the membership and funded by a special assessment. The
benefits of real cameras are significant, and the small deterrent
effect created by the dummy cameras is outweighed by the other
significant negatives.
top contents
appendix
previous next