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