Federal Grants Bring Surveillance Cameras to Small Towns

Police Chief Keith Clark of Bellows Falls, Vt. -- population 3,050 -- is told "We need the cameras . . . the kids are bad" by resident Marie Perrault. (By David A. Fahrenthold -- The Washington Post)

On Maryland's Eastern Shore, for example, Ridgely Police Chief Merl Evans got a homeland security grant, funneled through the state, to pay for five cameras apiece in Ridgely, population 1,300, and Preston, population 573. The cameras went up on water towers, at water-treatment plants and in the two small downtowns.

"It was difficult to be able to find something to use the money for," said Evans, who is also temporary chief in Preston. He said because the grants needed to be used on "target hardening" -- protecting infrastructure -- "the cameras fit in real nice."

Spokesmen for the departments of Justice and Homeland Security said they were unable to compile information about how many small-town camera programs the agencies had funded, or how much had been spent.

Privacy advocates said last week that they were concerned that several of the towns have no policies about who or what could be surveilled with the cameras. That's in contrast to the District, where police have agreed to use the cameras only during demonstrations and civic emergencies, and not to arbitrarily monitor anyone because of race or gender.

In the southwestern Virginia town of Galax, for instance, police have no policy for their two downtown cameras and also haven't put up signs alerting passersby that they're being watched.

"What you do in public, you've got no expectation of privacy," said Police Chief Rick Clark.

Many of the police departments had success stories -- license plates spotted, witnesses located or suspects caught through the new camera technology. In Newnan, Ga., for instance, Chief D.L. Meadows recalled a case in which one of his 20 cameras spotted a drug suspect sitting on his front porch, then provided the chief with an electronic view of the arrest.

"I was sitting in my office, and watched him break and run" as officers arrived, Meadows said. "It was great. I mean, I enjoyed it."

But others say too few officers are available to have anyone watching the cameras full time. Instead, the monitors are in front of distracted dispatchers, or not watched live at all -- police look back at the recorded video only after a crime has occurred.

And even then, depending on where small-town lawlessness pops up, the cameras are sometimes no help.

"We have not actually captured any crimes on video," said Capt. William Zbacnik of the Pittsburg, Calif., Police Department, which installed its network of 11 cameras early last year.

Still, Zbacnik said he believes the cameras are worth it.