Citizen acceptance of police interventions: an example of CCTV surveillance in Las Vegas, Nevada

Abstract

Efforts to install crime cameras in public are sometimes met with resistance from segments of the community who raise concerns over personal privacy. Drawing on an example from Las Vegas, NV, this paper explores community acceptance of CCTV cameras placed in a high-crime public location. In doing so, the paper applies a theoretical model that describes the mechanism by which private citizens accept interventions developed by police or other security officials. The paper analyzes specific privacy concerns raised by camera opponents and classifies the methods that police used to address those concerns and gain community support.

Keywords:

• CCTV
• surveillance
• RDFC Interaction Model
• police legitimacy

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. New York City’s ‘Ring of Steel’ alone, for example, utilizes several thousand surveillance cameras in Lower Manhattan to watch over high-risk locations.

2. Increased crime reporting is often a desired outcome; however, this can bias evaluation results – a point we return to later.

3. We recognize the argument of Piza, Caplan, and Kennedy (2014b) who note that the human component of CCTV makes observations possible. As Menichelli (2014) notes, cameras cannot replace officer expertise. Police in this study used the phrase ‘force multiplier’ to convey their ability to monitor more space with fewer resources (e.g. civilians trained to monitor camera activity).

4. These criteria included: crime rate; geographic size; proximity to a major traffic corridor; proximity to casinos/gaming establishments; daily, weekly, and monthly hotels/motels; single-family homes and apartments.

5. This approximates the zone of spatial influence identified more recently by Caplan and colleagues (2011).

6. Basic statistics are reported here to demonstrate the types of data used by LVMPD to inform policy. The WDQ (Weighted Displacement Quotient) was calculated retrospectively (see Bowers & Johnson, 2003). Although the areas are unequal in size, the WDQ is consistently greater than zero when comparing the camera target and catchment location to all three comparison areas (WDQ = 1.3, 1.9, 1.0 respectively). These values suggest both a crime reduction in the target area and a substantial diffusion of benefits (see Clarke & Weisburd, 1994) to the catchment area.

7. To control for a seasonal effect, we performed a similar analysis but instead compared the 20 weeks after the cameras’ introduction to the corresponding 20-week period from the previous year using a paired samples t-test. The results were similar. Calls for service at the camera target location and in the larger experimental area decreased (p < .10). The number was also down at the catchment location, however the result did not reach statistical significance.

8. Like Farrington, Bennett, and Welsh (2010), we hypothesize that a larger decrease might have been prevented due to increased reporting by nearby residents and local business owners aware of the cameras and crime prevention initiative at this specific intersection.

9. Patrol officers reported their opinion that some crime was displaced after the cameras’ installation. However, many believed that offenders moved inside buildings, down alleys, or to other places that could conceal them from public view. While these offenders may remain problematic, one can argue that this type of displacement produced a net benefit for the neighborhood. If offenders are less likely to operate in public view, there is less opportunity for criminal victimization. Furthermore, if offenders are less likely to commit minor offenses such as alcohol and drug use in public, the quality of life of those who use public spaces for legitimate purposes can improve.

10. Of the 23.9% of neighborhood residents (22 respondents total) who agreed that the cameras limit personal privacy, 81.8% reported that the cameras help police make more arrests and solve crime, 77.3% indicated that the city should adopt more cameras, and 72.7% reported that the cameras increased the quality of life for those who live and do business on Fremont Street. Of the 14.0% of business people (6 respondents total) who indicated that the cameras limit personal privacy, 100% reported that the city should adopt more cameras, 67.7% indicated that the cameras had increased the safety of those who live or do business on Fremont Street, and 50.0% reported that the cameras had a positive impact on their business.