Video surveillance – the legal side of the coin. Part 2.
Continuation of the article: Video surveillance – the legal side of the coin. Part 1
The state and the private sector are intensively using the latest video surveillance tools in various circumstances and for various purposes.
Despite the obvious benefits of video surveillance, everyone who carries it out must be clearly aware that there is only video surveillance provided by legal grounds.
In the first part of the article, we looked at how to comply with the legal norms of video surveillance at an enterprise, in an office.
Many users of video surveillance are also concerned about the question of whether video recordings from surveillance cameras can be evidence in court.
What conditions must be met for this.
The answer of lawyers on this issue is unambiguous – yes, it can. Let's turn to the Law.
The Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO).
Article 26.2. “Evidence” of the Code of Administrative Offenses states that “Evidence in a case of an administrative offense is any factual data… that is important for the correct resolution of the case.”
Article 26.7. “Documents” states that documents are recognized as evidence, and these “may include materials from photo and film shooting, audio and video recordings, information bases and data banks, and other information carriers.”
Article 55 “Evidence” of the Civil Procedure Code directly states: “…This information can be obtained from explanations of the parties and third parties, testimony of witnesses, written and material evidence, audio and video recordings, expert opinions…”
In the same CPC, the possibility of using a recording as evidence is enshrined in Articles 77 and 78.
The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation tells us the same thing in Articles 64, 89.
The Criminal Procedure Code mentions audio and video recordings as evidence in Article 84 “Other Documents” and several other articles.
Thus, in any case and in any court, video recording is evidence. There are no exceptions for digital recording in the law.
But! Article 26.2.
Evidence says that information obtained in violation of the law is not evidence. This means that, as in the case of video surveillance at an enterprise, all legal norms of video surveillance must be observed.
Namely, all participants in the recording must be notified that video surveillance is being conducted.
The most common and controversial is the use of video recording as evidence in case of an accident, as well as in all emergency situations on the road, including communication with traffic police officers. Also, video surveillance will help protect yourself from fraud.
In addition, video surveillance systems have become an indispensable attribute of other types of land, water and air transport.
The general concept of requirements for vibration resistance, energy efficiency, and temperature control allows them to be combined into one group. All these features are taken into account in the Acumen line of car DVRs.
The 4-channel Ai-D147M DVR and the 8-channel Ai-D187M DVR are designed in a compact case resembling a car radio. Thanks to this design, the DVR is easy to place in a vehicle and is also convenient to operate; if necessary, the DVR can be easily removed to view the video archive and put back.
Also, video surveillance in transport should be provided with a system for reliable storage of a large volume of recorded information and devices for transmitting data to a remote computer for analysis.
Acumen car recorders use advanced H.264 compression technology, which allows for the most efficient use of the provided memory volume, while maintaining a high level of image quality, which is important when presenting the recording to the court as evidence.
When considering cases of administrative violations on the road, you can provide any evidence relevant to the case, including a recording made by a car video recorder.
This right of yours is enshrined in the Code of Administrative Offenses. But it is necessary to comply with a number of conditions:
1) It is necessary to declare the presence of recording video equipment in your car at the scene of the accident. Otherwise, even the most eloquent and high-quality recording will be extremely difficult to link to specific events.
2) If you decide to defend your innocence in court, remember that a video recording alone, even of the highest quality, is a weak argument: the recording must have legal status! And it will be accepted for consideration only if it is authentic, directly related to the case and obtained legally.
How can this be verified?
According to the documents!
Namely: the fact of the presence of video information and its removal from the scene of the accident must be reflected in the police report. For the judge, this means that the owner of the recorder could not change or remake the recording. If the video evidence emerges after the fact, then there is much less trust in it!
Politely but persistently ask the inspector registering the accident to write down the brand and model of the video recorder, the method of its installation and the orientation of the video cameras in the report.
The type of storage medium and its characteristic features (for example: “SD memory card, blue color with a scratch in the form of the letter “v”) should also be recorded on paper.
It is important that the time on the recording matches the real time (so make sure the clock in the device is set correctly!) and it would be even better if the storage device is seized in the presence of witnesses – this will increase the weight of the evidence base.
Before giving the flash drive to the inspector, it is better (in the presence of the same witnesses) to seal it in a suitable envelope.
What to do if a traffic police officer refuses to record the fact of the video recording? Then write about the recorder in your explanations. And before signing the protocol on the administrative offense, reflect in it the inspector's refusal and your disagreement with this.
And finally. During the trial, you must be prepared to give explanations regarding the operation of the “black box” and provide the court with devices (a laptop with software, a PDA or a portable video player) for playing the recording.
The benefits of video surveillance have long been beyond doubt. However, everything useful must not only correspond to the benefit of those in whose interests the video sequence is collected and processed, but also correspond to the rights of those who are the object of surveillance.
P.S. Returning to the topic of car recorders.
Often, when installing additional equipment on your own, an official car dealer removes the car from the warranty, which is a violation of consumer rights.
According to the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, you cannot be forced to provide a service under the pretext of depriving the manufacturer's warranty (Article 16, Part 2).
The warranty on the electrical equipment of the car does not apply only if it is proven by an independent examination (paid for by the official dealer) that the failure of a particular element of the electrical equipment occurred due to the fault of third parties.
In this case, the organization that poorly installed the additional equipment on your car is liable to you.
Feel free to install car recorders, use them as evidence in court.
The law is on your side.
