King County Library System is removing its security cameras

The King County Library System is removing security cameras from its libraries, worried that supplying security video to law-enforcement agencies could compromise patron privacy.

"We decided the cameras were not serving a purpose and were a point of contention with law enforcement," said Bill Ptacek, who as director of the county library system has the final say. "We don't want to be in an adversarial relationship. We believe intellectual freedom is the important part, so we got out of the camera business."

The library system, which serves 1.3 million patrons, and records more than 1 million visitors each month, has about four dozen security cameras in 10 of its 46 libraries. The cameras were installed beginning in 2006, both inside and outside the buildings, because of requests by librarians faced with petty crimes, vandalism and graffiti.

The issue over police access to video from the cameras came up in March, when a 77-year-old man was assaulted in the Woodmont Library parking lot, on Pacific Highway South in Des Moines. A man approached the library patron and asked for money. When the patron pulled out his wallet, the man stole it and pushed the library patron down, causing minor injuries.

As part of a Des Moines Police investigation, officers asked to see the tape from the security camera, but library officials said they wouldn't release it without a court order.

Police obtained a court order a week later and a suspect, a known transient, was arrested within 15 minutes of an officer viewing the tape, said Bob Collins, a Des Moines Police spokesman.

The decision to remove the security cameras "hinders our ability to do police work," Collins said.

There should be no expectation of privacy in the library parking lot, said Des Moines Police Chief John O'Leary.

The most valuable time to solve a crime is right after it happens, and the library's warrant requirement delays that, O'Leary said. But the policy to require a court order is better than removing the cameras, he added.

"My concern is it strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction," O'Leary said. "If the decision was simply to leave the cameras in and continue under current policy, I'd be happy with that."

He also said it seems to be a waste of taxpayer dollars to remove cameras already paid for.

Cameras outside in a parking lot are a gray area, said Ptacek, but he views the library policy as part of "an important philosophy."

When the library refused to turn over the tape involving the Woodmont assault, the detectives weren't happy, Ptacek said. "We held firm. We needed that court order."

Ronald Collins, a visiting professor and First Amendment scholar at the University of Washington Law School, said the debate is a First Amendment-related issue.

"The people in the best position to safeguard libraries are librarians," he said. "I trust their judgment. It's clearly within their province; they're the people best situated to make that call. I applaud the fact they respect First Amendment rights and don't want the government looking over their backs."

Seattle Public Library has 26 security cameras inside and outside at its downtown library, and the library will share video with police as long as it is unrelated to the use of the library and the patrons' borrowing choices, said Andra Addison, Seattle Public Library spokeswoman. There are no other security cameras at any Seattle branches.

In one case, someone put something in the book drop that was carried to the second floor of the downtown Seattle library and started a fire. Security video in that case was shared with police, Addison said.

Ptacek, of the King County Library System, said cameras often provide a false sense of security, and there are enough staff members to visually supervise the libraries. "We're not in the business of surveillance," he said.

He said he worries that the cameras might show what books patrons are checking out or what books they put in the book drop.

"Our philosophy is anything that reveals the use of the library or things (a patron) is using, it does require somebody to determine if we should turn that over," Ptacek said.

Removing the cameras isn't costing any extra money because it's being done as part of the normal course of work for facilities employees, according to the library system.

The camera removal will even save money because it costs $30,000 a year to maintain the cameras, Ptacek said, "and $30,000 buys a lot of books."

Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or sgilmore@seattletimes.com