General Reports

[CookyJar]

CookyJar, I had dated Tiffany a few weeks ago. We did a cardate and she charged me. 30 for CFS. I was totally shocked by the price because she is one fine looking sister. I told her she could be making more as an escort. She had on a bikini when I picked her up. It's a ashame some of these SW's waste there abilities and talents.

I am considering taking her inside. How was her attitude? Was she accommodating, willing to perform with ease and no bullcrap? Tiffany is one of / if not the hottest BWS currently walking Broadway. Sometimes Hot girls think they can get along without providing at the level others perform. Where would you place her on the Freak-O-Meter? For a brief moment, in the car under the influence of alcohol, she hinted that she was down with anything. She seemed a little flighty to me – I blamed it on the alcohol. LOL.

CookyJar

[Jooop]

ON my second loop, after doing a check for LE in the area, I spotted Tiffany walking down a side street with another girl. I did a quick turn around...

Guys don't she look a little like Whitney Huston pic 1

[CookyJar]

…they MIGHT be used effectively to alert the command center to send cars out to a specific intersection.

Forth Ryte

Thanks Forth Tyte, Hopefully the information obtained as the results of the questions I asked will not just be useful to me but to all that read it.
The information from a camera might be used to alert patrol cars to certain situations or conditions. For example: A car driving up and down the avenue might be considered suspicious. The LAW might allow evidences from a surveillance camera as reason enough or probable cause for a car stop in such suspicious conditions. More than likely, in most cases, this would be a harassing tactic used by LE. However, even if a car stop is done to harass, there is always the possibility of receiving a fine or ticket.
My biggest concern, other than being stopped during the pick-up, is being stopped and cited for loitering. (I try to avoid the other possibilities by staying within the LAW.) Evidence from a surveillance camera, of a monger driving up and down the avenue with no obvious intent, might be used to cite the driver for loitering providing it is used in connection with a legal car stop. You know the reason for your being there, but you cannot say it. LE knows the reason for your being there but they cannot prove it. LE and you both know that you are not loitering and that you are there for an inexpressible purpose. However, the LAW is often perverted and if they cannot get you one way, they’ll twist the circumstances around and get you another.

CookyJar

[Forth Ryte]

CJ has raised the questions about what LE can do with these cameras and what kind of threat they pose to mongers. Out of respect for him, I add my two and a half cents.

The question of what the police can do or can't do with the images captured by cameras mounted on poles is not an easy one. There are issues dealing with rules of evidence and issues dealing with civil rights (privacy and search without a warrant).

The first one is a bit more obvious. The rules of evidence require that the evidence show a crime was committed. The picture – by itself – must prove a crime. The evidence captured by the camera must stand on its own because there will be no police officer or photographer testifying with the captured image explained what the image shows. Lets assume the camera captures a car going through a red light. I've been ticketed for this so I know. The camera takes sequential pictures with time stamping on the images to show the sequence. The first pictures shows the car just before it enters the intersection and it shows the light is red. The second picture shows the car going into the intersection and the third shows the car having gone THROUGH the intersection with the light still red. These pictures show the car entered the intersection when the light was ALREADY red and the car went THROUGH on a red light. No police are needed to round out the evidence.

Now if the cameras are used to show a drug deal, they can show something changing hands but it won't show WHAT changed hands. So that doesn't male out a case.

If the cameras show a monger stopping, chatting and picking up a young lady, again there is no evidence of a CRIME unless someone hears what was said.

For this reason alone, I do not think the cameras are intended to nab mongers or drug dealers but they MIGHT be used effectively to alert the command center to send cars out to a specific intersection.

But there is another problem with the use of the cameras and that is the rights of privacy. Unless there is evidence of a crime or reasonable cause to believe that a crime is being committed, police cannot go looking into your home or into your car. The inside of your car is your private property protected by the constitutional right against search without warrant. The cameras cannot go looking into your car to see who is driving or what you have in the car. You vehicle license plate is out in the open and is NOT protected but you face and your passenger's face inside the car IS protected. That is why the red light violation traffic cameras issue tickets to the CAR (by the license) but issue tickets to the driver because they are not permitted to identify the driver. (A police officer seeing the car drive through can stop the car and ask for identification and ticket the driver but the camera cannot do that).

In fact, in New York city, they have just set up cameras to ticket cars driving in certain lanes that are supposed to be restricted to busses. But the law that created the right to photograph and ticket cars in bus lanes specifically prohibits the cameras from being able to see drivers, passengers or property inside the vehicle. The law reads, 'The city of New York shall adopt and enforce measures to protect the privacy of drivers and passengers whose identity may be captured by a bus lane photo device. Such measures shall include: utilization of necessary technologies to ensure, to the extent practicable, that images produced by such bus lane photo devices shall not include images that identify the driver, the passengers, or the contents of the vehicle. '

Now these issues are new and not yet tried in courts but it seems to this mind that cameras on the streets of Camden are NOT trying to identify individual drivers or to spot prostitution activity.

Having said all that, I will not be the frist damn fool to stop, pick up an SW, then smile for the camera as I drive off.

Forth Ryte

[Tussel]

ON my second loop, after doing a check for LE in the area, I spotted Tiffany walking down a side street with another girl. I did a quick turn around the block and came up the side street the two girls were walking down. I drove pass them, back into a driveway and drove back to where I had last seen the two girls. Tiffany was gone. The other girl was walking away. There was no sign of Tiffany anywhere. No cars had driven pass. She hadn't been swooped up. I drove to the location where I had last seen the two girls together. There was nothing be empty yards and abandon houses.

Later, on my way out of Camden, I saw Tiffany about two blocks ahead of me; she turned down a side street. It wasn't hard to tell it was tiffany; she had on a very alluring outfit with a distinctive cut out back. I drove down Broadway. I continued two blocks pass where I had seen Tiffany. Using the street running parallel to Broadway, I preformed a double loop with a half switch back triple gainer and came up facing Tiffany walking towards me. LOL.

As soon as she got in I could tell she wasn't in any condition to date. She confessed that she had be drinking. She said that she was still able to date. I told her all I wanted was a few pictures and that we could date some other time. She agreed to a later date. She added that it would be good and that she had a good head game and her pussy was good too.

Tiffany directed me to a location where we could take the pictures. When we got there, there was another car parked up ahead of us.

Hindsight is 20/20. Thinking back, I should have driven off and let the guy in the car enjoy himself. Tiffany was drunk and I have no intentions of dating her after the pictures. I wanted to see what her body looked like beyond the bathing suit she was wearing. I thought it would be quick and over in seconds. The problem was, the girl in the other car knew me. It was Maria, (Click here to see Maria another NJ Spinner) a girl I had dated and post her pictures. When we drove up Maria was giving the guy in the other car a BJ. When she saw me she got excited and yelled out. Before I knew it she was out of the car and posing. I just hope she finished what she had been doing. Most of the pictures I got of Maria I cannot post because they include her date and I don't think putting him on blast would be right. I did speak to the guy in the other car and apologizes for interrupting. I mentioned this site, gave him the address and got out of there as quickly as possible. Maria and her date stayed behind; I imagine they had some unfinished business. Actually the dude was real nice about it, some guys would have gotten upset. He did get a nice show, a good look at Tiffany's firm body and a better look a Maria; his date.

Tiffany does have a nice body. It is not as nice as I thought it was going to be. The bathing suit she had on really had me going wild for a minute. She has a nice ass, nice legs, flat tummy, clear complexion and a face that's passable. Does anyone have any real experience with Tiffany? She talks a hell of a game.

CookyJar

CookyJar, I had dated Tiffany a few weeks ago. We did a cardate and she charged me. 30 for CFS. I was totally shocked by the price because she is one fine looking sister. I told her she could be making more as an escort. She had on a bikini when I picked her up. It's a ashame some of these SW's waste there abilities and talents.

[CookyJar]

ON my second loop, after doing a check for LE in the area, I spotted Tiffany walking down a side street with another girl. I did a quick turn around the block and came up the side street the two girls were walking down. I drove pass them, back into a driveway and drove back to where I had last seen the two girls. Tiffany was gone. The other girl was walking away. There was no sign of Tiffany anywhere. No cars had driven pass. She hadn’t been swooped up. I drove to the location where I had last seen the two girls together. There was nothing be empty yards and abandon houses.

Later, on my way out of Camden, I saw Tiffany about two blocks ahead of me; she turned down a side street. It wasn’t hard to tell it was tiffany; she had on a very alluring outfit with a distinctive cut out back. I drove down Broadway. I continued two blocks pass where I had seen Tiffany. Using the street running parallel to Broadway, I preformed a double loop with a half switch back triple gainer and came up facing Tiffany walking towards me. LOL

As soon as she got in I could tell she wasn’t in any condition to date. She confessed that she had be drinking. She said that she was still able to date. I told her all I wanted was a few pictures and that we could date some other time. She agreed to a later date. She added that it would be good and that she had a good head game and her pussy was good too.

Tiffany directed me to a location where we could take the pictures. When we got there, there was another car parked up ahead of us.

Hindsight is 20/20. Thinking back, I should have driven off and let the guy in the car enjoy himself. Tiffany was drunk and I have no intentions of dating her after the pictures. I wanted to see what her body looked like beyond the bathing suit she was wearing. I thought it would be quick and over in seconds. The problem was, the girl in the other car knew me. It was Maria, (Click here to see Maria another NJ Spinner) a girl I had dated and post her pictures. When we drove up Maria was giving the guy in the other car a BJ. When she saw me she got excited and yelled out. Before I knew it she was out of the car and posing. I just hope she finished what she had been doing. Most of the pictures I got of Maria I cannot post because they include her date and I don’t think putting him on blast would be right. I did speak to the guy in the other car and apologizes for interrupting. I mentioned this site, gave him the address and got out of there as quickly as possible. Maria and her date stayed behind; I imagine they had some unfinished business. Actually the dude was real nice about it, some guys would have gotten upset. He did get a nice show, a good look at Tiffany’s firm body and a better look a Maria; his date.

Tiffany does have a nice body. It is not as nice as I thought it was going to be. The bathing suit she had on really had me going wild for a minute. She has a nice ass, nice legs, flat tummy, clear complexion and a face that’s passable. Does anyone have any real experience with Tiffany? She talks a hell of a game.


CookyJar

[Ignacus]

I think it unlikely that you will see many of any convictions, or for that matter arrests based solely on the cameras. California is now dismantling their red light camera systems since the accuser is a camera and one can not confront ones accuser in court when it is merely an electronic device. The videos are to assist in the investigation of crimes and allow police to monitor high crime areas without having to have an officer on site. They can dispatch officers before things get out of hand. So, say you got video taped picking someone up on B'way. There is no recording of either of you soliciting the other. Under the rules of evidence no charge of soliciting could even be brought to court. Now, if they have your license plate repeatedly cruising a monitored area, known for SW / drug activity, they might be able to issue a loitering ticket. How they would prove it was you driving the vehicle might be problematic. Of course if you got pulled over and ticketed, they might be able to pull videos to show a pattern of behavior. That would be time consuming and costly, unless they can utilize one of the Character Recognition softwares they have now. I doubt they would be willing to invest that time and money in prosecuting a case that carries a max. 1k fine, unless they are really after someone. These are for monitoring activities at certain locations and preventing criminal activities before they manifest themselves. I still wouldn't make a pickup within line sight of one of those cameras. There is such a thing as prosecutorial resolution when it comes to making a positive identification from a camera image. If they don't have it, they don't have you.

Excerpt from: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...as-prosecutors

This is an excerpt from a article in the, 'The Baltimore Sun. ' It is mainly about surveillance cameras, police officers, prosecutors and violent crimes.

There does not seem to be a lot of information on surveillance cameras and the misdemeanor crime of solicitation. Most of the information seems to be on violent crimes and felonies involving drugs. There have been cameras in Baltimore for years and I have not been able to find any reports of mongers in Baltimore who have arrested and convicted base on pictures taken by a civic surveillance camera.



CookyJar

[CookyJar]

Excerpt from: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-04-07/news/bal-md.hermann07apr07_1_police-officers-cameras-prosecutors

This is an excerpt from a article in the, “The Baltimore Sun.” It is mainly about surveillance cameras, police officers, prosecutors and violent crimes.

…spokeswoman, Margaret T. Burns, stressed that the news release, which appears to support video surveillance cameras, was designed to do just the opposite. It was meant to highlight statistics that she says show arrests caught on video have declined (1,368 in 2007 to 759 last year), even as more cameras are deployed.
And Burns said that most of the 759 arrests in which a police officer wrote the words "camera" in a report were for misdemeanor drug charges. Prosecutors dropped about a third of them, for reasons ranging from "insufficient evidence" to police officers failing to appear in court to testify, she said…

There does not seem to be a lot of information on surveillance cameras and the misdemeanor crime of solicitation. Most of the information seems to be on violent crimes and felonies involving drugs. There have been cameras in Baltimore for years and I have not been able to find any reports of mongers in Baltimore who have arrested and convicted base on pictures taken by a civic surveillance camera.

CookyJar

[CookyJar]

CJ,

You need to check out the pole in front of the community center at B'way and Royden. The pole at the food court on the MLK side. B'way and Benson and across from the corner store at 7th and Royden. The girls I've picked up recently were totally unaware of the cameras as well. Their job is to keep an eye on traffic and catch our collective eye, not check for surveillance cameras on telephone or light poles. I don't suspect the reason for the cameras is the sex trade in Camden. There are far more serious problems they have to deal with.

Thanks Ignacus,

I never doubted for a moment that there were cameras on Broadway. I did my first turn around at Broadway and Benson. I wasn’t looking once I got to Benson; I very rarely go that far looking for StreetWalkers. I have seen girls up that far but once they pass Royden I give up on them. For some reason, for the last year or so the area around Broadway and Royden and the abandon gas station has become a hang-out for LE. I do see girls in that area but they are usually passing though. I may have even seen the camera at Broadway and Royden but didn’t know what I was looking at. Thinking back, I may have see it. At the time I was more concerned with the new Community Center and the cop car parked down the street.

I am not from Jersey and I don’t know the street names as well as I should. Using the street locations in your report and google maps I was able to determine that Broadway and Royden is one of the turn-around points I often use. The next time I go to Broadway I will be more vigilant.

That doesn't mean the recorded video can't or won't be used against a monger at some point if it suits the purpose of the local LEO and prosecutor's office. And be assured, as it is LE based, those tapes are stored for posterity, just like those 911 calls we hear in news reports.

Once again, I have to confess I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that there is a one or two year, “Statute of Limitation,” on most misdemeanors.

Here is my question. Can a picture, of a non-violent act, taken by a surveillance camera be used as proof positive; a crime was committed? Can the Courier print a picture, taken by a surveillance camera, of me with an unknown female and imply that an illegal act was taking place if there is no other supporting evidence? Can the Courier print pictures with the sole purpose of embarrassing the subjects in the pictures?

Has anyone read or heard of an instance where a surveillance camera was use for anything other than a deterrent for misdemeanors or a aid in identifying a criminal in a major crime. Has anyone direct knowledge of a case where a drug dealer, pimp, streetwalker or monger was arrested and convicted solely on the evidence depicted by a close circuit public surveillance camera?

If picking-up a known Streetwalker is not a criminal act by itself, does capturing the pickup on film make it a crime? Is a LE stop resulting from a surveillance camera any different from a regular LE stop?

Surveillance pictures of a car speeding through a red light, by-passing a toll booth or shooting a neighbor depicts a crime. A surveillance picture of someone getting into a car does not depict a criminal act, IMHO.

There is only Anecdotal Evidence that suggests surveillance cameras are working as deterrents. There is no hard evidence that surveillance cameras have been helpful in increasing the number of criminal prosecutions. If criminal conviction rates had been increased due to the use of publically placed cameras, local politicians would be ranting about their effectiveness all over the news. Public surveillance cameras only make news headlines when they are being installed. After Installation they hang there like last year’s Christmas decorations.

CookyJar

I am still hoping someone will be able to help us by answering my earlier questions.

CookyJar

[Ignacus]

CJ,

You need to check out the pole in front of the community center at B'way and Royden. The pole at the food court on the MLK side. B'way and Benson and across from the corner store at 7th and Royden. The girls I've picked up recently were totally unaware of the cameras as well. Their job is to keep an eye on traffic and catch our collective eye, not check for surveillance cameras on telephone or light poles. I don't suspect the reason for the cameras is the sex trade in Camden. There are far more serious problems they have to deal with. That doesn't mean the recorded video can't or won't be used against a monger at some point if it suits the purpose of the local LEO and prosecutor's office. And be assured, as it is LE based, those tapes are stored for posterity, just like those 911 calls we hear in news reports.

Thanks everyone,

This is more like it. Good pertinent information to consider.

I did a little recon on my own. I did a hard target search for cameras and anything unusual on Broadway and neighboring streets. I saw nothing that vaguely resembled anything like the cameras in Ignacus's post. That does not mean that cameras have not been placed on Broadway. It just means I did not see any.

After doing a number of highly visible loops I did a very discreet SW pick-up. I asked Michelle if she has seen or heard anything about camera's on Broadway. I was surprised to hear from her that not only had she not seen of heard anything about camera – she didn't seen the least bit concern after I told her about the new reports. Michelle seemed to believe that the cameras I was talking about had something to do with traffic and red lights and nothing to do with her and her friends. At my suggestion, Michelle was willing to pose for a picture under any camera we found. Unfortunately, together, neither one of us could find a camera on Broadway for her to pose under. Michelle did show me a very visible, different type of surveillance camera on a side street which was pointed towards nothing of interest.

Just in case we were being followed by camera directed LE, Michelle and I went to a local playground were we took some pretty innocent pictures. I did not see any sight of LE. If they were following us, they were undercover and must have decided to leave us alone.

Tomorrow or the next time I visit Camden things could end up different. What I did during this visit proves nothing. My suggestion is that everyone stays vigilant.

CookyJar

[CookyJar]

Never saw any surveillence camers shot from those angles.

I have been down and looking for these "cameras" I have yet to see any on Broadway. I have seen devices mounted at intersections that look like they might be cameras. These have very narrow slits in them so I think they may be the emergency sensors that turn the lights red when fire rolls.

Anyway even if they are cameras they are not being used extensively. You can listen to Camden City Police Dispatchers online. You can even listen to them on your blackberry or phone if you have a data plan. Granted they are using other forms of comms to communicate. Most what I have heard is someone at dispatch watching the cameras and will call an officer to tell someone holding up a pole to move on.

I will keep looking, but haven't spotted the cameras. They must have them very well concealed.

Safe Mongering

The spec relies on PtP Mesh, which is not on Broadway. When it does come it will be very easy to spot. PtP Mesh requires clear Line of Site. You will see 24 inch panel antennas pointed up and down broadway. One at each camera.

I ran the Broadaway stroll looking for cameras. It seemed to me that the cameras were only at traffic intersections and NOT on those parts of the stroll where LE would be looking for street activity not related to traffic violations. I could be wrong here, but thats my humble opinion.
- Forth Ryte

Let's see, an inverted domed device with a vertical slit is for triggering the stop lights on Broadway. There is one at Royden and one at Benson and another diagonal from the Rand (which can't see up Broadway). There is also one at 7th and Royden, but wait, there isn't a stop light at 7th and Royden. Probably just forward thinking on LEO's part just in case the add a stop light there at some point. Then again, there aren't any of these stop light "sensors" at any of the other stop lights on Broadway, gee.

Oh, Looky: http://www.mts-iss.com/guestfiles/Ca...ation_rev1.doc

And Here: http://www.skywaysecurity.com/auto-t...ptz-camera.cfm

You can overcome ignorance, but you can't fix stupid.

Thanks everyone,

This is more like it. Good pertinent information to consider.

I did a little recon on my own. I did a hard target search for cameras and anything unusual on Broadway and neighboring streets. I saw nothing that vaguely resembled anything like the cameras in Ignacus’s post. That does not mean that cameras have not been placed on Broadway. It just means I did not see any.

After doing a number of highly visible loops I did a very discreet SW pick-up. I asked Michelle if she has seen or heard anything about camera’s on Broadway. I was surprised to hear from her that not only had she not seen of heard anything about camera – she didn’t seen the least bit concern after I told her about the new reports. Michelle seemed to believe that the cameras I was talking about had something to do with traffic and red lights and nothing to do with her and her friends. At my suggestion, Michelle was willing to pose for a picture under any camera we found. Unfortunately, together, neither one of us could find a camera on Broadway for her to pose under. Michelle did show me a very visible, different type of surveillance camera on a side street which was pointed towards nothing of interest.

Just in case we were being followed by camera directed LE, Michelle and I went to a local playground were we took some pretty innocent pictures. I did not see any sight of LE. If they were following us, they were undercover and must have decided to leave us alone.

Tomorrow or the next time I visit Camden things could end up different. What I did during this visit proves nothing. My suggestion is that everyone stays vigilant.

NOTE TO JERSEY FORUM MEMBERS: I tried to move the discussion of Surveillance cameras to the general thread. Why? I don’t know. It is obviously a topic more suitable for the StreetWalker Thread. In case anyone is wondering why I decided to post this reply here in the General Thread – This is where I’ve always posted pictures.

CookyJar

[Cravesit]

Never saw any surveillence camers shot from those angles.

[CookyJar]

I came across this while I was looking for evidence of effective use of Public Surveillance cameras: http://www.notbored.org/cameras-not-effective.html.
ineffectiveness of surveillance cameras
last update: 17 June 2009

Resident Louise Smith says she's seen prostitution for years. "In the mornings, early at night (and) sometimes late at night. They throw paper, their clothes, whatever . . . nasty things in the yard," Smith said. Police thought the neighborhood cameras would be the perfect solution to the prostitution problem. They set one up to watch the area 24 hours a day last month. After three weeks, they thought they had rock solid evidence to prosecute.
"We shot alleged prostitutes going up to cars . . . vehicles . . . John's," Cesena said. "You had the whole ball of wax?" Bradley asked. "And we came back and it's not downloadable," Cesena said. Hours of evidence was lost and thousands of city dollars were wasted because police say when they've tried to use them, either the cameras or the computers that drive them won't work.

(IMHO this is funny. If the project had worked what would they have had? They would have had pictures of people getting into cars and other people letting them get into their cars. Without sound (audio surveillance is illegal) they had nothing, IMHO. That’s probably why they came up with this solution to their embarrassing problem.)

CookyJar

[CookyJar]

I am posting this in both the Philadelphia and Southern NJ threads for obvious reasons. The police surveillance cameras have been spotted/deployed in both Philadelphia and Camden. If what I have been reading in the South Jersey threads is true, they are more prevalent on Broadway. Even though I have not seen or heard of any surveillance cameras on Kensington Avenue, I would like to get the opinions of some of the Philly lawyer types.

… I can confirm that there is a camera at Broadway and Royden like Ignacus reported.

I would be careful with the cameras and LE out. …

The Courier Post not only confirms but gives the figure of over 80 cameras already in place with plans to install more throughout the city.

… I'd hate to wake up to my picture in the courier with a SW going down and a camera zoomed in on my face.

…What do they need cops for when they have cameras? Next they'll be sending drones in for busts.

Here is my question. Can a picture, of a non-violent act, taken by a surveillance camera be used as proof positive; a crime was committed? Can the Courier print a picture, taken by a surveillance camera, of me with an unknown female and imply that an illegal act was taking place if there is no other supporting evidence? Can the Courier print pictures with the sole purpose of embarrassing the subjects in the pictures?

Has anyone read or heard of an instance where a surveillance camera was use for anything other than a deterrent for misdemeanors or a aid in identifying a criminal in a major crime. Has anyone direct knowledge of a case where a drug dealer, pimp, streetwalker or monger was arrested and convicted solely on the evidence depicted by a close circuit public surveillance camera?

If picking-up a known Streetwalker is not a criminal act by itself, does capturing the pickup on film make it a crime? Is a LE stop resulting from a surveillance camera any different from a regular LE stop?

Surveillance pictures of a car speeding through a red light, by-passing a toll booth or shooting a neighbor depicts a crime. A surveillance picture of someone getting into a car does not depict a criminal act, IMHO.

There is only Anecdotal Evidence that suggests surveillance cameras are working as deterrents. There is no hard evidence that surveillance cameras have been helpful in increasing the number of criminal prosecutions. If criminal conviction rates had been increased due to the use of publically placed cameras, local politicians would be ranting about their effectiveness all over the news. Public surveillance cameras only make news headlines when they are being installed. After Installation they hang there like last year’s Christmas decorations.

CookyJar

[Ignacus]

Where were these bitches when I was in school?

http://www.wlsam.com/sectional.asp?id=40838&cid=1

Most of them put the street girls to shame.