The analysis of surveillance video is generally provided as an ancillary service in security or investigator expert witness matters, rather than a standalone category of expertise.

Occasionally evidence introduced in security related lawsuits includes surveillance video. Frequently full motion viewing of such video can cause juries to draw incorrect conclusions. For instance, in one case, a video appeared to document an auto striking a male pedestrian, knocking him to the ground. However, a detailed analysis of this tape showed the man climbing onto the hood of the auto, striking the windshield, then losing his balance and falling backwards off the hood.

On one plaintiff case, Mr. Schmedlen was able to prove a surveillance video had been altered before being submitted into evidence. His testimony resulted in a rapid and appropriate settlement. On a defense case, frame by frame imaging provided documentation of probable cause for detainment, a fact that was otherwise clouded.

Technology available to Mr. Schmedlen allows him to view surveillance videotape in a distortion-free frame by frame mode, capture full motion video to a computer hard drive and magnify individual frames (or portions of frames) using fractal enhancement technology. Additional enhancement tools can then be applied and glossy photo-quality hard copies can be generated and blown up for use as exhibits.

Mr. Schmedlen has analyzed many videotapes as a part of investigative field operations, but has only applied this expertise on a few opinion expert cases.

Since his proficiency has been acquired informally, rather than through technical classroom training, it is unknown whether he would qualify in all courts as a videotape expert per se. One U.S. District Court, however, employed him exclusively for this purpose. (To view comments from this court, please CLICK HERE.) His ability to evaluate surveillance tapes can significantly enhance his testimony with visual clarification of situations which are otherwise unclear.

Please note that in most cases, little can be done to improve or enhance low resolution "Internet quality" digital video as these clips contain very limited highly compressed data. Standard DV is 720 X 480 (345,600 pixels) but the video captured by many of the newer DV systems in use have a capture size of 320 X 260 (only 83,200 pixels) and are highly compressed. Attempts to find detail nor readily viewable are generally unsuccessful.

Please scroll down to view security expert witness case titles where surveillance video analysis was critical to the opinions reached.

* Includes one criminal defense case. ** Includes one case where because of a plaintiff's allegations of altered video, the court employed Mr. Schmedlen as an independent expert exclusively to resolve this issue. Also included is one subrogation case.

SECURITY EXPERT WITNESS LITIGATION CASE HISTORY
SECURITY SURVEILLANCE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS

Fatten Tokko & Araf Sareini v
Crowley Milner & Company
Surveillance videotape analysis for plaintiffs
Wayne County, Michigan

Marcus Smith by his Next Friend Remell Smith v
J.C. Penney Company, Inc.
Surveillance videotape analysis for defendant
Oakland County, Michigan

Kenneth Arnhold v
K-Mart Corporation
Surveillance videotape analysis for plaintiff
United States District Court of the District of Massachusetts

Jane Hughes v
Gill & Associates, et al
Surveillance videotape analysis for defendant
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Cedric Causey, et al v
Union Planters Bank, et al
Surveillance videotape analysis for plaintiffs
Shelby County, Tennessee

Laura Lascola v
Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC et al
Surveillance videotape analysis for plaintiff (court ordered)
United States District Court, Northern District of Mississippi Delta Division

State of Michigan v
James Hunter
Surveillance videotape analysis for criminal defense
Isabella County, Michigan

State of Michigan v
J. L. Walker
Surveillance videotape analysis for criminal defense
Macomb County, Michigan

Travelers Property & Casualty
as subrogee for Motor City Electric Co. v
Guardian Bonded Security, et al
Surveillance videotape analysis for plaintiff
Wayne County, Michigan

Rick Thames v
P&W Paining, et al.
Surveillance videotape analysis for plaintiff
Lucas County, Ohio Common Pleas Court

Oleg Shteynbuk v
Genesis Behavioral Services, Inc., et al.
Surveillance videotape analysis for plaintiff
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

In six of these cases, detailed analysis of the relevant videotapes provided factual proof refuting claims and/or sworn testimony of opposing witnesses. In two cases, the videotape was found to have been materially altered.

Questions on this subject? Write Roger H. Schmedlen, CPP, CFE, CII, MIPI

Security Surveillance Videotape and Investigator Video Expert Witness travel time is capped as follows on litigation cases:
3 hours round trip: Illinois (Northeast Illinois including Chicago IL), Indiana (North of Muncie IN), Michigan (All of Michigan except MI Upper Peninsula), Ohio (Columbus OH and Northern OH)
4 hours round trip: Delaware (All of DE), District of Columbia (Metropolitan Washington DC area), Florida (Orlando FL south including Florida keys), Illinois (All of IL except, Northeast Illinois, Chicago IL), Indiana (South of Muncie IN), Iowa (All of IA east of Council Bluffs IA), Kansas (Eastern KS area including Kansas City KS), Kentucky (All of KY), Maryland (All of MD), Michigan (Central and Eastern Upper Peninsula, MI), Minnesota (East of Detroit Lakes MN), Missouri (All of MO), New Jersey (All of NJ), New York (All of NY including NYC), North Carolina (West of Raleigh Durham NC metro area), Ohio (Southern OH, south of Columbus OH), Oregon (Coastal OR areas including Portland OR), Pennsylvania (All of PA), South Carolina (Greenville SC Spartanburg SC area), Tennessee (All of TN), Virginia (Western VA west of Richmond VA), Washington (Coastal WA cities), West Virginia (All of WV), Wisconsin (All of WI)
5 hours round trip: Alabama (All of AL), Arkansas (All of AK), Arizona (Southern half of AZ south of Prescott AZ to Nogales AZ and including the Phoenix AZ and Tucson AZ areas), Arizona (Northwest AZ including Lake Mead, AZ and Las Vegas, NV areas), California (Western CA coastal cities regions and Southern California including Los Angeles CA, Orange County CA and northwestern regions such as San Francisco CA), Colorado (Boulder CA and Denver CA areas), Connecticut (All of CT), Florida (North of Orlando FL metro area, Florida Panhandle and of of FL in Central Time Zone), Georgia (All of GA including Atlanta GA), Iowa (All of IA west of Council Bluffs IA), Kansas (Most of KS west of Kansas City KS), Louisiana (All of LA), Maine (All of ME), Massachusetts (All of MA), Michigan (Western Upper Peninsula MI), Minnesota (West of Detroit Lakes MN), Mississippi (All of MS), Nebraska (All of NE east of CO), Nevada (Extreme southern NV including Las Vegas NV region), New Hampshire (All of NH), North Carolina (Raleigh Durham NC east), North Dakota (East of Minot ND), Oklahoma (All of OK), Rhode Island (All off RI), South Carolina (All of SC except the Greenville SC Spartanburg SC area), South Dakota (East of Rapid City SD), Texas (Northeast TX including Dallas Fort Worth TX), Vermont (All of VT), Virginia (Eastern VA including Richmond VA)
6 hours round trip: Arizona (Northern half of AZ), California (Eastern CA north of Death Valley CA area), Colorado (All of CO except for Boulder CA and Denver CA areas), Idaho (All of ID), Montana (All of MT), Nebraska (Western NE), Nevada (All of NV except extreme south Las Vegas NV region), New Mexico (All of NM), North Dakota (Minot ND and west), Oregon (Eastern 3/4 of OR), South Dakota (Rapid City SD and west), Texas (Northeast TX including Dallas Fort Worth TX), Utah (All of UT), Washington (All of WA except coastal WA cities), Wyoming (All of WY)
Negotiable: Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

SURVEILLANCE & VIDEOTAPE EXPERT SECURITY EXPERT WITNESS

SURVEILLANCE & VIDEOTAPE EXPERT
SECURITY EXPERT WITNESS