The analysis of surveillance videotapes 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 videotapes. Frequently full motion viewing of such tapes 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 scroll down to view security expert witness case titles where surveillance video analysis was critical to the opinions reached.

* 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.

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

In all 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

SURVEILLANCE & VIDEOTAPE EXPERT SECURITY EXPERT WITNESS

SURVEILLANCE & VIDEOTAPE EXPERT
SECURITY EXPERT WITNESS