Surveillance Systems on units exterior

In AZ, and in other states, ther is no law that prevents a person from installing an overt, or a covert surveillance system.

In AZ, you may not record another conversation without permission, unless you are a party to the conversation.

Therefore, as long as the video surveillanve is silent, no voice recording, it is legal.

You could check with your local law library and they will help you to find a law, or show you that no law exists preventing video surveillance recording. You could also pay for an attorney to tell you if there is or isn't such a law. If there is a law, then he can give you a copy of it.

This seems to be a very special problem because the owner was concerned enough to install the system at his/her own expense.

After checking the law and finding the surveillance legal, which will show that the board is protecting itself, I would suggest that the board hang back and let the person protect her/himself. The security also benefits the community at no cost.

This could save a persons life.

they violated the CC&Rs. If you allow that to happen, you set precedent. WHat will you say to the next person, who installs flood lights? They will claim security as well. Then, external alarms, motion sensors, etc. will come, and worse, all will come without board approval, because there is no apparent need to get it.

As for taking your picture without consent, there is no requirement to get consent for taking pictures of people where no right to privacy expectation is present. If your HOA bans photography, you have a case, as it would be a violation of the CC&Rs. However, anyone can take anyone else's picture in a public location in america, without expressed consent (with a couple exceptions, see below for a biggie). Using that picture for PROFIT is a different story...

as for laws, i do wish to point out that there is a nice federal law that DOES indeed prevent SOME external cameras from being mounted, used, etc.. I doubt it applies here, but as discussed in a similar post, the US Patriot Act can be used to criminalize the taking of photos or operations of cameras anywhere the government wishes it to. But, unless you are near an airport, harbor, courthouse, military base, police station, armory, etc., you are probably not going to be able to use that law.

The person made a request to the board and the board did not respond in a timely manner, as I understand it. I believe there is no question that this person is genuinly concerned for her safety, and the board should not be so hellbbound to the CC&R's to not realize that these cameras could save this persons life and may also benefit the rest of the community.

If this were a gazebo that the person built, I would side with the board. But this is an immediate security concern, and in my opinion the board should be sympathetic to this cause. The ACC can issue a variance for this system so that it is not setting a precedence and that is what I feel they should do.

Pam:

Did they submit a formal request to have the cameras approved? In our association once a request is submitted we have 30 days to approve or it is approved by default. I don't know if that is the case here or not.

You have zero expectation of privacy outside of your residence. Therefore the picture of you that was taken doing property surveillance does not need your approval and should be perfectly legal. We would all be surprised how often we are caught on tape in our daily lifes. Most people really don't pay attention to the places where cameras are, including outside.

I know we are all concerned about enforcing CC&R's. However, assuming this ex comes back and harms this person and the association made them take down the cameras, what is the associations liability? I think you need to step back and look and see, are these cameras hurting anything? If not then why must they go. There are exceptions to every rule.

Brad, I believe your debate arguments are a bit of a stretch. Parking cars and purple lights have nothing to do with the type of security that this person is trying to achieve with her own money.

She took the correct avenue by requesting the board to do something, and the board apparently drug it's feet and did nothing. So the person had to resort to self help, and she appears to have done it in a professional manner. There has been no argument stating that the cameras are creating a nuisance, or an unsightly blight on the community.

There was just the person who thought his privacy rights were being violated with the camera, when in fact they were not.

Whether or not the person has a false sense of security is her own problem to deal with. This seems to be a good economical solution since she can't get around the clock police protection, and probably cannot afford to hire full time body guards.

We are well aware that perpetrators of crime are caught on camera every day and successfully prosecuted as a result. So why should we play devils advocate by picking out every argument in the book.

A board has the authority to issue variances without prejudicing other decisions, and I think in this case, the board should look at what the owner is trying to accomplish and help her, and not look at a thousand ways why they should not.

Board need to enforce the covenants equally and fairly. In this case, the board would be treating this person, and the community in a fair manner if the considered the following:

1. The person made the request to the board.
2. The board did not respond in a timely manner.
3. The person is in dire need of some form of security, or deterrent, or a means of identifing an attacker if that happens.
4. The cameras are legal. No one's privacy is invaded.
5. The cameras benefit the community as well as the individual who paid for the installation.
6. The camera may prevent a horrible crime from being committee.
7. The board is under no legal obligation for security as a result of the person installing the system. The bylaws probably speak to that subject.
8. The board can pass a resolution to issue a variance
9. The variance would not prejudice any other ACC violation.

In my opinion, that type of understanding, concern for the people in the community, and flexibility, is what makes a good board.

Brian, you're correct. I reread the post and apparently the request came a few days before a workshop. They apparently discussed the situation at the workshop, but deferred a vote to the regular meeting. Now, by discussing the matter at a workshop, they in fact held an illegal board meeting. Board members can not discuss board business outside of a meeting. If they do then it is an illegal meeting because the members have not had notification of that meeting.

While all of the board members were together at the board workshop, and since a persons safety was at stake, the board could have convened an emergency meeting and legally discussed the matter, and voted on it at that time. They could have determined that they did not have enough information to make a decision, postponed the decision until after more information was discovered. But they went beyond that.

They actually made a decision. Note the statement that PamW makes: "My fellow board members intend to deny the system as it will violate the neighbors right to privacy and may cause to many issues then this 1 owner realizes." That is a decision they made, which they plan to formalize at the board meeting.

They made an uneducated decision to deny the system, based on false assumptions, prior to doing any research, and obviously was not taking the owner's safety concerns into consideration.

As I read the post again, it appears as if the poster was not sympathetic from the beginning about the problem the neighbor was facing.

The comment in the first paragraph was "Why the owner didn't move to a new location is beyond me." Actually it's none of the board's business why the owner didn't move.

PamW appears angry because her photo was taken, and was more concerned about violating someone's privacy than being concerned for someone's life. There is no indication that neighbors have complained about the cameras. Only the board members are complaining, according to the post.

It also appears as if there was some prejudice against the owner because the board denied a previous request for something and the owner apparently was unhappy.

My sense of the situation after re-reading the letter is that this board should be more concerned with their community residents safety.

In my opinion the board should not try to stand in the way of this owner's attempt to protect herself, or himself.

If this had happened in our board, as the president, I would have immediately called an emergency meeting and moved to approve a variance for this installation as a matter of concern for the safety of our community residents.

I think this points up the importance of board member education. Every board member should know what constitutes a legal board meeting, and should know that the board does not get together at a workshop and discuss board business, because that constitutes a meeting which is illegal. It's illegal because the community members don't have notice of the meeting, and consequently are not able to attend.

All members should know when an emergency meeting can be conducted and how it can be called.

They should know the Bylaws and CC&R's.
They should know the local and state laws that affect HOA's, including video surveillance, as well as the audio recording laws.

They should take classes where available, study HOA text books, and communicate with other board members, like this forum, so they can learn that consideration for the community, and flexibility are important factors for the community.

And very important they should learn to operate the HOA just like they would their own business and make sure that their decisions will pass the business judgment test that courts will apply to their decisions.

By participating in this forum, with people like yourself, Roger, and all the other regular posters offering suggestions and advice, and the wealth of information to be searched for, board members that are interested in doing a great job for their community can learn to be great board members and community leaders.

Pam, I have a question. Do your CC&Rs really state "No owner or resident may install or alter the exterior of any building without written approval from the HOA Board of Directors" ? The CC&R's I am familiar with give this power to an Architectural control committee, not the Board. If your Board is functioning as your ACC, then ACC approvals do not require a Board meeting, simply an ACC action.

I think your Board members are potentially exposing themselves to personal legal trouble if they turn down this request. Please think about this!!!

Ronald, I understand your position on enforcing the declaration. However, there are times when a board must be understanding and have some flexibility.

Maybe I didn't catch it, but I thought this person did submit a request that has not been ruled on. Maybe the amount of time the ACC is allowed to rule passed and in the homeowner's opinion the request was automatically approved? If I am wrong please point it out I didn't catch that in all the posts.

Ron, I would disagree with you on the fact that surveillance doesn't cut down on crime, I believe it does. However, in this case I agree with you, a spurned lover or ex really won't care who sees them, a police officer could probably be standing right there.

If we say that a board should be flexibile when the owner obeys the rules, then I fail to see where the flexibility.

The inflexibility of many boards, and the heavy handed treatement of members is one of the reasons many states have begun to regulate the HOA industry, and others will be joining them.

The board is there to serve the community, and that means having compassion when necessary, and to work with individuals in certain unusual circumstances.

The issue of being photographed is a very important issue here. That's because it was stated by the author that she felt her and others privacy rights were being violated, and it appears to be the primary reason the board decided to deny the issue, even before they researched the surveillance laws. After they made the decision they were asking this forum about state laws that prohibit surveillance so as to justify their position.

The secondary reason appears to be that the board member is still upset at the owner because the owner verbalized her unhappiness with the board refusal to grant a previous request.

The owner apparently respected the previous decision and did not make the changes that were denied. However, this issue was one of safety, and the owner knew that action had to be taken, and reverted to self help.

Perhaps she received word that the board had made the decision against her at the workshop meeting. People do talk and word spreads fast. If the owner were aware of the post that the OP made here, she/he may even have grounds for a law suit against those board members individually, for negligence in conducting their business. They made a decision at this workshop meeting based on the incorrect assumption that surveillance cameras were illegal, and delayed notifying the member that they were not going to approve the request.

What is not an issue is installing burglar bars, bright lights and all the other things mentioned. That is conjecture and speculation. The owner did not do that, so it is not an issue in this case.

The surveillance system can and may save lives, because they act as a deterrent as well as a recording device.

An example of how it acts as a deterrent was recently shown in Scottsdale, AZ. With traffic surveillance cameras installed on the freeways, the average speed recorded was about 67 mph in a 65 mph zone. They disabled the cameras and publicized that they were disabled. Then the average speed increased to 76 mph in the 65 mph zone. Those cameras were a clear deterrent to speeding so they are going to reactivate them.

The owner did make a request and stated that she was fearful, yet the board did not convene a meeting to discuss this issue. They could have called an emergency meeting so the board could take immediate action, or they could have called a special meeting so the members could all be present to hear and give input to the discussion. They did not do either.

Instead, they chose to discuss the matter, as a board, at a workshop. This amounted to an illegal meeting, in my opinion, because discussion of an important matter was discussed without an emergency meeting being called, and without members being able to be present. They actually made the decision at that workshop meeting to deny the request, and to take the formal vote at the next regular meeting. But we don't know if the next meeting is this month or two months from now.

A board does not dilute their authority when they issue a variance. The next door neighbor can request to install a camera for some reason, and if the board thinks the reason is not sufficient, they can deny the request. All variances are issued without prejudice so they are not setting a precedent.

I'll continue to believe that board members should be well educated in all aspects of HOA operation; should be working for the community without any personal agenda, and understand that they need to have the compassion and understanding to be able to be flexible enough to move fast when necessary, and to issue variances when it is appropriate.

We have a situation where an owner submitted plans to build a 6 foot stucco fence at the sidewalk line to completely enclose their front yard. It was turned down by the ACC. No other home in the 2000 home master community has such a fence. The lots are all less than 1/4 acre.

The person built the fence anyway. The ACC wants the board to require the fence to be removed. A couple of board members (this is the master board which I am not on. I'm on a sub association board) want to give a variance to get it off the table. The ACC wants to stand firm.

The fence serves no special security purpose. The person is not in any danger. The fence is completely out of sync with the community, and the neighbors do not like it. This is a case where I feel the board should stand firm and not issue a variance, but to require the fence to be removed. The fence is not in our sub community and has no direct affect on our sub community. But since there are no special circumstances, I believe the fence should be removed.

The cameras in the discussion are a different matter altogether and do warrant a variance, in my opinion.

Our CC&R's states:

"11.5.2 Common Element Alteration. May not change the appearance of the Common Elements or the exterior appearance of a Unit without permission of the Association;

11.7 Exterior Appearance. In order to preserve a uniform appearance to the Building, and the Common and Limited Common Elements visible to the public, the Board shall require and provide for tha painting and other decorative finish of the Building, lanais or patio/yard areas, or other Common or Limited Common Elements, and prescribe the type and color of such decorative finishes, and may prhoibit, require or regulate any modification or decoration of the Building, lanais, patio/yard areas or other Common or Limited Common Elements undertaken or proposed by any Owner. This power of the Board may also require use of a uniform color and kind of Unit window covering (Including draperies, blinds, shades, etc.) visible from the exterior or from Common Element."

So as I said... It's a difficult situation. This owner has already been fined for several other CC&R violations. Plus this owner use to be on the Board but was removed during the Annual meeting. Which were not disclosed in any notes.

The Board has discussed it but had not come up with a final descision. This Owner submitted their request 3 days before installing the system.

It's frustrating!
Pam W

WilliamT, you are a very smart man, you look outside the box. You have vast experience and a very good head on your shoulders. I do have one question for you; in one of your posts you mention that the resident was denied moving a load bearing wall and that she obeyed that ruling. Do we know that for sure unless someone has been in her unit? Other than that statement you were dead on.

Pamw, you said, "and may prhoibit, require or regulate any modification" You can regulate what modifications are made. I think that this owner is a thorn in the boards side, every association has one, and you folks just b-lined to a no answer as WilliamT said.

You should be in contact with your association attorney over this. Spend the money now.

If the EX comes back, depending on his frame of mind; nothing will stop him and he'll kill her in the yard or inside the house, cameras or not. But as Brian(?) pointed out, the tape will help convict him. OR if he wants her dead but wants to try to not end up in jail (something he is not too good at doing since he already is in jail) than he will see the cameras and stalk her instead, waiting for a private moment to harm her.

Pam, perhaps the cameras are the lessor of two evils. If she got a hand gun she might accidentally shoot you on your on one of your "inspection tours" as opposed to only "shooting" your picture.

Call your lawyer.

After the monthly meeting we decided to have our attorney get involved. This owner became aggressive at the board during the meeting. Since the cameras may cause a major liablity to our HOA, our insurance and leave a hugh can of worms open for owners to sue for numerous reasons. We've decided to take legal action.
If this owner had waited and gone through the proper procedures. The board might have given a different decision or even offer a different solution. No one will ever know. Thanks all for your input.
PamW

In my opinion, it's not the fact that the owner installed cameras, it's the fact that she ignored the CC&Rs and the HOA, that is, she made an exterior modification without prior approval. If she is allowed to do this, why can't anyone else? And why stop with cameras, why not steel bars on the windows? HID lighting? Chain link fencing? It's all the same.

The HOA is sometimes forced to take a stand, otherwise there are no effective rules and anything goes.

When you buy into a covenanted community, you are agreeing to abide by the CC&Rs. If your circumstances change and you feel you can no longer abide by the CC&Rs, you have no right to ignore them, you may need to relocate to an area that fits your new circumstances.

Think of it this way Dana: it's not the camera that causes the problem, it is the fact that an owner did not follow procedure, and decided to not live by the contract she signed. Remove Camera and replace with "Ugly Painting" or "Loud Windchime" or "Car on Blocks", and the thread is pretty much the same (except for the taking of pictures).

William, thanks for your excellent well reasoned response. It's too bad those needing to hear have not been listening to you. Wasting the HOA's money on an attorney is not the solution; a reasonable Board making sound business decisions is the solution. The granting of a variance is a "no brainer" to anyone who places themselves in her shoes.

PWells, be careful your bias is being reflected when you say "This is one of many reasons". And what makes you think the association is responsible for replacing owners' damaged property? By the way, giving a variance does not equate to "we must allow all the units to do it." Each request is treated based on its own merits.

PWells:

I am still baffled by the statement that the installation of cameras will increase liability for the HOA and increase insurance costs, how? I think you have made a bad decision in seeking legal action against this owner, as several have said you had an illegal meeting at a workshop to discuss and based on your posts here don't have an objective view of this person or the situation.

I am a firm believer that a board has to be flexible and should look out for the best interests of their homeowners, in this case I see installing cameras as a viable option. As Roger has said you can grant a variance and that doesn't make it a precedent.

Making a comparison to a car of blocks or an RV in the driveway is comparing apples to oranges because those things do not help in safety. I am all for asking the advice of an attorney, but I think this has gotten out of hand and I would not want to be on your board.

As for the damaged camera, if they are recording chances are she knows who broke the camera. Even if it was a deliberate act by a member of the board the HOA should not be liable for the damage.

Maybe I've missed it, but what do other homeowners in the association have to say about the cameras? Obviously somebody doesn't like them there as evidenced by the damaged camera, but how about the others? It might be worth it to take a straw poll to get an idea of what everybody else thinks.

I haven't read where anyone said the cameras would protect her. It has been said that cameras are a deterrent, and the evidence can be used in court.

I don't take everything that's been posted about the owner at face value because the board keeps adding reasons to support their original decision to deny the cameras. They are not looking for a reason to help her, or they would have issued a variance. From what I read this is a board with a vendetta.

The association does not have any responsibility for the owners cameras.

However, I would ask myself who would like to see the cameras damaged. If the cameras were damaged, perhaps it got a photo of the vandal.

In your first post you said that the board had made a decision and intended to deny the system. Here is your statement:

"My fellow board members intend to deny the system as it will violate the neighbors right to privacy and may cause to many issues then this 1 owner realizes. "

Now you say you haven't decided.

What are the pro's in this case?

So far you have only mentioned the con's.

Why did the board not issue a variance and work out some agreement so the woman can have some degree of a sense of security?

The owner thinks she has the ability and authority to install cameras on other people's property or common areas? And wear a "body camera"? This lady is clearly out of her mind. You need legal help ASAP before she can do anything else to destroy the HOA.

Yes, she can wear a "body camera" but what would she do if someone else in the neighborhood (not you) followed her around with a camera recording her every move? How would she feel if the board installed a camera to monitor her property?

Brian, I'm sorry but I've read your post several times and can't figure it out. It's been a long day!

Did your attorney really give written advice "to have the cameras removed"? Or did they say your Covenants allowed it? Big difference! If the first then there is something missing between that attorney's ears
I'd bet it was more like the second. Is your wording again reflecting your bias?

I sincerely hope most HOA Board members be more careful with their responsibilities. Remember your written comments can be used in court.

In a nut shell. Yes the attorney literally instructed the board in a letter have the cameras removed and stated which CC&R's and House Rules Book regulations where infact violated by installing them. What actions to take, recommended time window to have them removed. And what will happen if they failure to comply.
All the i's are dotted and t's are crossed :o) as best as we can.
-PWells