be made that as a matter of public safety, it's good to have that opportunity, to have different businesses close at different times. i used to be on the police commission i know that everyone that closes at a specific time becomes a challenge for the police department. i think this is legislation that makes sense. there are world class cities throughout this country and throughout the world that are already doing it and i think that san francisco is lagging behind and one of the reasons that i as a gay man came to san francisco because of the entertainment nightlife that we have here. i think there is a way of promoting that and still maintaining public safety which is always the excuse to not do it. >> larry? >> as an operator of a late night venue already i can tell

you that having late night service would certainly contribute to public safety. i know my business stays open often until 4 a.m.. we have a trickle out of patrons as opposed to many of businesses have a dumping of patrons. my patrons don't all dump out and have interaction and conflict unlike other businesses. i think that's a very good point. >> mr. rene? >> i was involved the first time we tried this 4 a.m. legislation in sacramento whether it was mother's against drunk driving and our patrol showed up with crying mothers. but forget world class cities, it's kind of embarrassing when

indianapolis and memphis and milwaukee and 25 largest cities in america have 4 a.m. legislation to allow service and the data and the sciences out there, seattle spent a lot of money doing a big study about whether or not they should pass a 4 a.m. legislation and what happened was driving fatalities go down and a lot of alcohol problems go down. there is a lot of positive stuff that comes out of this an i also owned a nightclub in the 80s in south of market. at 1:45 a.m. people are slamming down drinks. i think if you want to give them alcohol let them slowly trickle out. it's going to make it a lot easier for police and more cabs on the streets to take

people who are inebriated home. that said, i don't think you want to put it out in richmond and residential neighborhoods, but certainly large entertainment venues will attract a lot of customers and bring in tax dollars for the city if we do this. >> strictly from a security perspective we have the problems at night. we are flooding the streets with drunk people, with more people at one time than any other time throughout the night and it's taxing on laughed, taxing on security and neighborhood. so having a staggered approach, not every venue should be able to go to 4:00 a.m. and i agree with that. bars go to a certain point and maybe there is a clear definition of those

industries and subcategories are. absolutely it's a necessary tool for us to make sure that we limit the amount of violence that happens every night. >> that's a difficult question for law enforcement standpoint. i think it's a good time for another trivia question. [ laughter ] which seated commissioner was tinker bell at disneyland. we take pride in ourselves to the police department to be very open minded and i think that most of the venues that deals with the security or patrons or entrepreneurs will know that we are very open minded and we listen to all concerns. this is a hot topic and it would be a drain on our resources if they stayed open until 4:00. a.m..

it -- a study was done in the norwegian studies and this determined there was more crime. you know in las vegas they stay open 24 hours a day and they found more drunk driving arrest at 6:00 in the morning. it's no second that we are going to be rereplenished. in the the next months there are a couple officers leaving the department. it's something that we are open to down the road. that's the beauty, we sit down and craft conditions and we look at it from a community's standpoint. at this point it wouldn't be favorable to the police department. >> thank you very much. does

anyone else want to comment before i go on to the next question? okay. >> keeping in mind our dependence on media and the recent boston bombing and our reverence to privacy can you talk about cameras outside of buildings. i would like to start with supervisor campos. >> thank you very much. i don't think that anyone disagrees that we want to do everything we can to make sure that we have as safe a city as we can and i think that what happened in boston is tragic and there is every reason for us to worry about whether something like that can happen in san

francisco. but i think that you have to be very careful and to make sure that when you are taking steps to respond to a tragedy like that one, that you are also not over stepping the line where you are actually undermining civil liberties. i think that one of the unfortunate things about policy being made out of a tragic incident is that history shows you that a lot of that turns out to be bad policy and so, i personally don't have a problem and would like to see that there is availability of the kind of footage that we had in boston, we know the cameras in that case did save lives and prevented another incident from happening. i do think we have to be careful in how that information is used by the police. i have had this conversation with greg, he is mindful of that and understand

that you want to have rules so that if there is a need for the footage, you know that they can go to court and request it and that can happen very quickly so there is no time lapse between an incident and when something takes place. in terms of the general view of the around security cameras, i think that there are times when security cameras are appropriate and i think that in those cases it is, i'm supportive of the police department requiring those cameras for some of these liquor licenses where they are being requested. what i have concerns and supervisor wiener has concerns is a blanket rule that says any liquor license and you have to get a security camera. i don't think from a public safety standpoint that makes sense because i do believe that that for many

businesses it is possible for them to operate without that. i understand maybe the availability of that footage can make people's lives easier in some respects but i think you have to strike the right balance and what we are trying to do is having a discussion with the police department where having surveillance cameras that that is required but not always interested. if you have a dialogue, there will be in fact many businesses that will decide to have these cameras on their own. i think it's different to have that situation than to have it imposed by the police department. so it really is about strikeing the right balance. and i think that there are many reasons why having cameras makes sense, but there are also many reasons why we

have to be thoughtful about thchl there are privacy implications for having cameras and i can tell you as a gay man, i think that anytime you go to one of these establishments especially if you are not out but if -- tlu there is a long history of concern around privacy. i think it's important to strike the right balance and i don't want to react without thinking about what we are proposed. if anyone should be able to strike that right balance between public safety and privacy, it is san francisco and that's what i'm hoping for. >> supervisor, given your statement, would you be against the requirement for cameras on the interior of clubs as well? >> i think that as a general blanket rule for all businesses i would be against that. we can have a conversation about whether or not clubs are unique

or not where that requirement should be instituted, but the question for me is what is the data, what does it show? where is the need? i'm open to having that discussion but making a blanket rule that it's not driven on facts is dangerous. so i would engage the police more in really knowing what the facts around that really are. >> thank you. berry, i know you have some very strong opinions on surveillance cameras. would you like to share? >> i would love to share. in 2010 there was an attempt to make it a law to have night clubs have security cameras and our mayor made a very clear statement that that was not something that our city wanted.

also, if the police department wants footage, there are legal ways to go about getting footage if it exist. putting a condition on a permit to side step those laws, those processes, it's not good for our community. if the police department wants to have cameras outside of my business, let them engage the community and let them do it themselves. i'm not interested in participating in surveillance on my patrons. >> so, do you think that -- [ applause ] >> do you think that more businesses should bear the cost or not bear the cost of cameras instead of the city bearing the

cost. >> i think the city should have cameras. there are places where that is useful. having cameras near registers can save many dollars. if you believe your clientele is potentially violent on damaging in terms of graffiti cost, you can have many reasons to have cameras. if a business wants to install their cameras and use them, they should bear that cost. if footage exist that law enforcement wants access to, there is a process that allows the law enforcement access to that. so, if a business wants to install cameras, absolutely they should bear the cost, but having law enforcement require cameras, that cost should not

be passed onto the business. >> i have very mixed feelings about cameras but i tend to lean to what berry is talking about. we seem to be karening willie and nilly to this camera side. we are crossing the line now between reasonable, video surveillance in public being a reasonable part of the policing or police action and you get into the unreasonable police infringement of the 4th amendment. let me read you one of these conditions so you can see what i'm talking about. i have probably seen 20 of these in the last few years. if you have a conditional license and pretty much everybody does in san francisco, you can petition the abc to give you a license

and in that petition they have give you the conditions. but this one says the petitioner shall utilize electronic equipment to record inside and outside of the premises and must be kept for 30 days and made available for the police department. that is pretty big brother and i will tell you why. i think berry is right. if there is some reason to have that surveillance, it should be made available. if you don't want to give it up, then a judge can get it from you. however, my job is to save my clients money and do the right thing for my clients. i tell everyone of my clients get video surveillance because in the last couple of years i have seen one client save a quarter million dollars with an ugly lawsuit. he can prove from the

video when the person walked in the club and they were staggering when they came in and when they came out and they were beat up god knows where. they were able to prove it with the video. on new years day, my client had the best sophisticated surveillance and there had been a homicide down the street on new years day and this video surveillance was able to go outside, isolate a camera and zoom in on that person that walked in the liquor establishment and pretty much finger a murder and that murderer is off the street. there is really good reason to have video if you have a place, but where i draw the line is this part about whether it's to

be kept for 30 days and made available to the police on demand, wrong. that's a little over the line on the big brother and i think you have to have a situation where they voluntarily give it up or get a search warranty from the judge. >> this is a time for the police to respond. >> i am going to the take responsibility for crafting that language and it was meant for my 16-year-old daughter and it was available to mom and dad. i will apply it to you. everyone here in the panel had a good point and brought to the police department's attention. we went back to drawing boards and we are looking at

softening the language and making it applicable and unique to different locations or to businesses when they apply. our point is that sometimes you get confuse d with government installed cameras which has other rules and cameras installed in businesses. epa -- even if we don't ask that, it's up to the petitioner themselves to install that. it's an approach to deal with alcohol related issues. as you may or may not know, if there is an abc condition, you can come back within two years and modify that condition. not one person has asked to have their surveillance equipment or language struck from their conditions. it's mostly hours or some other conditions. i think what the panel said there

that it's an opportunity. when a petitioner calls and says how can i protect my business? i suggest cameras. it kind of diffuses the situation if there is an allegation of misconduct by an employee. in fact we had one nightclub there was a homicide and that video was able to prove it was a justifiable homicide. we are going back to as what the supervisor said that we are crafting the language and softening the language and we are looking forward to doing business with any applicant in the future as well. the bottom line is it's been a big help for the police department. we are a progressive police department. there has not been a situation where we have

requested video without a police report. if you don't give me video voluntarily i'm going the correct way with a search warrant. we ask that you provide the tape when it's applicable. >> unfortunately, you have been outranked, as you leave your seat i would like to introduce to everybody -- never mind. deputy chief of field operations has showed up who was originally supposed to have that seat. i guess you must have been doing a good job and he bailed. [ laughter ] . >> i just wanted to mention that when i first on my club i didn't have a security camera and one day i walked in and my turn tables were gone and we installed a security system inside leaving out to the

outside. one outside the door and inside leading to all the exit doors. my club was large. we had a lot of exit doors. i never did put any on my bar tenders. i trusted them. not only, we found a lot of good things from those cameras. one was we found that our janitor was stealing the toys from our toy drive. so that was not good. we were also able to assist the police. there was a kidnapping and rape and dump. they took somebody out from in front of our club and dumped her in redwood city and we were able to provide the tape for that and for me, a woman was suing me for breaking her ankle and we had video of her walking in the club perfectly fine and walking out of the club

perfectly fine. cameras can work in all kinds of cases. >> shau? >> i have the pleasure of not only owning a security business but also a nightclub. it was 2010 world series and giants won and there was a shooting down the street on a club that didn't have cameras and we get to help out our own community and able to provide video footage of one of the potential suspects on that homicide. it does benefit us. there are issues of 4th amendment rights, i get that, but as bar owners we have dealt with the person that said i slipped and fell in your bar or the security mishandled me when

i was being carried out. video footage will help address that and eliminate that. complaints, often if your security is doing the right thing. so you as a business owner has to make that decision and say how strongly do i believe in my customers right to privacy versus my businesses being viable and successful. i think there is an easy balance there and cameras will help. one other thing with regards to cameras, they are very inexpensive. for a thousand dollars you can get a decent camera. and make sure your lighting is good too. >> do you have cameras? >> yes. i installed cameras about 8 years ago. i originally did it because i didn't trust my employees. i ended up firing

a lot of them because of what i found. but ironically that film didn't help me. i fired one bartender for being high and drunk. when he applied for unemployment insurance that video footage meant nothing and i still had to let him go. but we still have some very positive incidents where like someone told here where about 7 years ago a friend of mine was sitting at a bar and her purse went missing and the police used our footage to bust a ring of six or seven purse snatchers that had been hitting bars all over the city. we had another incident where there was a robbery down the street, 16th street and the person came to our bar and we had him on footage. every time the police

have come to us and asked us for footage, we have given it to them and it's helped for the community than it does for the bar. they are cheap. as a bar owner i would highly recommend them for your own business. you don't even have to ever use them until something bad happens, but just having that eye on your staff will keep them honest knowing that they are being watched even if you don't look at the footage. they even sell dummy cameras. that doesn't do much. you want to be able to watch more. but i don't agree that it should be imposed on anybody. it should be your own business decision and i think it's a wise business decision. >> okay. so, i would like to just stop for a moment and if you don't mind and then we'll take questions of the panel.

our chief of police is here greg sur who missed the trivia question that was asked about him and i would like to call him. c'mon up. i would like to call him to address you at this time and then we'll open the floor to questions and answers. and as he's making his way to the podium, one of the things, i hope you all got one of these. on the way out, everybody pick up one of these. this is the san francisco at the -- at the entertainment commission about nightlife. there will be a break out group for the managers and security. this has a lot of really good stuff in it and plus it's really pretty. thanks to our

commissioner al prerz perez who did this. now i would like to introduce to you chief sur. [ applause ] >> i apologize. we have one meeting for the police department and required for all captains and i can't even send anybody because we are in lock down for that meeting. this is the meeting where every time we have this summit i have not missed. i'm a huge entertainment person. i love going out in san francisco. i hope that jocelyn and -- are my personal friends. i want to assure everyone that the police department is here for you. tourism drives this city, entertainment drives this city. we just had beta brekers, i

hope everybody thinks it was a success. this was all this weekend and now it goes as the weather gets better and we have daylight savings time and i enjoy the panel discussion on video surveillance. i have to again -- reassure you, the camera is for you, for your safety, outside the portal to your place. we have made cases, solved violent crime, absolved people of accusations. it's been a smart thing to do. it is not our video. it is your video. we could not come and take your video. if you want to give it to us sooner rather than later, we would appreciate it, otherwise we have no problem to protect you via search warrant and we won't ask

unless we have probable cause to do this. this is nothing about big brother watching or trying to get in anybody's business. this is after the fact only to solve whatever happens to make sure it doesn't happen again to keep your patrons safe and your image in nightlife in san francisco so this town can continue to just boom because for however long the recession was here, it seems like it blew by. the unemployment is 5.4 percent and a ton of those folks are working at your restaurants. we are making gains on broadway. i know we have evenings where it's dicier and we appreciate your patience. we really don't

want to be the wet blanket on entertainment at the police department. we want to be the engaged cops telling people have a good time. we are here for directions. we are not supposed to give recommendations but we all eat. again, we all really really are here for you and i will stay for all the questions, but i want to reassure you again that the video cameras that are being asked by rich and i think he used the phrase that he had a 16-year-old daughter in mind and that it's up to you on how you protect your asset which i thought was metaphoric. [ laughter ] . you were paying attention. yeah. east coast. that's a hint. i'm not leaving. i'm