Supreme Court Watch: Videotape Surveillance

On June 25, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Baxley v. Hakiel Industries, Inc. that the manager of the bar was aware of the potential for litigation and failed to preserve videotape evidence from surveillance cameras. The manager of the bar became aware that a customer had been involved in drunk-driving accident and began an investigation into what the customer had been served. The manager later said that there was no evidence on the videotapes of what the customer had been drinking. The court said, however, that there could have been evidence showing whether the customer intended to drive.

A court will presume that the evidence destroyed by a defendant during the normal course of business after an accident investigation has begun would have favored the plaintiff (victim) in the case. Thus, if your business maintains videotape surveillance and you become aware that those tapes may contain evidence, you need to separate those tapes away from the tapes that you re-use in the normal course of business.

Some of the examples of times to maintain the videotapes include, but are not limited to: a) fights or other obvious criminal activity; b) when a customer is later involved in criminal activity; c) anytime you are notified by someone else that they want to look at your tapes for the possibility of litigation; and d) anytime that you begin an investigation into activity on the premises.

Your normal business practices should also state that you keep videotapes for a sufficient time that you will have a chance to learn of possible litigation; at a minimum, you should not re-use or destroy videotapes for at least a week.