> The second portion would allow police camera access in “public safety crisis areas,” which would include spaces known for open-air drug markets or where there

> The second portion would allow police camera access in “public safety crisis areas,” which would include spaces known for open-air drug markets or where there has been a documented spike in violent crimes. The measure involves privately owned security cameras placed throughout the city. I'm confused. Does this mean private cameras are forced to provide their video feeds to the police, regardless of their owner's wishes? I don't think there's any law that prevents a private individual from sharing live video (that they are legally recording) with the police, so unless this law compels that sharing, the quoted portion would be legally superfluous.