Dummy cameras provide a deterrence factor.  So long as they appear real and give every impression of being real, a criminal may think twice before doing something.  Most criminals operate in the world of secrecy.  The possibility of being identified puts a damper on criminal activity.  So, in that respect, just the sight of cameras (real or fake) gives one a reason to pause before acting.  Fake cameras also have the benefit of being spot located.  It really doesn’t matter if you can get video cabling from it to the recorder/monitor because there's nothing to monitor.  All you care about is making their presence known.

But, on the flipside, it's that belief that opens up liability issues.  If someone believes it to be real and they take an action that places them in harm based on that belief, you become liable. Although most of the time it's aimed at those with deeper pockets, individual residential owners have been sued.

An alternative is a combo system.  There are some locations we have where every inch of the property is covered by cameras.  Often, these cameras are mounted high up with zoom capabilities and hidden.  They can see in the dark or zoom in with auxiliary illumination.  But because they are not visible, their deterrence factor is zero.  So, a few fake cameras are placed strategically for the purpose of being seen.

There isn't a perfect answer.  Odds are the presence of the cameras will reduce criminal activity and the risk of liability is actually small.  But you have to balance it.

"If someone believes it to be real and they take an action that places them in harm based on that belief, you become liable. Although most of the time it's aimed at those with deeper pockets, individual residential owners have been sued."

Can you give me an example of an action that an uninvited intruder treasspassing on my property could do that would put me at legal risk because I have a fake camera on my house.  Thanks!!

1) Your neighbor sees the camera and figures you have monitored security.  One night someone  breaks into her house, she runs out her front door to get help from you or to alert "whoever" is watching the camera.   She stands and waves in front of the camera screaming.  The burglar/rapist/intruder/whatever fears being discovered goes to shut her up and because she's standing still in front of your fake camera the assailant doesn't have to chase her too far.  He hurts her badly.   She sues you for implied safety.   Now if the assailant trips and hurts himself on your property while running to her, he sues you too.

2) Someone who lives in the neighborhood walks to the store at night and chooses to take a short cut across your property because, well you have security.  They get mugged.  They sue you for false sense of security.

3) A person starts to burglarize your house but is deterred by the strong door and lock.  He spots the camera and thinks it's real and connected to a recorder.  Now he feels compelled to break in through a window to steal the recorder/evidence of his attempted break-in.  He cuts himself on the broken window, he sues you.


While seemingly crazy, similar scenarios have played out in courts and even if the plaintif doesn't win, you're sill out the emotional distress and attorney fees.  Naturally, these 3 examples are independent of the camera being real or fake.

Let me give you a real scenario.

Jane is walking down the street.  Joe accosts her as she’s walking.  Fearful, Jane starts running.  Joe takes off after her.  As she is running she sees a house with video camera mounted outside.  She realizes she only has a 50% chance to reach the corner where help may be available.  She also figures there’s only a 50% chance someone may or may not be watching the cameras.  Either way, she only has a 50% chance of getting help.  Jane decides to run to the house where Joe grabs her and assaults her.

When it’s discovered the cameras are fake, Jane’s chances of getting help at the house wasn’t 50% as she reasonably believed, but it was actually 0% because the cameras were fake.  Had she not seen the cameras, she would not have made a decision that absolutely resulted in her assault.  The fake cameras instilled a false sense of security that resulted in her not taking the option that provided a now greater degree of getting help.  She essentially made a wrong decision based on a false portrayal of facts by the homeowner.

Although state law protected the homeowner from loosing the house, they are still paying off the jury award.  Ironically, had the cameras been real and not monitored or recorded (even if broken) Jane’s chances were still 50% and the homeowner would have been protected because they didn’t create a possibility that was false.

Now, likelihood of this happening to you?  Very small, but if it does, that’s what you can expect.

As a second year law student and son of an attorney who has practiced law over 25 years, I find very little legal recourse an individual would have for "false sense of security." Commercial businesses often have cameras that are in fact not real. An individual has the right to do with their assets and property as they wish as long as it does not jeopardize the well-being or saftey of other individuals. I do not find fake security cameras to fit into this category. If a woman ran out into your yard while being robbed due to her belief that you had motion lights but they did not turn on, she would not have legal recourse against you. That person would have to prove that you acted in a careless and/or negligent way. Installing a fake security camrea does not fall into this category. It is installed on YOUR property for YOUR security. By installing this device you make no promise or guarantee to anyone living around you that it will protect them.

Do you mind doing a Westlaw search for us?  It could be the media and news outlets are full of stories that simply have no weight in court, I believe those of us that provided examples are citing news stories rather than first-hand experience.   You may be right, there may be no liability associated with using dummy cameras, except if you count attorney fees, lost work wages, emotional stress, and feelings of guilt.

Best wishes on finishing law school.

There are only three groups of people who say dummy cameras don't pose a legal liability:
1. Users of dummy cameras.
2. Sellers of dummy cameras.
3. Attorneys who sue people who use dummy cameras.

There are dozens of cases on the records.  But since your only a second year law student and getting legal tips from daddy, here's a place to start, contact Sheraton Hotels legal dept.  Gee, I'm in a good mode, contact Sears legal department as well.  Oh let's take it a step further, contact PCGSolutions and ASIS and NCJRS, and there's that lawyer group in NY who specialized in alarms and security, I'm sure they have a list of all the lawsuits.

Don’t let your new student love of the law cloud the facts that when it comes to lawsuits, attorneys will sue their own dying mother if it means making money.

Your argument regarding the liability of security cameras is flawed. The above posts mentioned a private residence and that person's liability if someone was being chased and went onto their property. Due to the fact that this property is private and not intended for public use, I feel it would be difficult to argue liability in this case. You mentioned contacting Sheraton Hotel's and Sear's Legal Departments. Hotels as well as retail stores are intended for public use. When a person enters these places of business, the company has an implied duty to provide a safe and secure environment for its customers. If the company was negligent in providing an environment such as this, then it may be liable for harm or injury caused to its customers. However in the case of a private residence, the name implies that it is not intended for use by anyone other than its respective owners. This is why it is illegal to trespass onto someone's property without their consent. Based on previous cases I have briefed, it is my conclusion that liability in this situation would be very limited. The resident who installed the cameras on their property intended for them to protect their own property. Unless the individual entered into some type of agreement in regard to protecting his neighbors, there would be little to no liability on the part of the camera owner.

I suspect you should review civil law, or perhaps things are simply different where you live.  My experience, second-hand as it is, has been different.  Anyone trespassing on a homeowner's property, who in the course of this admittedly unlawful journey, injures themselves may sue and will likely receive an award for some perceived negligence on the homeowner's part.  Such litigation happens all the time.  Cut feet from broken glass in the yard, tripping over an unmarked hole or sprinkler head, even climbing over a fence and falling to the other side.  Not too many people have "no trespassing" signs posted on their front lawns, so I'm not sure there's the implied defense/immunity of private property

The issue of dummy cameras and liability isn’t about right or wrong, public versus private property, or even common sense versus stupidity.

When the first case hit over 25 years ago (wow it's been that long) we all would have said that the circumstances did kinda open the business up for a lawsuit.  But since that time to now, it's taken on a whole new life.  "False Sense of Security" lawsuits are our industry's equivalent to trip & falls.  A bit of facts, mixed with a whole bunch of convoluted fiction orchestrated by lawyers to play a sad tale about a victim and the need for justice at the hands of someone who has money.  Certain facts are facts; attorneys in these cases are basically ambulance chasers who put on a production of Razzle - Dazzle.  They pretend it's about the law and justice, but we all know it's about money.

So, unless you have the money to defend yourself against the lowest form of criminal sc*m, namely attorneys, don't put up a fake camera.  Remember, an attorney will tell you a thousand ways to Sunday and swear on their dead mothers grave that’s it’s alright to use dummy cameras and that you have no liability, but the day you put it up is the day that same lawyer is hunting for a victim to sue you.  Use common sense; never trust an attorney when they say you don’t have any liability, after all they wouldn’t be an attorney if they were honest.