Recent Case on Authentication of Surveillance Video

More and more criminal cases involve video evidence, whether from patrol car dash cameras, store surveillance cameras, witness cell phone cameras, or, in the near future, wearable cameras. It’s important to know the authentication requirements for such evidence. A recent court of appeals case sets a high bar for admissibility. Facts. The case is State v. Snead, and it arose when two men stole some shirts and sweatshirts from a Belk in Concord. The incident was caught on the store’s surveillance video system. The defendant was charged with larceny and with conspiracy to commit larceny. The defendant was also charged as a habitual felon. Trial proceedings. At trial, a regional loss prevention manager testified that, although he was not at the store in question when the theft took place, he had viewed the video. He also stated that he was familiar with the video recording system, which was an “industry standard” system that “water-marked” the recordings with time and date to prevent tampering. The video was admitted and played for the jury. The defendant was convicted, received a lengthy sentence, and appealed. The appeal. He argued, in part, that the video recording had not been properly authenticated. The court of appeals agreed. It began by summarizing the relevant precedents: The prerequisite that the offeror lay a proper foundation for the videotape can be met by: (1) testimony that the motion picture or videotape fairly and accurately illustrates the events filmed (illustrative purposes); (2) proper testimony concerning the checking and operation of [...]