Short answer: Long Beach and Seattle both accept certain police reports through a web form, and their published criteria disagree in writing about what to do with a resident who has video. Long Beach asks outright whether you hold physical evidence, and its own example list puts video first; answer yes to that question and the web route closes. Seattle's three filing criteria do not use the word evidence at all, and arrive at much the same place through a different clause about information that can be followed up on. In both cities the self-service lane is built for reports with nothing in them to act on.
The assumption the form does not share
If a handset in a window catches something, the natural assumption is that the recording makes the report stronger. That assumption is sound about the recording and wrong about the intake. Before any of these systems weighs what your footage shows, it decides whether you may use the system at all, and on some of them the presence of footage is the disqualifying answer.
This is worth reading closely if you run an old phone as a camera, because it is a property of the receiving process rather than of your setup. No capture setting moves it, and no amount of picture quality argues with it.
Long Beach: the questionnaire names video first
The Long Beach Police Department's online reporting page ends in a three-question gate whose stated purpose is to determine whether you meet the criteria to file a report online.
The second question asks whether you have specific information or evidence regarding the suspect, and defines the term narrowly. Witnessing counts; suspecting does not. The page spells the distinction out: "Suspecting someone of committing the act is not the same as witnessing the act itself." If you or somebody else watched the suspect commit the crime, the web route closes.
It is worth reading the rest of that entry, because it is the one place on the page that hands something back. If you suspect a person but did not witness them, you may still file online, and the page tells you where to put what you know: "you may file this report online and include your suspicions along with the person's information in the narrative of your report." That makes the narrative box the department's own designated home for identifying detail, in the one case where the web route stays open.
The third question is the one that catches a camera owner:
"Do you have physical evidence in your possession? For example, video, digital evidence, ID, blood, clothing, or tool used to commit crime."
Video leads that list. It sits in the same category as blood and a tool used in the offence, and answering yes to any of the three questions means the form is not for you.
Under a heading of its own, the same page states the mechanical half: "The online reporting system does not allow for any photo or video evidence to be submitted." So video is doing two jobs at once. It disqualifies the filer, and there is no field it could have gone in even if it did not. This is not a form grudgingly accepting a large attachment. There is nowhere to put one.
The page then says what to do instead: "If you have any evidence that may lead to the possible identification of a suspect, you need to call Police Dispatch" and have an officer respond to take the report.
One smaller line cuts the other way and is easy to miss. Photos of property damage or other supporting documentation are meant to be described in the narrative of the report rather than attached. The form has no slot for a file, but it does have a text box, and a text box is a place to say that a file exists.
The recording can also change what the incident is called
Long Beach's category list does a second, quieter thing. Whether a report may be filed online depends not merely on what you hold but on how the incident gets classified, and one of those classifications turns on a fact a camera is unusually good at supplying.
Its hit and run entry is scoped to an incomplete plate or a driver who cannot be identified, and closes the door on the other case in the same breath: "If you have a complete license plate and can identify the driver, you cannot file the report online." A recording that resolves a partial plate has therefore done two things at once. It has answered the question, and it has moved the report into a category the form does not serve.
The neighbouring note is worth reading beside it, because it works differently. A theft from a residence, a business, a garage or an underground parking structure is not filed as a theft: "it is a BURGLARY or attempted burglary, not a theft, and cannot be filed online". That reclassification turns on where the thing happened, which a resident already knows without any footage. Same effect on the routing, arrived at without a camera being involved at all.
Neither of these is an argument against the camera. A case with handles on it is the case somebody can work. It is that the handles arrive attached to a slower and more human process, and a resident who expected the quick one meets that news at a bad moment.
Seattle: the same boundary, drawn without the word evidence
Seattle's online reporting page lists three criteria for filing: that this is not an emergency, that the incident happened inside city limits, and that "There are no known suspects or information about the crime that can be followed up on."
Nothing there mentions evidence, or media, or an upload. Read as written, a resident with a clear recording of a stranger might reasonably conclude the criteria say nothing about them.
The same page answers that in its own FAQ. Asked why some crimes cannot be reported online, it says: "Some crimes and incidents may require evidence collection or other investigative procedures requiring an officer's involvement."
And it is unusually candid about what the channel produces. Asked whether cases filed this way get investigated, the department writes that because of the nature of the reports it receives through the form, "we won't be able to investigate most cases." The same answer carries a second half that is easy to skip and worth keeping: every case filed this way is still reviewed, and the department says the reports "help us track crime trends and patterns." Unworked is not unread.
So Seattle draws its boundary at followable information rather than at possession of an artefact. Footage of a person is followable information. Two different clauses, two different vocabularies, and a resident with a recording lands outside both of them. The Seattle version is simply harder to see coming, because the word video does not appear in the criterion that excludes it.
Unlike Long Beach, Seattle does say where to go instead, and says it in two places: a crime that cannot be filed online goes to the non-emergency line, 206-625-5011, which is also the number for anyone who would rather not use the web form at all.
One crime, two answers, on the same page
If you want a single illustration of why a summary written for another city is worth very little, take burglary.
Long Beach excludes it outright. A theft inside a residence, a business, a garage or an underground parking structure is a burglary, and burglary cannot be filed online there at all.
Seattle's page says both things. Burglary appears in the table of property crimes the page invites you to report online. It also appears in the FAQ list of what online reporting is "NOT appropriate" for, as "Burglary of your home or business (completed or attempted)."
That is not a reading error on my part, and nothing on the page settles which entry governs. Two published rules on one page point opposite ways, which is a decent argument for reading your own department's version rather than a summary of somebody else's, and for asking rather than assuming when the page disagrees with itself.
What the online lane is actually for
Seattle says the useful part plainly. Reports filed through the form are, in its words, "usually the quickest and easiest way to get a report for your insurance company."
It also describes a two-number mechanism worth understanding before you need it. Submitting gets you a temporary transaction number straight away, which the page is careful to call a confirmation rather than a police report number. The official report number arrives by email only if and when a reviewer approves the report. The page gives a normal turnaround of five business days for a response from that reviewer, which is not quite the same promise as five days to a report number, and the distinction matters to anyone waiting on one.
Put the two channels next to each other and they are not fast and slow versions of one service. They are different services sharing the word report. The self-service channel produces a record and a number, quickly, for a case nobody expects to work. The dispatched channel produces a person who can take custody of things. A resident choosing between them on the assumption that both lead to an investigation is choosing on the wrong axis.
What this changes for a phone running as a camera
The practical consequences are small, dull, and easier to act on before an incident than during one.
Read your own department's criteria page while nothing is happening. These pages are short, public, and specific to the city; the two quoted here disagree with each other in wording, and one of them disagrees with itself, so a summary written for somewhere else is worth very little.
Expect the form to be the wrong route if the footage shows a person. Both pages name a phone number for that case, and both numbers are printed on the same page as the criteria that sent you to them.
Do not assume an upload field exists. At least one of these systems states that it has none, which means the handover is arranged with whoever takes the report, by whatever means they name. That is a conversation to have with them, not a problem to solve in advance.
Use the narrative box for what it is. Long Beach says outright that suspicions, a person's information and descriptions of supporting documentation go there. A sentence saying a recording covering a given period exists, and is being kept, is the same kind of material: information a reviewer can act on even when the file itself cannot travel through the form.
Know which number you are holding. A confirmation of submission and an approved police report number are different objects, and Seattle's page says plainly that the approved one is the number you need for an insurance claim.
What I could not establish
The pages describe intake rules. They do not describe what a reviewer does in practice with a narrative that mentions a recording, and I found no published account of that from either department.
I also did not find a published account of how departments that do accept media uploads route those cases. Some clearly accept them. Whether accepting an upload changes the assignment of the case, or only the storage of the file, is not something either of these pages speaks to.
Two departments are two departments. That two cities on opposite coasts, writing independently, both push a resident with evidence out of the self-service channel is suggestive of a common design logic rather than proof of one. The honest version of the claim is that this pattern exists and is worth checking for locally, not that it is universal.
Nobody is grading the footage at this stage. The eligibility questions decide whether your case goes to a reviewer or to an officer, and a recording is the answer that moves it.
We build Background Camera RemoteStream, an Android app that keeps recording with the screen off and serves the picture over your own network. More writing on this sort of thing at superfunicular.com.
Sources, both first-party:
- Long Beach Police Department, Online Police Reporting System
- Seattle Police Department, Online Crime Reporting
Top comments (0)