[authorfly]

> privately-owned surveillance cameras that are "voluntarily" offered to law enforcement

You may find interesting to know that in the case of crimes being committed near or next to a business, especially independent businesses, their priority is often to minimalize risk to them and their business, and so they do not provide any recording, or use rolling footage which wipes every x days (often just one day). That way the footage is useful to them, but they do not have any additional obligations.

[Corrado]

This tracks. My sister had her car keyed (scratching the paint) in a Honda dealer parking lot while waiting for a tire repair. The dealer has cameras but when they reviewed the footage they couldn't find any evidence of the vandalization. They wouldn't let anyone else review the footage so we're not really sure what happened. However, I do know that finding evidence of a crime that happened on their property would just cause the dealer trouble and likely force them to pay for damages.

She filed a police report but that didn't really help at all. Not that we really expected it to, but she was just trying to be complete. In the end she had to pay to fix the damage and the dealer (and the criminal) had no repercussions at all.