Hamilton Resident Ordered to Remove Cameras After Aiding Three Homicide Investigations

Hamilton, Ontario – A resident of Hamilton, Dan Myles, has been ordered by the City of Hamilton to remove 10 security cameras from his home, despite his assertion that the footage has been instrumental in solving numerous crimes, including three homicides. The directive stems from the city's Fortification Bylaw 10-122, which prohibits surveillance devices from viewing or listening beyond the perimeter of an individual's property.

Myles, who resides on MacNab Street North, stated his cameras have been in place for seven years and have provided critical evidence in over 40 break-and-enters, multiple home invasions, and car thefts, in addition to the homicide cases. "I’ve actually participated in evidence sharing of three homicides on these cameras," Myles told Global News, emphasizing the utility of his surveillance system to local law enforcement. Hamilton Police Services have acknowledged the value of residential CCTV images in investigations.

The city's order mandates Myles to either reposition or remove his cameras to comply with the bylaw. However, the city indicated potential exemptions if Myles provides specific documentation, including a letter of support from his landlord, signed permission from neighbors whose properties are captured, camera screenshots, and police reports substantiating the need for the cameras due to local crime. Myles has appealed the order and is working to meet these conditions.

Myles recounted how his camera footage assisted in a high-speed fatal crash case and an investigation involving alleged serial killer Sabrina Kauldhar. He noted that police investigators have personally thanked him for the crucial evidence his cameras provided. The City of Hamilton, in its statement, reiterated its commitment to resident health, safety, and well-being through the bylaw, which allows for exceptions for devices like doorbell cameras that capture public property but not adjacent private property.

The situation has sparked debate regarding privacy rights versus public safety, with some neighbors supporting Myles's efforts to deter crime. Myles maintains that the cameras are essential for the safety of his family and the community, viewing them as a vital form of protection. He plans to re-angle one camera to accommodate a neighbor's privacy concerns while seeking to retain the overall system.