A sense of security or invasion of privacy?

The man shuffles into a Santa Rosa parking garage, raises a middle finger at a passing pickup and then proceeds to rip the wooden arm from the toll booth.

Dispatchers watching the late-night scene on TV monitors across town summon police, whose patrol cars roll into view moments later.

Before the man can get into his car, he's placed under arrest. And a videotape was available for prosecutors had the case gone to court.

"What's nice about this is we have indisputable evidence that he broke the arm," said Rhonda McKinnon, a police communications supervisor, as she reviewed the August tape.

Following an international trend in which the public's every move seems to be recorded, Sonoma County is focusing surveillance cameras on streets, schools, bus stations and parking garages in hopes of preventing crime and fostering a feeling of security.

The Santa Rosa City Council last week approved the installation of eight wireless cameras downtown at a cost of up to $56,000, and a group of Petaluma business owners are working on a similar proposal.

Santa Rosa already has cameras at the downtown transit mall and in most parking garages with live feeds to police dispatchers. Schools countywide are either running pilot programs or talking about them.

Each of Santa Rosa's 35 city buses is equipped with a half-dozen cameras that record passengers and outside traffic.

That's just locally.

In London, where there is one camera for every 13 people, statistics have shown residents are caught on film an average of 300 times a day. The cameras were credited with aiding an investigation that quickly netted five arrests after two car bombs failed to explode in July.

The faces of all 100,000 fans who attended the 2001 Super Bowl in Tampa, Fla., were captured by a video camera connected to a law enforcement control room inside the stadium. Each image was digitized and checked electronically against the computer files of known criminals, terrorists and con artists kept by the Tampa Police Department, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

Even Internet giant Google is getting into the act. Its satellite imaging equipment allows Web users to home in on just about any place on earth, viewing close-ups of people walking down streets.

"This is not the magic bullet, but will it enhance our ability to provide police services downtown? Absolutely yes," Santa Rosa Police Capt. Tom Schwedhelm said. "Will it give a feeling of safety to people in the downtown area? Absolutely yes."

But civil libertarians argue the cameras infringe on privacy rights, and the effectiveness of cameras is the subject of debate in other cities.

"This is the beginning of a radical change in the way the state, society and citizenry interrelate," said Mark Schlosberg, police policy practices director at the Northern California office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Privacy concerns were underscored this year when Google Street View images outed a secret smoker -- San Francisco free speech and privacy lawyer Kevin Bankston. Photos of him puffing as he walked to work appeared all over the Web.

A 2005 study by the University of Leicester in England found cameras didn't reduce crime in closely watched neighborhoods near London, and residents reported they felt no safer. Critics say the money might be better spent on lighting and police foot patrols.

Santa Rosa has followed a deliberate path toward turning a lens on downtown, one spurred by blatant drug dealing and vandalism that has left many feeling vulnerable.

In 1996, the council authorized the installation of two cameras in the transit mall, and the city recently installed cameras in all its parking garages, a process speeded by the unsolved killing of Matthew Toste in the Seventh Street garage in December.

After hearing complaints from businesses around Old Courthouse Square, police launched an undercover sting using cameras last year that led to 20 to 25 arrests on narcotics and other charges.

Schwedhelm said the experiment proved cameras are an invaluable investigative tool. Advanced technology offers high-resolution pictures that identify suspects or record license plates with equal clarity.

Of the eight cameras to be purchased by the city, five will line Fourth Street between the Santa Rosa Plaza on B Street and the Barnes & Noble store on D Street. Three will be installed in Old Courthouse Square, two on the east side and one on the west side.

McKinnon estimates the cost of each camera, depending on what equipment is added, will be between $3,000 and $7,000. Funding will come from Measure O, the quarter-cent sales tax measure approved by voters in 2004.

The city already is considering other sites for cameras, including the Prince Memorial Greenway, Schwedhelm said.

Through it all, he said, police are sensitive to privacy. Camera positions that afford views into places such as the Cantina restaurant's second-floor bar on Old Courthouse Square will be digitally masked.

The state and U.S. Supreme Courts have established that public surveillance systems are not an invasion of privacy.

Schwedhelm conceded he was unsure if cameras would pose a deterrent. Crime statistics were not kept on the decade-old transit mall cameras, but anecdotal evidence suggests they have been useful, he said.

Meanwhile, in downtown Petaluma, where debate over the use of cameras has been going on for years, property owners are convinced video surveillance is the way to deter vandalism and violent crime.

The Petaluma Downtown Association, with money from the city, is installing a half-dozen cameras that will roll 24 hours a day, offering live monitoring from the association office or tapes for future use.

Jeff Mayne, a board member and past president, said symposiums he attended in the Bay Area left him impressed with the state of surveillance technology and assured him cameras really work.

The system being installed by AT&T in the coming months will offer Internet access and have room for expansion to other businesses that have expressed interest, he said.

"We're in an atmosphere where we've had some serious criminal activity downtown, like vandalism and graffiti," Mayne said. "The city has said property owners are responsible for cleanup. It's only prudent that we try to find out who's doing it."

Mayne said that unlike Santa Rosa, cameras won't be trained on businesses so much as they will focus on trouble spots such as walls, alleys or storefronts.

"There isn't going to be a pan and zoom on people," Mayne said. "I think we're taking a tame approach to protect people's property where it's being damaged."

The idea has support from city leaders, who disagreed about installing cameras in Putnam Plaza in 1998.

Since that time, cameras have proven effective in city garages and at private businesses, Petaluma Mayor Pam Torliatt said.

"We are really trying to identify certain people that are committing a crime as opposed to having Big Brother watch over your shoulder," Torliatt said.

Schools also are relying more on surveillance cameras.

The Santa Rosa City Schools District has experimented with them at Cook Middle School and Elsie Allen and Ridgway high schools the past few years and there has been a marked decline in graffiti, said Frank Pugh, a school board member.

The district is planning to spend $1.1 million to install 215 cameras on the rest of its high school and middle school campuses, Associate Superintendent Doug Bower said.

"We've caught numerous crime suspects," Pugh said. "There's definitely a benefit. It's a lot of money -- a pile of money, but it's worth it."

Petaluma High will be the site of a 30-day trial that could be expanded to a dozen schools if it is successful in deterring graffiti, said Steve Bolman, deputy superintendent of Petaluma schools.

But opponents, including former Petaluma City Councilman David Keller, warn cameras invite a lower level of human participation in what's happening on the streets and school campuses and contribute to the feeling of a police state.

Keller voted against automated surveillance of Putnam Plaza, a popular youth hangout, opting instead for increased foot patrols.

Now, he said, sentiment appears to be swinging in favor of cameras.

"It says something about who your neighbors are and who your community is," Keller said. "It says, 'We're going to watch you.' I don't like that as a message. That's not the kind of town I want to be in."

You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 762-7297 or paul.payne@pressdemocrat.com.ABOVE: One of many downtown surveillance cameras in Santa Rosa is located in front of the city parking garage on Seventh Street, where parking garage staffer Todd Heinbaugh is patrolling the premises on foot.

LEFT: Inside the Santa Rosa police station, two large screens allow dispatchers to enlarge selected views from surveillance cameras; pictured is the Santa Rosa downtown transit mall.

SUPPORTERS: Police say surveillance cameras enhance their ability to protect people, provide evidence when crimes are committed and foster a feeling of safety for citizens.

CRITICS: Civil libertarians

say the cameras infringe on privacy. They also question their effectiveness. Other opponents say the money spent on surveillance might be better spent on improved lighting and increased police patrols.