2.3.2 New Technologies and Police Custody 2.3.2.1 Video In his annual report for the year 2009, the Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté has already addressed the topic of “video surveillance” (a term which in this instance is preferable to “video protection”) in places of deprivation of liberty, including police custody facilities, in order to illustrate the realities, explain the origin thereof and call attention to certain practices 77. It is useful to return to this point, since situations of the same type have once again been observed in police custody facilities. In the first place, an obvious fact: police facilities are extremely wellequipped in terms of video surveillance tools (that is to say cameras and monitors – viewing screens), whereas gendarmerie facilities have little equipment of this kind. Admittedly, the latter account for little more than a fifth of police custody decisions, and moreover comprise a much larger number of premises (about six times more gendarmeries than police stations). But police stations and headquarters are open twenty-four hours a day (and are therefore permanently manned), which is not the case for gendarmeries, which are closed at lunchtime and during the night. In other words if, as previously noted78, video surveillance is a means of making up for inadequate presence of staff, or for their absence, one ought to expect it to be used more extensively in gendarmeries than in police facilities. However, this is only a paradox in appearance. In reality, when it is borne in mind that video surveillance in places of deprivation of liberty is much less an instrument of surveillance than it is a tool for ensuring distance and separation, the difference becomes more understandable. For gendarmes, close contact with persons is a traditional and constant concern. This close contact is far from theoretical: it is manifested in their way of living and working; in particular in cases of custody. These soldiers have numerous opportunities of physical proximity with persons in their custody, for example the traditional morning coffee provided at the end of the night in the gendarmerie rest room. Dealing with persons deprived of liberty is inseparable from their other duties. This is not the case for the national police force. Far less importance is placed on close contact and dealing with persons in custody is often considered to be a task of minor importance, entrusted to administrative officers, or assigned on a rota basis, or allocated to units that are sought-after for the convenience of their working hours, or to which the less dashing members of staff are posted 79. In the second place, the expansion of video surveillance raises certain legal questions, not all of which have been resolved. The applicable legislation dates from the Internal Security Act (loi sur la sécurité intérieure) of 21st January 1995, which is now codified under articles L. 251-1 and following of the Internal Security Code (code de la sécurité intérieure)80. Three problems can be identified with regard to this applicable law. 77 Annual report for 2009, section 3 “Video Surveillance in Places of deprivation of Liberty”, pp. 89-111. Annual report for 2009, loc. cit. 79 Cf. the Chief Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty’s recommendations concerning the detention facility for illegal immigrants at Choisy-le-Roi, in particular part § 4. 80 At the time of publication of this report, the codification of the regulatory part of the code has not been completed th and this area is therefore still regulated by the decree (décret) no. 96-926 of 17 October 1996. 78 40