Did Surveillance Camera at Beverly Center capture shooting of Roderick “Dolla” Burton?

By Alex A. Alonso
STREETGANGS.COM STAFF WRITER
May 16, 2010 | 4:02 p.m.

LOS ANGELES, Cailf – Last week during the testimony of parking attendant Jose Molina, defense attorney Howard R. Price noticed a surveillance camera in one of the prosecution’s photo exhibits. Molina was one of the witnesses that testified seeing Aubrey Berry, shoot rapper Roderick “Dolla” Burton at the valet area of the PF Chang’s China Bistro restaurant at the Beverly Center in Los Angeles.

Price appeared to be surprised to find out from Molina that there was a surveillance camera in the valet area that would have captured the entire altercation between Berry and Burton. Last week video footage provided by the prosecution of the garage area outside the restaurant did not capture all of the events leading up to the shooting nor did it capture the actual shooting. This camera that Molina testified about would have captured the verbal altercation between Berry and Burton and provide evidence to support the self defense claims of Berry, if Burton and their group were the aggressors. Although the prosecution provided footage from the garage area, what was provided to the defense and what was being used in the trial was not from the surveillance camera visible in exhibit 16.

On Tuesday May 11, Deputy District Attorney Robert Grace called Ms. Alcantar, an employee of Ampco Parking, who does secretarial work for the parking company and has knowledge of the surveillance camera system. Grace called Alcantar to testify that the surveillance camera over the valet area did not work, but Price objected to her testifying. Prosecutor Grace wanted her to testify in front of the jury to dismiss any ideas of evidence tampering of potential video surveillance that could possibly support Berry’s self-defense claims. Judge Michael Pastor decided to listen to a preview of Alcantar’s testimony outside the presence of the jury.

Alcantar told defense attorney Price that a security company called IPC owns and operates the cameras in the Beverly Center common areas including the garages and parking structures. When Price asked her if IPC operated the camera at the valet desk area, she did not answer. She seemed confused and after a long pause, she stated that Integrated Access installed that specific camera in the valet area. Price then asked her directly, “who maintains and operates that camera?” and her answer was an astonishing, “no one maintains that camera.” She further stated that the camera is not operational because she has never seem imagery from that camera and that another employee told her that it was not functioning. Alcantar explained that she has access to view all cameras and if it worked she would be able to view. Price asked her if IPC has an office onsite and whether they had access to view that camera remotely and she did not know.

Price objected to her being able to testify in front of the jury because of her limited knowledge of the surveillance system and mostly because her testimony would provide the prosecution with an explanation for not having critical footage from a camera that would have captured entire incident. Judge Pastor sustained the defense’s objection much to the dissatisfaction of prosecutor Grace who stated to the judge, “You are going to allow them to argue that there is a missing video?” and Judge Pastor replied that he would not allow that either.

At this point, Price had already created doubt to the jury during Molina’s testimony about possible footage from a camera in the valet area, and the prosecution knew that they had to quickly present some information about this camera and any footage shot from it to dispel any type of “cover-up,” so on Wednesday May 12, Grace called Vernon Pineda, who worked for the facilities department at the Beverly Center that had direct information about this valet area camera. Pineda testified that 2 years ago there was a problem with theft among the valet employees so Pineda himself installed a decoy camera, a surveillance camera that does not capture any footage. According to Pineda, this decoy camera was designed to appear that the valet attendants were being watched by IPC. This ended testimony about the surveillance camera, but it still left many unanswered questions.

– Why was this decoy camera not explained up front well in advance before the defense discovered it in a photo?
– Why would Integrated Access install a decoy camera to monitor an area where Ampco employees were believed to be involved in theft? Would they not want to know who and when this theft was occurring?
– Is this another bizarre coincidence in this case? What are the odds that the camera with the best perspective on the incidents immediately before the shooting of Roderick Burton be a non-operational decoy camera?
– The PF Chang’s China Bistro restaurant has 14 fixed cameras that have 4 cameras that showed Berry and Burton inside the restaurant, and not one camera immediately outside the valet area is astonishing. The cameras inside the restaurant are not operated by IPC.

Upon visiting website, Integrated Control Systems International, an installation company of proprietary parking access & revenue control software system, they had a photo of the valet desk area at precisely the location where Berry testified he was cornered and began firing at Burton. The photo was taken on February 8, 2005 from an Argus Digital Camera according to the digital information contained within the photo. Outside the presence of the jury, Alcantar testified that Integrated Access, was the company that installed the cameras in the parking area but she must have been referring to this company. Argus manufactures both still and surveillance digital cameras.