When a bad guy abducted a woman off the street in Philadelphia a few weeks ago and she was rescued when his car was located in Maryland, I marveled at the black box technology that found the vehicle. Assemblyman Ralph Caputo, D-Essex, was even more impressed with a nearby store's video camera that recorded the entire incident and identified the car.

So he crafted bill A-3843 permitting a municipality to enact an ordinance establishing a private outdoor video surveillance camera registry, requiring owners of such cameras to register them with police. People who don't do it would be subject to $100 fines.

Registration data must include the owner's name, address, telephone number, listing of all cameras used there, description of areas viewed by the cameras, and details about how and how long images are saved. The bill specifies registry information is available only to law enforcement agencies and is not considered a public record.

Caputo's bill is well-intentioned but raises privacy concerns. Although most homeowners and businesses are eager to let police view camera footage to help solve a crime, there have been instances where law enforcement had to go to court to force camera owners to let them see images. This bill doesn't mandate video tapes be shared with police, but when police know evidence exists, courts could issue warrants to require access.

There'll be some sticky issues. A homeowner whose cameras are focused on his own doors and windows, for instance, may object to telling police about them because he thinks who enters his property and what goes on inside his house or yard is no one's business.

Others may have more specific, if petty, concerns. Suppose someone complains her neighbor routinely brushes leaves into the gutter before the sweeper comes. Could the alleged litterer be forced to self-incriminate by allowing cops or DPW inspectors to see what her camera recorded?

Some store owners rely on hidden cameras to record unwanted activity and may refuse to disclose the location of those cameras to anyone, including staff at police headquarters.

Usually, externally mounted cameras are pretty obvious. Cops canvassing the area of a crime scene would spot them easily. However, some cameras focused outside are mounted inside buildings, as was the one in Philadelphia.

Several California cities are experimenting with video surveillance registries. Fremont, San Mateo and Sacramento recently set up voluntary ones, offering window stickers for participants to display so potential troublemakers will know owners cooperate with police. San Jose officials are trying to establish a mandatory registry, but there's been some opposition.

Guidelines must be clear about what should be registered. Some homeowners or shopkeepers put up fake cameras to discourage lawbreakers, but they actually record nothing. Some drivers install dashboard cameras on their vehicles just for their own protection or amusement. Lawmakers will need to specify whether those kinds of recorders must be registered.

The bill doesn't address the issue of cost, but some expenses are inevitable if police departments must not only establish a registry, but work to keep it current as people add, remove or relocate cameras. Actually inspecting neighborhoods to ensure compliance and undertake enforcement will be expensive, too.

If the bill passes and is signed by the governor, only action by a municipal governing body can establish a local registry. Caputo said, "This will help law enforcement officials with investigations of criminal activity and save valuable time and resources. Providing police with a registry like this will be a good thing for public safety."

EDITOR'S NOTE: A former state assemblywoman from Jersey City, Joan Quigley is the president and CEO of the North Hudson Community Action Corp. in Union City. Her column appears in The Jersey Journal every Tuesday.