I would love to hear your company's stance on Ring Doorbells.

My community is located in CA. I have a resident w/past DV issues that would love to keep her Ring (attached by command strips) but her neighbors accross the way state they are uncomfortable. I would love to hear about your experiences and how you handled them. Bonus points for legal advice obtained while trying to handle this scandal. TIA

Here’s a bit of what i know... The front door area of a home/apartment where a Ring doorbell camera records video is not a place where most people expect privacy. Thus, you will not likely face criminal charges for using a Ring doorbell, nor can another party expect privacy in these commonly shared areas.
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy inside a apartment, bedroom, or bathroom, but external hallways, walkways, entries, and other such areas are not reasonably assumed to have privacy.
Audio, however, is a different matter.
Do Ring Doorbells Violate Wiretapping Laws? (PC 632)
Wiretapping laws under California Penal Code Section 632 require that you receive consent from a person to record his or her voice. The law also states that it is illegal to record a “confidential communication,” which is any communication meant to be heard only by the parties involved.
If you are using a Ring doorbell camera, the simplest way to avoid facing wiretapping charges under PC 632 is to turn off audio recording. If you don’t want to do that, it may be a good idea to notify friends, family and mail carriers that their voice may be recorded when they are near your front door.
Though it is illegal under California wiretapping laws to record another person without his or her knowledge and consent, most people use doorbell cameras for security purposes. Unless you are deliberately using a recording for exploitive or commercial purposes, you face little risk of facing charges for violating wiretapping laws through your everyday use of a doorbell camera.
As video surveillance is common place these days, the expectation of privacy, even in audio communications is limited to within structure and not externally.
As a precaution many communities have installed warning signs in common areas, the offices, etc. that state that video and/or audio recording devices are located in the common areas of the community including walkways, stairwells, and entry corridors thus limiting their potential exposure while still providing a reasonable notice to any parties who enter the community.
Hope this helps.

this. This is how I've handled my property though I Oregon. We allowed as it is no worse than me outside with a camera taking photos

Unless it says specifically they can't have a security system so long as they aren't making permanent alterations to unit I'd say let them have it and tell their neighbors to pound sand.

The neighbors need a dose of reality if they think they’re not potentially being recorded pretty much any time they leave their home lol.

For the moment we decided to allow them in the leased space only, because it records the comings and goings of another person and because of the way our property is built it can see in their windows, so we wanted to think through how we would feel before really allowing them. So they can “look out a window” but not be in our space.

Mgmt controls ALL Common areas. Outside any door is A Common area. It matters not who is or is not comfortable. If it is outside the unit, then it is your call. But ask yourself this, if it was a video camera without a doorbell would it be allowed??? My answer would be a resounding No!!!

If it’s attached with command strips and done neatly we do not have an issue with it. What makes the neighbors uncomfortable? I bet the first time their Amazon packages go missing they ask the neighbor to look at their surveillance.

As long as the camera can’t view beyond the front door or inside the neighbors apartment there’s no issue with privacy. I wish more would take steps to secure their homes.
Not allowing camera installation (within reason) could put the landlord in a position of “recklessness” if a crime could have been avoided by having cameras in place.
I would set rules on the location of the device and clearly state courtesy rules.

The last community I worked at we installed normal door bells. Had several people replace with a ring. The only thing you could see of the neighbors was their garage and front door. Unless they are doing something illegal they should worry. It would be just like if they bought a house. Cant stop your neighbor from having one.
We actually caught a bunch of teenagers breaking into a car because of the ring.

Since I don’t have cameras in the area, I love that my one guy has Ring... for some reason it didn’t pick up the thing we needed (someone trying to kick in across the way neighbors door, BTW) but if it had, we’d have been golden.

Our attorney advised that the is no expectation of privacy outside the home, common areas including hallways are fine for Nest and Ring style cameras.

It’s part of the security system clause. We have 379 units on our property and around 190 apartments have rings and or nest cameras.
Tell the resident complaining that the ring is a security feature and that it’s a liability for the property to tell the resident with it to remove it. Not worth the battle of telling the resident to remove it. Cough cough Law Suite!

Good thread about it: www.biggerpockets.com/forums/432/topics/...bIZbbNneUIFu5SCdi8S0

Offer them to residents charge monthly rate

The only rule I had was that it couldn't be screwed into the building (residents used sturdy double-sided tape). Our attorney was okay with it because there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in common areas. We aren't responsible for them, so it took the liability for safety off of us.

I personally have a ring peephole cam. There is also a cam that you can screw into a porch light. My property doesn't care if tenants have them.

I think they are the cheapest security you can find these days! I can’t tell you how many incidents we’ve caught on them and how much they have helped.

We allow them as long as they don’t face a residents door. As well as no building damage. So they can’t hardwire them.

We have in circumstances allowed it because a new resident hadn’t received a single package from the time she moved in. Others in the building we’re having packages stolen immediately upon delivery. We knew who it was because they were the only person who’d never had a package stolen. He was also the only one furious over the camera. But that camera helped is evict him. Not only was he stealing, he moved an unauthorized occupant into his apt, he was prostituting his gf out, dealing drugs and left his 2 infant sons home alone. So not only we’re we able to evict but that footage also helped him get arrested for his criminal activity.

So if you create a policy, just state as well that under extreme circumstances you will approve or deny under a special request. Had we had in our lease that the camera couldn’t face another’s door, he could have easily taken us to court and he would still be terrorizing his neighbors.

We allow them as long as they are removable/non-damaging and don't face into another residents unit or at their door.

We were told it doesn’t matter if it faces door of neighbor, but I really recommend getting legal advice.

I think if the doors are in between am not facing another door ot should be fine.

I encourage them! They are awesome forms of surveillance. I want to make it part of my 2023 improvements and add technology fees.