The video shown above is useless for evidentiary purposes. It's too pixelated to be of any service in identifying the suspects. The only two facts drawn from this video are that the suspects are a white male and a dark complected male (can't be certain from the video that the suspect isn't wearing a long-sleeve shirt with gloves, again due to pixelation.)

If you're going to put video in for "security" purposes, remember this: The item you want to exhibit as evidence needs to be no smaller than a quarter on the screen. Digital is great for storage purposes, but once the image is captured, you cannot do anything with it. All of the TV/movies garbage about "enhancing" digital images is total b.s.

• Carefully research your system.
• Demand a demonstration prior to paying for anything.
• Double check that your video images are actually stored at the same quality as they are displayed on the screen (i.e., check your compression rates).
• You can't have too many cameras.

There are lots of great systems out there, but they are expensive. If you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the video clearly shows the evidence you need for a conviction, you've wasted your time and money.

[Ed Note: Excellent suggestions. However, my experience is that there are no such things as "absolutes" when dealing with evidence. Further, this story is not about whether or not the video was too pixelated to be used as evidence, it is about procedures that prevented the video from even being reviewed.]