While the debate over surveillance cameras is relatively new, State College is no stranger to the battle between public safety and civil rights. Six years ago, a similar dispute occurred when the State College Borough Council passed a loitering ordinance, despite student protest.

"It's been pretty effective," Sgt. John Wilson of the State College Police Department said. "The controversy has died down."

According to the loitering ordinance, more than one person "remaining idle or gathering in one location ... or walking around aimlessly" on public or business property can be fined between $100 and $300.

On business property, a person cannot "make unreasonable noise, engage in tumultuous behavior, use profane language, or create a physically offensive condition" under the law.

Another part of the State College ordinance "prohibits loitering for the purpose of engaging in drug-related activity."

A main argument of those in favor of surveillance cameras are the large groups of people that gather in Beaver Canyon, sometimes resulting in criminal activity such as assaults and criminal mischief. The loitering ordinance put in place, aims in part to prevent such large gatherings.

Even though the State College loitering ordinance has been in effect since July 1997, citations have been "very sparse," Wilson said.

The loitering law has not really changed anything, said Grace Mehalick, manager of McLanahan's Student Store, 414 E. College Ave.

"Loitering hasn't been a problem here," Mehalick said. "This is a good location to meet friends before going somewhere. I can't recall ever having a problem, even before the ordinance."

Malia Brink, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said loitering laws, like the one in State College, are designed to eliminate activity that citizens do not like.

"They turn to loitering as a way of getting rid of this problem without violating the constitution," Brink said. "But some laws go way overboard."

Most towns or cities that create loitering ordinances try to eradicate things like prostitution, drug dealing and homeless people sleeping in the streets, Brink said.

"[The loitering ordinance] was the result of a lot of fighting, criminal mischief and groups of people blocking sidewalks," Wilson said.

The specific intent of loitering laws dictates whether they violate citizens' civil rights, Brink said.

"If people are engaging in drug transactions, that's criminal conduct. Propositioning in and of itself is a crime," Brink said. "In these cases, the laws tend to be overlapping. We get concerned when the laws don't overlap."

Brink said loitering laws sometimes go too far.

"What we have to ask is, do these ordinances go so far that they criminalize normal behavior?" Brink said.