Skip to content
personpersonSteven LutesSteven LutesJPMorgan Chase security specialist who authenticated ATM footage of a silver Prius, while stressing it could not show whether the transaction was a deposit or withdrawal.← All People
Witness

Steven Lutes

Courtroom still of Steven Lutes.

JPMorgan Chase security specialist who authenticated ATM footage of a silver Prius, while stressing it could not show whether the transaction was a deposit or withdrawal.

71 lines·2 proceedings

About

On Day 3, JPMorgan Chase regional security specialist Steven Lutes described the camera system at a Pembroke Pines drive-up ATM and the bank's storage of its footage. He explained that one camera captured facial images and another captured vehicles, with footage stored on a bank DVR in a locked, alarmed technology room.

Lutes authenticated State's Exhibit 143 as an unaltered July 18, 2014 ATM surveillance video. The court admitted that exhibit and State's Exhibits 38 through 44, still images from the video, without objection.

On cross-examination, Lutes acknowledged limits on the footage. It could show that a vehicle appeared to conduct a transaction, but could not establish whether it was a deposit or withdrawal, where the vehicle had been immediately before or after the interval shown, or whether other location footage existed. He also said that the subpoena compliance unit provided the video and photographs and that he had not independently investigated the transaction. After he was excused, Exhibit 143 was published in open court without audio.

Trial Record (2)

GMGarcia–MagbanuaSep 26, 2019 – Oct 11, 2019Called by prosecution

On Day 3, JPMorgan Chase security specialist Steven Lutes authenticated ATM surveillance video and related still images admitted into evidence. Cross-examination addressed the limits of what the footage and his subpoena-compliance work could establish.

Day 3

CrossSteven Lutes - CrossSteven LutesSaam Zangeneh4highlights48lines spoken

Summary

Lutes said the ATM video showed an apparent transaction but could not identify its type or the vehicle's movements beyond the recorded footage.

Highlights (4)

testimony highlightLutes said the ATM video and stills could not show whether the driver made a deposit or withdrawal because the camera primarily captured facial identification and the driver's arm near the machine.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
Quote“It's different -- it's difficult to say. Because of the way the camera is positioned, it's geared more for getting facial identification of a customer. So, really, you just see the person's arm reach to the vicinity of the machine. So it's difficult to say what -- you can't -- you can't always tell what kind of transaction it was just based from the video or the pictures.”— Steven LutesExplains the surveillance video's limit in identifying the ATM transaction.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶