The camera serves as a security deterrent and is meant to deter criminality.

It really is the only way to be sure.OK, that's unreasonable unless you're renting from a little self-managing DIY guy like me, but you should NEVER worry about asking anybody renting a property to unequivocally prove that they own it/have the right to rent it out to you.Any landlords, property managers, or agents who would take offense to this request these days and are unwilling to make every effort/go the extra mile to establish their identities are very likely not legit.In the very small eventuality that you do find someone who is for real AND takes offense at a request to prove their identity, well, you're dealing with a moron.

If everything else is verifiable and they don't have any criminal record, we don't even worry about the landlord part any more since 90% of them won't bother calling back, and of the remainder half might be scams and the other half might have an axe to grind.

Quote from @Winter Heintz: I'm sorry, but criminal behavior is what sends you to jail and I don't want criminals renting my property.

It's $35 per person for criminal,eviction and credit report. 

Its not criminal, unless you lie, and so you're not going to jail.Your accountant would have needed to calculate the cost basis when you converted to rental just to figure out the depreciation. 

If you get written documentation from the plumber, and have a good lease, the disposal of wet wipes down the drain could be tenant-caused enough that it constitutes a chargeable offense, especially if they agree to stop disposing of wet wipes down the drain and/or admit that they have done so. 

States define their criminal laws with what most would say is unambiguous statutory language, including definitions of acts that are unlawful.

Could result in not only the realtor losing their license and board membership, but possible criminal charges for both the realtor and the wholesaler.There's probably people who have gotten away with this in the past, but all it takes is one deal going wrong and the whole thing blows up.

One federal court of appeals held that such a blanket ban violated Title VII, stating that it “could not conceive of any business necessity that would automatically place every individual convicted of any offense, except a minor traffic offense, in the permanent ranks of the unemployed.”Although the defendant-employer in that case had proffered a number of theft and safety-related justifications for the policy, the court rejected such justifications as “not empirically validated.”