John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras
- Thread starter John Canuck
- Start date
fiundagner
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 210
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This information is not a substitute for actual legal advice. In the event of a question or concern about this information seek the advice of a professional.
Long Version:
From http://thelawdictionary.org/curtilage/
Short version: if it is not an enclosed area under you direct control (fenced in land, public restroom, hotel room) you do not have a legal expectation to privacy. This is why they can post cameras everywhere on public property, why surveillance cameras are allowed in businesses, and why the news crew can film everything on a public road. On the other side you can also choose to film the police from your yard, or in public, and they are not supposed to have a legal recourse. Additionally anything they do film you should have equal access to, if you know to ask for it, and what to ask for, but they do not have to divulge that they have suck recordings.
Warrantless GPS doesn?t fly because it is a form of active (for lack of a better term offhand) tracking that can impede on private spaces (curtilage) How often do you take your phone into the bathroom? Or your car into / onto private property (a fenced in yard for example)? Simple use of a public areas (road and parking lots for example) does not constitute probable cause. Surveillance cameras are a passive (again I lack a better term offhand). They do not appreciably move, and record everything in their field of view, not just you specifically.
Shorter version: The judge made the corect legal call, even if it is a potentially questionable moral / ethical call
Long Version:
From http://thelawdictionary.org/curtilage/
If the subjects property was not enclosed within a a fence or other physical border then they / you have exactly the same expectation of privacy that you would have on a public street. A case may be made that due to the conspicuously posted no trespassing signs that the officer were guilty of, and have confessed to, trespassing. This does not, however, make the evidence they have gathered inadmissible. It has been repeatedly ruled (I do not have the case law easily available) that evidence collected illegally, so long as it did not violate the fourth amendment (officers acting undercover for example). Contrary to popular belief a person does not have to answer honestly when asked if they are affiliated with a law enforcement agency. Answering dishonestly does not constitute entrapment (again, I don?t have the case law easily accessible). The growers may (extra emphasis on may) be able to charge the officers with trespassing, but that will only fly if a DA chooses to prosecute, and if a court does not throw the case out as frivolous.
Short version: if it is not an enclosed area under you direct control (fenced in land, public restroom, hotel room) you do not have a legal expectation to privacy. This is why they can post cameras everywhere on public property, why surveillance cameras are allowed in businesses, and why the news crew can film everything on a public road. On the other side you can also choose to film the police from your yard, or in public, and they are not supposed to have a legal recourse. Additionally anything they do film you should have equal access to, if you know to ask for it, and what to ask for, but they do not have to divulge that they have suck recordings.
Warrantless GPS doesn?t fly because it is a form of active (for lack of a better term offhand) tracking that can impede on private spaces (curtilage) How often do you take your phone into the bathroom? Or your car into / onto private property (a fenced in yard for example)? Simple use of a public areas (road and parking lots for example) does not constitute probable cause. Surveillance cameras are a passive (again I lack a better term offhand). They do not appreciably move, and record everything in their field of view, not just you specifically.
Shorter version: The judge made the corect legal call, even if it is a potentially questionable moral / ethical call
PCShogun
Well-Known Fanatic
But what about where it says
" . . . that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras"
Does this mean they can put cameras to VIEW your property but not necessarily ENTER your property? My first reading was that they could put cameras in the trees of MY property to view me. After reading your post, and then re-reading the article, I am starting to see where they can put camera's to view my home and property without actually coming onto my property.
You are correct about the right to privacy and reasonable expectation of privacy. If you make no efforts to provide for your own privacy, you cannot expect privacy. This does not give them the right to trespass onto your property to place the cameras, is how I read this. In this case I do not believe the agents came onto the property but aimed cameras at the property? Still, this is just one more step toward the establishment of a police state.
" . . . that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras"
Does this mean they can put cameras to VIEW your property but not necessarily ENTER your property? My first reading was that they could put cameras in the trees of MY property to view me. After reading your post, and then re-reading the article, I am starting to see where they can put camera's to view my home and property without actually coming onto my property.
You are correct about the right to privacy and reasonable expectation of privacy. If you make no efforts to provide for your own privacy, you cannot expect privacy. This does not give them the right to trespass onto your property to place the cameras, is how I read this. In this case I do not believe the agents came onto the property but aimed cameras at the property? Still, this is just one more step toward the establishment of a police state.
fiundagner
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 210
They do this all the time. News crews on the street, red light cameras, the surveillance cameras on every corner in New York, heck even the camera on the ATM at the corner. If you live in an apartment building with security cameras you actually pay someone for the privilege.
If I read the article correctly the agents entered the property without a warrant. This is why the agents may be guilty of trespassing. However, as the property did not have a fence or physical border surrounding it, any person on the property, by law, does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Think of it as your car. The police can look in the windows all they want. They cannot enter into your vehicle without your permission or probable cause (this is a greatly simplified explanation BTW). If the police opened your vehicle doors (your fence / overcame a physical boundary, not a physiological one) and put a camera on the roof it would be illegal. If your window was rolled down, or you drove a vehicle without doors, (no fence (Again greatly simplified explanation)) then they would not be violating your privacy, as an occupant of a vehicle without doors has no expectation of privacy.
A simple legal test (very simple) is "Could they have reasonably gained the same information using a different system that does not require a warrant, or has been determined to not be a violation of the fourth amendment?" . Could a helicopter over flight (the only privately owned restricted airspace I am aware of in the United States is above Disney. Private airports don?t count.) have gathered the same information if had it been in the area at the right time? It could not hover in place, because that would be surveillance, but if it simply flew overhead it would be appropriate.
Tigerstripe
Well-Known Fanatic
so if they put up cameras to watch my property and my wife and i do it in the treestand, tree house, are we in trouble or are they peeping toms?
John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
I pity the first fool who finds federal spy cameras on his property and confiscates them. I would take a slightly different approach with them 
Tigerstripe
Well-Known Fanatic
SHOTGUN from behind. but what if there is a camera watching the camera?
I didn't read the whole thing but as long as they dont step on your property, whats the big deal. There is a "in plain sight" law in effect now. Having a camera mounted somewhere else facing your home is no different then someone standing in the same spot looking in the same direction.
John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
No big deal I guess. I see no reason why this should be limited to rural property. Those city folks shouldn't mind a few cameras mounted on the front lawn to uncover evidence.
fiundagner
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 210
you know. i could get behind that one. literally. especially if you could gaurentee it would be manned by a human 24/7/365. Looking at my shiny white butt at 3am would severly discourage the programs continuation past the first night I'm sure :lol:
Rosea Carpa
Well-Known Fanatic
fiundagner said:
+1 on that! Just another example of the government stretching its arms into our lives.
I am a firm believer that our forefathers would be in the streets shooting by now!
fiundagner
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 210
John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
"Meant" to. Is that supposed to be reassuring, with the government's track record of "following restrictions"?
Of COURSE they would :roll: . Why would the all powerful overlords predict a less then favorable reaction from the sheeple they control?
Midnight Raver
Well-Known Fanatic
No more private nose picking sessions- is NOTHING sacred any more??? :?
