National US Supreme Court asked if cops can plant spy cams around homes

[The Heretic]

US Supreme Court ruling due on spy cams around homes

ACLU argues for the Fourth

www.theregister.com

It relates to a criminal case, Moore v. United States, in which ATF agents placed a camera on a utility pole in Massachusetts and recorded the home and surroundings of petitioner, Daphne Moore, and others for an eight month period.

The agents initially were investigating Moore's daughter, Nia Moore-Bush (who subsequently changed her name to Nia Dinzey after marriage) and her husband on suspicion of selling unlicensed firearms and later suspected their involvement in the sale of illegal drugs.

Read More

 

[Ura-Ki]

US Supreme Court ruling due on spy cams around homes

ACLU argues for the Fourth

www.theregister.com

It relates to a criminal case, Moore v. United States, in which ATF agents placed a camera on a utility pole in Massachusetts and recorded the home and surroundings of petitioner, Daphne Moore, and others for an eight month period.

The agents initially were investigating Moore's daughter, Nia Moore-Bush (who subsequently changed her name to Nia Dinzey after marriage) and her husband on suspicion of selling unlicensed firearms and later suspected their involvement in the sale of illegal drugs.

There is also a Case in North Carolina ( I think) that raises the same questions, does the Wild life/Game wardens have the right to plant cameras on private property with out the owners knoloage or consent! The Owner had a prior game violation for poaching, but it was a minor charge and the owner served his time, The Dept of, whatever had planted cameras on his property and had been recording for at least a year before the camera was found. The owner took the camera down and disabled it, the police show up with a warrant and search his home and property and seize the camera and then fine the property owner!

 

[The Heretic]

There is also a Case in North Carolina ( I think) that raises the same questions, does the Wild life/Game wardens have the right to plant cameras on private property with out the owners knoloage or consent! The Owner had a prior game violation for poaching, but it was a minor charge and the owner served his time, The Dept of, whatever had planted cameras on his property and had been recording for at least a year before the camera was found. The owner took the camera down and disabled it, the police show up with a warrant and search his home and property and seize the camera and then fine the property owner!

Yes - I recall that one. Rather egregious.

 

[ma96782]

4th Amendment Case. In case you might have forgotten.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Aloha, Mark

 

[RobMa]

There is also a Case in North Carolina ( I think) that raises the same questions, does the Wild life/Game wardens have the right to plant cameras on private property with out the owners knoloage or consent! The Owner had a prior game violation for poaching, but it was a minor charge and the owner served his time, The Dept of, whatever had planted cameras on his property and had been recording for at least a year before the camera was found. The owner took the camera down and disabled it, the police show up with a warrant and search his home and property and seize the camera and then fine the property owner!

This is what totalitarianism look like folks....

 

[CamoDeafie]

Criminal courts have long held the concept of "once a criminal, always a criminal" with little to no regard for the civil rights of those who have served their time.

 

[RobMa]

Criminal courts have long held the concept of "once a criminal, always a criminal" with little to no regard for the civil rights of those who have served their time.

Yes just like the recent case in regards to nonviolent felony offenders losing their second amendment rights forever.

 

[bbbass]

Serious question:

Does your yard constitute "persons, houses, papers, or effects"?

Obviously the light pole is not part of your personal property, it must belong to the city utility unless it is a telephone pole.

But what about satellites and helicopters? Does Googoo Earth have a right to photograph and the share the pics? Can a PD helo that is searching for a perp look into your property from overhead?

 

[bbbass]

BTW, I'm still tired of hearing about felons losing their rights. Can't we give it a rest in a thread that has nothing to do with loss of gun rights???

Puleeze?????

 

[CamoDeafie]

BTW, I'm still tired of hearing about felons losing their rights. Can't we give it a rest in a thread that has nothing to do with loss of gun rights???

Puleeze?????

It's germane to the topic. Basically.. if felony can cause loss of one specific Constitutional right; then by the same token, it can also cause loss of any other Constitutional right.

And what better way to promote the concept of a 2nd class citizenry than to bar whole group from having rights restored due to criminal history, convicted or otherwise?

And related to spy cameras.. reasonable expectation of privacy? Curtilage laws. Plain sight is not beyond the fence/walls/windows.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

There is already case law disallowing the surveillance of ordinary citizens without probable cause. I would look for this kind of activity to be prohibited unless there are some very clear cut reasons why there is probable cause here. My question would be whether the surveillance occurred with or without a warrant. A warrant pretty much specifies probable cause. Without a warrant the cops are on really thin ice.

 

[The Heretic]

This is what totalitarianism look like folks....

Britain

Surveillance cams everywhere

 

[Cavedweller]

There is already case law disallowing the surveillance of ordinary citizens without probable cause. I would look for this kind of activity to be prohibited unless there are some very clear cut reasons why there is probable cause here. My question would be whether the surveillance occurred with or without a warrant. A warrant pretty much specifies probable cause. Without a warrant the cops are on really thin ice.

How is it different from a stakeout? Do stakeouts require warrants?

 

[156256Hunter]

How is it different from a stakeout? Do stakeouts require warrants?

Unmanned Stakeouts: Pole-Camera Surveillance and Privacy After the <i>Tuggle</i> Cert Denial

The Supreme Court recently declined to review Tuggle, a Seventh Circuit opinion upholding warrantless, prolonged pole-camera surveillance of a home. This Essay argues that the Court missed an opportunity to update its Fourth Amendment search doctrine. This Essay also explores alternative...

www.yalelawjournal.org

 

[ob1]

How is it different from a stakeout? Do stakeouts require warrants?

NO, not from a public vantage point using visual or video methods.

Does this really surprise anyone ?
Private investigators do it. Never watch Cheaters ?


Ofcourse surveillance is legal when performed from a public location.

No, a warrant is not needed for same. Nothing new here, it's been going on for many decades.
Don't like it ? Don't stick your bare arse out of your front window.
No different than parking a surveillance van on the street in front of your neighbors house.
Installing electronic on the subjects property.. more involved but has been done in certain circumstances. Video surveillance is easier to perform than audio, but even that has been approved under certain circumstances.

Interested in researching the requisites and details ? Start with US Title three, electronic surveillance.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

How is it different from a stakeout? Do stakeouts require warrants?

Case law draws a distinction between what is in plain sight and invasion of privacy, particularly around the home and its curtilage. For instance, law enforcement cannot scan your home with an infrared camera without a warrant. They cannot fly a drone over it without a warrant.

 

[Mark W.]

This is what totalitarianism look like folks....

He could have just placed something a foot in front of the camera completely blocking its view.

 

[ob1]

Unmanned Stakeouts: Pole-Camera Surveillance and Privacy After the <i>Tuggle</i> Cert Denial

The Supreme Court recently declined to review Tuggle, a Seventh Circuit opinion upholding warrantless, prolonged pole-camera surveillance of a home. This Essay argues that the Court missed an opportunity to update its Fourth Amendment search doctrine. This Essay also explores alternative...

www.yalelawjournal.org

The pole is on the public domain recording activity in view of passersby. And before someone says it, telephoto / zoom lenses are allowed because anyone can stand on a sidewalk...a bit creepy maybe but allowed.
Public domain

Defense attorneys have tried to challenge visual evidence forever. Go back to the bare butt in the window..it's considered an invitation by the stupid.

 

[The Heretic]

BTW, I'm still tired of hearing about felons losing their rights. Can't we give it a rest in a thread that has nothing to do with loss of gun rights???

Puleeze?????

Two cases. One where the ATF put the surveillance up to investigate gun trafficking (which should not be illegal), the other had to do with hunting (albeit a hunting law violator) and more disturbing where the wildlife agency trespassed onto his land and planted a camera - a clear 4th amendment violation.

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape. Thomas Jefferson

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.
But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."

― John Adams

 

[The Heretic]

There is a difference between seeing a van or person hanging around, and a small disguised cam on a utility pole.

That said, I live on a private road. With the exception that LEOs and other first responders have an easement to travel it for emergencies, if the gov plants surveillance equipment on the private property without our permission (the whole neighborhood would need to vote on it), I am going to be ripping it down/out/off the private property. Moreover, my house is barely visible from the private road - you cannot look into my house or shop, without trespassing onto my property.