General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPolice Can Record Video Inside Your Home Without A Warrant, Appeals Court Says
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court provided some comfort to those fearing the seemingly limitless potential of new technologies to enable government privacy invasion. In holding that police could not attach a GPS device to a car and track it for 30 days without a warrant, the court said, At bottom, we must assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.
But dont get too comfortable. A federal appeals court ruled last week that police can secretly videotape a suspects home without a warrant. In a case about the suspected sale of bald eagle feathers and pelts a misdemeanor crime the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that undercover police admitted into the suspects home as interested buyers of pelts did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they secretly videotaped the suspects home:
The decision doesnt entirely break new ground. At least one other federal appeals court has upheld the use of video recordings inside the home, and just last month, a lower federal court reached a similar conclusion.
But the case raises the same sorts of concerns that several concurring justices emphasized in the U.S. Supreme Courts decision last term in United States v. Jones: What scope of surveillance will not violate our present understanding of a reasonable expectation of privacy? At what point are we, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor cautions in Jones, making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track, may alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society? Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Hanni Fakhoury elaborates on this concern:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/03/1273621/police-can-record-video-inside-your-home-without-a-warrant-appeals-court-says/
PDJane
(10,103 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)That's apparently ALL we have freedom to do in Michigan now but hey, since the legislature and the BS artist Snyder seem to at lease consider citizens human, what's the worry.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)with this ruling. The 4th Amendment issue rests in one's expectation of privacy. One surrenders that expectation when one invites someone, especially, someone unknown to you, into your home. There is no criminal seller/criminal buyer priviledge.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I don't have an open door policy in my home for just that reason.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No one I don't know gets into my house ... we can talk on the porch, with the door closed behind me.
And, if someone does get into my house, I am not discussing criminal activity, nor do I have contraband in plain view.
But then, I don't engage in criminal activity, either.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)law enforcement to collect data to be reviewed in order to discover evidence of a crime?
There is a drug task force in my area that uses these very tactics; they have no problem using civilians against family members or friends.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but would still have no constitutional protection.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)with respect to the U.S. Constitution, why should I?
Come on ... don't be shy!
Bandit
(21,475 posts)I guess I must have imagined it...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Most jurisdictions have the "Rule of One" ... so long as one of the parties, generally the one doing the recording, knows of the recording, it is lawful and admissible.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Consider for a moment that it is one thing for LE to rely upon an officer's memory and quite another to have available the perfect memory of the recording weeks or even years after the visit. Additionally, the recording can be shared and enlarged to glean information that otherwise would simply not be available. There is a privacy expectation component in evaluating 4th infringements, but there is also an expectation that no one could determine, for instance, the list of books on your bookshelves from across the room, or remember the addresses on envelopes lying on the coffee table.
LiberalFighter
(50,950 posts)No indication that they installed a device to record while the LEO was not present.
Another point is that they had probable cause to believe there were law violations occurring based on testimony from others. They investigated and it led to confirmation.
msongs
(67,420 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Inside the home now. Without a warrant.
Had enough yet?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)doesn't need a warrant when you INVITE them in ... Just like they don't need a warrant when you consent to a search.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)You do not have an expectation of privacy when you invite somebody into your home.
A cop or informant CANNOT video tape your home if you do not invite them in.
The technology developments only make these things easier, but the principles have stood for decades.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If the officers had started rifling through the guy's closets, that would be another thing altogether.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or, if the officer had forced his/her way in ... different result.
Scabby57
(15 posts)The Patriot Act Opened Up The Flood Gates
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)This is why if the police come to your door and don't have a warrant you should usually, if not always, tell them they don't have your consent.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)posing as not-police.
And how long before simply owning a computer or cable box with a camera attached is construed as "inviting" access?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)That makes this a lot worse to me. I understand how the courts got this ruling, but I don't agree with it. The problem is the police are agents of the state and I do feel that there should be different expectations of privacy regarding them. The man likely would not have invited the police in and that should make a difference. Your point about a computer with a camera is a good one and worrying. Honestly, the fact that we are having this conversation worries me. Law enforcement agencies have far too much power these days and to be frankly honest I think it is more important to protect people's rights than it is to capture every single criminal.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if you skype and L/E observes contraband ... you've got a problem.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I'll admit I don't like it. As I've said before in this thread I think we have given far too much power to law enforcement agencies, but legally what you say makes sense. We need to get Congress to pass laws restricting the power of law enforcement agencies if we want this to change.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I completely agree that We D. People, in the pursuit of "security and safety", or is it complatency, have given far too much power to L/E. While I am largely unaffected by these issues, because I do not engage in criminal activity, there is nothing stopping us from sliding down that slippery slope to McCarthy style political hunts.
Additionally, as We D. People surrender more and more power to non-human people, i.e., corporations, and the blending of corporate powers with traditional L/E, I think this corporate intrusions will soon be an issue to be reckoned with.
BTW, from what I've read ... Would I be correct in assuming that you are an attorney, or otherwise connected to the law?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I'm just an undergrad student who has taken a couple of courses in constitutional law and criminal law and is planning on going to law school. The law interests me a lot so I also follow a few legal blogs and websites to keep up with these things.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The law is a great and challenging profession, when used for "good"; but she can be a jealous mistress ... say goodbye to any thought of a 40 hour work week.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)tell them you will be happy to allow them entry, once they present a valid warrant.
Then, whisper to whoever else is in the house to dispose of any contraband ... While you remain in plain sight.
Refusing entry ... then, scurrying around inside the house, flushing of toilets, turning on the sinks with the garbage disposal on, lighting the fireplace, will provide L/E with a reason to gain a warrantless entry, as all of these can be argued as reasonable cause to believe that evidence is being destroyed.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)If I recall the Kentucky Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the defendant and said that in the state of Kentucky they weren't willing to apply the Supreme Court's ruling so strictly.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)If an invited-in informant can wear a wire (for audio surveillance), why not a video recording device?
Unless people arguing against this decision also believe that police shouldn't be able to conduct audio surveillance with a wire, I don't get the objection.
retread
(3,762 posts)Smilo
(1,944 posts)way this is going.
MiniMe
(21,717 posts)They want to target ads to who is watching, so if they can tell that kids are watching something, you would get ads aimed at kids. I don't currently have a DVR, and I miss it, but if companies are going to do things like this, I don't want one.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We are moving into a very disturbing future, indeed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021938146