HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ninth Circuit Approves Wa...

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:33 PM

Ninth Circuit Approves Warrantless Home Video Surveillance By Undercover Agents

Federal agents can enter a person's home with a hidden camera under the guise of being a visitor and record the inside of your home and that video can be used in criminal or civil prosecutions. GPS units cannot be attached to a person's car as that is deemed a search, but secret video recordings inside a person's home is allowed.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/ninth-circuit-gives-ok-warrantless-home-video-surveillance

7 replies, 745 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ninth Circuit Approves Warrantless Home Video Surveillance By Undercover Agents (Original post)
TheBlackAdder Dec 2012 OP
msongs Dec 2012 #1
DirkGently Dec 2012 #2
OnyxCollie Dec 2012 #3
Rstrstx Dec 2012 #4
Rstrstx Dec 2012 #7
B Calm Dec 2012 #5
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #6

Response to TheBlackAdder (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:36 PM

1. sieg heil to the court and government nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:38 PM

2. Troubling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:52 PM

3. The Fourth Amendment is quaint. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:20 AM

4. You mean this issue has never come up before?

Hidden cameras are nothing new, miniature camcorders have been around for quite some time. I'm amazed the Supreme Court hasn't already ruled on a secret video being taken without someone's consent, I would think legally it would be much like a phone call or conversation being recorded without the knowledge of one of the other parties.

I agree it is a bit slimy to do but if the guy voluntarily let him into his house I doubt US v Jones would apply. Now if the officer had gone in and planted a secret camera in the guy's house and left it there to record after he left that would be something totally different and I could see how it would violate Jones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rstrstx (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:00 AM

7. OK, went back to read some of the older cases

The article cites Theofel v. Farey-Jones which sounds like a good analogy until you go and read the case. Nevertheless, that case makes reference to even older cases that sound more relevant and that's when it gets very easy to get bogged down into what has become established law and the nuances involved. Bottom line, there should be more relevant cases than US v Jones (the GPS case). It's also unclear which of those relevant cases from the Ninth Circuit have been reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:39 AM

5. Romney knows all about hidden cameras!

Just sayn. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Original post)

Reply to this thread