3 ms·
I would like this to require a warrant, but it’s hard to see why it should with the law as written. Placing a camera in a public place just isn’t a search or se
by User23 4y ago
I would like this to require a warrant, but it’s hard to see why it should with the law as written. Placing a camera in a public place just isn’t a search or seizure.
- saxonww 4y agoDoes it matter if the camera is for a nonspecific security purpose and incidentally captures your activity, vs. a camera installed for the specific express purpose of recording your activity?
- 0xcde4c3db 4y agoI can hear the officer's testimony already... "We received a tip that a drug deal was going down in this area; it's just a coincidence that one of the cameras happened to be able to see inside that house."
- sokoloff 4y agoI think a camera placed by the police and targeted at your house for more than an incidental amount of time is a type of search. I’m somewhat struggling to see the counter-argument about how it’s not in any way a search such as the 4th would require a warrant for.
- NikkiA 4y agoFunctionally it's no different from a stake-out, which doesn't require a warrant and is not a search. And that's what the supreme court is going to rule. There is, of course a difference in that you have a reasonable chance of noticing a stake-out taking place, but then you have a similar chance of noticing cameras being placed on utility poles near your home so...
- wnoise 4y agoI don't see how a stake-out isn't a search. It might presumptively be a reasonable search that doesn't require a warrant, as it's not a search that interferes or trespasses. But they are looking for evidence, right? I call looking for something a search.