13 ms·

Federal Court Throws Out Six Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

233 points by pwg 12y ago

moonshinefe 12y ago
Needing a warrant for long term video surveillance of one's home--I can get on board with that. Despite the defendant's bad reputation, the larger implications here have the EFF defending the common man as per usual.
- Sniperfish 12y ago
  Absolutely. The reputation of a suspect should not be grounds for erosion of their rights.
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    To take this a bit further: Concepts like "rights" and "freedom" are easy when it is people you like doing things that you like. It is so easy, that it isn't even necessary to bother with the formalization of those concepts in these easy cases. The entire point of "rights" and "freedom" is that they must be upheld for the people you hate, doing things that you hate. When judging the level of freedom in a society, you don't look at how the normal citizen is treated; you look instead at how the underclass, criminals, and other disliked groups. If their rights are overlooked and ignored, any claims at being a "free society" is just marketing/PR.
    - abakker 12y ago
      Thank you for saying this. If there is every a doubt in your mind, consider that at some point, your actions, race, or lifestyle might make you the target of similar hate. It is very bad for any majority group to be able to take the rights away from any minority group. I'd point to the overturning of CA Prop 8 as a major success of the equal protection clause, and a good example of this concept in practice. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
- shawn-butler 12y ago
  This seems like a pretty bad decision. You don't have a constitutional right to be free from being photographed in public spaces. If someone wants to follow a police car from a safe distance for weeks and videotape it to capture the civil rights infractions done by its officers; this is now an unconstitutional activity? The proper way to place a check on this power is for people to decide this is not a good way to spend its money rather than absurd judicial gymnastics.
millerc 12y ago
<sarcasm>Wow. Save (an alledged) drug trafficker from incriminating himself in plain view. They really did the public a huge favour here. </sarcasm> As much as I support the rule of law, there's no way I can interpret that as benefiting mankind in any way.
- EliRivers 12y ago
  "As much as I support the rule of law, there's no way I can interpret that as benefiting mankind in any way." Really? Can you really not see the broad benefit to society of teaching the authorities that they must obey the law?
  - millerc 12y ago
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
- sls 12y ago
  No civil libertarian is delighted to save criminals from prosecution just to frustrate law enforcement. It often happens that the frontiers of acceptable state conduct are tested in such cases, though. Here, EFF isn't interested in making sure Vargas can shoot cans in his yard without interference. Rather, they are concerned that the government not be able to put people's homes under 24/7 video surveillance without even probable cause (which is all that is needed for a warrant).
  - millerc 12y ago
    Then, maybe the correct course of action for the EFF would be to work on improving the warrant system, rather than working on keeping alleged drug-dealing, unlicensed gun owners, illegal immigrants out of legal trouble?
    - higherpurpose 12y ago
      How would they "improve" the warrant system? The police went around the warrant to illegally spy on someone. The point of a warrant is to stop illegal spying, and make sure only people who deserve being spied upon are spied upon. If the police was sure he deserved it and had the evidence to prove it, they should've just gotten the warrant. If they weren't, then they were just fishing and waiting for someone co commit a crime. And that's not just immoral, but against the Constitution.
lostcolony 12y ago
Wow. Not only the obvious issues with this, but they used his shooting some cans (not exactly a crime) with a rifle as grounds for a warrant to search his house, for an unrelated crime (the one they really wanted to peg him on, drug trafficking; a diatribe in itself). That's all -manner- of wrong.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Shooting cans isn't a crime, but being an illegal alien and possessing a gun violates federal law. > A month later, police observed Vargas shoot some beer bottles with a gun and because Vargas was an undocumented immigrant, they had probable cause to believe he was illegally possessing a firearm. If they had seen him shooting cans when walking by on the street, and then gotten a warrant to search his house, this would've been totally legit. Edit: don't get the down votes. Do we not like gun control or what?
  - lsaferite 12y ago
    If he was a known undocumented immigrant, why couldn't ICE step in and arrest him and in the process find a valid reason to search the residence? Mind you, I'm super glad the judgement was made in his favor, but only because of HOW they did it, not why.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I think evidence of illegal firearms possession is a hell of a better reason to search his residence than his just being an undocumented immigrant.
      - morganvachon 12y ago
        It wasn't an "illegal firearm", it was illegal for him to possess any firearm because of his immigration status. There's a huge difference there. Edit: Reading your comment again, I think what you wrote can be taken either way (he was illegally possessing firearms, or he was possessing illegal firearms). So we may be in complete agreement here.
mdda 12y ago
It's also interesting that they might not have got a warrant to look at his garden for a month. They weren't looking for any particular behaviour - just something that would allow them to barge into his house and discover evidence of drug-related wrong-doing. If they had spotted (say) public drunkenness, they might also have argued that his house be searched. Putting up a camera to spot 'any tiny thing that the person does wrong' would seem to be very flimsy warrant-wise (I would hope).
iandanforth 12y ago
So how do you go about applying this ruling? If I live in the suburbs do I have this protection? What if I live in a city? There are likely to be thousands of homes in view of existing cameras. Which ones of those are collecting admissible evidence? If a police department doesn't aim the camera at only one person's front door, but films several homes as a pretense, is that ok? Is two weeks too long to set up surveillance? What about two hours? I really hate the "reasonable expectation" standard in general and this ruling does nothing to clear the waters.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  I would imagine that this sets the precedent of requiring a warrant to either set up a camera, or to access an existing camera's records.
justcommenting 12y ago
i wonder if this will increase or decrease the use of 'parallel construction.' in other words, will this reduce the unlawful use of surveillance tech, or merely prompt officers/agents to walk by places 'by chance' to observe things 'serendipitously' because they're still using inadmissible surveillance tech but also know they'll need to fabricate something plausible for the courts?
Poiesis 12y ago
If a human was watching the house in person, would a search warrant have needed to be obtained? Not trying to incite anything here--I realize there are differences--but I was curious about the legal implications of video vs. in-person surveillance of a property's exterior.
PeterisP 12y ago
It goes against the US tradition, but I'd prefer to not have the 'fruit of the poisoned tree' doctrine but instead direct penalties for violations by police. As it stands, it has the following effect: 1. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights of someone commiting a crime, then the evidence obtained this way is discarded, letting a true criminal go free, assuming that the evidence actually proves guilt. 2. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights and privacy of an innocent person (e.g. me) then nothing happens. In both cases, any benefit of the doctrine goes to people who don't deserve it - the lawbreakers with or without badges and uniforms. For most law-abiding people who value their rights and privacy it would be rational to request that the doctrine is "violations by police in gathering evidence get handled by existing law". If a policeman obtains evidence by breaking down a door without a warrant and taking some documents, despite being a professional with special training on what their specific rights and duties are, then let the evidence stand but let also the policeman stand trial (not disciplinary action, but a proper trial) for breaking and entering. Just as for cases of policemen shooting people - at least worldwide, given the recent events I'm not sure anymore how it's in USA.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  Might that not incentivize law enforcement officials to hire a series of scapegoats? "Listen, Mike, we really need this drug dealer in prison. Break into his house, and get use the evidence we need. Penalty for that is, what, a year in county lockup? Plus we're just about certain you'll get out in six months for good behavior. Plus, hey, it's Christmas time, couldn't your family use a nice bonus for presents?"
  - PeterisP 12y ago
    The current situation can also incentivize organized crime to hire law enforcement officials - "Listen, officer Mike, we can't figure out how to safely distance ourselves from this stash of bodies/drugs/guns/whatever. Break into this house without a warrant based on an anonymous tip. Penalty for this is, what, a written reprimand? We're just certain we can give you better bonuses than the county district can afford. (Assuming that the doctrine works in the way I understand and there aren't nifty extra failsafes built in)
intopieces 12y ago
My local news station likes to do these specials about the "supposedly homeless" where they follow people who ask for handouts by the highway and film them going in to their homes and also film them through their front windows. I challeged the reporter on the ethics of this and she told me, 'It's perfectly legal.' While technically true, is that really a good source of justification?
- michaelfeathers 12y ago
  I hear that argument all the time and my response is: "Just because you have a right doesn't make it right."
- emiliobumachar 12y ago
  If the beggars actually pretend to be homeless, I think they're fair game for being exposed. But asking for handouts by itself is not pretending to be homeless.

233 points by pwg 12y ago

Needing a warrant for long term video surveillance of one's home--I can get on board with that. Despite the defendant's bad reputation, the larger implications here have the EFF defending the common man as per usual.

Sniperfish 12y ago
Absolutely. The reputation of a suspect should not be grounds for erosion of their rights.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  To take this a bit further: Concepts like "rights" and "freedom" are easy when it is people you like doing things that you like. It is so easy, that it isn't even necessary to bother with the formalization of those concepts in these easy cases. The entire point of "rights" and "freedom" is that they must be upheld for the people you hate, doing things that you hate. When judging the level of freedom in a society, you don't look at how the normal citizen is treated; you look instead at how the underclass, criminals, and other disliked groups. If their rights are overlooked and ignored, any claims at being a "free society" is just marketing/PR.
  - abakker 12y ago
    Thank you for saying this. If there is every a doubt in your mind, consider that at some point, your actions, race, or lifestyle might make you the target of similar hate. It is very bad for any majority group to be able to take the rights away from any minority group. I'd point to the overturning of CA Prop 8 as a major success of the equal protection clause, and a good example of this concept in practice. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
shawn-butler 12y ago
This seems like a pretty bad decision. You don't have a constitutional right to be free from being photographed in public spaces. If someone wants to follow a police car from a safe distance for weeks and videotape it to capture the civil rights infractions done by its officers; this is now an unconstitutional activity? The proper way to place a check on this power is for people to decide this is not a good way to spend its money rather than absurd judicial gymnastics.

millerc 12y ago

<sarcasm>Wow. Save (an alledged) drug trafficker from incriminating himself in plain view. They really did the public a huge favour here. </sarcasm> As much as I support the rule of law, there's no way I can interpret that as benefiting mankind in any way.

EliRivers 12y ago
"As much as I support the rule of law, there's no way I can interpret that as benefiting mankind in any way." Really? Can you really not see the broad benefit to society of teaching the authorities that they must obey the law?
- millerc 12y ago
  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
sls 12y ago
No civil libertarian is delighted to save criminals from prosecution just to frustrate law enforcement. It often happens that the frontiers of acceptable state conduct are tested in such cases, though. Here, EFF isn't interested in making sure Vargas can shoot cans in his yard without interference. Rather, they are concerned that the government not be able to put people's homes under 24/7 video surveillance without even probable cause (which is all that is needed for a warrant).
- millerc 12y ago
  Then, maybe the correct course of action for the EFF would be to work on improving the warrant system, rather than working on keeping alleged drug-dealing, unlicensed gun owners, illegal immigrants out of legal trouble?
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    How would they "improve" the warrant system? The police went around the warrant to illegally spy on someone. The point of a warrant is to stop illegal spying, and make sure only people who deserve being spied upon are spied upon. If the police was sure he deserved it and had the evidence to prove it, they should've just gotten the warrant. If they weren't, then they were just fishing and waiting for someone co commit a crime. And that's not just immoral, but against the Constitution.

lostcolony 12y ago

Wow. Not only the obvious issues with this, but they used his shooting some cans (not exactly a crime) with a rifle as grounds for a warrant to search his house, for an unrelated crime (the one they really wanted to peg him on, drug trafficking; a diatribe in itself). That's all -manner- of wrong.

rayiner 12y ago
Shooting cans isn't a crime, but being an illegal alien and possessing a gun violates federal law. > A month later, police observed Vargas shoot some beer bottles with a gun and because Vargas was an undocumented immigrant, they had probable cause to believe he was illegally possessing a firearm. If they had seen him shooting cans when walking by on the street, and then gotten a warrant to search his house, this would've been totally legit. Edit: don't get the down votes. Do we not like gun control or what?
- lsaferite 12y ago
  If he was a known undocumented immigrant, why couldn't ICE step in and arrest him and in the process find a valid reason to search the residence? Mind you, I'm super glad the judgement was made in his favor, but only because of HOW they did it, not why.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I think evidence of illegal firearms possession is a hell of a better reason to search his residence than his just being an undocumented immigrant.
    - morganvachon 12y ago
      It wasn't an "illegal firearm", it was illegal for him to possess any firearm because of his immigration status. There's a huge difference there. Edit: Reading your comment again, I think what you wrote can be taken either way (he was illegally possessing firearms, or he was possessing illegal firearms). So we may be in complete agreement here.

mdda 12y ago

It's also interesting that they might not have got a warrant to look at his garden for a month. They weren't looking for any particular behaviour - just something that would allow them to barge into his house and discover evidence of drug-related wrong-doing. If they had spotted (say) public drunkenness, they might also have argued that his house be searched. Putting up a camera to spot 'any tiny thing that the person does wrong' would seem to be very flimsy warrant-wise (I would hope).

iandanforth 12y ago

So how do you go about applying this ruling? If I live in the suburbs do I have this protection? What if I live in a city? There are likely to be thousands of homes in view of existing cameras. Which ones of those are collecting admissible evidence? If a police department doesn't aim the camera at only one person's front door, but films several homes as a pretense, is that ok? Is two weeks too long to set up surveillance? What about two hours? I really hate the "reasonable expectation" standard in general and this ruling does nothing to clear the waters.

pavel_lishin 12y ago
I would imagine that this sets the precedent of requiring a warrant to either set up a camera, or to access an existing camera's records.

justcommenting 12y ago

i wonder if this will increase or decrease the use of 'parallel construction.' in other words, will this reduce the unlawful use of surveillance tech, or merely prompt officers/agents to walk by places 'by chance' to observe things 'serendipitously' because they're still using inadmissible surveillance tech but also know they'll need to fabricate something plausible for the courts?

Poiesis 12y ago

If a human was watching the house in person, would a search warrant have needed to be obtained? Not trying to incite anything here--I realize there are differences--but I was curious about the legal implications of video vs. in-person surveillance of a property's exterior.

PeterisP 12y ago

It goes against the US tradition, but I'd prefer to not have the 'fruit of the poisoned tree' doctrine but instead direct penalties for violations by police. As it stands, it has the following effect: 1. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights of someone commiting a crime, then the evidence obtained this way is discarded, letting a true criminal go free, assuming that the evidence actually proves guilt. 2. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights and privacy of an innocent person (e.g. me) then nothing happens. In both cases, any benefit of the doctrine goes to people who don't deserve it - the lawbreakers with or without badges and uniforms. For most law-abiding people who value their rights and privacy it would be rational to request that the doctrine is "violations by police in gathering evidence get handled by existing law". If a policeman obtains evidence by breaking down a door without a warrant and taking some documents, despite being a professional with special training on what their specific rights and duties are, then let the evidence stand but let also the policeman stand trial (not disciplinary action, but a proper trial) for breaking and entering. Just as for cases of policemen shooting people - at least worldwide, given the recent events I'm not sure anymore how it's in USA.

pavel_lishin 12y ago
Might that not incentivize law enforcement officials to hire a series of scapegoats? "Listen, Mike, we really need this drug dealer in prison. Break into his house, and get use the evidence we need. Penalty for that is, what, a year in county lockup? Plus we're just about certain you'll get out in six months for good behavior. Plus, hey, it's Christmas time, couldn't your family use a nice bonus for presents?"
- PeterisP 12y ago
  The current situation can also incentivize organized crime to hire law enforcement officials - "Listen, officer Mike, we can't figure out how to safely distance ourselves from this stash of bodies/drugs/guns/whatever. Break into this house without a warrant based on an anonymous tip. Penalty for this is, what, a written reprimand? We're just certain we can give you better bonuses than the county district can afford. (Assuming that the doctrine works in the way I understand and there aren't nifty extra failsafes built in)

intopieces 12y ago

My local news station likes to do these specials about the "supposedly homeless" where they follow people who ask for handouts by the highway and film them going in to their homes and also film them through their front windows. I challeged the reporter on the ethics of this and she told me, 'It's perfectly legal.' While technically true, is that really a good source of justification?

michaelfeathers 12y ago
I hear that argument all the time and my response is: "Just because you have a right doesn't make it right."
emiliobumachar 12y ago
If the beggars actually pretend to be homeless, I think they're fair game for being exposed. But asking for handouts by itself is not pretending to be homeless.