Opinions wanted - especially from cops/attorneys or Private eyes

So far nobody has given their opinion on employer paid Private eyes .................

Doing sneak and peaks on a employees residence in the private area of the employee's home. No notice or consent was given.


Abner

 

Eh, so I'll chime in one more time. This'll be it on the topic though unless I'm directly queried.

If the employer had cause to hire the PI (they did due to the neighbor) then the surveillance is only illegal (generally) if:

1. The target is being watched in an area where he or she should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Bathroom, Motel Room, Bedroom etc.)

2. The reason for surveillance fosters some illegal purpose such as casing a home for burglary etc.

PIs are generally trained to avoid surveillance whenever better investigative options are available or when ethical questions or legality questions become obvious.

Massachusetts oddly is a two party wireless state (as Bruce has noted, it's one of 14 such) but it does not definitively guarantee 4th amendment rights (point 1) in the record books.. New Hampshire does.

 

Thanks for your comments.


Abner

 

In Texas what the employer was doing would be completely legal. Of course in Texas (at last check) only one party needed to be aware of any surveillance (overt or covert) being conducted. Presumably this is the party doing the recording. As such you can record your neighbor, government official, police, whatever as long as you have a right to be in the area you are conducting the recording from.

Climbing over someone's fence and recording from their back yard would be criminal trespass or depending upon what they record and why or how it is used, voyeursim and criminal in nature. The same can be said for using surveillance equipment used to view into your neighbor's private residence and the intent of the surveillence. As for that employee, I'd take them to civil court. Check with the EEOC to see if this breaches any of their policies then consult with an attorney to see if any criminal or civil laws are applicable to the case and proceed from there.

The neighbor may also want to check into any stalking and/or harassment laws within his state. Though the behavior would not meet the definition in Texas, other states may have different definitions. As for harassment, I think this behavior if well documented could be called harassment. If there is a restraining order there could be a violation and if there is not a restraining order it wouldn't be terribly difficult to get one on at least a temporary basis in most states.

As for fighting the employer...I say if someone has been on the job for 35 years then they need to lawyer up and fight for their job. You don't run from a fight when 35 years of tenure is on the line.

 

A citizen actually has zero right to watch a live-feed video of me while I'm working, since I often do things that criminals could use to their advantage if they saw them.....I was using that example to highlight the double-standard; you want to watch me? Fine, I get to watch you.

Not such a great idea anymore, is it?

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, where do we draw the line? I belong to a credit union where the membership are the owners, so can I insist that the CEO install a webcam in his office so I can keep tabs on what he's doing while *I* pay him?

See the slippery slope?

 

Most patrol cars have a camera in the car recording traffic stops. This video can always be requested after the fact...just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

Steve, this is exactly the stuff I was referring to a week or two ago (maybe back on page 1 of this thread). Police record all kinds of stuff on cameras, traffic stops, red light cameras etc. and they do it without the expressed permission of those being recorded. Most of the time the cameras are mounted inside the cruiser and you can't even see them but just have one civilian pull out a phone camera and they're under arrest. I know that's a bit of an exageration but it's clear from Steve's link (and mine) that this does happen with some frequency. Here's a quotation from one of the links:

"This is an abuse of prosecutorial authority and a misinterpretation of state law. But it’s typical of the attitude of too many prosecutors and police toward people who record their encounters with law enforcement and are usually completely within their rights to do so.

Websites that monitor these cases have posted stories from around the country of police ordering people to stop videotaping or photographing them, sometimes violently. Most of the time, the police apparently either don’t understand the law or are deliberately misstating it to bully people into putting away their cameras or cellphones."

 

Good question, I have no idea, I've never run into that situation; but I'm just a beat cop and for that question I'd have to ask my Sergeant. I do know my local Sheriff's Department has a dude whom I've been told will video tape the Deputies when they pull him over. Dude is a dope dealer (Who is smart enough to use kids under 12 to mule his dope and guns around so he never has any on his person or in his vehicle) and I've only stopped this guy once, but I guess I caught him on a day where he didn't have a camera cause he didn't tape our traffic stop. My initial guess would be maybe it varies by state. So long as the video camera doesn't get in the way, I could care less if someone video tapes me.

 

Sigh

All it takes is one statement by someone that lacks context and it gives license to all of the people who comment on biased media to comment again.

1. There is no story reported on by the media that provides all of the relevant details that affect the story at the time the story is written. Therefore if you post a media article supporting your point; please take the time to research all articles posted about the topic during its lifespan (yes I know, impossible - but the fact that it's not possible makes my point for me.)

2. If police officer pulls you over it is because he has cause to pull you over. At that point everything that transpires is expected to be on the record legally. He is, by law, allowed to record you because you have at that point broken the law. We're not talking about alleged law breaking on a traffic stop.

3. On red lights and traffic recording: When these are installed there is a public notice issued via local newspapers and in most cases local access television. In many cases there are public records of city council meetings that advise of the happenings around the city that are posted for public reads as well. These forms of notice are considered legal and binding.

So the fact that individuals are ignorant of legal process and of the things that are happening in their community is not a sign that individuals are not being advised legally of the monitoring. There's a need for every person, regardless of their conservative or liberal bent to take responsibility for their role in the legal process of the cities and towns they live in. This is especially true of anyone who wants to express their right to free speech when discussing legal matters if they want to be seen as having an informed opinion.

2c

 

ITJD, just to clarify on your point number 2, not every traffic stop or detainment is due to a law being broken, but instead suspicion of a law being broken (for investigative purposes which we called "detained for investigation"). A perfect example would be someone videotaping a secured/sensitive area. They may be pulled over for investigative purposes; it's done all the time. Second every stop, even if a ticket were issued or an arrest made with a criminal violation on the arrest report or ticket is still an "alleged" crime until convicted in a court of law.

My personal bent is you should be able to record any interactions with law enforcement that you wish. But I figure that it's a waste of time since almost all traffic stops are recorded these days and anyone can subpoena the recordings anytime they wish for just about any reason. So why redouble the efforts?

This recording thing has hemmed up more than one police officer in Texas and even ruined one or two careers where an officer used force to “confiscate” the recording device. Another area that hems up police in Texas is in demanding identification when there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so. For example there was an activist group running about with surveillance equipment attached to their clothing. They would enter a police station and ask to get the forms to fill out a complaint on a police officer or ask to speak to someone in charge on how to fill out a complaint against a police officer. In every case the police officer who they were talking to asked for the complainant’s ID (which was the group’s intent since they apparently understood the law better than these officers did). The complainant would then refuse to show ID saying they didn’t have to provide ID to make a complaint (they were right, they were not being detained legally) but in almost half the recordings we saw the officer either threatened arrest or in 2 cases did arrest the complainant (both cases were wrongful, both were tossed in court and both officers were formally reprimanded).

We were forced to sit and watch these videos at the <name omitted> School of Police Supervision (which I had to do since I was a supervisor) should we ever encounter this type of situation. The moral of the story is, police are and should be worried about being set up by some activist groups to take a fall because these people are out there. The best protection an officer can have is to act in accordance with their procedure and if there is a gray area, seek the counsel of a supervisor on duty. Unfortunately what often occurs is a defensive reaction, sometimes a strong one in which case nobody wins.

It’s not necessary to tape the police in your interactions with them even if it is your legal right since the interaction is likely already being recorded. All it will do is escalate an otherwise mundane encounter.

 

Please spare us the drama queen condecension. People are stopped/detained by the Police all the time without any evidence that they committed a crime. If they can film me then I should be able to film them.

 

Fair enough. I'll respond fairly in kind on all counts. First on the matter of filming.

If you are willing as a civilian to film police in the pursuit of their duties according to the laws that govern civilians then I have no issue with your stance. Civilian law is largely less restrictive than laws and process that govern police. However this is one area where police have an advantage from the perspective of the average civilian.

If you desire to film on a level playing field with the police then I'd say that you need to become a police officer. Noble goal, and perhaps your thoughts on the topic would change after a year on the job. I know when I was doing investigation as a PI it changed me and I can only imagine what happens to perspective after being in a cruiser.

As to condescension a few thoughts come to mind (mostly from my mentors who I'm quoting)

1. You will be condescended to only through your own perception and only until you gain enough knowledge of the topics you're discussing such that you can adequately speak to them in an intelligent way. If you are confident, you are never condescended to. If you admit to being patronized, you are indeed inferior.

2. It is better to keep one's mouth shut and have a chance at being seen as great; than to open it and definitely be seen as a fool.

You can assume that if I've heard these things that I've had my moments and frankly I still have them if you've not already noticed; but this thread is not one of those. I apologize for any past slights but you're out of line.

One last note of mentorship and I know you're smart enough to learn the lesson without my explanation.

Fixed that for you. Have a great weekend.

IT

 

Thanks. You too.