Opinions wanted - especially from cops/attorneys or Private eyes

Most people here may or may not know that my interest lies in the science of labor relations. There is case that baffles me for a number of reasons. Let me preface this by saying this does not involve an employee I represent through my union capacity. This is private company employee in CA.

Facts:

One neighbor has had a long-standing feud with his neighbor across the street (party B). This neighbor (party A) retired early and well off, so he has time to drink all day and obsessively report his neighbor for everything from supposed code enforcement violations to "illegal garage sales".

Crux - The drunken neighbor called the employer of his neighbor across the street and made allegations of theft. What was observed by party A was not theft, and was condoned (precedent) by party B's employer for the last 35 years of employment. Party B has a perfect attendance record, and has never been written up.

Manifestation - As a result of party A reporting what he thought of as theft involving party B's employer, the employer decided to hook up surveillance cameras to observe Party B's residence. *Note - the range of camera views pointed towards a perimeter that included a bedroom window, and a living room window, which raises privacy concerns. The employer of Party B installed the cameras at the home of party A.

Conclusions - Party B's employer never informed him that his premises where being observed. Subsequent reports indicate his employer had private eyes working for the company went into his backyard and took pictures without his permission, or without his knowledge.

I have advised this person to file with EEOC, or retain a labor law attorney. I believe this employees rights to privacy in his home have been violated. The company policy does not state employees homes can be subjected to "sneak and peaks" or having there home observed by video.

Any comments?

Abner

 

I'm not a cop, an attorney or a PI but if anyone was videotaping me 24/7 you gotta know that I'd find a way to stop it. This just has to be illegal and more importantly, immoral.

 

Yes. Here is the part that really gets me. Party B told his employer they violated his privacy rights which is illegal. The company owner responded " I Know we did, and I don't give a sh*t!"

This kind of brazen disregard towards the law should be answered to in a court of law. We all must follow the law, whether we are an employer or not. That's just life.

Abner

 

As far as criminal law, I can only speak for Massachusetts (one of the most liberal states), but in *general* if a video camera is installed by a person/company on private property with the consent of the property owner, then anything within the view of the camera is fair game. Pull your blinds and don't do anything sketchy in your yard.....sounds harsh, but that's the price of free speech.

We (police) have cameras all over the city, and anything within their view has been upheld in court as far as crimes (armed robberies, hit & runs, etc.) are concerned.

As far as an employer targeting one employee with video cameras, that would likely fall under a civil action. Police in Massachusetts are specifically prohibited by statute from getting involved in civil matters, so I can't comment on that.

 

Same holds true in California, its a civil matter. But since were on the subject:

We had a Federal Court Judge who lived across the street from a couple who utilized a video camera, attached to their own garage, facing the Judges house. The Judges family was VERY well know by my department; the Judges wife was a career alcoholic with a habit of DUI, and the couples son was a dope dealing car theft who was involved in multiple vehicle pursuits with other police officers within my agency. (Many pursuits ended in terrible accidents)

The neighbor was tired of shady individuals inhabiting the (High End) neighborhood and possibly involved in criminal activity. For a time, these neighbors resided in my patrol beat, and I was called on several occasions to handle verbal disputes, some of which involved the neighbors use of a camera that faced the front of the Judges house.

End result, I would constantly remain them that there was no law on the books against video taping something that was in full view of the public, which didn't take extreme measures to on-view. The front of your home/ yard has no reasonable expectation of privacy, so a video camera pointing at your house, although annoying, technically didn't violate the law; and was thus a civil matter.

 

Seems like we may only be getting one side of this story. Why would an emploer be going through this much trouble to to track a "model employee"
Beyond that, if an employer was going through that much trouble to watch a me and I'd been an employee in good standing for 35 years I'd likely be looking for new employment.

 

Thanks Norcal and Bruce. Yes, criminal law and employment law are two VERY different animals. Thanks for the information on cameras. I think the EEOC will have a problem with the employer for these reasons:

*The employer colluded with Party A to videotape the employee’s home without his knowledge. Party B's employer paid for the installation, wiring, hook up, etc. One year ago Party A was court ordered to stop harassing Party B and refrain from making drunken calls to his employer. Party B's immediate boss testified in defense of Party B. **Apparently Party A convinced Party B's employer CEO there was criminal activity going on in order to further harass Party B.

*A restraining order was issued to Party A (1 year ago), and he was ordered to turn in his weapons, and not set foot on Party B's property.

*Party B's employer ordered PI's to take pictures of the backyard of Party B, and did not inform him this would take place. These PI's also peered into windows of the residence, etc.

Having seen these cases unfold at the EEOC level before, I predict the employer will lose. CA EEOC judges tend to be pro worker.

These cases are fascinating for me.

Abner

 

He could do that, but it takes more courage to stay and fight for what is right. He plans to do just that, then leave. He is well regarded in his field, and can have a job tomorrow. But running from a fight is not his style, being that he is a decorated combat ex-soldier.

Gotta respect that. Just as employees are not always right, employers are not always right.

Abner

 

OK, I'm no lawyer, but if this is true then why are people being arrested for videotaping the Police?

DailyTech - Law Enforcement: Tape Us, Go to Prison (lots of available examples)

 

I own a reasonably sized residential property in Massachusetts and I maintain significant security on that property including access card locks and motion sensitive video. In all cases where a camera has a sweep diameter I need to place a prominent sign near the entries that clearly states that the area is under surveillance, and the type of surveillance.

Additionally, before I put the surveillance in place I needed to inform my neighbors prior to installation that the equipment was going in if those neighbors could have been in the recording sweep as well as put the system plans on file with the local police.

The grey area that allows both situations in this thread to be true is notice. If you put someone under surveillance you must inform them. If you put surveillance in you must have consent of the property owner where the equipment is being placed. I'm sure in the cases where the police are being recorded that they're not being given advance notice. I'm sure in the case where the employee was being recorded, he was informed prior to being recorded or the evidence would not be admissable without a court order authorizing the stakeout.

Two cents but makes sense to me based on what I've done and seen in the thread.

ITJD.

 

OK, I understand all that and I'd only add that if one of my neighbors came to me and said that she was going to put up a video surveillance system on their property and that part of the sweep would catch my house, I'd have no problem. As for the whole Police thing . . . if I have to give notice then that must mean I'm breaking the law if I stand on the street corner with a video camera and record the flow of traffic, or people walking down the sidewalk, or really, I need signed permission to record my friends birthday party. It doesn't make sense to me that the rules are different depending on who's holding the camera. The police could tape me at a traffic stop but I can't tape them at a traffic stop? I don't know what the law says but that just doesn't seem right to me.

 

It's the same rule.

If you're taping something in the public domain like traffic flow, and you're not identifying each car by license tag, you're fine.

If you happen to be taping traffic flow and decide to catch a police officer in the act of performing their official duties, and want to use that footage for anything, they need to sign a release.

The law doesn't change based on the situation, but how we choose to enforce the law does. Your friends could technically ask you to hand over your recordings if you hadn't asked first. They just don't. It's not appropriate in that context.

So to reconcile your issue presented, it's all social context. Law comes into play to reconcile differences between people when social context doesn't dictate an easily collaborative answer.

 

I agree. The employee was not given notice that his property was under observation. Nor did his employer tell him company private investigators would go into his gated backyard (private area) and poke around, as well as peering into his home windows.

So herein lies the problem for the employer.

*There is nothing in the company policy where I can see anything about an employee giving express consent to peak and sneaks at home, or having their homes observed.

*The employee has witnesses to the sneak and peaks, along with license plates, etc.

*The employee’s employer (CEO) must not be as confident as he thought he was before. He expressly told the employee he didn't care if recording his home and having PI's enter his backyard private area was legal or not. The employee and I walked by complaining (Party A) house to see if the surveillance cameras were still up yesterday. They were taken down. I wonder why? He showed me the cameras before they were taken down, and they were tiny little spy type cameras that you could only see with high-powered lenses.

***So here is what I predict. The employer will lose in EEOC court. The question is not only about the murky areas of camera surveillance, but also company PI's going on the employee’s private property. There is a reason why cops need warrants to enter private areas of a residence.

So you are correct. I do believe in residential areas, signs and neighbors consent must be given. There is a reason why the UK is so strict about notification laws, though they have cameras on just about every street.

So my call. The employer should lose this. This case is exciting because I believe it will be precedent setting.

Abner

 

Again, I can only speak for Massachusetts, but we are a "two party" wiretape state, which means that both parties must be aware they are being audio recorded. Citizens cannot record police officers without their consent or knowledge; this was upheld in a Supreme Judicial Court (state supreme court) decision in Commonwealth vs. Michael J. Hyde:

HYDE, COMMONWEALTH vs., 434 Mass. 594

If someone walks up to a police officer with a video camera or tape recorder in plain sight, then anything recorded is fair game. However, most people want to get cute and conceal the recording device, and as shocking as it may seem to some people, police officers are entitled to the same protections of the law as regular citizens.......oh, the horror!!!!

 

OK, I understand. I'd only point out that cell phone cameras are pretty small and might be "in plain sight" without being seen. This is especially true if it's a bit of a crowded scene. Someone might be recording "in plain sight" but not be noticed doing so, partially because of the small size of the recording device.

and none of that speaks to this point:

"The Fraternal Order of Police has, across the country, pushed for tough laws that would imprison those taping the police. They argue this prohibition should even be in effect if police invade a person's house (individuals have been arrested for photographing police officers coming into their house).

Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, states in previous comments that his organization "absolutely supports" throwing those who tape police officers behind bars.

He complains that citizens monitoring police activities for wrongdoing might "affect how an officer does his job on the street.""

So we should imprison people who video tape the Police?

 

It all comes down to the law....if ordinary citizens can be imprisoned for taping other ordinary citizens, then shouldn't ordinary citizens who tape police officers also be subject to imprisonment?

My opinion is that you can install a live-feed video/audio camera to my shirt and watch whatever I do for my entire shift, since I have nothing to hide, provided........that I can be privy to that same information for whoever wants to watch me.

Deal?

 

Your salary is paid by tax payers so it's not the same. A citizen has more right to know what you're doing on the job because they are in effect paying you to do that job.

 

The law is that if you choose to tape someone you must inform them you're doing it. The fact that a multi-function device exists does not inform of intent the way that a giant single purpose camera does in comparison. As a result the onus has to be on the owner, not the person being viewed. One of those cases where technology has a detriment to the user.

Keep in mind that the Fraternal Order of Police is a lobbyist organization, not a law enforcement organization. As with all lobbies, their function is to create environments favorable to their constituency. It's not to necessarily care about existing laws or the constitution worthiness of their position.

And this is where I have to take a pure libertarian position because the lobby is stepping over a line. There's a responsibility and risks given/accepted those who take an oath to do their jobs consistently and with a certain respect for those they've got jurisdiction over. I feel that it's not a criminal offense if police are recorded, I simply believe that footage illegally obtained, without notice shouldn't be admissible or used to punitively challenge an officer, much as it wouldn't be admissible against a civilian.

However, ethically (which is different from my libertarian view)

If officers are doing their jobs appropriately there's nothing to worry about in terms of being recorded. However, because it's the job of lobbies and lawyers to "win" and context is always in question I understand the position of trying to make recording illegal, simply because admissibility is often a judgment call on the part of the sitting judge.. many of whom are exceedingly liberal in their interpretation of the law.

For those not in the know of what happens when an admissibility argument occurs against a police officer.. at the point of charges the person is usually placed on administrative leave, which affects time in service for retirement and professional reputation for promotion even if they are paid during it. The case extends, legal costs rise. The officer may be exonerated but the damage is done to that person's career. The union or fraternal org often picks up some or all of the legal costs..

So no surprise that the lobby wants taping killed and no surprise that those who give an oath to protect and serve get annoyed when the system doesn't help them.

No, but we shouldn't admit their evidence if it's not legally obtained. Ever.

 

Whoa there hoss.

That's a slippery slope argument and here's the counter. The citizens elect officials to act as their proxy so they don't have to govern. Part of that transference of power includes accepting that it's the elected officials responsibility to know what the appointed constabulary is doing at any given point in time, NOT the tax payer.

The only rights that tax payers have are to expect services from the government and to vote. In exchange, they become subject to the laws and systems put in place in their jurisdiction. It's a buy in, not an entitlement. I appreciate the fact that both the conservative and liberal media love to stir the pot and distract people by stumping otherwise but it's not the case.

So while I agree with you in principle the only way your statement is directly true is if you hire a protective services team to protect your property in lieu of or in support of the locally appointed constabulary. In the case of the people you're directly paying for you have the right to know what they are doing at all times.

 

All true. Also, government employees are taxpayers themselves.

Abner