[cannikin]

The judge said that the webcam provided them the same view, from a public place, that agents would have had if assigned to watch the guy 24/7. (It seems to me that the view from ~30ft up is very different than one from the ground.)

Is there a line where the surveillance would NOT be legal? Could they have had a drone circling his house? What about a satellite? Do you have an expectation of privacy from ABOVE your house even if you don't have it from public roads?

[tanker]

Courts have held that there is a height (not sure of specifics) above which aerial surveillance is legal without a warrant. The idea is that if it is the same height at which commercial aircraft (usually helicopters) fly, then it is a view available to the public.

See Examples & Explanation: Criminal Procedure Constitution & Police, Seventh Edition (Examples & Explanations) by Robert Bloom for a detailed analysis.

[JoshTriplett]

That's also critical to allow things like satellite map data.

[binarycrusader]

There's also the issue that no member of the public would legally be allowed to attach a camera to a utility pole like that.

Nor would they be allowed to create their own temporarily-installed pole with a camera on the top.

So to me, the public view argument only holds if the public was capable of it.

[cornellwright]

Any member of the public (with a fair amount of money) could also just charter and fly a plane over the property and watch. While persistent surveillance would be incredibly expensive, it's still possible. A neighbor could temporarily install a pole with camera or allow another individual to do so.

In short, you have no expectation of privacy when it's possible to be seen from a public right of way. I really see no problem with what LE did here.

[binarycrusader]

Yes, a public member could charter a plane, and that would be fine.

Utility poles are generally owned by a private company though or the local government and are regulated.

Members of the public are not generally permitted to hang things or attach things to them, and since they are usually located on private property or property that the local government has rights to, the general public also isn't generally permitted to place things on them.

[KirinDave]

But if an agent with a telephoto lens on public property could have taken the shot, then the "put this camera on something nearby" would have been entirely fine.

The idea that the position is privileged because it's a utility pole and it's illegal for civilians to modify them is a pretty weak argument. I'm no even sure that's true; people post bills and such on utility poles all the time. I'm tempted to nail a gopro up and see what happens.

If they had just taken a metal pole or a low-altitude drone perching on a tree as a camera base, you'd be fine with it?

I mean, a convicted felon was walking around with a firearm in broad daylight outside, within eyeshot of the road. The idea that this can't be observed from external perspectives by law enforcement but a civilian could legally do it is pretty weird. Weirder than the idea that law enforcement could use surveillance drones, to me.

[binarycrusader]

As long as the general public is legally permitted to do it, then yes, I think it's fine.

I agree with the outcome of the case, just not necessarily how they arrived there.

As for attaching things to utility poles, etc. yes, most cities and local governments have rules/laws about that, they're just usually not strongly enforced. As an example:

"No one is allowed to attach to utility poles in the state of Pennsylvania without permission from the pole owner."

https://www.pplelectric.com/at-your-service/for-contractors-...

As long as the government had a warrant, or this was a private citizen exercising their legal rights, I have no problem with it.

What I would have a problem with is the government performing surveillance that only they could legally do without a warrant or evaluation by a judge of some kind.

[sandworm101]

But it was also the case that he camera here was installed by a member of the public. It wasn't an officer climbing that pole but a "utility worker". Had the pole required some sort of trespass, or had the camera been mounted without permission of the pole owner, then the case may have turned.

[newman314]

I wonder if a member of the public noticed the camera on the pole, what the consequences would be for them to block the view or removing the camera.

[joezydeco]

...that agents would have had if assigned to watch the guy 24/7

Is there still the idea that you can face your accuser in court? Are we at the point where the camera+recorder is considered a legal proxy for a sworn public official?

(Asking as an honest curious question, not a sarcastic remark)

[tonyarkles]

There's still going to be a person who is reviewing the footage and deciding whether or not to prosecute. It's not as if the camera is just emailing the DA and saying "you need to prosecute this guy"

[bmelton]

Maybe not yet, but as surveillance gets more advanced, we get closer and closer to that.

I know for a positive fact that at least some law agencies have the capability to put concealed cameras up that broadcast real-time video back to a data center. From there, the data is algorithmically processed by license plate readers and facial recognition tools that cross-reference their found data against databases containing persons of note (like persons of interest, but less specific to a given case) and, when results are found, notify agents or officers via messaging.

We're really just a hop, skip and a jump away from the "self-driving car of surveillance".

[joezydeco]

Yet, that's what redlight and speed cameras do, don't they?

[tonyarkles]

Great point!

That's really interesting actually. Redlight and speeding cameras are pretty straightforward engineering problems to enforce though, compared to determining whether someone's violating their parole.

I suppose a similar (yet different again) concern would be ankle-monitoring bracelets for parolees.

It's interesting to think about where to draw the line on those things.

[dragonwriter]

> Is there still the idea that you can face your accuser in court?

Yes, you have the right to cross examine the witnesses against you, including, e.g., those testifying as to the when and how the camera was set up and how it (and the video obtained from it) were protected against tampering and other facts relevant to establishing that it was recording where, when, and what the prosecution are claiming it was recording.

> Are we at the point where the camera+recorder is considered a legal proxy for a sworn public official?

No; physical evidence of various kinds has existed for a long time (what kinds are available change over time), but actual witness testimony as to its provenance, etc., remains important.