8th Circuit affirms use of electronic video surveillance equipment in failure to register arrest.
This one is for those who think “who will know”…The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s allowance of electronic video surveillance equipment as used by law enforcement to catch someone living where he was not registered.
In United States v. STEFANYUK, the defendant was charged with failure to register (among other things). To catch him living where he wasn’t, Homeland Security installed electronic video surveillance equipment (“EVSE”) across the street from his home. Without a warrant they put up a hidden pole camera 15 feet off the ground in a public right of way facing the house. The camera operated for two weeks; it could pan, tilt, and zoom, but not see inside the house.
The Defendant tried to suppress the surveillance evidence, arguing that “warrantless long-term around-the-clock video recordings and surveillance of [his] home violated his Fourth Amendment rights.” The lower court dismissed and the appeals court affirmed.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In America, there is an expectation of privacy in the 4th Amendment. I keep hearing that there is no expectation of privacy in public, so you can video someone and there is nothing they can do about it. But that is not true, the Supreme Court of the United States has set limits.
In Carpenter v United States, a federal district court granted a motion to suppress evidence, ruling that police use of a “pole camera” represented a search under the Fourth Amendment. Also, citing Carpenter v United States, SCOTUS held that the government’s warrantless searches of historical cell-site service for more than 7 days violated the fourth amendment.
In United States v. Moore-Bush, the government placed a camera on a utility pole across the street from the house of a suspect in a criminal investigation. The camera was used for eight months to surveil the driveway and the front of the house. Law enforcement argued that the use of the camera did not constitute a search because police are allowed to monitor the comings and goings of individuals in public without a warrant. The court ruled that this was a violation of the suspect’s 4th amendment rights because; (1) using a pole-mounted camera gave the government continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focused on the driveway and front of the house; (3) had the ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) created a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspect’s life. Further, it differentiated between surveillance cameras and security cameras. Because surveillance cameras are not used to protect against crime, they are restricted under the 4th amendment.
In United States v Jones, SCOTUS concurred that the unique nature of pole-mounted cameras, particularly its capability to be remotely adjusted and its ability to create a digitally searchable log, allows the government to piece together intimate details of a person’s life, and needs to be restricted.
In a related case, Riley v California, SCOTUS held that cops cannot search a cell phone without a warrant. Justice Roberts wrote that the warrantless search exception following an arrest exists for the purposes of protecting officer safety and preserving evidence, neither of which is at issue in the search of digital data. The digital data cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer, and police officers have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant.
So, it’s obvious that the SCOTUS has set limits on surveillance using digital technology, and that pole-mounted surveillance cameras have a very limited leeway, such as short duration (7 days?). So how is it that lower courts could rule in favor of law enforcement and against SCOTUS decisions?
I am not a lawyer, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, after reading these cases, I really do wonder why law enforcement continues to get away with blatant constitutional violations and individual’s rights continue to be violated.
The circuit court did not rule against these SCOTUS decisions. In fact, they did not rule anything on this issue at all. They upheld the trial court’s decision, but for reasons unrelated to surveillance.
The headline here, “8th Circuit affirms use of surveillance equipment,” does not seem correct.
The court did NOT rule that this surveillance was OK. They simply let a district court ruling stand, for other reasons entirely. If you google the opinion. But they did not hold anything either way on this issue.
The issue of whether this sort of warrantless use of electronic video surveillance equipment constitutes an unreasonable search, has yet to be decided at the federal appellate court level
He obviously has something the Feds are watching him for, as DHS doesn’t just survey you for simple crimes unless they are after you for something big.
I want “homeland security” to secure our boarders and make sure people aren’t getting on planes with the intent of flying them into buildings. Homeland security should NOT be about STALKING the common man for a criminal act or the assumption of a criminal act. Leave that to the LOCAL authorities.
Nor should the NSA be monitoring Americans cell phones, Internet usage, and emails, but….
The state Wasted how much of Taxpayer money? $50-100K at least on one person?
Was even ONE Domestic Violence situation prevented during this time? OH RIGHT. Police officers are the BIGGEST domestic violence offenders, so of course they wouldn’t want the spotlight on what they do best.
If I see another Dating App profile claiming “Cops” swipe left (meaning girls strongly don’t like cops after dating them), I’m going to start posting it publicly because it is so damn common to see. I have never seen so many women blatantly write how much they dislike dating cops, specially cops.
Interestingly enough, the other day a cop in a grocery store that we have here said something off-the-cuff, that he doesn’t yell at customers, only his girlfriend. This was a “half-joking” off the cuff statement. You can imagine the truth, if this was just a quick comment to a random customer.
These guys are some of the Worst Offenders. Here we are spending $50-100K on installing, monitoring and prosecuting a CP offender who didn’t register correctly while REAL abusers are walking around perfectly free.
Remember Americans: it is stupidity like this which will further drive the USA into Bankruptcy which it already is headed for. The amount of gross waste in the government or law enforcement is just absolutely disgusting.
How many millions of dollars are states paying for those useless registries??
SHAME ON THIS COUNTRY.